Sunday, 12 June 2016

Daniel Horan, OFM - Liar, Deceiver, Homosexualist - anything else?


This Friar is Daniel Horan, OFM. He has a Facebook and Youtube channel where he promotes his views of Catholicism. You can look him up.

On one video, on the subject of Amoris Laetitia, he shows the picture, below, of two men holding hands because it is all about the Joy of Love. 

People with same-sex attraction are suffering from delusions and from an intellect darkened by mortal sin which cries out to heaven for justice. It has been called a mental disorder or even a mental illness in former times by psychiatric bodies. It is objectively disordered. Acting out is a mortal sin. It is intrinsically disordered. We have, as a society, been convinced that it is not and that they are born in this condition. People must be told and must be brought out of the lifestyle. When a cleric, such as Daniel Horan, features two men holding hands, obvious persons with homosexual inclinations, he affirms them in their sin and their delusion. 

When Daniel Horan dies, he will see their faces for all eternity in Hell for not calling them out of their sin and instead leaving them in it.

Men such as Horan are homosexualists. They hate Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Truth. The proof is in their actions. 

They are undermining the Faith and committing evil by their actions and inactions. They must be called out.

Amoris Laetitia, written by a ghostwriter who wrote a book on "kissing" is a disgraceful document. Jorge Bergoglio, Bishop of Rome -- Pope Francis is responsible for it. He is also responsible for the confusion that is within it that allows this Friar to manipulate it for his advantage.

The good news is that under Benedict XVI, these malefactors such as Horan were in hiding. Now they are emboldened and have come out for all to see.

Sunshine is truly the best disinfectant.




35 comments:

F said...

I knew I saw him somewhere! Check out Horan "presiding" over Care of the Earth Mass...
REC2016 | Eucharistic Liturgy: Care of the Earth with Fr. Daniel Horan, presider
https://youtu.be/wi5H8hnOh_g?list=PLY2TlrWMdyKQcQ3a3tbGNYDN7wqPyF8qd

I have no words for men like Horan. It's disturbing.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

"People with same-sex attraction are suffering from delusions. It is a mental illness."

Were exactly do you get that from?

It is a stupid temptation, one which one should not encourage, one which can lead one to Hell. But I see no passage in Scripture saying it is a condition which offers the plea of madness against the guilt of culpable mortal sin.

On the contrary, it is enumerated among mortal sins.

Those who for no fault of their own were possessed by demons were not told they would not inherit Heaven. Sodomites were. A group of possessed people were not punished by fire and brimstone. Sodom was.

The sin of Sodom was not explained as madness, but as opulence, inhospitality and finally this detestable thing.

I should think Hezekiel knew better than your Modernist priest why Sodom went wrong!

Here are two posts relating to this theme:

deretour : Ben Cohen, Jerry Greenfield ... et Hezekiel 16:49-50
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.fr/2010/07/ben-cohen-jerry-greenfield-et-hezekiel.html


deretour : My enemies, their methods goals and approximate possible descriptions
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.fr/2008/07/my-enemies-their-methods-goals-and.html

Vox Cantoris said...

Hans, Thank you; I have expanded to include the catechism quotations. On top of all of this it is a mortal sin, but it can also be mental illness and was classified as such until nearly 50 years ago. People at one time were given help to get out of the "lifestyle" - today, they are affirmed in it.

Peter Lamb said...

I watched as much of his video as I could take. I can't believe that a fresh faced youngster like him could be knowingly, intentionally spreading evil and lies. I would be more inclined to think that his intentions were genuine and good and that he grew up in a NWO environment and was brain washed in a radical NWO seminary to believe that what he preaches is Catholic truth. I bet he has never been exposed to pre-Vatican II Catholicism in his life. I think we should pray that the Holy Ghost will guide him into becoming a real/true, holy Catholic Priest.

Jim J. McCrea said...

Whatever happened to clear crisp proclamations of Catholic teaching? That muddle is a million miles from that.

Mark Thomas said...

Vox said..."The good news is that under Benedict XVI, these malefactors such as Horan were in hiding."

Vox, on your blog a few months ago, I engage come commenters who promoted Randy Engel's claims in regard to the Homosexual Network that many people believe operates within the Church. Please understand that I do not attribute the following to you: There were commenters who praised Randy Engel and her investigations of and claims related to the Homosexual Network (she refers to the Homosexual Network as the "Homosexual Collective").

