Lest I disgrace this blog with the actual photos of the lover boys Dulibber G. Gonzalez and Marcin Bradtke, I'll just link to the story over there.
Serratelli - another apostate, homosexualist, heresiarch.
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/nj-bishop-tolerates-clergys-double-lives
Um, I've changed my mind. Here are the boyz.
48 comments:
I guess they are worried NOW about the reaction of the general public to images in the media... not so much when the images were just a couple of Catholic school boys.
It is not a cover up. The "Catholic" church will go full fledged Homo church in the near future. I teach Theology and am being told what I should say and what I can't say. We have respect and love for everyone especially gays. I hate to say it but I think I'm going fundamentalist soon.
Vox, how could you!
After years of attempts by our "elites" to desensitize us to the disgusting unnaturalness of sodomy, I am sick to my stomach.
https://www.popefrancisthedestroyer.com/2019/01/italian-nationalists-put-up-poster-at.html
Yeah Fedup, it's tough at this point. I do believe the church is going to take that step and go all out homosexual. They're mostly there now! These photos are all we need to see, it really makes the point, the church has been taken over. This is what we are supporting each week? Oh hell no.
Disgusting, dirty men, laughing at us every week, hahaha, suckahs!
Well when that gravy train stops boys, it's going to give you a heck of a jolt. It's a tough world making sodomy pay outside of the church.
Good luck with that.
Fedup says: "I hate to say it but I think I'm going fundamentalist soon."
Well Fedup, according to what PF says about fundamentalists, you just may already be one (me too, BTW).
Do you teach theology at the high school or college level?
God bless you,
Kev
And Vox, God bless you. You may have just saved some boys or young men in Patterson.
Parents, YOU are responsible for your boys. Never leave them alone with homosexual men. Ever.
Please tell me the Novus Ordo rites are invalid. PLEASE!!!
Thanks for changing your mind, Vox, and posting about this.
People need to know that the homosexual crisis wasn't ended with McCarrick. I have noticed that, since the New Year, people have been eager to put all that junk behind them (an understandable response) and think of happy thoughts. The problem is, it's not going away.
The last row of pictures are quite mild, considering. At least it's not of them "spooning," or of them in the "top-bottom" position kissing, or with one's head on the other's stomach while the other strokes the one's head. There are worse pictures CM could have revealed.
Fedup says: "I hate to say it but I think I'm going fundamentalist soon."
Please don't leave the church, these sickos are not the church. Find yourself a SSPX church, you won't regret it!
Catechist Kev,
A high school Theology teacher but more and more we are becoming scripted actors from our "nonp-practicing" department head to our wide open acceptance of everything but the truth. God help us.
Kathleen, The gravy train won't stop. Why stop giving when it makes your sins so much more acceptable? Satan loves Sundays because the 'candy coated gospel" is preached and the homily of love and acceptance are just what the doctor ordered.
Arthur Serratelli is not a valid bishop. He was invalidated consecrated by the apostate homosexual serial predator McCarrick.
The Church teaches that the apostates lose all jurisdiction and must cancel all their actions including the invalid consecrations.
Naza, you are in error about the sacrament of Holy Orders. Falling into apostasy may cancel juridical actions but it does not invalidate sacraments. Deviating from form, matter, or intention invalidates sacraments. Insisting that deviant sodomites are incapable of administering sacraments due to their personal sin is a condemned heresy called Donatism.
Are novusb ordo sacraments valid?
Well, here is a quick answer:
Were/are the conciliar popes public, pertinaceous heretics? If you answer "yes", then they had no authority to summon, or promulgate a council. Consequently vatican II was a false council and everything that flows from it is false and invalid. All changes made to the litury and sacraments would obviously be invalid and our question is easily answered.
But you say the conciliar popes are true Popes formaliter? OK then lets look at Sacramental theology. The most crucial Sacrament to look at is Episcopal Consecration. Why? Because if the bishop is invalid then his ordinations are invalid and the sacraments confected by those priests are invalid- mass, confession, eucharistic concecration etc. everything except baptism and matrimony.
Somebody mentioned "intention" We can't read minds, so how can we know that the bishop,or priest intends what the Church intends? Answer: By watching closely whether he does what the Church does. If his words, actions and liturgy are conducted exactly as the Church prescribes, then he is presumed to intend what the Church intends. In other words, his actions signal his intention. If he does not intend what the Church intends he must either state this fact, or he must deviate in some fashion from the way, liturgy, the Church prescribes. In either way he makes his contra-intent obvious to onlookers. The sacrament is then obviously invalid, because he has demonstrated that he does not intend what the Church intends.
