"But he chose the tribe of Judah, mount Sion which he loved."

I am of Lebanese Maronite ancestry from the region of the cedars. My ancestors left the region of Mount Lebanon between 1882 and 1912. The dreadful Ottoman's cared not about the Christian peoples and the continued persecution and attempted genocide at that time. My sister married a Melchite Catholic, born in Haifa after the end of that empire and under the British Mandate of the region of Palestine.

Let me also state that I understand full well that Rabbinical-Talmudic Judaism hates Our Lord Jesus Christ. I am not writing this from a religious perspective, only a political one. Reality is what it is. That being said, who are we to doubt the mysterious ways of God? Can we really think that he hates the Jewish people? Can we really believe that he wants them annihilated? Any people? No, he wants them brought to the fullness of the faith and redemption.

Notwithstanding the above, I believe in the right of the State of Israel to exist within secure and stable borders and in peace. One cannot rewrite history. The Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations and Sykes-Picot accord and later, the United Nations made this a reality. We govern ourselves by Laws, not by the rule of thugs and murderers such as the Black September or the PLO or Al Qaida or ISIS. The Arab nations rejected the UN partition which then gerrymandered around the population of Jewish and the ancient Philistine peoples. Had they accepted it, there would have been a viable nation-state of Palestine on more land today than it could ever hope to achieve now. The map above does not lie. The facts do not lie.

The Arabs continually attacked the "Zionist entity." Only now, do some see a better way.

Many believe that modern Israel's creation as a return for the Jewish people on their ancient land is in biblical prophecy. Yet, to believe that, one might claim that to be a Christian Zionist, is a heresy. I don't know about that.

What I know is this. The land was given by God to the Hebrew nation. The Psalms tell us that he "chose the tribe of Judah, mount Sion which he loved." Out of Judah came forth our redemption and those people of the Old Covenant have been brought together to a land where one day they will fully come into the New Covenant. If that makes me a Zionist, so be it.

Politically and militarily, both sides in this conflict have committed egregious acts. Yet, it is this tiny piece of land which the Jews have made bloom while the "Arabs," and the Palestinians are no more Arab than the Lebanese. Assyrians or Egyptians, the real Arabs have for decades and abused these people to keep the focus of their own peoples on the "Zionist entity" rather than their own shortcomings.

If Jerusalem is not the capital city of Israel than what city is? What city could possibly be? God established Jerusalem as Israel's capital. If one wishes to argue that this modern-state of Israel is not of God, that is a valid debate, but God permitted its creation and out of it, He will bring the full redemption of His Chosen People through His new Israel, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Under the UN partition plan, Jerusalem was to be a UN-administered city. That is of no consequence today. In two wars where Israel was attacked by the Arabs, 1948 and 1967, Jerusalem was captured first in part and then reunited. It was the Arabs that caused Jerusalem to be fully taken by Israel.

To the victor go the spoils.

Let's be clear. Palestine never existed as a nation-state. After the collapse of the Roman empire, it was a desolate land of a low population under the domination of the Mohammedan conquests. The Ottoman's dominated most of the region until they lost it after The Great War. The Palestinian claim to Jerusalem as a Capital City is bogus and fraudulent. It never was their capital, they never had a state. Most of what was their region is in what was Transjordan, now, the Kingdom of Jordan. Israel is never going to give up Jerusalem and the continued resistance to the recognition that it is and will always be undivided and Israel's capital prevents a viable peace agreement. The losers have always been those in the West Bank and Gaza strip but it is not Israel that has done it to them, it is their own filthy masters.

But the leaders of that Church, the new and true Israel have failed. For a thousand years, since the end of the Last Crusade, the Church has left billions of souls to perish in what can at best be described as the greatest Christian heresy, Mohammedanism. They have refused to call the Jewish people home. Five hundred years ago, these betrayers wrote of the Scandinavian countries and have since made no attempt to bring them back from the errors of Lutheranism. Since Vatican II, it has only gotten worse.

In 1980, Joseph Clark became Prime Minister of Canada and made a commitment, never realized, to recognize the reality of Israel's existence and determined to move Canada's embassy to the State of Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, he failed. Now, the President of the United States who promised this in the election campaign and has not decided to do it. The Arab world is self-destructing. They eat each other. They have destroyed the most beautiful lands of Chaldea and Assyria, Babylon, Egypt and Mount Lebanon. Arabs in Israel vote, hold passports, have all the civil rights as any Jewish citizen and own land and business.

Today, the Bishop of Rome issued a statement wading into the decision already taken by the President of the United States. It is a blatant and mischievous attempt to insert himself into something that is none of his business. He should spend his time preaching Jesus Christ and Him Crucified and Resurrected and leave the politics for the real politicians. CruxNow calls it a "crisis." The only crisis is the state of the Catholic Church.