Pope Benedict XVI, if Randy Engel is to be believed, aided and abetted the Homosexual Network. On Randy Engel's Web site, the following is claimed:

-- Pope Benedict XVI lacked the "necessary will, heart and stomach" to deal with the Homosexual Network.

-- Pope Benedict XVI had a history of having appointed numerous homosexual-friendly bishops.

-- Randy Engel had "doubts about Pope Benedict's manliness". Engel said: "Rome correspondents report that the new pope has acquired expensive taste in designer shoes and accessories, a reputation for 'slightly eccentric behavior' and 'a penchant for disguise.'

"During Christmas 2005, the pope was photographed showing off a red medieval fur-lined hat -- a picture that can only be described as overtly camp. One month later, La Stampa reported that the pope has been secretly visiting his old residence at 1 Piazza Citta Leonina disguised in black clerical robes in the company of another accessory -- his very handsome 48-year-old private secretary and traveling companion, Don Georg Gänswein." We know just the mention of this will upset some of our readers; however, there is no need to jump to conclusions about this. Let's hope he's straight as an arrow."

-- Elsewhere, during a Catholic Family News interview, Randy Engel denounced Pope Benedict XVI's 2005 A.D. document "on the admittance of homosexuals to the seminary". Randy Engel blasted the document as "the latest in a long line of ambiguous and toothless documents emanating from the Vatican on the subject of the ordination of homosexual men and of the problem of homosexuality in the Catholic priesthood and religious life, in general.

"Clearly, the new document does not affirm the absolute ban against ordaining homosexuals, pederasts and habituated onanists found in the 1961 Instruction “Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders.” "

-- "...Pope Benedict XVI, like his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, has no immediate plans to clean house and mount a serious attack on the Homosexual Collective within the Roman Catholic priesthood and religious life."

-- Randy Engel claims that the problems in question date to Pope Venerable Pius XII, whom she denounced via the following claims on her Web site, which features Thomas A. Droleskey's review of Randy Engel's book:

"Mrs. Engel rounds "third base," so to speak, when writing of the "Twentieth Century Harbingers" in Chapter 18. She pulls no punches as she assesses quite accurately the revolutionary nature of some of the changes that began to take hold--and the key players in the Revolution who were put in power--during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII and quickened during the reign of Angelo Roncalli and Giovanni Montini:

"Both advocates and critics of the Revolution of he Second Vatican Council agree that the role of Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Cardinal Pacelli, who ascended the Chair of Peter on March 12, 1939, as Pope Pius XII, was instrumental in securing the revolutionaries a foothold on the papacy.

"As [Mary Ball] Martinez solidly documents, and as inveterate collaborators of NewChurch like Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, C.M., reaffirm, Pius XII opened the Church to "Progressivism" both politically and theologically.


Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Vox said..."Jorge Bergoglio, Bishop of Rome -- Pope Francis is responsible for it. He is also responsible for the confusion that is within it that allows this Friar to manipulate it for his advantage."

Vox, an honest person could not employ Amoris Laetitia to advance the pro-sodomite agenda. One pro-sodomite group after another has expressed disappointment in Amoris Laetitia.

Example: "DignityUSA is the nation’s foremost organization of Catholics committed to equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Catholics in our Church and society."

https://www.dignityusa.org/article/amoris-laetitia-joy-love-offers-no-joy-lgbt-catholics-families

"Amoris Laetitia" (The Joy of Love) Offers No Joy for LGBT Catholics, Families

"Pope Francis’ long-anticipated response to two sessions of a world-wide Synod on the Family, an Apostolic Exhortation entitled “Amoris Laetitia” (The Joy of Love), is a tremendous disappointment to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Catholics and their families, says DignityUSA, a leading organization of Catholics committed to LGBT equality.

“In this document, Pope Francis has continued the characterization of LGBT people as unable to fully reflect the fullness of God’s plan for humanity,” said Marianne Duddy-Burke, DignityUSA’s Executive Director. “We had hoped for much more, and many, many people are profoundly disappointed today.

