Go online to Seraphic Mass Association They offer Gregorian Masses I had a set offered for my brother when he died Missionary priests offer the Masses It’s also my go-to for other Mass intentions
I get the impression that Ezdras was converted to the ideology of Catholic Spring advocates during his stay in the US. I have two questions for Ezdras: 1. Do you believe that marriage can only be between one man and one woman? 2. Do you believe that abortion is an intrinsic evil - a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance?
for the sake of the argument, Yes and Yes. I refuse to answer more personal questions, or assumptions about me said in public. What absurd way to persuade anyone in your righteousness. You are not appointed judge to anyone. Instead of rejecting clear cut facts of NASA and other US agencies, you'd better correct your attitude towards the Holy Father who tirelessly advocates exactly that, to be changed the energy source before it becomes too late. America is polluter N1 surpassing China, and America Must do most efforts of all to stop the Climate change. Sadly, the US president doesn't seem moved. He might however react differently when all leaders gather on Sept 23. If not...well America may not survive the climate change, or said otherwise the chastisement. The pope is very very mild with the american ultraconservatives who prove times and again it is they who are off course. If they want their own catholic church, why don't they do it then? It is just absurd to continue discussion with stone minds, and I am absolutely sorry that I entered into that discussion in first place that now I cannot so easily stop.
I admire someone who holds a position and argues a case when they are in a minority position. It shows conviction and True Grit. I am just a little curious would you hold any reservations at all about anything whatsoever that is occurring during the present Pontificate? Any at all whatsoever? Also would you consider Pope Francis a saint? You come from such a different place from me in this. I strive to understand. I strive to understand. I accept you are a good and sincere Catholic in this. I do not claim to hold a monopoly on the truth in such matters. I my be totally wrong.
You are begging the question. You are asking with the assumption that the events you predict are definitely going to happen. Nobody can know the future. You claim that scientific progress is the way forward, while simultaneously displaying panic over events that, if they happen, can only have been caused by science-based technology according to your own arguments. However, all knowledge, as we have been warned, is a high-risk property. It is not unreasonable to presume that God created the world with the intention of having the maximum number of entrants into Heaven. From our limited human perspective, it is not unreasonable to assume that in recent centuries we have been doing great in this respect, with our scientific discoveries leading to a much greater world population of human souls. However, in the long run, we might be completely wrong. For all we know, steady as we go, as in a continued medieval civilisation, might ultimately have produced more souls before the end of the world. Under the influence of science and technology, combined with the ingrained weaknesses of man, we might well have constructed an early doom for the human race (Christ Himself raised the possibility). Maybe you are right about global warming and for all we know it might be irreversible and inevitably prematurely destroy us all. We still have the power to destroy the world several times over with nuclear weapons, although as Krushchev once pointed out, once is enough. The truth is that we don't know the future, indeed God created the world with that uncertainty, from the previously mentioned quantum level upwards. All He gave us to deal with whatever contingencies we might face were moral commandments. Whatever we do, we must do so morally. He has revealed absolutely nothing about global warming, real or imagined. If the global elites succeed in the ending of the usage of all fossil fuels and in the ending of factory farming, which is their proclaimed policy, I guarantee you they will create a catastrophe orders of magnitude greater than any they might avert. That is not even to mention the murderous eugenic evils they wish to implement. Without the use of fossil fuels, how can crops be grown and delivered to the cities? Billions would starve. Perhaps this is the real purpose? Many influential organisations involved with climate change openly wish for a human population diminished to a quarter of a billion. [Many environmentalists openly declare mankind as a parasite requiring complete eradication (apparently excluding themselves)]. How can this be achieved without the murder of unprecedented numbers of people? Even if we knew for a certainty that the world is in dire peril from global warming, no Catholic would be justified in becoming complicit with the methodologies being offered as solutions. The onset of Armageddon would be morally preferable to such consequentialist actions. One may not do evil in order to achieve good. On such principles, yes, I possess a 'stone mind'.