Whatever this Bergoglio can do to deflect from his formal errors he will do. This is a diversion on his part to deflect attention away from his heretical promulgation of Holy Communion for those living in adultery.

The Cardinals have their job, it is far past time for the kittens to do it.

Don Minutella: these penalties are "medals of honor"

https://www.catholicfamilynews.org/blog/2017/12/5/resist-resist-resist-cfn-exclusive-interview-minutella

CFN: How do you view your penalties of (de facto) suspension, or excommunications?

Don Minutella: For me these are medals of honor, like when a simple soldier carries out meritorious actions, and the commander rewards him. I hope, however, that one of the Cardinals who remain Catholic, will recognize it. I'll need this [support], even though Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Sarah have already encouraged me privately. The best spoils for the priest are souls. Saint John Bosco told Our Lord: Da mihi animas et coetera tolle! “Give me souls, and take the rest!” It is said of St. John of the Cross that Jesus appeared to him, saying: Ioanne, quid vis pro laboribus? “John, what would you like [as a reward] for your labors?” The Spanish saint responded: Domine, pati et contemni pro te, meaning “Lord, to suffer and to be despised for Thee.” It is something that I have expected since my time in the Seminary, and despite the heavy weight of suffering, I experience the supernatural joy of the Cross.

Are you sure you didn't choose to destroy everything George?

The Vatican spin's away from the shouting match between Pope Bergoglio and Cardinal Sandri. They are two old Argentian's arm in arm.

Two old pathetic Peronists.

Francis! We did not choose you to destroy everything

December 5th, 2017 0

Two Argentineans: Cardinal Leonardo Sandri yesterday with Pope Francis

(Rome) Yesterday Pope Francis received a curia cardinal in audience. The same is part of everyday life in the Vatican. Nevertheless, this audience had a particularly piquant note.

Warm audience

Francis received his compatriot Leonardo Cardinal Sandri. The cardinal, born like Francis in Buenos Aires, is the son of Italian immigrants but seven years younger than the pope. Ordained priest in 1967, he was secretary to the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires and sent to Rome in 1971 to attend the Diplomatic Academy of the Holy See. He joined the State Secretariat in 1974 and served as Apostolic Nuncio to Venezuela from 1997 to 2000, then in Mexico for a few more months, to be appointed as a substitute to the State Secretariat by John Paul II at the end of 2000. As such, he announced in April 2005 the death of the Polish Pope.

In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI appointed him. became Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches and elevated him to the cardinal's office in the same year. In 2013 he was in the conclave to the voters of his compatriot Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio. One of not a few cardinals who supported the archbishop of Buenos Aires, contrary to the legend, that Bergoglio's election was an uprising against the Roman Curia.

Loud criticism of a cardinal to Pope Francis

Last Friday, Vaticanist Marco Tosatti reported that Pope Francis' attitude towards criticizing his controversial post-synodal letter Amoris laetitia was a nuisance to some in the Vatican as well. Tosatti speaks of "two different sources", which told him the following.

"A cardinal of great renown, a former diplomat with a significant curriculum at the head of a congregation and eminently prominent in the State Secretariat, has blamed the Pope for acting by saying, 'We have chosen you to do so Carry out reforms and not destroy everything '. The news spread in the Vatican, because the conversation, if one can speak of a conversation, took place with increased volume, so that doors and walls were penetrated. The purple bearer in question was one of those who supported the candidacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the 2013 conclave. "

Tosatti did not name a name. However, his description is so detailed that it applies only to Cardinal Sandri.

Astonishingly, Cardinal Sandri was received in audience by the Pope just three days after Tosatti's publication. Since the Pope did not return from Bangladesh until Saturday, the meeting took place on the first possible day after publication.

The content of the conversation was not disclosed by the Vatican, but photos have been published showing two brightly smiling interlocutors. So far, there were no pictures in which the two Argentines are seen as such exuberant friendliness. The pictures are intended to signal demonstrative agreement and are apparently intended to counteract unspoken Tosatti's publication.

This only raises the question of who better simulates both of them before the photographer.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi 
Image: Osservatore Romano / OSS (Screenshots)

The Dictator Pope - a quick review

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201245960

https://www.amazon.ca/Dictator-Pope-Marcantonio-Colonna-ebook/dp/B077SP6SSR/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1512740451&sr=8-1&keywords=dictator+pope


I've read chapter 3 and I've had to put it down. That's is enough for one night.

