LONDON FASHION WEEK FEATURES SATANIC ‘BLACK MASS’ FASHION SHOW AT ST. ANDREW’S CATHOLIC CHURCH IN LONDON BTW I do not endorse all of the comments made in the video. If interested, please look at the images displayed and use your discernment when it comes to the comments.
Very true, One of the saints said something to the effect that we are where God has placed us. I shouldn't complain, I'm sure there is more for my own good derived from living here than there would be elsewhere. Nothing is an accident, it is all Divine Providence as Pope St. John Paul II used to say.
. That's a Church of England (Anglican) Church. Needless to say, the Daily Mail didn't correct their error in the follow-up report here when they found a retired Anglican Bishop to complain about the show being hosted in a church: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4913650/Bishop-s-blast-satanic-London-Fashion-Week-show.html It is worrying that the show is run by students. They say that it's a charity fundraiser. Perhaps they also have an eye on their career prospects being helped by the publicity which says as much about the fashion industry as it does about the students.
Hello Dolours, (Kevin Landry replying to yours of Sept. 16th) and please pardon my delay in replying as I have only just today (Sept. 25th) noticed your comment and question, and for which I thank you: And yes, your very apt scatter gun comparison applies to what PF is now increasingly employing if one also looks closely at what Jesus has taught us: PF is aware of a common area of serious neglect made by many of his predecessors, many of whom were holy men but who for centuries-on-end until only recent decades failed to counsel the laity to daily study the Bible; and so knowing that most Catholics are Scripturally illiterate and that may tend to forget what the Gospel was about the minute they walk out of the sanctuary, PF is taking advantage of this dearth of the Word in the lives of many Catholic and is making statements and composing documents which do not closely follow Jesus' teachings. My strongest impression it that PF may well be a FP (false pope or prophet): Jesus said "You know a tree by its fruit" or words to that effect, which is a guideline that has been forgotten and which needs to be restored to Catholic awareness and living and integrated within and through Christendom which I anticipate Elijah will restore. The first bad fruit I noticed PF produce (and I may have missed others earlier on) was his statement admonishing Catholics "Not to reproduce like rabbits", which was nothing less than cold-hearted insensitive kick in the groin and a punch in the womb to Catholic parents who have large families: Thee have been very consistent with God's command "Go forth and multiply" or words to that effect, to say little of their obedience to ecclesial and Magisterial teaching authority in refusing to employ contraceptives. Another serious matter relates to his use of the phrase "unity in diversity" in a document he wrote not too long ago which contained some obscure meanings etc. which, like many aspects of the Documents of Vatican II, are left wide open to all sorts of speculation and interpretation about what they mean and how they are to be implemented. There are various good documents therein as well which advocate Biblical literacy among Catholics but concerning which extremely little has been achieved on the scale that has been possible and necessary over the past 60 years since those documents were compiled and published. continued next comment
The term "unity in diversity" - which has something of a nice and even authoritative ring to it - has long been used by New Agers who have with others employed God's otherwise sacred symbol of the rainbow to serve un-Godly ends. Their meaning for "unity in-diversity" entails the inclusion of everyone in a nebulous unity the ultimate ends and purposes of which are anyone's guess, similar to what has happened to the U.S. Constitution which, lacking the criteria of Jesus' definitive commands and terms, allows that the words "life, liberty and the pursuit if happiness" and the means thereto as well as the names "God" and "Creator" and so also "united" can be interpreted any which way and very loose, i.e. subjected to any non-believing relativist's guess or opinion of what something means, and/or that it may mean nothing at all. Non-Christian promoters of such an obscurely ended "unity" employ that phrase very much the same way and to serve the same deceptive ends of Freemasons who have used the word "brotherhood": However what many have failed to recognize is that they did this to draw the support and membership of those who have been oppressed by what we must recognize as many kings and clergy who served only the kingdom of man completely apart from the vision of God's Word, will, truth and laws of love: (Consider for example the "Catholic" clergy who betrayed St. Joan of Arc: She was betrayed not only by the French bishop who persecuted her but by the English clergy who murderously and maliciously railroaded her to her death at the stake: They served not the King of Heaven Whom Joan served but the English king so as to salve with her burnt blood his crushed ego in the face of the defeats of his army by French forces led by Joan. Their betrayal of Joan I believe was not far less in seriousness than Judas' betrayal of Christ. Joan was a New Testament era Esther (of the Old Testament) and a paradigmatic example of womanly heroism such as in the story of Judith.) The New Agers of course reject Christians from their concept of unity owing to their failure to "believe and be baptized": There can be no true "unity in diversity" (that is, no genuine and universally