“When a bishop confers Holy Orders using correct matter and form, he must be presumed to have had a sacramental intention sufficient to confect the sacrament — that is, at least "to have intended to do what the Church does. This is the teaching of Pope Leo XIII in his pronouncement on Anglican orders:
‘Now, if a person has seriously and duly used the proper matter and form for performing or administering a sacrament, he is by that very fact presumed to have intended to do what the Church does.’ (Bull Apostolicae Curae, September 13, 1896; Pope Leo XIII stated an exception: an externally manifested intention contrariwise.
According to Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, "The Church recognizing that she can never know the internal intention of the minister, assumes it is the same as his external intention (the intention the traditional rite provides by its very wording), unless he himself informs the Church otherwise." I realize that the good doctor was not a theologian, but his research was impeccable. There is a footnote to this quote that reads thus, "There was a bishop in South America who was strongly prejudiced against ordaining native clergy. On his deathbed he confessed that when it came to native clergy he always withheld his intention. The priest who heard his confession refused him absolution unless he gave permission for this fact to be exposed to the proper authorities. The permission was granted. All the native clergy involved were re-ordained.
So, as long as a Bishop, or Priest was VALIDLY ORDAINED, and provided he does as the Church does, the Sacrament is valid, even if he is a satanist saying a black mass. So much for intention. Next time novus ordo bishops validly consecrated?
I guess in a certain way we already have women priests....
Hey B.(4bum) Serratelli, cease and desist should be directed to you for allowing such vile homo's inside the church.
My guess is that most priests who practice sodomy don't believe it is a serious sin and consider it roughly equivalent to contraception which is nothing more than mutual masturbation. In other words, the virtual acceptance by the Church of contraception is being used as a rationale for all other sex related sins. The active rejection of contraception by the Church stopped long ago now implying acceptance.
Don't we, Dan? I have noticed there tends to be one man-boy in a homosexual relationship who plays the role of the female.
Very interesting. Very disturbing, too.
NJ bishop going to sue Vox? Never, the discovery and deposition process would destroy his case and humiliate the NJ novus ordo church.
These two young men and priests love each other so what is the issue? And let's get this straight, not all pedophiles are priests. Please!
Need some rich folks to hire private eyes to dig up info on priests of all ranks.
Have them followed around and take pics like those who suspect their spouses of infidelity.
...Even into the bathhouses or wherever.
It may then be easy to stand at the entry to churches with big signs
"Stop feeding the sodomite's [thieve's / apostate fraud's / ...] collection baskets" and hand out the pics and other verifying documentation to those entering. Maybe even hand it out in Mass while folks gather.
Starve The Beast!
The reality is that it already is a church of sodomites. Sadly the abuse crisis will be used to APPROVE homosexual behaviour... and then they will just warn priests to find older "gentlemen."
Blogger Dan said...
The reality is that it already is a church of sodomites. Sadly the abuse crisis will be used to APPROVE homosexual behaviour... and then they will just warn priests to find older "gentlemen."
Yes, you are correct. Here in the Archdiocese of Toronto it's called:
"KEEP IT LEGAL, KEEP IT QUIET, KEEP IT GOING!"
Signed; One who knows.
One more "prophecy" and this wave of disgust might be alleviated.
Soon, very soon, the Latin Mass will be considered to be a "sin" against "unity" and "fraternity" - and as such groups such as SSPX, who won't go along with the abolishment of TLM will face excommunication from this so called "true" church.
I know some who say the suppression of TLM can not happen, but consider how many priests knew, and know, what was going on with the boys.... think they are going to suddenly find their b@lls or voice over a choice of words/language?
Dan said:
"Soon, very soon, the Latin Mass will be considered to be a "sin" against "unity"..."
There is no greater sin than this. I hear the so called third eye might be a symbol of what sodomites use to experience unity. That "third eye", when it is part of a boy's biology, while uniting the boy's "educator" with the universe, opens the boy up to the path of higher knowing. That knowing is not dogmatic, and it unites one with the ONE which, according to Teilhard de Chardin, we are all "evolving" toward.
When I say "we all", I do not include the pesky dogmatic, bead-counting, hateful fundamentalists. These have a place assigned to them by Lucifer Trust's Alice Bailey (or rather, by Ascended Masters who dictated to her). What could this place be? - Listen to Bergoglio in his interview with Scalfari, where hell is... annihilation.