When Bergoglio came out on the loggia, I sat there at my office watching it on my computer, my staff gathered around and behind me. As I stood watching him with that empty gaze and then his "good evening," I wanted to vomit. Cold chills came over me and nausea lasted for hours. I did my best to give him the benefit of the doubt, I prayed for him and prayed to be open to him. The answer to my prayer manifested in the realization that my desire to vomit was not without merit.

Now, this book is the most valuable ever written on this papacy. It ties together in one place most of what we already knew but fills in many gaps. In order to understand this Bergoglio, one needs to understand Juan Peron, because he has modelled himself on the Argentinian dictator.

The information is not secret, most of it is already readily available but it is pulled together and sequenced in a way that makes one see clearly the evil that has fallen upon his with not only the election of this man but the departure of Ratzinger.

I am now more convinced than ever, after a few points previously unknown to me, that Ratzinger was forced out of the papacy and that Bergoglio knew it would happen and knew he would benefit from it.

What is also crystal clear is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a lot of things, but a man serving Our Lord Jesus Christ he is not. No man filled with the love of Christ and the grace of the Holy Ghost would say or do that which he has done.

The Cardinals who continue to sit by and allow this man now to formulate public heresy in the official Acts of the Apostolic See will rue the day and be held accountable for their betrayal of Christ and His people.

 http://www.dictatorpope.com/

Conditor Alme Siderum

CREATOR of the stars of night,

Thy people's everlasting light,

Jesu, Redeemer, save us all,

and hear Thy servants when they call.

Thou, grieving that the ancient curse

should doom to death a universe,

hast found the medicine, full of grace,

to save and heal a ruined race.

Thou camest, the Bridegroom of the Bride,

as drew the world to evening tide,

proceeding from a virgin shrine,

the spotless Victim all divine.

At whose dread Name, majestic now,

all knees must bend, all hearts must bow;

and things celestial Thee shall own,

and things terrestrial Lord alone.

O Thou whose coming is with dread,

to judge and doom the quick and dead,

preserve us, while we dwell below,

from every insult of the foe.

To God the Father, God the Son,

and God the Spirit, Three in One,

laud, honour, might, and glory be

from age to age eternally. Amen.

Francis officially promulgates the heresy within Amoris Laetitia - Where are the Cardinals?

Perhaps you thought that Advent was only going to be videos of the real music of Advent as the secular world has already begun celebrating "money-mess," how can we ever use the word, Christmas for what they have done to the glorious feast of the Word of God becoming a little baby.

Alas, the world goes on and the horror which is Jorge Bergoglio must be made known.

As is being reported, the infamous letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires that their interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, -- that Holy Communion may be given to those living in adultery - divorced and civilly remarried with no Decree of Nullity that there was no prior marriage -- is the correct interpretation has now been published in the Act Apostoliicae Sedis, giving it official and potentially, "magisterial" status.

From OnePeterFive, we have these comments by Marco Tossatti:

[T]he “private” letter of Pope Francis to the Argentine bishops was published in the October 2016 edition of Acta Apostolicae Sedis, after they had issued directives for the application of chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia (the chapter with the famous footnotes on giving communion to the divorced and remarried). Directives which, as has been noted and emphasized here, are anything but clear.

The publication of this letter in the Acta is accompanied by a brief note from the Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, together with an official rescript from a papal audience in June 2017, announcing that the Pope himself wanted the two documents — the guidelines and the letter — published on the website of Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

The announcement can only serve to further fuel the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the controversial apostolic exhortation as well as the Pope’s way of doing things, which yet again appears to be a far cry from the clarity and straightforwardness that many of the faithful would expect [from the Holy Father]. He has given no response to the dubia Cardinals, no response to the letters, petitions and other initiatives written by scholars, theologians, and ordinary faithful people who have been confused by the deliberate ambiguity of the document. Yet, at the same time, he has given a veneer of officiality to one letter sent to one member of one bishops’ conference.

To what end? To obligate all to give religiosum obsequium [religious assent] to a magisterium expressed in oblique and ambiguous forms, or to respond without committing himself in a direct response which would express the mind of the Pope in an unequivocal manner to the doubtful and perplexed? One is given the feeling that the only thing this does is cause the simple believer annoyance with the Pope’s comportment, which may be defined as a “pretext” in the worst sense of that term.
 …
And further, if what we have learned from two different sources is true, this annoyance extends to the Vatican. A cardinal of great renown, a former diplomat, who has served an impressive career at the head of Congregations and in high offices in the Secretariat of State, is said to have reproved the Pope for his actions [as Pope], saying to him essentially, “We elected you to make reforms, not to smash everything.” News of this conversation — if it can be called a conversation — has spread through the Vatican, because it took place at a high decibel level, which carried through the fragile barrier of the doors and walls. The cardinal in question was one of those who supported the candidacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the conclave of 2013.