“While in many areas, the Pope urges respect for individual conscience, and pastoral flexibility, when it comes to same-sex relationships and gender identity questions, Francis simply reiterates the long-standing teachings of the Church. There is no flexibility."

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Dude - Why are you so obsessed with the whole gay thing? You need help.

Anonymous said...

You go vox -- I'm sick and tired of the perverts who've taken over the priesthood. Right up to the Team B top--but also know Benedict 16 right in on it w/them both on natural (sodomy) and supernatural (denial of divinity of Jesus Christ). Just reading Luke today, where a Legion of demons calls Jesus "Son of the Most High God," (Luke 8:28) but all Benny can cough up is "of Nazareth."

Anonymous said...

The stench of satan breathes forth from this wicked soul. How dare he mock God and the family!

Anonymous said...

There are many forms of mental illness, one of them is Homosexuality. If i said 2 plus 2 = 5 or there is no such thing as day and night only day and i believed this to be the truth,you would no doubt think that i have a mental illness..

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...
Dude - Why are you so obsessed with the whole gay thing? You need help.

The whole *homosexual* thing (*Gay means happy*) IS, what sends souls straight to Hell.. Vox is pointing out the way to eternal life and I may add it's his duty to do so, as a Catholic and especially so as a Catholic blogger.
Luke 24:18
Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required.
Sadly some are rudely mistaken, especially those who promote homosexuality …

Vox will be held accountable from the lord if he does NOT speak the eternal truth, this is true love for the lord and his neighbor, Indeed many profess they know and love Jesus and call out his name, but
Jesus says:
Matthew 7:22 - Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. ... Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
God Bless You Vox for speaking the truth, it certainly isn't easy when Satan has spread his smoke both inside and outside of the Church..

Peter Lamb said...

Mark, You persist in slandering Pope Pius XII at great peril to your soul.

"I hear around me reformers who want to dismantle the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the Church, to discard all her adornments, and smite her with remorse for her historic past."
—Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII, to Count Enrico P. Galeazzi.

The Holy Father was surrounded and the Vatican was infested by judeo-masonic sons of satan. Have you read the Pecorelli List - I suspect you have. Have you heard Bella Dodd's address to Congress - I suspect you have. Have you read the Permanent Instruction - I suspect you have. Have you read Fr. Luigi Villa - I know you have. Have you read the history of the liturgical changes - I know you have!
Yet you spin and contort (very well indeed) that "Pius XII opened the Church to "Progressivism" both politically and theologically." You quote the spawn of satan, Annibale Bugnini as your authority. The Vicar of Christ was surrounded by snakes, vipers and living demons and you make him the enabler of their deeds? Defenders of heretics will suffer the same fate as their masters.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your post Peter Lamb, personally i have just about had enough of this Mark slander Pope B. Modernism is ugly, it always points the finger @ the wrong person!

Wunderbar said...

I agree with Mr Lundahl above. Its not a mental illness. Its a temptation and a mortal sin. Same as any other disordered conduct that we all may have under the influx of the devil.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

"but it can also be mental illness and was classified as such until nearly 50 years ago."

It is NOT for doctors to decide what is a perversion or not.

So, no, the Psychopathologia Sexualis, which first suggested to consider it a "mental illness" was a heretical work, mixing the disciplines and smuding the frontiers between medicine and moral theology.

If CCC actually considers it a "mental illness" (whether acted out or not) that argues the work is heretical.

The story is this:

* first probably the author of psychopathologia wanted to help magistrates and "forensic doctors" - whyever these were getting involved in such questions;

* then this became a recipe for giving, more and more, homosexuality the excuse of insanity, and thus relieve sodomites from serving prison;

* when psychiatrists after arguing it was a "mental illness" had won the fight to decriminalise sodomy, sodomites and more innocent homosexuals (i e not yet having committed the act) were "punished" alike by medicine, where magistrates would have made a difference;

* about a decade or two later, people got tired of seeing homosexuals harrassed by shrinks and so the society de-clinicalised it, after having helped to de-penalise it;

* hebephilia (defined, more and more, independently of question of homosexuality or heterosexuality of couple) was not so de-clinicalised and is becoming more and more penalised: in 2006 the age of matrimonial consent was raised for girls from 15 to 18 (which was already the limit for boys) which would have made the parents of St Francis of Sales criminals at moment of marriage - or his father criminal and his mother a victim : after this, 7 years later, gay marriage was introduced.