beneficial "unity" or oneness which Jesus prayed would characterize those who comprised His Church) if the diversity of people does not share at least the commonality of Jesus' teaching that those who do not believe in Him (who have heard of Him and His teachings), will be condemned, or in less obscured terms, they will be damned. (However we need to make the distinction between those who have been taught or who have heard of Jesus and His Gospel from those billions who have not in any manner been evangelized. Actually there are two or three NT verses which seem to indicate there may not be ultimate damnation for those who never heard of Jesus etc. I am referring to the verse wherein Jesus teaches that of those who are given much (either in terms of spiritual understanding or material means), such as those who have at least heard of Christ but rejected Him, will be judged much more harshly, but those who have been given little will only receive "a few stripes" (Luke 12:47, 48) a metaphor for afterlife "whipping" or chastisement such as in purgatory. (2nd Corinthians 3:11-17) Continued next comment
Actually I seem to recall that PF made something of a similar argument for God being merciful to all, but he did not employ Biblical Scripture in his articulation: This sadly makes his version of God's mercy less credible or reliable in that it left the door open to many fanciful ideas that people may have who believe there is a value in unity in diversity apart from any really unitive criteria where Christ was or is concerned. The other verse... it seems to have slipped my mind. However, there is also a possibility that just as Jesus visited the prisoners in Sheol when He descended to the dead and there made known their salvation by means of His death if they believe in Him then and there, the Lord may well also visit such hereafter who never heard of Him before, and He might well give them the opportunity to simply believe in Him. I am only speculating and yet I have an intuitive sense that these "options" for belief and mercy may be valid for those who died totally ignorant of the Gospel etc. Jesus may be open to being merciful to those billions whom we Catholics and others professing to believe in Jesus never got around to evangelizing in the present life. So PF has been employing such contrivances in a subtle and deceptive manner beginning with his adoption of the name "Francis", since St. Francis' greatest priority was the salvation of souls: But salvation cannot be realized by others if one who claims to be a Christian charged by Jesus to make the Gospel known etc. fails to anticipate that the souls of people of other religions need to be saved through conversion, i.e. proselytizing. Indeed, I noticed in one article that he had made a very negative comment about "proselytizing", that is, he does not believe in trying to draw others into the fold of the Church, which is absurdly and totally out of line to say the least in terms of what Jesus has taught us the the New Testament. The only actually commonality of those who reject Christ as their commonality is that they are united as the worldly wicked. (I must state that I saw that comment only in passing another article on the internet quoting him in that regard; and there are many "purely" anti-Catholic voices claiming he did this or that bad thing, and many of the voices are not truly Catholic but are likely those of Freemasons within and without the Church doing the devil's work of trying to stir up confusion, fear (via contrived false prophecies), discouragement and/or division: They are also trying to nurture severe prejudice against what good there is to the Catholic faith in the minds of those outside the Church, although they are despite themselves actually depicting the true colors of PF as he gradually and increasingly makes them evident.) More recently PF has been targeted by a certain clergyman for something that, basically, could be be serious doctrinal error allowing or accommodating concubinage: I'm sorry but I'm actually not being much more distinct than PF has been in terms of specifics... Let me pause a moment and see if I can find the URL in my files.... OK, I was not able to find the URL location but here is a small snippet of the article which will say enough: "Fr Aidan Nichols said that Pope Francis's teaching had led to an 'extremely grave' situation A prominent theologian has proposed reforming canon law to allow a pope’s doctrinal errors to be established. Fr Aidan Nichols, a prolific author who has lectured at Oxford and Cambridge as well as the Angelicum in Rome, said that Pope Francis’s exhortation Amoris Laetitia had led to an “extremely grave” situation." So as PF increasingly manifests increasingly corrupt fruit there will have to be some sort of serious consequence to rise out of it: However, unless he has some sort of deceptive strategy, he has stated that he doesn't anticipate being in the office of the papacy for more than a few more years, so it is possible he will be replaced by hopefully someone who is much more qualified for the role. Dolorous, it is a good idea to put your faith deeply into Jesus by studying His words in the New Testament, or to even study something I wrote called The Formatrix Criterion Paradigm, or just The Criterion which consists of seven creation stewardship-oriented teaching commands which Jesus gave us: Implicit to these are seven different resources (the mind, knowledge, free will, suffering [of the body or mind], money [or material resources in which it can be invested], civil liberty and one's influential role): If you wish, kindly refer to my web site whereon I have listed my 12 current books (within each of which The Criterion is