The debate will now begin as the Catholics with their heads in the sand and deny reality try to spin that it is only magisterial if he commands it be taught. Look, a letter from a pope, private correspondence leaked to the media and published months back on the Vatican's own website is now published in the Official Acts of the Apostolic Seat. That is magisterial. Did Bergoglio not say that he speaks every day and everything he says is "magisterial?"

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/12/pope-francis-promulgates-buenos-aires.html

Doubt no longer.

A pernicious and filthy heretic is sitting on the Chair of Peter, Is it up to the few remaining Catholics to call him out as a heretic? 

The Cardinals must now begin the formal process. He must be called out and warned to recant it, given time and it must be done again.

https://vericatholici.wordpress.com/2017/12/03/the-time-has-come-to-convene-an-imperfect-synod/

If he refuses, he must be formally declared a heretic and that in itself, causes him to lose the Chair of Peter because a heretic cannot be Pope!

Lo! He Comes With Clouds Descending

Rorate Caeli

Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain down the Just One.                           

1.  Be not angry, O Lord, and remember no longer our iniquity: 
     behold the city of the Holy One is become a desert: Sion is
     become a desert: Jerusalem is desolate: the house of thy 
     sanctification and of thy glory, where our fathers praised thee.
     (Refrain)

2.  We have sinned and are become as one that is unclean: and we 
     have all fallen as a leaf, and our iniquities like the wind have 
     carried us away: thou hast hidden thy face from us, and hast 
     crushed us in the hold of our iniquity.  (Refrain)

3.  Behold, O Lord, the affliction of thy people, and send forth Him 
     Who is to come: send forth the Lamb, the ruler of the earth, from 
     the Rock of the desert, to the mount of daughter Sion: that he 
     may take away the yoke of our captivity.  (Refrain)

4.  Be comforted, be comforted, my people: thy salvation cometh 
     quickly: why art thou consumed with grief: for sorrow hath 
     estranged thee: I will save thee: fear not, for I am the Lord thy 

Who was and is behind the Dictator who is Pope?

There is anticipation about the ebook that is taking Italy by storm, Il Papa Dittatore, to be published in English on Monday through Kindle. OnePeterFive has an advance copy and excerpts. This is one that many will have already read:

In late 2013, the archbishop of Westminster gave an interview to the Catholic Herald in which he admitted not only to campaigning at the Conclave, but to gaining Bergoglio’s assent to be their man. 

The article by Miguel Cullen in the September 12, 2013 edition of the Herald says, “The cardinal also disclosed that he had spoken to the future Pope as they left the Missa pro-Eligendo Romano Pontifice, the final Mass before the conclave began on March 12.”
 Murphy O’Connor said, “We talked a little bit. I told him he had my prayers and said, in Italian: ‘Be careful.’ I was hinting, and he realised and said: “Si – capisco” – yes, I understand. He was calm. He was aware that he was probably going to be a candidate going in. Did I know he was going to be Pope? No. There were other good candidates. But I knew he would be one of the leading ones.’” The admonition to Bergoglio to “be careful” certainly seems to imply that Murphy O’Connor – and Bergoglio – knew he was at least bending the rules.

This is supported again in the same article in the Herald where Murphy O’Connor is quoted saying, “All the cardinals had a meeting with him in the Hall of Benedictions, two days after his election. We all went up one by one. He greeted me very warmly. He said something like: ‘It’s your fault. What have you done to me?’”

In an interview with the Independent after the Conclave, Murphy O’Connor also hinted there was a particular programme laid before the 76 year-old Argentinian, that he was expected to accomplish in about four years. The English cardinal told journalist[3] and author Paul Vallely, “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things.” A fair enough comment after the fact, but this was the same phrase recorded by Andrea Tornielli in La Stampa in an article dated March 2, 2013, eleven days before Bergoglio’s election: “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things,’ whispers a cardinal and long-time friend of the archbishop of Buenos Aires.”

Bergoglio knew. In his caution to Nicholls, "be careful" and Nicholls' "Si – capisco," they both acknowledge the conspiracy to elect Bergoglio as Bishop of Rome and they, at least in theory, may have already excommunicated themselves according to the Law in force by John Paul II.

I repeat below my blog post giving more damning evidence of a conspiracy to elect Bergoglio and undertake a great change in the Church. Change that is not of God, but of man. Evil. Vile, Despicable. Heretical. 

It is of the Antichrist.

Thursday, 28 April 2016

Who was Cardinal McCarrick's friend and what was the role of Freemasonry in the election of Jorge Bergoglio?

Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, former Archbishop of Washington during a talk at Villanova University gave the following recollection of a conversation with an "influential" Roman during the period before the Conclave which elected Jorge Bergoglio as Bishop of Rome.