I agree with much of what you said about the history of the human development and the possible future lines, or in some imaginary scenario "what if..." And we don't know the answer. God knows it. I do not agree with those who use the climate change or other purposes, to justify population decline agendas. We are on trial as humanity. Yes the moral commandments are our basis, but how many people confess them? Do we have even 1 bln people, regardless of the names, who accept them in their hearts? For the rest, it may well be the desire and efforts to preserve life and therefore love enough to be saved as some minimum of the minimum requirement known only to God. As the prophet said, Joel 2:32 "And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved; And also in Luke 12:48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
Thanks Padraig, that is good to hear Pope Francis is not the saint John Paul II. Whether he will do something bad, as many in this forum expect or think he already did, I don't think he has the ill will for that, and also the time for that. He is at the end of his pontificate anyway. Frankly, I expected much more of him when he was elected, as the possible Petrus Romanus. But instead of judging him, maybe he is exactly the shepherd we need and also deserve, that God provided us with in this time. I cannot talk on those thorny questions as married priests, deaconesses etc. And in fact the pope is not their biggest advocate, but other bishops and cardinals. In terms of climate change, I had the expectation that in Laudato Si he will already announce that new energy source. Because it is sci fi for many, while not sci fi for the highly specialized scientists as I showed above. He didn't, despit ehe spent 200 pages on the topic. He preferred to persuade politicians instead of saying the things himself, and that took years. (and why the pope should do it, well someone must do it and why not to be the highest moral authority on earth?) And now we seem to be at the end of that long process, without any longer time. Maybe we will see developments we do not imagine now. I don't know what will follow, or how pope Francis will react, I just hope he follows his own motto and name of St Francis. Btw if cardinal Bergoglio would have refused the election, as he refused in 2005 conclave, the next in the line would be cardinal Maradiaga, because it was decided to be Latin American and the Brazilian cardinal didn't gather votes. So maybe indeed pope Francis is the best one the 1 bln Church could agree with or deserves to have. May God guide him!
He didn’t “refuse” the election in 2005. The St. Gellen mafia simply didn’t canvas enough support for him yet. I.e., he LOST the election in 2005, despite the excommunicable offense of the St. Gallen mafia lobbying for him. You’ve bought the NWO climate change fairy tale hook, line and sinker. It is simply and only a method of socialist control of the masses. There is NO scientific validity to it whatsoever. I’m a doctor and I know how to research in depth and discern agenda driven policized “science” from real hard core science. You need to learn this too. Such credulous gullibility is sad among devout Catholics. More credulous gullibility. We ain’t buying it.
According to the published articles after 2005 election, in the final vote when the two favorite cardinals Ratzinger and Bergoglio clearly led, Bergoglio gave body signs to the cardinals not to elect him. I don't know what you are talking about mafia etc. Maybe some conspiracy theory, that I don't want to enter into. The elections are fully canonical with overwhelming majority, and we have the Vicar of Christ pope Francis Bergoglio, as long as he is alive or until he resigns by his public expressed will, as pope Benedict did.
Brian, no disrespect, but one doesn't nee to be a person with a doctorate degree to figure the global warming hoax. Just look at whose is supporting it and that is all the clue one needs to know it is a hoax. Globalists, modern day journalists, the democrat abortionist party, socialists, communists, gay mafia and pure leftists are the godless organizations who are pushing this fake agenda hoax of "manmade global warming" and every other nut job agenda that Obama nearly completed and Hillary would have, had she gotten president. It is a full out scam, just like the witch hunt that top leaders of the CIA, FBI, DOJ tried to pull on Trump. One can say with complete certainty that the globalists, who are puppets for the Freemasons, have been fighting with all their might everything that is counter God. Global Warming was just one of the many lies/hoaxes they perpetrated on the free world for ultimate control and big $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Anyone who by now does not see this is a dupe for the system.
Adding to my previous posts. The only Other way than using the already given to us means (that I already explained in detail, including science sources), would be direct interventions from celestial powers. Understand, angelic extraterrestrials to land in Medjugorje, Fatima and other places and start their plan of action from there. But that would be an End times event, isn't it? Unless we are in the final end times, it is unlikely a direct manifestation and intervention of the celestial choirs. And because there are enough things to conclude we are not in that final time, then I must conclude for myself, that God will allow the sinful and imperfect people to continue their history, with the tools, science, devices etc. that He already gave us, allowed us to develop. Including the secret or semi-secret research and devices, that I already talked about.
No, not at all! But he tried to imply we were the simplistic gullible ones. I was just pointing out that just because we disagree with him, that does not make us anti-science rednecks.
The activities of the St. Gellen mafia are self admitted, well known and well documented facts. Your ignorance of this well known group of dissenters conspiring to elect Bergoglio does not make it a conspiracy theory.
If you don't mind to read the rest of my post. I said I think that God will allow the humanity more time of its own history before the intervention. Thus giving way to already known scientific principles and devices, as well as our free development. As of your dull joke, technically the angels are extra - terrestrial, to be precise. Some of them also use devices, as in Ezekiel 1 and Elijah chariot. So is God living not on earth. Jesus taught us to say, "Our Father, who are in Heaven" and not "who are on earth". Again, I think we will have development different from the above.