No, bringing in doctors to the question has NOT helped to define things more clearly and has ended up with confusing other issues.

If you have a catechism which calls "homosexuality" a "mental illness", it's modernist and you should ditch it.

St Thomas called that preference a monstrosity, which is sth else.

Vox Cantoris said...

It has been called a mental disorder in the past and treated as one in psychiatric circles. It is of course, a sin crying out to heaven for justice. It is objectively or intrinsically disordered according to the CCC. A disorder would be an illness.

Can we get off of this please and comment on the point at hand!

Vox

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

@Vox

"People at one time were given help to get out of the "lifestyle" - today, they are affirmed in it."

By "help" I suppose you mean psychiatric harrassment.

The help they need is sanctifying grace and usually matrimony - a heterosexual one, of course.

@Peter Lamb:

"Mark, You persist in slandering Pope Pius XII at great peril to your soul."

Oh, I have seen appreciative people consider him the first modern pope too.

"I hear around me reformers who want to dismantle the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the Church, to discard all her adornments, and smite her with remorse for her historic past." —Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII, to Count Enrico P. Galeazzi.

Oh, if that quote settles it, you can prove by similar quotes that Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla and of course Ratzinger were traditionalists too!

PLUS, this was before he got Cardinal Bea as personal confessor.

"The Vicar of Christ was surrounded by snakes, vipers and living demons"

The quote above is from a time when he was certainly not Vicar of Christ, whatever he became later.

"and you make him the enabler of their deeds? Defenders of heretics will suffer the same fate as their masters."

What heretic did Mark defend in attacking Pacelli?

@Wunderbar

I agree of course, little detail: under the influence of devil, world or proper flesh.

Worldliness is one kind of idolatry which can lead to this particular trap for the soul.

I consider Oscar Wilde's main problem prior to sodomy and temptations thereto was worldliness.

Like Sodom was also very worldly.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

"A disorder would be an illness."

A sleight of hand of wording.

OR you distinguish medical illness from moral one.

Sodomy and temptations thereto are moral disorders, while for instance Alzheimer is a real mental illness in the medical sense.

As for me, I am NOT off it, and praising psychiatry (even in this connection) is a bit like praising Nimrod. He was a slave hunter.

If sodomy is a moral failure, it is for moralists and judges, for priests and policemen to fight it. On evidence, with presumption of innocence up to proven guilty.

If medical practitioners get a say, they can make someone presumed guilty, until proven innocent, while at same time making the proof of innocence much harder than it should be.

Vox Cantoris said...

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

@Vox

"People at one time were given help to get out of the "lifestyle" - today, they are affirmed in it."

By "help" I suppose you mean psychiatric harassment.

Not only that. They are affirmed in their sin, their "lifestyle" by psychiatry, by society, and sadly - by many in the Church such as this Friar above which is what this post was about. Vox.

I appreciate your comment here. It was not my intention to give any impression that I do not believe it to be a heinous sin against God.


Vox Cantoris said...

The words "disorder" were chosen because that is what the CCC states. Note also, I was referring to same-sex attraction, that it is "objectively disordered" and sodomitical acts are "intrinsically disordered."

Perhaps you may wish to comment on the Friar spreading such notions that it just about "love."

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

So is psychiatry.

It's slave hunt, as often or more often than not.

And, as you have noted, they have shifted from harrassing to confirming in ... sodomy.

As far as I know, "lifestyle" is another game, much broader.

If Oscar Wilde had refrained himself or stopped in time, as to sodomy, his lifestyle in other respects would have been so much less bad.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

Oh, the friar said it is about love?

Well, let's break this down.

A man and a woman who are in love, usually that means they can somehow see themselves as parents of same children.

Two men loving each other can't that.

BUT if they break loose from each other and marry, usual way, they might be grandfathers of same children.

So, as far as love is concerned, that is if anything an indication they should stop the nonsense!

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Hans, I would be interested to know to which "appreciative" people you refer. Where did you see them?

Who says the quote settles what?

What do you mean by "the first modern pope"?
Every Pope is a modern pope when elected, or do you mean the first modernist pope?