18:20 Just before we went into the general conversations when everybody can talk, a very interesting and influential Italian gentleman came to ask if he could come and see me, so I said “sure.”

He came to see me at the Seminary, at the American College where I was staying; and we sat down. He is a very brilliant man, a very influential man in Rome and we talked about a number of things. He had a favour to ask me when I get back to the United States, but then he asked,

“What about Bergoglio?”

I was surprised at the question, I said, “what about him.”

He said, “Does he have a chance?”

I said, “I don’t think so, because no one has mentioned his name, he hasn’t been in anybody’s mind, I don’t think it’s on anybody’s mind to vote for him.”

He said, “He could do it you know.”

I said, “What could he do?”

He said, “He could reform the Church, if we gave him five years, he could put us back on target. “

“Well, he’s 76.”

“Yeah, in five years, if he had five years. The Lord working through Bergoglio in five years could make the Church over again.”

I said, “That’s an interesting thing.”

“I know you’re his friend.”

“Well, I hope I’m his friend.”

He said, “Talk him up.”

That was the first that I heard from people that Bergoglio would be a possibility in this election.

(...)

I hope that the new, that the one who is elected Pope, will be someone who, if he is not himself a Latin American, would at least have a very strong interest in Latin America”. “Was that part of it? Who knows?  What is it my friend said? “Push Bergoglio”?  Did he say it to a lot of people? I don’t know.”

Consider this then.

Gustavo Raffi, Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy

"With the election of Pope Francis nothing will ever be the same again. With Pope Francis, nothing will be more as it was before. It is a clear choice of fraternity for a Church of dialogue, which is not contaminated by the logic and temptations of temporal power"

“A man of the poor far away from the Curia. Fraternity and the desire to dialogue were his first concrete words. Perhaps nothing in the Church will be as it was before. Our hope is that the pontificate of Francis, the Pope who 'comes from the end of the world' can mark the return to the Church-Word instead of the Church-Institution, promoting an open dialogue with the contemporary world, with believers and non-believers, following the springtime of Vatican II."

"The Jesuit who is close to the least ones of history," Raffi continues, "has the great opportunity to show the world the face of a Church that must recover the announcement of a new humanity, not the weight of an institution that closes itself off in defense of its own privileges. Bergoglio knows real life and will remember the lesson of one of his favorite theologians, Romano Guardini, for whom the truth of love cannot be stopped.

"The simple cross he wore on his white cassock," concludes the Grand Master of Palazzo Giustiniani, "lets us hope that a Church of the people will re-discover its capacity to dialogue with all men of good will and with Freemasonry, which, as the experience of Latin America teaches us, works for the good and progress of humanity, as shown by Bolivar, Allende and José Martí, to name only a few. This is the 'white smoke' that we expect from the Church of our times."  

Pope Francis on "dialogue"

"Dialogue, dialogue, dialogue!" This, he said, is the only way for individuals, families and societies to grow. He said fraternal relations between people and cooperation in building a more just society are not some vague utopia but the fruit of a concerted effort on the part of all, in service of the common good.

http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-my-advice-is-always-dialogue-dialogue

Pope to U.S. bishops: be shepherds in unity and dialogue

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/09/23/pope_to_us_bishops_be_shepherds_in_unity_and_dialogue/1174163

Pope at Mass: Those who do not dialogue disobey God

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/04/16/pope_at_mass_those_who_do_not_dialogue_disobey_god/1137174

Pope's general prayer intention for November is for dialogue

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/10/31/popes_general_prayer_intention_for_november_is_for_dialogue/1183565

Pope  Francis calls for solidarity and dialogue

http://americamagazine.org/issue/pope-francis-calls-solidarity-and-dialogue

Pope Francis Congressional Address: A Dialogue with Four Faces of America (13 times)

https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-address-to-us-congress/

Pope Francis to Japanese students: 'Dialogue is what brings peace'

http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-francis-japanese-students-dialogue-what-brings-peace

The whole video can be seen here.

IL PAPA DITTATORE

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/12/de-mattei-cardinals-burke-brandmuller.html

https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2017/12/01/new-book-about-francis-its-popcorn-time/

https://onepeterfive.com/the-dictator-pope-mysterious-new-book-looks-behind-the-mask-of-francis/

https://www.amazon.com/Papa-Dittatore-Italian-Marcantonio-Colonna-ebook/dp/B077M5ZH4M/ref=as_li_ss_tl?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1512079309&sr=1-2&&linkCode=sl1&tag=onep073-20&linkId=fa7c2cd9945c6adbc5771e02a0a7b5ca

Pope's hands are stuck together

Remember this video where the Bishop of Rome insulted the altar boy for holding his hands together?

I guess things are different in Burma.