incorporated) comprising the Formatrix Curriculum: The site is evangelart.com Which I think is all you need to place in the browser.) When you get there and see the yellow menorah scroll down just a bit and you will see instructions and the URLs for the 12 books at my indie publisher. You can choose (or highlight) a title and and cut/ paste it into your browser and you will be led to my Create Space E-store: There you will see the description of each book and which I suggest to serve as the formative moral renorming study materials for those who wish to comprise the collective Great Monarch or the collective Elijah as means to prepare for the appearance of either one: (Please pardon my excessively long sentences... I'm doing the best I can and I really would like to be able to give "pithy" responses to others, a term which the late Mother Angelica used in relation to things she had written concerning the faith.) Thank you for reading this Dolorous: I hope I provided something which will serve as a decent response to your questions. Consider at least that men are frail creatures and we should not put all our spiritual faith in any one such "basket of clay," myself included.
Divine Mercy, you are indeed best off spiritually and so eternally where you can see clearly what is going on beyond the view of those who are so laid back they are lying down, as the saying goes: That is the grace of a true vision of how things are which grace we receive when we encounter hardships as a result of living or walking by faith and not by the sight of everybody smiling and everything going along so comfortably and ... and you know: Many people and all too many "Catholics" remain in and maintain for themselves their comfort zones created by great abundances of convenience and easy-going living: They tend to be the very least receptive to the prophets who try to communicate to them that they are really complacent and not really consistently living within Jesus' teachings on how to be His disciples and why to live, such as toward manifesting our faith through works of real charity and not simply works done to impress others with the image of goodness we think we have of ourselves in their and our own eyes. These types tend to be the lukewarm even though they might do many things that appear to be pious but which are not truly worthy to be considered fruits of piety. They are so incredulous of disaster that they are just the ones who see that the tide has suddenly gone way way out and they hope in a jeep to see where it went only to face a gigantic tsunomic wave headed at them. They do the right or most lower-case self entertining things but for the wrong reasons or motives, i.e. for fame or fortune or admiration or as sensation as ends in themselves, that is, as contemporary pagan idol hybrids. Doing the right things for the wrong motivation can be an extremely and eternally risky way to "practice" being a Christian without really being disposed to God. I call this "sindrome" the way of M.A.S.S.I.C.ists, which word is an acronym spelled out as Mutual Adoration Society of Scripturally Illiterate Catholics. This is not a concept in any way deriding Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament which I value and honor and which I used to attend late at night when I had a car; but as it says, it is a mutual anticipation among many Churchmen (alongside non-believers) who allow themselves to deceived by abundances of material means and comfort zones (consisting also of societal exposure to those who have "made it") but which zones they refuse to expand in order to enclose those who remain in need and who seem eternally deprived and who need comforting and the complementing of their resources so that they can express their faith through their talents best in service to God and the eternally common good of all. (Pleases pardon the long-winded sentence.) Many Catholics who are not students of the Bible are still truly the faith-filled who truly PRAY the Rosary and take some saint or other in addition to Jesus and Our Lady as archetypal examples of good motivation and behavior and their lives are steered within the few Scriptural guidelines they do actually know, but these are few and far between. But from my own experience I am convinced that if people were to study the Bible and daily picture themselves facing various real life scenarios of being challenged to live their faith they will come to realize that many people around them who think of themselves as faithful churchgoers could prove to be the first to take a sub-dermal identification microchip in their hands or forehead so as to maintain physical existence but at the cost of their eternal souls. In the event that some day they drive or walk to the nearest Home Security managed Walmart after some great catastrophe and enter the big lobby areas and find that they can go no further unless they submit to getting "chipped", they will give in and just do it because all they can think of is maintaining food and nice new clothing and a full stomach, and they will trade this for their eternal souls. They will be so out of touch and away from God's Word and its warnings and teaching commands guiding us from spiritual as well as physical dangers that they will embrace anything that comes along which assures them of any "peace and safety" status they can maintain. They needn't be literally signing anything in blood, but they will be dehumanizing themselves by submitting to becoming part of a machine, and so, becoming something that such a machine can perpetually use so long as the human within it doesn't destroy itself in despair when it discovers it was meant to be human but that it has settled for being a cog in a wheel.