The quote illustrates that Cardinal Pacelli was aware of the masonic infestation of the Vatican. He knew that they aimed to "destroy the universal flame of the Church." Pope Pius commissioned Fr. Villa (at the behest of Padre Pio and Our Lord) to ferret out masons in the Vatican. That sounds like somebody "instrumental in securing the revolutionaries a foothold on the papacy"; somebody who "opened the Church to "Progressivism" both politically and theologically", or the first modernist pope to you?

Obviously whilst a Cardinal, Pacelli was not the Vicar of Christ - so what's your point?

"What heretic did Mark defend in attacking Pacelli?"
He defends the whole satanic masonic cabal, Roncalli, Montini, Bugnini and all the others by accusing Pope Pius of "opening the Church to progressivism" (modernism), which is a lie. Pope Pius XII was a brave and holy Pope, if somewhat naive and trusting, who was surrounded, manipulated, betrayed and deceived by judeo-masonic modernists. That is the truth of it!


Mark Thomas said...

Peter Lamb said..."Mark, You persist in slandering Pope Pius XII at great peril to your soul."

Peter...

1. Please note that I had responded to Vox's comment that "The good news is that under Benedict XVI, these malefactors such as Horan were in hiding." I disagree with that comment. The "malefactors" of the Homosexual Network operated as they pleased during Pope Benedict XVI's Pontificate. Pope Benedict XVI did not slow them a bit. Anyway, Vox and I disagree on that. That is fine. We aren't at each other's throats in regard to a difference in opinion.

2. I prefaced my comments with the following: "Vox, on your blog a few months ago, I engage come commenters who promoted Randy Engel's claims in regard to the Homosexual Network that many people believe operates within the Church. Pope Benedict XVI, if Randy Engel is to be believed, aided and abetted the Homosexual Network."

I did not insist that I agreed with Randy Engel. Rather, I noted carefully that "...if Randy Engel is to be believed..."

2. Peter, it's interesting that the bulk of my comments concerned Engel's claims against Pope Benedict XVI. However, you did not claim that I had slandered him. Rather, you had sought to defend Pope Venerable Pius XII.

3. Peter, you are among the commenters a few months ago whom I referenced in my preface posted above.

4. Peter, you insisted then that Pope Blessed Paul VI was a homosexual. Peter, did you slander Pope Venerable Paul VI when you insisted that he was a homosexual?

5. Why is it permissible for you to claim that Pope Venerable Paul VI committed the grave sin of sodomy, but it's a grave sin in your book to indicate simply that in certain ways, Pope Venerable Pius XII was liberal?

It seems strange to me that it is a serious sin to point out Pope Venerable Pius XII's liberalism in regard to certain issues...but it's perfectly for you to claim that Pope Blessed Paul VI was a sodomite. That charge is far greater than arguing that a Pope was, in certain ways, liberal.

6. Finally, here is the kicker. Peter, it was you a few months ago who positioned Randy Engel (as well as her book Rite of Sodomy) as a credible source.

http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2016/03/sodomites-in-priesthood-more-lives.html

Peter Lamb...9:01 am, March 03, 2016

Peter, please read your post in question. You referenced Randy Engel as a credible source. You referenced Randy Engel's book Rite of Sodomy as a credible source.

To quote a review if Rite of Sodomy, which appears on Randy Engel's web page, "Mrs. Engel rounds "third base," so to speak, when writing of the "Twentieth Century Harbingers" in Chapter 18."

"She pulls no punches as she assesses quite accurately the revolutionary nature of some of the changes that began to take hold--and the key players in the Revolution who were put in power--during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII and quickened during the reign of Angelo Roncalli and Giovanni Montini:

"Both advocates and critics of the Revolution of he Second Vatican Council agree that the role of Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Cardinal Pacelli, who ascended the Chair of Peter on March 12, 1939, as Pope Pius XII, was instrumental in securing the revolutionaries a foothold on the papacy.

"As [Mary Ball] Martinez solidly documents, and as inveterate collaborators of NewChurch like Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, C.M., reaffirm, Pius XII opened the Church to "Progressivism" both politically and theologically."