Ontario Court rules against parental rights - help with legal defense fund needed!

Whatever Vox Cantoris readers can do to assist with funds would be greatly appreciated.

http://www.defendingparents.com/index.php?p=Donate

Ontario Court of Appeal rules against parental rights.

http://everydayforlifecanada.blogspot.ca/2017/11/ontario-court-of-appeal-rules-against.html

Ontario Court of Appeal rules against parental rights. First a little background. Dr. Steve Tourloukis has been in a legal battle for over five years trying to defend parental rights in Ontario and Canada. Back in 2010, as the McGinty Liberal government tried to pass the radical sex-education curriculum, Tourloukis simply asked his children's school board to be notified of classes that contradicted his Greek-Orthodox faith. He could then choose to keep them at home when instruction was inappropriate. The lessons of concern included topics such as same-sex marriage, homosexuality, abortion and transgenderism. The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, HWDSB, refused his request for accommodation. So in 2012, given no other choice he took the school board to court.

The case was first heard last year in Hamilton, Ontario where Justice Robert Reid of the Ontario Superior Court made a terrible ruling against Tourloukis. The judge basically concluded that parents don't have the final authority over what their children learn. The idea that state has the "right" to overrule parental rights because of competing Charter rights is unjust and completely wrong. An appeal was launched.

Today the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled against Steve Tourloukis. This is another unjust decision that serves to further undermine parental rights. Tourloukis claims that his parental rights and religious freedom were violated under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The judges disagreed. This is a bad decision for Canadian parents, regardless of whether they're believers or agnostics.

Three judges Peter Lauwers, Robert Sharpe and Bradley Miller in rejecting Tourloukis's appeal argue that he failed to prove that there was "any interference with or violation of his religious freedom." Judge Lauwers did admit that: "Dismissing this appeal does not, however, give s.169.1 the program a clean constitutional bill of health. Were the evidence that the s.169.1 program undermined a parent's ability to transmit religious faith, together with a refusal to provide accommodation, the result might be well different." But "Equity Education" is precisely about changing (indoctrinating) students thinking about human sexuality, the person and marriage. Surely the judges have enough proof in the government and school board documents that the policy undermines a parent's ability to pass on the faith or other views.

A reasonable person (not Canadian judges in these days of political correctness) would say that forcing "diversity education" on all public students is a direct infringement on a parent's ability to teach the Christian faith and family values. The judges, with the red herring lack of evidence position, sided with the government, the school board and the teachers' union. "Equity Education" trumps every other view, especially the Christian one.

Lauwers refers to section s.169.1 of Ontario's Education Act which under duties and powers allows schools boards to "(a) promote student achievement and well-being; (a.1) promote a positive school climate that is inclusive and accepting of all pupils, including pupils of any race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability; (a.2) promote the prevention of bullying." The court acknowledges the importance of "inclusivity" in creating a positive school climate devoid of bullying. However, the idea that faith is also a central aspect to student's success, health and emotional well being can be excluded.

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Lauwers, while asserting that the Education Act protects religious freedom and parental rights, then goes on to quote ministerial guidelines from the Ministry of Education regarding the importance of Equity Education:

The directive and policies are all designed to combat racism, religious intolerance and homophobia, and to ensure that all students feel welcomed and accepted in public schools.

Students are to be provided with learning materials that are bias-fee and that reflect the diversity of the school population, including diversity of sexual orientation and gender identity. A central feature of the Policy is that diversity, anti-discrimination and anti-homophobia are not taught in stand alone lessons but rather are fully integrated into the curriculum so that acceptance of difference becomes routine. For example, teaching materials for a lesson on mathematics might feature children with two mothers and two fathers. In this way, all courses are infused with equity principles and teachers are directed to ensure that all students-including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual and two-spirited, intersex, queer and questioning people - will, in the words of EIES (Equity and Inclusive Strategy), be 'engaged, included, and respected and ... see themselves reflected in their learning environment.

So Tourloukis, as do all parents in the province, has parental rights according to the court decision. However, given current government policies and without clear proof of harm, school boards are permitted to violate both parental rights and religious freedom because they have a mandate to not just promote "Equity Education," but to inculcate it as a "neutral" civic virtue. In short, transgendersim, secret school sex clubs and about a dozen sexual orientations are just fine for the court, but not the Christian faith and the right of parents and the freedom to say no to legislated "diversity education." Teaching about two mothers and two fathers in a mathematics class should not take precedence over parental rights.

The three justices know about the radical sexual indoctrination that children are being exposed today in schools. As specified in ministerial guidelines produced in court, students are being brainwashed across the curriculum, that is in every subject. This is clearly a contravention of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Education Act. Nevertheless, this is now legal because it's all part of "Equity Education."

