Friday, 4 September 2020

Thomas Rosica - from Southdown to a Seniors Home for Priests - More on the Serial Plagiariser

Gee old Tommy Boy, it never stops, eh? 

The plagiarism scandal of this petulant and arrogant fraud never ends. Now, it implicates Marc Cardinal Ouelett who hired the clown as a "ghost-writer." What a joke is Ouelett, a lazy, washed up Francis-toady, a Bergoglian too cowardly to confront the evil monster and too lazy to write his own homilies. 

Let it be noted that this writer here on Vox Cantoris was the first to out Rosica as a plagiarist for consistently using this quote by Richard R. Gaillardetz as published in the National Catholic Reporter and which Rosica made his own.  

"Will this Pope re-write controversial Church doctrines? No. But that isn't how doctrine changes. Doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particularly doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God's transforming love. Doctrine changes when the Church has leaders and teachers who are not afraid to take note of new contexts and emerging insights. It changes when the Church has pastors who do what Francis has been insisting: leave the securities of your chanceries, of your rectories, of your safe places, of your episcopal residences go set aside the small minded rules that often keep you locked up and shielded from the world."

Tell us Tommy, how was time in Southdown? Did you discuss your disgusting persecution of this writer and his family and your attempt to sue me into poverty for telling the truth? Did they recommend you apologise you filthy rat? Priest, my foot! You're a stinking fraud and a heretic as proven from your own words in this article in the Windsor Star when you were still a Deacon. You sniveling little man, you should never have been ordained. I am convinced you were never a priest. You were a heretic. 

How could a heretic as proven by your own words as a Deacon, ever be validly ordained?,762230&hl=en

A stinking fraud from the beginning.

How far you have fallen, old man. Chaplain to retired Boyzillians in a retirement home for priests. 

It all looks so good on you.


Anonymous said...

I wonder who what and in which seminary men are truly being screened by genuinely Catholic clerics before they are Ordained?

I know for a FACT from friends who desired to become nuns ,that the Superiors they met with were all in for homosexual lesbians to enter. I know because I suggested they ALL ask that question to be sure they are going into a CATHOLIC convent before wasting their time.The same pointed question should be asked by potential students concerning homosexual men in the seminary they choose.
The problem is that those in authority are liars like their father ,the devil , who was a liar from the beginning.
Are we surprised Rosica is a liar?

peasant said...

Vox, you continue to struggle with the teaching of Christ found in gospels

And one of them, a doctor of the law, asking him, tempting him:
Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets. Matthew 22:35-40
Note that Christ made no exceptions, neither is there a prerequisite that your neighbor love you, nor return your love for them.

Vox Cantoris said...

Save your homily for Rosica.

Did I say I hated him or desire him in Hell?

Did he cause you thousands for a lawyer?

Preach to him, he needs it.

And where is it that he should make amends to me.

“Before you present your offering ...”

Anonymous said...

Good reply Vox !
Perhaps the poster should step back, take a deep breath and reconsider that by your posting concerning Rosica's obviously grave spiritual errors , you are and have been alerting his conscience and because of that, he may finally make a good Confession and do penance, thus saving his immortal soul.
That is a profound act of love!

Anonymous said...

I have read too many blog comments defending the indefensible and in many cases that defense comes from blogging clerics themselves. I do hope that gospel "quasi homily" above is not from a priest.
On one blog owned by a priest who claims he is "traditional" several KNOWN perverted priests from my own Diocese are praised by the blog owner and posters alike.
Please Traditional Catholics be careful because some of the worst wolves are cloaked as Traditional priests !
I spoke to both the wonderful Catholic lawyer and more than several rectory employees who know this sick perp who got off the hook this time.
Look up Manupella, Fr Z

Anonymous said...

The Statute of Limitations erases anything even credible cases.This is just one example.

Irenaeus said...

Given the evidence at hand, it's reasonable to conclude Rosica does not have a vocation to the priesthood, or if he ever did, it was stifled a long time ago by lack of prayer and willfully ignored by his superiors.

St. Alphonsus' words for those who persist in the path that is not for them in this life are apt here, as well as the Scriptures about what wrongdoers must do to make appropriate amends to those they have wronged.

Tom A. said...

The question of Rosica’s validity as a priest has nothing to do with his perversions. The doubt of his valid ordination comes from the Novus Ordo Ordination Rites promulgated by Montini.

Barona said...

I think the question of validity goes far deeper. Thomas Rosica was "ordained" by the militant homosexualist and dissenter Matthew Clark. Clark was himself ordained in 1962, so we must presume his ordination was valid and that he was educated enough that he knew the matter, form and intention needed to confect an ordination.

Given the great evils that Clark promoted we have a right to ask: did he tamper with the form, the essential words of ordination? Recently, we have heard of a number of scandals that "priests" were not priests due to not being baptized Christians. Could witnesses in Rochester be accessed to inquire if Clark was in the habit of "improvising" at ordinations, thus rendering them invalid. Or, was he so evil, that he ensured valid ordination, to enshrine another dissenter into the priesthood, to continue his evil work?

Without paranoia we need to ask: is there evidence that might call into doubt the ordinations undertaken by notorious heretics (albeit "material") such as Matthew Clark.