All children on this earth are taught about this perfect unity via UNESCO. Julian Huxley (Aldous' brother) founded it, and Robert Muller (not to be confused with the living one), known as a new age saint, created the "World Core Curriculum" for which he was awarded the UNESCO Prize for Peace Education - in 1989.
Our "uniters" have been working on this unity unceasingly. Let us never forget that when they elected Bergoglio, they announced to us that the world would never be the same again. They also told us that the fundamental transformation he would help with, would be irreversible.
Well, when thinking about our place within ONE, meaning annihilation, it does seem like something irreversible.
And yet, we believe in God, and we pray.
Dan....The TLM may not be 'formally' prohibited, but you can be sure that they will do it through the back door as is Bergoglio's M.O. They will persecute to the hilt anyone who will celebrate the TLM. What comes to mind is the line in the Godfather: "I'll make you an offer you can't refuse." Nothing formal, but Stalin like tactics as we have seen so many times before. The persecution will continue and probably even escalate.
Fedup, you have a point. Many Catholics are in the don't know/don't care category, excluding the elderly whom I pity deeply. Everyone else should know at this point, and would have to be going out of their way not to know. And you are probably right, that gravy train will likely continue, although in the states if the feds get going with RICO and ream the church good, the US government under Trump may start to pull all those millions the church is now paid to "resettle" migrants into the West. And if that happens AND the offertory gets thin, there would surely be a limit to those beach bashes and seminarian "parties". One can only hope.
For my family, we only give gift cards to the priest who says our Latin Mass. All other financial support, ended. We aren't paying for these homosexual hoedowns any longer.
Presume what you want Tom. The facts prove you incorrect read the latest article on this site. These homosexuals were sodomites together prior to Ordination therefore neither could possibly have had the Proper Intention to receive the sacrament of Ordination. Thus they are INVALID priests. I have now asked three priests in good standing, one a Canon Lawyer and every one stated the recipient MUST have Proper Intention to receive a Sacrament validly. Your presumptive sede position is less convincing then the OBVIOUS assumption that these two were lacking the Proper Intention for reception of Holy Orders.
Estimated up to 60% of US priests are homosexual.
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/the-lavender-mafia-unmasked
Did you ask them if being an active sodomite automatically means they have no intention of receiving the Sacrament? Again, unless one makes some sort of public demonstration of not intending to recieve, the Church assumes validity. You keep making the same arguement over and over again that their active sodomy makes them ineligible for ordination. Can you find that anywhere taught in the magesterium or in Sacramental Theology? I will be the first to believe your position if you could document it properly instead of soley offering your interpretation of "intention." Ask your Canon Lawyer friend if being an active practicing sodomite invalidates an ordinand from being ordained. I doubt he will reply in the affirmative. If he does please ask him for some sources I could read.
Tom, it is NOT "intention to receive" ,it is Proper Intention.
Proper Intention for the Sacrament of Matrimony cannot be so one can access another's finances and have a mistress on the side.
Proper Intention for reception of the Sacrament of Ordination cannot include access to sodomy with one's sodomite partner.
Proper Intention on the part of the recipient is always necessary for validity.
"Second, in adults, the valid reception of the sacraments presumes that the recipient has the intention of receiving it. The sacraments impose obligations and confer grace. And yet, neither is possible without the free consent of the recipient. The only exception to this teaching pertains to the Eucharist because, no matter what the recipient’s intention or disposition, the body and blood of Christ is really and always present. "
https://www.osv.com/RSS/365DaysToMercy/TabId/2752/ArtMID/21013/ArticleID/6231/Matter-and-Form.aspx
Precisely for this reason with regard to Holy Orders the Canon law priest I spoke to said the Vatican had better redefine more clearly the Proper Intention or lack there of, for reception of Holy Orders.
In one case a Bishop was consulted and informed a priest I knew there was a question about a priest's Ordination. He was barred from ministry for several decades until his Bishop died and was replaced by another ( hx friendly) who rehired the man as his priest secretary.
Personally we have learned a very sad lesson. Now we really get to know our priest personally to the best of our ability.
My family takes Sanctifying Grace very seriously and we do not frequent the Sacraments just because it is the thing to do as Catholics. I want to be assured my children will not be exposed to impure counsel in the privacy of the Confessional. I know of one parish that was cleared of families with children according the former pastor who said he was inundated with calls from his former parishioners with children complaining of the graphic sex talks from the new homosexual pastor.
If you have no children and are a sede maybe this does not concern you but I can tell you it does for parents with children they are trying to raise in the Faith.
These are real concerns for the True Believer.