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

To return, please, to Peter Lamb's serious charge against me: "Mark, You persist in slandering Pope Pius XII at great peril to your soul." The amazing thing about that is that on March 3, 2016 A.D. on Vox's blog, Peter Lamb referenced Randy Engel as a credible source.

http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2016/03/sodomites-in-priesthood-more-lives.html

Peter Lamb...9:01 am, March 03, 2016

Peter's real problem is with Randy Engel. It is she who has written extensively about Pope Pius XII's role in the Vatican II Era revolution of the Church. It is Randy Engel who has claimed documentation that Pope Venerable Pius XII laid much of the groundwork for the revolution in question.

Peter, you charged me with the serious sin of slander. However, you should have paid attention to Randy Engel's claims about Pope Venerable Pius XII. Instead, you portrayed her as a credible source.

"For an introductory examination of the 'progressivism' of Pius XII which laid the foundation for the post-Conciliar Church at many different levels see Randy Engel, "Twentieth Century Harbingers," The Rite of Sodomy — Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church, NEP, Export, PA, 2006, pp.1094–1099. Available at www.newengelpublishing.com."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a column by Randy Engel, April 22, 2012 A.D.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m1312.htm

"Pope Pius XII Institutes Major Paradigm Shift in Religious Life"

"The revolution in women's religious orders began with Pope Pius XII. This is a hard truth, but a truth nevertheless."

Sorry, Peter.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Vox Cantoris said...

Dear Mark and Peter,

I have come to know the two of you through your posts. I appreciate all you write, even though I don't always agree. I will not censor you.

Brothers, please, don't attack one another.

We have enough attacking us from the world.

God love you both!

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Mark, I make one point and one point only: Pope Pius XII was not a modernist. He hated and fought against modernists. He was a true and holy Pope. Any implication, by anybody, that he knowingly, or intentionally, abetted modernists, or promoted modernism is a damnable lie. That's my story. Full stop.

The discussion between you and Vox regarding Benedict and homosexuality is irrelevant to my comment.

Your views regarding Randy Engel are irrelevant to my comment. I do however consider her a credible source and so, I think, would most who read her resume on the link you provided.

I have no interest in Benedict beyond noting that he is a modernist anti-pope.

No, I did not slander Montini by calling him a sodomite, because he was one. My accusation was based on objective evidence. You implied the same of Pope Pius on the strength of his being portrayed as such in a novel!

To say that "a Pope was, in certain ways, liberal." is not offensive. We are all in certain ways liberal. However to say that Pope Pius "opened that Church to modernism" has very different and serious connotations.

I re-read the post you provided and, with all humility, was quite impressed by my reply to Ana. :)

Yip! Pope Pius was certainly taken for a ride by Montini, Bugnini and Bea.

I have read your link: http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m1312.htm
It is entitled: Randy Engel column Sisters in rebellion - non serviam (Part I) An Apostolic Visitation and CDF investigation.
Well, you have finally got me Mark. :)
1. Benedict authorized this Visitation to the Nuns on 17 November, 2008 - i.e. 50 years after the death of Pope Pius.
2. Pope Pius' name is not even mentioned. The words "Pope Pius XII Institutes Major Paradigm Shift in Religious Life" do not appear.
3. It is totally irrelevant to our discussion.
This is almost as bad as quoting novels Mark. :)
Pax et Bonum.

Mark Thomas said...

Vox, I appreciate your having interceded to act as a peacemaker.

Vox, I only wish to say please that I never implied that Pope Venerable Pius XII was homosexual. I post to your blog and Father McDonald's blog. Here and on Father McDonald's blog, I have posted several comments in regard to Pope Venerable Pius XII. My comments are available on each blog in question. I have maintained always that Pope Venerable Pius XII was a holy man.

Pax.

Mark Thomas



Peter Lamb said...

No hard feelings Mark. :)

Mark Thomas said...

Peter, thank you. Please know that I am not upset with you. I wish you and your family peace. We simply differ as to how we understand Pope Venerable Pius XII's Pontificate. However, I am confident that he was a holy man.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

F said...

Read what this "friar" posted on his FB on June 12:

"Grateful for Archbishop Blase J. Cupich's direct identification of this mass murder as a homophobic hate crime and how this terror attack again reiterates our need as a society to enact real gun control! I'm in Chicago this week to teach a course and I'm honored to call the Archdiocese of Chicago my home in August." (https://www.facebook.com/DanHoranOFM/)

Homophobic? Gun control? What the cool "friar" doesn't know is that Mohamedans follow Mohamed's (obligatory) example from Sunna, and the punishment for sodomy is, you guessed it: death! But that's not relevant, is it, Dan? Homophobia and guns, those are the plagues of modern society.