This ruling was definitely a loss for the Hamilton father, and we won’t try to sugar coat that. The court refused to grant him any relief in the absence of “proof” that his children had been exposed to lessons which contradicted his religious beliefs, and that’s really bad for his family. Nonetheless, the ruling affirmed that parents do have primary authority over their children’s education and that the state’s authority is subordinate. Importantly, the ruling also laid out a path for a future legal challenge against the section 169 of the Education Act which is a sort of linchpin being used by the educrats to justify imposing their radical sexual agenda on other peoples’ children. Our thoughts and good wishes go out to Steve Tourloukis and his family. This must be another very difficult day. Our prayers and support are with them. And parents take note.

Readers, if you wish to help pay the legal cost and learn more about Steve Tourloukis' case, please go to the Parental Rights in Education Defense Fund.

https://voxcantor.blogspot.ca/2017/11/ontario-court-rules-against-parental.html

It's okay, you can have a cow

I'll let me faithful readers comment on this blasphemy and the bishop who permits it.

https://whatisupwiththesynod.com/index.php/2017/11/24/crucified-cow-in-a-belgian-catholic-church-not-fake-news/

Is it Real or is it a Memory?

In his latest "catechesis" on the liturgy at the Wednesday audience of papal adulation and positivism, the Bishop of Rome has stated that 

"The Mass is the memorial of the Paschal Mystery of Christ. In order to comprehend the value of Mass we must first understand the biblical meaning of the “memorial.” It is not only the memory of past events, but it makes them in a certain way present and actual. That is exactly how Israel understands its release from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the events of the Exodus are brought to the memory of the believers in order to conform their lives to them.

This must explain why this priest and Bishop of Rome doesn't genuflect at Mass before the Blessed Sacrament and Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ after the elevations of what were once bread and wine - he doesn't believe it is necessary because he doesn't believe it is God! He belives that it is a "memorial." 

If the "Paschal Mystery of Christ," is understood as his suffering, death, resurrection and ascension into heaven, then this is not what is taking place at the Mass. The Mass is the re-presentation, not the representation, nor the memorial, but the re-presentation of the blood atonement of the Lamb of God at Calvary on the Cross brought forward in time to us for us to partake. 

I recommend a visit to Louie Verrecchio's AKACatholic for a full and rich re-presentation of the actual truth, not the pathetic codswallop that we are getting from the Bishop of Rome who failed his 1st grade catechism class all those many years ago in Argentina. 

It's a loaf of bread I tell you, really it is.

Okay, I get it, it's a loaf of bread symbolizing feeding the poor, but, really?

Are people just this stupid? 

It's supposed to be St. Martin de Porres. What a disgusting insult. More saintly pictures can be found here.

Or is it a subliminal clue about the intent of the artists and the people who commissioned it?

http://nationalpost.com/news/catholic-school-covers-up-potentially-suggestive-statue-of-priest

New Zealand's "Dew" is not that of the Holy Spirit but of Bergoglio's "god of surprises"

How can the "Reform of the Reform" be anything but dead with the likes of John Dew in the leadership of the Church. 

Bergoglio appointed "Cardinal" John Dew, an alleged priest of Jesus Christ, has declared that due to his inspiration by Pope Francis a "creative initiative" will take place in the Nervous Disordered liturgy - the laity will read the Gospel.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-zealand-cardinal-makes-pope-francis-inspired-change-to-mass 

Gosh, just imagine the captions that one could come up with for the look on George's face over this prize.

Give it a go.

If he smoked, is he a Saint?

Pope Francis has banned smoking in Vatican City.

Will he next ban cocaine, child pornography and sodomite orgies?

And to think, Amoris Letitia was all about Haiti and North Korea

In an interview with the Italian publication La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana and translated by LifeSiteNews, Cardinal Müller affirms the legitimacy of the Dubia of the four Cardinals, two of whom are now deceased. He also goes on to state that there are "no exceptions," to the ban on Holy Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried. 

The issue that is jumped over here and in the two Synods is that of the Church's exercise within Marriage Tribunals of Decrees of Nullity. As one who was granted a Decree of Nullity which had numerous grounds aside from canonical irregularities, it always struck this writer as the misunderstood right of the Church and faithful in this whole discussion. Let us put aside the polemical debate of "abuse" of the process. If the parties are honest and tell the truth and the Church decrees nullity, then there is no sin, nor deception on the part of the faithful. If the Tribunal abused the process then it is the sin of those judges and the bishop. The fact is, if a Decree of Nullity is granted, it renders the fact that the first "marriage" was not valid, there was no marriage.