"So, as long as a Bishop, or Priest was VALIDLY ORDAINED, and provided he does as the Church does, the Sacrament is valid, even if he is a satanist saying a black mass. So much for intention. Next time novus ordo bishops validly consecrated?"
Sad to say, if to do what the church seems to be doing now by at least tacitly accepting sodomy an pederasty ,maybe everything is already VALIDLY inverted.
I was going to give my penny's worth concerning the validity of novus ordo episcopal consecrations, but now I will desist and leave it to experts. By coincidence Novus Ordo Watch is currently having a series of refutations of Fr. Hunnike's blogs on the subject. They are instructive, but there is a very interesting discussion going on in the combox right now. Think about it. If NO sacraments are invalid think what the consequences are. This is critically important stuff. If anybody is genuinely interested in finding out the truth on this vital question, I would recommend a perusal of:
https://novusordowatch.org/2019/01/they-are-really-not-bishops-2
Sorry. Fr. Hunwicke.
Again, cite some sources because everything you say sounds like your personal interpretation and not what I have learned about Sacramental Theology over the years. Granted I am no expert either, but I would need to see some authoritative sources (pre V2 please) to convince me of your position. To date you never produce them.
Thank you Peter Lamb for your suggestion.
I agree and believe we just might be living the consequences. After all, did anyone as a Catholic ever think we would see the day when a law is passed by a Catholic that endorses infanticide
till the day of birth?
God, please make it stop!
Since Vatican II I we have numerous examples of abuses becoming permissible and even encouraged. For example, communion in the hand and girl altar boys. Seeing these changes wrought by abuse, abusers presume publicly practicing the abuse leads to acceptance.
Tom, this is why Fr M a retired Canon Lawyer stated the Vatican had better "Redefine Proper Intention for Sacramental reception." It's a vague and misunderstood area.
ONLY the Vatican can cite particular impediments.
They have in the case of Annulments.
They cannot and will not in the case of active sodomites because as Ratzinger said to the effect that they should not be allowed entrance to seminary if they are deeply ingrained homosexuals.
But what does that mean? They're okay if they see no problem with the vice?
My understanding of Sacramental Theology includes the reality of varying depths of mortal sins. i.e. Sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance and Sins against the Holy Ghost.
They'll all get you a ticket to Hell minus true repentance and a firm amendment for avoidance of the sin and it's temptations.
Certain sins definitely deaden the soul while others pile on the responsibility for taking other souls to hell too.
If the Church truly barred homosexual acts , they would have very few men left. Too costly because they are entrenched in mammon worship.
Perhaps as a sede you believe yourself immune ?
Just helping faggots come out of the closet.
This issue has absolutely nothing to do with sede. Sacramental Theology has already defined "intention." I think the Vatican has done enough "redefining" of the meaning of words. If and when a real Pope defines matters as you interpret them, I will stick to the traditional understanding of "proper intention for sacramental reception." Unless of course you can point me to some traditional source on this subject that teaches that active sodomites cannot be ordained due to lack of proper intention for sacramental reception.
I do not think sodomites in the seminary or being Ordained was much of a concern or so prolific when the 1917 Code of Canon law was composed Tom, so good luck with that.
There have been other historical moments where clerical sodomy and fornication was a major concern. The Church has never to my knowledge taught what you propose. Yet you cannot stop putting this error into basically evey post of yours concerning sodomites. You have just admitted that you cannot find any Church teachings on proper intention. The fact is currently the Church does not agree with your position on proper intention of sacramental reception.
You must be in a state of grace in order to receive a sacrament. These sodomites are attached to the sin and unrepentant. Intent is a secondary issue. McCaric is said to be a 3rd generation sodomite, NONE in that line are valid due to mortal sin held within their heart and loins prior to ordination. This is a secret society of evil, they may not wear aprons or belong to a lodge but they are 'free masonic' as any.
Im just the guy in the back row but if a young man has a homo habit he enjoys and has no intension of stopping are you saying he can be validly ordained a priest?
Absolutely NO WAY.
It is a spiritual impediment not a theological one. In charity the attachment may have lessened culpability due to temperment or abuse or malformation but orders are invalid just the same. The Church is logical. The implications are indeed profound perhaps so important that the BVM came to earth to warn the faithful. See:4th secret.
The better way to approach this question is to review authentic Church teaching on receiving sacraments while in a state of mortal sin.
The day there's no valid Mass said, will be the last day this World will exist.In the writings of Ann Catherine Emmerick, she states, the last Mass offered on Earth will be offered by Christ.
Post a Comment