May God humiliate all malefactors as we pray in the ancient Litanies of Saints:
Ut inimicos Sanctae Ecclesiae humiliare digneris, te rogamus audi nos!

F said...

Commenting on one of his YT videos where he isn't wearing his habit, I wrote him:
"Why aren't you wearing your habit? Did you not read Apostle "nolite conformari huic saeculo." You must fulfill your oath to God and be His witness in this godless world."
Guess what, he deleted my comment.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

Mark Thomas, I disagree with assessing Pius XII as venerable or etc.

Peter Lamb:

"Dear Hans, I would be interested to know to which "appreciative" people you refer. Where did you see them?"

On internet. I presume it was in some article not on a private blog, but on a publication.

It was probably last year, if not earlier, so I forgot the exact title and reference.

"What do you mean by "the first modern pope"? Every Pope is a modern pope when elected, or do you mean the first modernist pope?"

In Latin, "modernus" means contemporary. As usual context of word. In "modern" languages, "modern" has taken on a connotation like in "contemporary art".

As they were appreciative of him, and modernist, they were not likely to stamp him with a word which has as bad meanings among at least certain Catholics as the word "modernist". So, since they were appreciating him, defending him against the "accusation" of being a reactionary, they obviously preferred the wording "the first modern pope". As opposed to perhaps sth like "the last medieval pope" which the ones they were polemising against had called him.

"The quote illustrates that Cardinal Pacelli was aware of the masonic infestation of the Vatican. He knew that they aimed to "destroy the universal flame of the Church." Pope Pius commissioned Fr. Villa (at the behest of Padre Pio and Our Lord) to ferret out masons in the Vatican. That sounds like somebody "instrumental in securing the revolutionaries a foothold on the papacy"; somebody who "opened the Church to "Progressivism" both politically and theologically", or the first modernist pope to you?"

There is a difference between being a plotter for modernism and of being an adherent of modernism in key issues.

I am not saying he was (or wasn't) double playing. I am saying that, if honest, he was unaware of the kind of contributions he made himself, perhaps bona fide, to the cause of his enemies.

Now, earlier he had been a protégé of Rampolla.

If Rampolla was a freemason, or a bona fide Catholic with some modernist leanings is not the point.

The point is, if Pacelli had been totally antimodernist on every level where he should have been, Rampolla might have been less fond of him.

"He defends the whole satanic masonic cabal, Roncalli, Montini, Bugnini and all the others by accusing Pope Pius of "opening the Church to progressivism" (modernism), which is a lie. Pope Pius XII was a brave and holy Pope, if somewhat naive and trusting, who was surrounded, manipulated, betrayed and deceived by judeo-masonic modernists."

Manipulated by modernists is perhaps a different assessment of his person than "modernist heretic and freemason", but not quite a different assessment of actual results of his magisterium as it was in public.

Palmarians consider "Paul VI" a saint and a prisoner of the Vatican and forced to signing a forged Liturgic reform. Other sedes consider him an Antipope. But they agree his (or "his, but not his") liturgic reform is bad.

"He defends the whole satanic masonic cabal, Roncalli, Montini, Bugnini and all the others by accusing Pope Pius of "opening the Church to progressivism" (modernism), which is a lie."

First of all, a man who defended:

* clerics charging interest from a monastery
* NFP
* and above all perhaps, the historic-critical method of exegesis and evolution compatible doctrines about origin of man

it is not a lie that in effect he opened up the Church (or whatever was still Church while accepting him) to progressivism, whether he intended to or not.

Second, instead of this being a defense of Roncalli, Montini etc, it can be a revindication of Michel Colin who took the name Clement XV.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Hans, Thanks for your response.

"Palmarians ... Other sedes ..."
Please don't call palmarians sedevacantists. They have nothing whatever to do with sedevacantism. They are a bunch of heretical loons who, although they regarded Montini as a "saint" (and Hitler), are schismatic from the conciliar "popes" and have their own "popes", so for them there are no empty seats!