The process of "discernment" and "accompaniment" are the inherent issues of Eucharistic attack in Amoris Laetitia. Let the few, very few Catholics who care about practicing their faith seek decrees of nullity. Let the Church's age-old practice apply, streamlined if necessary. It is not a degrading process, nor is it overtly expensive, at least not from the experience of most.

But Müller's argument falls apart when he returns to the internal forum matter.  He confirms that Amoris Laetitia throws a battering ram through the traditional process of Decrees of Nullity for accompaniment, - accompaniment is the new annulment process. Why bother then for what is true and right, just make your own decision with a priest who is prepared to go along with it.

Of course, what we did not know, is that it is all for North Korea and Haiti.

And we thought selling ones soul for Wales was serious.

Cardinal Müller clarifies: There are ‘no exceptions’ to ban on Communion for ‘remarried’

Cascioli: And so we touch on the question of the indissolubility of marriage. In recent days, it’s been said that you are convinced there can be some exceptions. 

Cardinal Muller: No exceptions. This idea is false. I gave a clear theological explanation, which left no room for misunderstanding. I would like to bring peace to the situation and not fuel polemics between opposing groups. 

And so we need to be clear that when it comes to a legitimate sacramental marriage there can be no exceptions. The sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato. Just as there are no exceptions in the validity of baptism, or of the transubstantiation of the bread into the Body of Christ.” 

But in Buttiglione’s essay, he refers to several very particular situations in which there would be a venial sin, so that it should be possible to be absolved and to receive the sacraments while maintaining the state of the second union. 

In my introduction it is very clearly written that reconciliation is needed, and this is only possible if there is first contrition and a firm purpose not to commit the sin anymore. Certain people who address these issues do not understand that approaching the Sacrament of Reconciliation does not mean automatic absolution. There are essential elements without which reconciliation cannot be achieved. If there isn’t contrition there cannot be absolution and if there is no absolution, if one remains in the state of mortal sin, one cannot receive Communion. 

As for Buttiglione, he refers to situations where knowledge of the Catholic faith is a problem. These are cases of unconscious Christians, who are baptized but unbelieving, who may have gotten married in Church to please their grandmother, but without a real awareness. Here it becomes a problem when, after many years, they return to the faith and then question the marriage. There are many such cases. Benedict XVI also looked at the issue. So what’s to be done? In this sense we can say with the Pope that discernment is needed, but this does not mean that one can be granted access to the sacraments without the conditions mentioned above. The issue here is not about the indissolubility of sacramental marriage, but about the validity of many marriages that aren’t really valid. 

But in your essay you also refer to cases of people who convert or return to the faith after already having entered a second union, and regarding the sacraments you talk about a decision in the internal forum. What do you mean? 

While in Europe things are clear enough at least theoretically, in many countries there are many difficult situations to judge. In Latin America, for example, there are many marriages that are not celebrated according to the canonical form. There are couples who live together but one doesn’t know if there is an actual marriage consent. I was in Haiti recently and the situation there is disastrous; everyone is called a spouse. They live together but they aren’t formally married either in church or civilly. When some mature, they start going to church and then you have to determine who the true husband or wife is. And here it’s important for the person to be honest and say sincerely with whom they have expressed true consent, because it is the consent that makes a marriage, not only the canonical form. In any case, in order to be admitted to the sacraments, the parish priest or bishop must clarify the situation in cooperation with the freedom of the faithful. But there are also situations that are overturned. 

Can you say more? 

There are particular circumstances, for example under regimes that persecute the Church, where it isn’t possible to be married canonically. Let’s take the example of North Korea: the few Catholics who are present there still have the right to marry, and here a marriage is possible only through consent. But if in time something happens and the two separate, and they want to remarry, then everything depends on the internal forum, on their honesty in acknowledging if there was consent or not, and they have to express that to the priest or to the new husband or wife. 

This is where conscience comes into play. 

Yes, but conscience understood properly, not like certain journalists explain it who water down the truth. We are talking about a right conscience, one that cannot say “I don’t have to respect God’s law.” Conscience does not free us from God’s law but gives us the guidance to fulfill it. 

However, in your introduction to Buttiglione’s book, you shy away from casuistry and seem especially concerned with offering several clear criteria for understanding Amoris Laetitia so as to avoid what you explicitly call “heretical interpretations.” 

Exactly. Unfortunately, there are individual bishops and whole episcopal conferences that are proposing interpretations that contradict the previous Magisterium, admitting to the sacraments persons who persist in objective situations of grave sin. But this is not the criterion for applying Amoris Laetitia. Pope Francis himself spoke of a Thomist apostolic exhortation. And so it is right to read it in light of St. Thomas, and on admission to the Eucharist, St. Thomas is clear dogmatically and also has a pastoral sensitivity for individuals.