Recent posts

#1

General News and Discussion / Re: Trump Opposes Federal Abor...

Last post by Bonaventure - Today at 05:15:28 PM

oh more bad news for the Cult of Trump



Melania is releasing a book and in it she defends the right to abortion.

Also, imagine if some New Church Presbyter or "Governing Spirit" pointy hat gave "communion" to a New Churcher who spouted this?

#2

General News and Discussion / Former/Future First Lady: Impe...

Last post by Bonaventure - Today at 05:13:12 PM

It is imperative to guarantee that women have autonomy in deciding their preference of having children, based on their own convictions, free from any intervention or pressure from the government.

Why should anyone other than the woman herself have the power to determine what she does with her own body? A woman's fundamental right of individual liberty, to her own life, grants her the authority to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes.

"Restricting a woman's right to choose whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is the same as denying her control over her own body. I have carried this belief with me throughout my entire adult life.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/02/melania-trump-memoir-defends-abortion-rights

#3

General News and Discussion / Re: Trump Opposes Federal Abor...

Last post by Bonaventure - Today at 05:12:14 PM

Yep, time to bury the bullshit that she's some Catholic quietly praying the Rosary.

Imagine McCain's wife, Romney's wife, saying this shit, and Catholics defending it.

Yeah, I won't be voting for these people.

#4

General News and Discussion / Re: Trump Opposes Federal Abor...

Last post by diaduit - Today at 05:04:13 PM

oh more bad news for the Cult of Trump



Melania is releasing a book and in it she defends the right to abortion.

#5

General News and Discussion / Re: Vance-Walz debate.

Last post by Bonaventure - Today at 04:56:38 PM

Au contraire, those of us who are voting against the Communist cabal are doing so as a last resort while holding our noses.

Well, I'm glad to hear it. The Jewish cabal will still run things, even if the communist wing loses.

[Suffice it to say for now, wherever one finds a scholar, a cleric, or a church promoting the Jewish, Zionist, Talmudist cause, know for certain that it's an operation of evil acting in service to the Synagogue of Satan.]

#6

General Catholic Discussion / Why is EWTN telling Zionist li...

Last post by Michael Wilson - Today at 04:51:30 PM

Louis Verrecchio debunks ESPN's anti "Hitler's Pope" take on Pius XII by touting him as "Zionist Pope" instead

https://akacatholic.com/why-is-ewtn-telling-zionist-lies/

Why is EWTN telling Zionist lies?
Louie, October 2, 2024   

In my reading and research for an upcoming article on the Talmudic coup widely known as Vatican Council II, I came across an EWTN republication of a "Zenit Daily Dispatch" entitled, Pius XII Favored a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.

Having written previously about Pope Pius XII's attitude toward the Zionist takeover of Palestine, the headline alone indicated that the article to follow is but a shameless exercise in Judeo propaganda.

The question that immediately came to mind, however, was why. Why is EWTN telling Zionist lies?

For all intents and purposes, the question is rhetorical insofar as the answer, at least according to my understanding, is multifaceted and obvious. First and foremost, as indicated in the opening paragraph above, the conciliar church to which EWTN belongs is the fruit of Talmudic conquest, the Vatican presently serving as one of the Synagogue's most treasured occupied territories.

Secondly, the network is – as reported by investigative journalist Randy Engel – part of Opus Dei's covert media empire, one that includes National Catholic Register, LifeSite News, Our Sunday Visitor, Catholic Canada, and Catholic News Agency (CNA) to name but a few. Zenit, based on its sympathies for both Opus Dei and Zionism, gives every indication of belonging to the same club.

Furthermore, it has long been alleged that the family roots of Opus Dei's Founder, Josemaria Escriva, were Jewish, which may explain why the Prelature's principles and procedures are so imbued with both Masonry (a Jewish creation) and Talmudism. As reported by Mrs. Engel in an article published on akaCatholic in April of the this year:

    As an interesting sidenote on the subject of the divinizing of work, according to Rabbi Angel Kreiman, the former international Vice President of the World Council of Synagogues and an Opus cooperator, "Many of Josemaria Escriva's concepts call to mind the Talmudic tradition and reveal his profound knowledge of the Jewish world." Kreiman claimed that the Talmudic interpretation of work was a central teaching of Escriva.

In fact, as also reported by Mrs. Engel, Escriva plainly admitted that Opus Dei has had Jewish cooperators in the U.S. who, since 1948, have been providing financial support for the Work. (Ana Sastre Gallego, Tiempo de Camino, Rialp [Opus Dei Publishers], Madrid, Spain, 1989, p. 610)

These things being so, it comes as little surprise that EWTN is pro-actively carrying water for those whom, according to St. Paul, "Both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men." (1 Thessalonians 2:15)

What might come as a surprise is just how blatantly the mouthpieces for militant Zionism lie given the fact that their leader, although the father of lies, is also "more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth." (Gal. 3:1)

Now, that's not to say that Devilish subterfuge is missing from their propaganda altogether.

For instance, the subtitle to the EWTN / Zenit Daily Dispatch reads: Foundation Continues to Unearth Testimony That Pius Was in No Way 'Hitler's Pope.'