It has nothing to do with what I think. And what you think, btw. Bergoglio is the pope. Not someone else. What I read for several days, is mostly conspiracy how the things we see and feel are not the ones we see and feel, but something else...How when my skin burns from the scorching sun, it actually doesn't burn because it is some socialist hoax, or one world government hoax, or you name it. Sorry that I write that as a comment to your post, you entered the discussion late, when I am about to leave it. I don't care anymore. Let everyone believe whatever he believes. Time is finished anyway. Our Lady in Medjugorje said that, time is over. All my reasoning is NOT to convince a traditionalist he should not be traditionalist, but to DECODE what follows NEXT. Padraig, thanks for your responses! I value the other intelligent opinions when they differ from mine too.
No one on this forum has said otherwise. Despite him being our Pope, we are obliged to oppose his errors. Fr. Mark Goring on the laity's obligation to question the Pope, from the CCC
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/02/whistle-blower-scientist-exposes-shoddy-climate-science-noaa/ A Top Climate Scientist Blows the Whistle on Shoddy Climate Science Julie KellyFebruary 7, 2017 9:00 AM (NASA) The NOAA ‘corrected’ data they didn’t like and — surprise — didn’t archive the evidence. A former top scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has stepped forward to expose the malfeasance behind a key climate report issued just before the United Nations’ Climate Change Conference in 2015. The whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, led NOAA’s climate-data records program for ten years and reveals stunning allegations in a lengthy Daily Mail exposé posted February 4. His main charge is that the federal government’s top agency in charge of climate science published a flawed but widely accepted study that was meant to disprove the hiatus in global warming. Bates accuses the study’s lead author, NOAA official Tom Karl, of using unverified data sets, ignoring mandatory agency procedures, and failing to archive evidence — all in a “blatant attempt to intensify the impact” of the paper in advance of the conference. The study, “Possible Artifacts of Data Biases in the Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus,” was published in Science magazine in June 2015, just a few months before world leaders gathered in Paris to hammer out a costly global pact on climate-change mitigation. It refuted evidence from other climate-research groups that showed a major slowdown in rising global temperatures from 1998 to 2012; the slowdown was a sticky little fact that threatened to undermine the very raison d’être of the conference. Climate activists were sweating over the acknowledgement by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2013 that “the rate of warming over the past 15 years . . . is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951.” The IPCC walked back its own predictions from 2007 that short-term temperature would rise between 1 and 3 degrees Celsius. The IPCC in 2013 “concluded that the global surface temperature ‘has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years [1998 to 2012] than over the past 30 to 60 years’ and the rise in global temperatures was ‘estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012.’” So Karl, the former head of the NOAA office that produces climate data, worked with a team of scientists to challenge the IPCC findings and prove that the hiatus did not exist. He claimed to have developed a way to raise sea-temperature readings that had been collected by buoys: He would adjust them by using higher temperature readings of sea water collected by ships. “In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data,” said one of the study’s co-authors. It was therefore necessary, the NOAA scientists held, to “correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis.” Now get ready to be shocked. This dubious methodology concluded that the warming trend for 2000 to 2014 was exactly the same as it was for 1950 to 1999: “There is no discernable (statistical or otherwise) decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century.” The study then concluded that the IPCC’s statement about a slower rise in global temperature “is no longer valid.” (It takes a lot of chutzpah to out-climate the international climateers.) The study was cheered by climate activists and their media sympathizers around the world, but Bates says the study had major problems. “They had good data from buoys,” he told the Daily Mail. “And they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships [a natural warming source]. You never change good data to agree with the bad, but that’s what they did so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.” Bates also said the study ignored satellite data. And in the most Obama-esque move, Bates said that the computer used to process the data “suffered a complete failure” and that none of the data had been archived or made available as required by NOAA rules, which means that Karl’s paper cannot be replicated or independently verified. According to Bates, the NOAA is drafting a new version of the report that will reverse the flaws in Karl’s report. For now, Science magazine is standing by its publication of Karl’s study, claiming it underwent “rigorous peer review” and dismissing as “baseless and without merit” any notion that the study was rushed to coincide with the Paris conference. (The Cato Institute has knocked Science for its biased global warming coverage, but that’s a story for another day.) None of the data had been archived or made available as required by NOAA rules, which means that Karl’s paper cannot be replicated or independently verified. In a separate post on the blog Climate Etc., Bates laments that government scientists routinely fail to save their work: “The most critical issue in archival of climate data is actually scientists who are unwilling to formally archive and document their data.” Bates notes that the very scientists who have failed to save data are now suddenly concerned that the Trump administration might destroy climate data. Bates is not fighting this fight alone. Representative Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, has been asking NOAA for all communications related to Karl’s report, but the agency has refused to cooperate. In October 2015, Smith’s committee issued subpoenas for the documents; NOAA released some technical papers but not the requested correspondence, arguing that taxpayer-paid scientists don’t have to disclose their emails with other taxpayer-paid scientists about a taxpayer-paid study. In a statement Sunday, Smith applauded Bates’s courage for speaking out: “Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve been saying all along — that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.” With a sympathetic administration in power, Smith should now be able to get to the bottom of how the Karl study was conducted and who else helped move it along. And despite the personal attacks on his character and credibility, Bates’s actions could have long-lasting repercussions, not the least of which could be to encourage others to speak out about what’s been going on at federal scientific agencies. It’s long overdue.