So what is the deal with Pope Francis and kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament? Does he kneel sometimes but not others? Has he ever kneeled before Our Lord in the Eucharist? If not, this would be a huge, huge sign. Has some explanation been given for this behavior, like knee problems? That would certainly be a valid reason not to kneel, but to bow instead. God doesn't demand the impossible or desire something that could physically injure us.
He does have flare ups of sciatica, and if this was only occasional that would explain this behavior. However there are numerous photos of him kneeling to wash the feet of Muslim women on Holy Thursday, at ecumenical events to receive the blessing of Protestant ministers, at shrines to Protestant martyrs, and during ecumenical events with rabbis. So we KNOW he can and does kneel when it suits his agenda. But he categorically does NOT genuflect at the Consecration or for Eucharistic Adoration. Draw your own conclusions.
Let us all be careful here. It is one thing to be concerned about what is happening in the Church. It is another to be uncharitable the the Holy Father or worse view the Pope as an enemy or to hate him. That is dangerous to our souls. I looked into this issue a while back. Apparently the Pope has sciatica which flares up. Anyone who has suffered a sciatic attack knows how terribly painful this can be. We should in charity accept this as a valid reason that sometimes he does not kneel. There are in fact photos of Pope Francis kneeling in front of the Tabernacle and the exposed Holy Eucharist in a Monstrance. There may be more, but a quick google search turned these up. View attachment 6845 View attachment 6846 View attachment 6847 View attachment 6848 View attachment 6849
I’ve followed this story since the beginning of this pontificate, since a Catholic commentator mentioned in a blog that he does not kneel at the Consecration, so I’m not being careless or “uncharitable” in this observation. Photos of this pope kneeling or genuflecting in regards to the Eucharistic presence were rare if not non-existent until a mainstream Catholic commentator brought up the subject in an essay about 18 months ago. The initial photo evidence advanced to refute this essay was actually photoshopped; I found the two photos from which it was formed. These other photos have gradually emerged since then, I think largely in response to the scandal of a pope refusing to kneel at Consecration or Adoration when photos abound of him kneeling to wash Muslim women’s feet and receive blessings from Protestant ministers and kneeling at a shrine to Anglican African martyrs.
Well I still stick with my statement about being as charitable as possible especially when it comes to the Pope. Even if he never kneels during the Consecration isn't it possible that when he is moving around during a Mass that his sciatica bothers him much more than when he can simply kneel at adoration and stay in one position? Isn't that at least a possibility? If it is even a possibility then I say we should give him the benefit of the doubt. I have had sciatica and the slightest movement in the wrong way can send shockwaves through you to the point of falling down. You are of course free to do as you like, but I think for our own spiritual health we should not try to pick on every little thing the Pope does. The more one does this the more they will view him as an enemy. I have seen so many countless sites that pick on more and more things the Pope does to the point that he can do nothing right at all. Even when he does or says something good they twist it into some kind of mockery. Eventually this can degenerate into some of the most disgusting and uncharitable things I have ever seen written. This is dangerous. Psychologically it is natural to do this, but spiritually it is dangerous. I am not saying this is what you were doing. I just think for the mental, physical, and spiritual health of all here we should moderate what we say about the Pope.