In this, the hook is cast, which once set, will allow these agents of the Master Deceiver to reel in naïve Catholics who mistakenly believe that what follows is a defense of the much maligned Pope Pius XII, when in fact it is slander in disguise.

The foundation to which the sub-headline refers is the Pave the Way Foundation, the Mission Statement of which provides the following details:

    Pave the Way Foundation was co-founded by Meredith and Gary Krupp in 2002. Gary Krupp is uniquely suited to build bridges between religions. Gary is the only Jewish man in history in 2000 to be knighted by St. Pope John Paul II. In 2007 Gary was raised in rank by Pope Benedict XVI and on June 18, 2018, Pope Francis invested both Gary and Meredith Krupp to the highest rank of Knight and Dame Grand Cross of the Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory.

Imagine, a Jew, whose religious identity rests firmly upon opposition to Jesus Christ, being so honored! In the Papal Bull that established the Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great, Pope Gregory XVI states:

    This, indeed, is the reason for undertaking this plan, this is the main condition of the service itself, which will be most satisfied by constant faith towards God and the Prince, as it is written on the opposite side of the Cross. (Pro Deo et Principe)

Recall the words of Our Lord, "He that despises me, despises Him that sent me." (Luke 10:16)

How can anyone of good will and moderate intelligence fail to see that only a counterfeit pope, at the head of a counterfeit church, would ever even consider bestowing the honor of Knight and Dame Grand Cross of the Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory on persons who, far from exhibiting "constant faith towards God," reject Jesus Christ as well as Him who sent Him?

As for the EWTN / Zenit article, it is loaded with outright lies and unsupported claims. For example:

    Pave the Way Foundation learned of the existence of one very interesting document, still unpublished, which may show Pius XII's attitude about a Jewish homeland.   

Elsewhere, the article claims:

    Pius XII wrote by hand, "The Jews need a land of their own." This document is in the closed section of the Vatican Library and will not be available until the archives are fully open.

Get that? An unpublished document might... An unavailable document reveals...

Evidently, this is what EWTN considers Unearthed Testimony.

For the sake of argument, even if it is ultimately shown that Cardinal Pacelli wrote that the "Jews need a land of their own," it does not necessarily follow that he was in support of a Jewish state in Palestine. In fact, as we shall see momentarily, once elevated to the papacy, his Nuncio in the Unites States would clarify the Holy See's firm, unambiguous opposition to this very plan.

The article continues:

    A statement from Pave the Way further noted: On November 15, 1917, Nuncio Pacelli acted on a urgent request for his intervention from the Jewish community of Switzerland from what was feared would be an Ottoman Massacre of Jews of Palestine. Pacelli asked the German government, who was allied with the Ottoman Turks, for protection for the Jews of Palestine. Pacelli was successful in gaining promised protection of the Jews from the German government "even with the use of arms."

What Pave the Way (and EWTN / Zenit) failed to point out is that the Balfour Declaration, which stated Britain's intention to help the Zionists establish a Jewish home in Palestine, was revealed just thirteen days before November 15, 1917.

At that point in time, the "Jews of Palestine" were dead set against the idea of Jewish settlers flooding into the Holy Land with the intention of establishing a "Hebrew home." So too were the Christians and Muslims who had been living peacefully with them in Palestine for decades (see HERE for citations). Pave the Way, either in ignorance or by deliberate subterfuge, is attempting to give readers the impression that by calling for the protection of Jews who may be exposed to massacre, the future Pius XII was giving a wink and a nod to Zionism.

Those interested in the truth of the matter need not speculate as to what an unpublished, unavailable document might reveal about the Holy Father's attitude toward Zionism: Pope Pius XII promulgated no less than three Encyclicals on Palestine, each of which are referenced in the article, A Catholic View of Israel and the Jews, and none of which indicate support for the Zionist land grab.

A concise rendering of the Holy See's posture toward the Zionist cause during the reign of Pope Pius XII is available via a letter written by the Apostolic Delegate to the United States, Archbishop Cicognani, addressed to U.S. Special Envoy to the Vatican, Ambassador Myron Taylor, dated June 22, 1943.

In it, Cicognani leaves no room for confusion on the matter: The Holy See had been opposed to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, most notably from the very moment that the Balfour Declaration was revealed. He writes:

    Since 1917, when the question [of the "Hebrew Home" in Palestine] first arose, the Holy See has made known its attitude on the point and has repeated it in several formal documents.

Contrast this with Pave the Way Foundation's attempt to suggest (without a shred of actual evidence) that Cardinal Pacelli, in 1917, was sympathetic toward the notion of a "Hebrew Home" in Palestine.

Cardinal Cicognani went on to summarize "the position of the Holy See in this matter," stating:

    If the greater part of Palestine is given to the Jewish people, this would be a severe blow to the religious attachment of Catholics to this land. To have the Jewish people in the majority would be to interfere with the peaceful exercise of these rights in the Holy Land already vested in Catholics.

    It is true that at one time Palestine was inhabited by the Hebrew Race, but there is no axiom in history to substantiate the necessity of a people returning to a country they left nineteen centuries before.