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/9767/9-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-hoax-aaron-bandler 9 Things You Need To Know About The Climate Change Hoax Aaron BandlerOctober 7, 2016 With Hurricane Matthew wreaking havoc, the Left is predictably seizing the storm as a means of promoting their radical global warming agenda. Climate change has not been a major theme this election cycle, but Hillary Clinton is now trying to turn it into one, with the help of global warming guru Al Gore. Unfortunately for the climate change alarmists, despite all the celebrity endorsements and high-minded rhetoric, the facts keep getting in the way. Here are nine things you need to know about the climate change hoax. 1. The Climategate scandal proved that key data involving man-made climate change was manipulated. In 2009, the public discovered emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit exposing how scientists who have been enormously influential in promoting the concept of man-made climate change actually attempted to cook the books to obtain results that served their narrative that the planet was heating at a dangerous trend due to higher levels of carbon dioxide. One of these scientists included Dr. James Hansen, a former NASA climatologist who is known by some as the "father" or "grandfather" of the climate change myth, as it was his "Model Zero" that first introduced the concept of global warming. Hansen, Philip Jones, Michael Mann, et al. were all involved in trying "to lower past temperatures and to 'adjust' recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming," according to the leaked emails. The emails also revealed how this cabal of scientists would discuss various ways to stonewall the public from seeing the "background data on which their findings and temperature records were based," even going as far as deleting significant amounts of data. They would engage in efforts to smear "any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work." 2. The Climategate scandal was given new life in 2011, with the release of new emails. The new round of leaked emails at the time provided more teeth to the revelations of 2009. Here are a couple of egregious emails from Jones found, via Forbes: “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,” writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email. “Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” An email written by Mann showed that he tried to get "an investigative journalist to investigate and expose" a climate skeptic scientist named Steven McIntyre. 3. NASA may have also been involved in manipulating data to serve the narrative of man-made climate change. The Washington Times reported in 2009: "Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler." Since this occurred at around the same time as the Climategate scandal, Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit to get NASA to release their relevant data sets on this issue and was able to expose emails from NASA that revealed a disturbing fact: the agency admitted "that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit," reported Fox News in 2010 – meaning NASA climate change data sets were less accurate than the organization embattled with manipulating data sets. A 2015 Washington Times editorial also highlighted another example of NASA cooking the books: Paul Homewood, a skeptical researcher, found that in Paraguay, temperature readings for the 20th century at all nine weather stations supervised by NASA had been “adjusted” to transform a cooling trend into a warming trend. His analysis of readings in the Arctic found that rapid warming between 1920 and 1950 — before human activity could have increased the production of greenhouse gases — were adjusted downward so that the 1980s and ‘90s temperatures would stand out as warmer. 4. NASA also declared 2014 to be the hottest year on record – despite the fact that they were only 38 percent sure about it. The latter fact was left out of their press release at the time, as well as the fact that 2014 was supposedly hotter than the previous hottest year, 2010, by 0.02C – well within the margin of error of 0.1C that scientists tend to adhere by. The Washington Post attempted to spin in favor of NASA by arguing that NASA simply said that 2014 was the most likely hottest year on record – but their press release unequivocally stated that "2014 was the warmest year on record" and leaving out the aforementioned key facts makes such a declaration seem misleading, as it's clearly not a guarantee that 2014 was even likely the hottest year on record. 5. There is no evidence that the Earth has been warming in recent years. As The Daily Caller highlights, a recent peer-reviewed study concluded that when accounting for El Ninos and La Ninas – which are the "the fluctuations in temperature between the ocean and atmosphere in the east-central Equatorial Pacific" that "occur on average every two to seven years," according to NOAA – there has been a flat-line temperature trend since 1997. In fact, the study found that the El Ninos and La Ninas disproved the existence of the Tropical Hot Spot, which the Environmental Protection Agency claimed as evidence of carbon dioxide supposedly warming the atmosphere. 6. The left likes to claim that 97 percent of scientists support the concept of man-made climate change. It's likely closer to 43 percent. The 97 percent myth stems from a variety of flawed studies, as the Daily Wire explained here. On the other hand, the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency conducted a survey in 2015 that found that only 43 percent of scientists believe in man-made climate change, which is far from a consensus. 7. The amount of Arctic sea ice has become quite high. Data from the Danish Meteorological Institute shows that the "average [ice] extent over the month [of September] is one of the highest in the last decade," according to Paul Homewood. This runs directly counter to the predictions of the climate change models. Read the rest at the link