    If a "Hebrew Home" is desired, it would not be too difficult to find a more fitting territory than Palestine. With an increase in the Jewish population there, grave new, international problems would arise.

While one might be tempted to imagine that Ciconagni's prediction of international problems was prophetic, given the long history of Talmudists causing grave havoc in nation after nation, it is more the case that he was playing the role of Captain Obvious.

More recently (August 27, 2024), EWTN promoted the work of André Villeneuve and his article, The Biblical Roots of Catholic Zionism, (Homiletic & Pastoral Review, July 26, 2024)

SPOILER ALERT: There are no Biblical roots that support the oxymoronic notion of "Catholic Zionism." In a future post, I will provide a refutation of Villeneuve's article (very low hanging fruit, to be sure).

Suffice it to say for now, wherever one finds a scholar, a cleric, or a church promoting the Jewish, Zionist, Talmudist cause, know for certain that it's an operation of evil acting in service to the Synagogue of Satan.

#7

General News and Discussion / Re: Vance-Walz debate.

Last post by TradGranny - Today at 04:46:41 PM

Bonaventure says:
My criticism is mainly for his rabid fanboys who explain away and "4D chess" every bad decision he makes as some part of plan, whilst insisting he is "our guy."
 
My response
Not since Q-anon 1.0 (which I vigorously exposed as a CIA psyop and for which I took a look of flack) have I seen anyone here on SD who is anything like what you describe.

Au contraire, those of us who are voting against the Communist cabal are doing so as a last resort while holding our noses.

#8

General News and Discussion / Re: Vance-Walz debate.

Last post by KreKre - Today at 04:12:53 PM

"Because of his stance on Israel, and his watered down stance on abortion, he won't get my vote."

That would make a reasonable argument if he wasn't running against someone who is infinitely worse than him in literally every aspect (especially on abortion), and who would likely bring, if elected, a nuclear world war.

It wouldn't matter in my state anyway, which he lost by millions of votes.

In that case, it really doesn't matter. But if you were in a state where it's going to be a close race, it would be absolute insanity not to vote for him, despite everything bad you can (rightfully) say about him.

My criticism is mainly for his rabid fanboys who explain away and "4D chess" every bad decision he makes as some part of plan, whilst insisting he is "our guy."

That was never my argument. It is probably some part of God's plan, but I don't think Trump is aware of it, let alone being "our guy". Far from it. He is, by objective standards, a moderate leftist from NY, with a strong bias in favor of Israel. Nothing a traditionalist Catholic should find attractive, if not for the terrifying prospect of the alternative.

And just for the record, before someone accuses me again of "not being a Catholic" for encouraging people to participate in a democratic process, even though I consider democracy, as a social order, to be a watered down version of communism, and thus immoral and contrary to God's law. I am a monarchist (and I think every Catholic ought to be a monarchist). Unfortunately for me, monarchy is not really an option at this time, and I understand that failure to participate in democracy will not be the end of democracy, but, on the contrary, it just amounts to handing the forces of evil an easy victory.

#9

General News and Discussion / Re: Vance-Walz debate.

Last post by Bonaventure - Today at 04:12:00 PM

Your criticism only makes sense if you ignore the fact that there will be a president in the White House in couple of months.

Yes, Trump is a bad man, but you should vote for him regardless, because if he doesn't win, we will see a new face of evil that has never been seen before. They were literally killing babies at their convention, while a bishop was blessing them in the name of some unspecified "deity" (at least he had the decency not to mention our Lord)! But please, do tell me how Trump is bad, like I don't know that already from every source on the planet.

My criticism has never been that he is just as bad as Harris, that he isn't capable doing some good, and certainly that Kamala is more desirable. My criticism is mainly for his rabid fanboys who explain away and "4D chess" every bad decision he makes as some part of plan, whilst insisting he is "our guy."

I've never been a Never Trumper. I voted for him twice. I don't think I'll vote for him this time. It wouldn't matter in my state anyway, which he lost by millions of votes.

Perhaps if I lived in Arizona, Georgia, or Pennsylvania, I'd act differently.

The Americans who have decided that they will not vote for Trump because of his pro-death stance are dangerously misguided, probably by the devil.

Imagine labelling yourself as a Catholic and posting this.

Trump is placed on a higher pedestal than Bergoglio.

Not by me, I don't even like him, let alone place him on a pedestal. However, I do, correctly, see him as the only alternative to a much greater disaster.

Good.

#10

General News and Discussion / Re: Vance-Walz debate.

Last post by Bonaventure - Today at 04:08:18 PM

I suppose your definition of being a Catholic is to sit idly and allow a much greater evil unfold, so that you can enjoy in the smug feeling of being principled while the world around you burns.

How do you know that that is his idea, or what he actually does? The same can be said for those who may decide not to vote for Trump. Such as my confessor, an 87 year old man with a doctorate in sacred theology from a pontifical university. "Because of his stance on Israel, and his watered down stance on abortion, he won't get my vote."

This man has done more for the Church and tradistan in one year than most of us here in a decade, maybe even our whole lives.

That's a rather bold assumption.