OT: Catholic Church (was: bumper stickers for Hunter)
Jynndi
>From: bi...@netrver.com (Stan Birch)
>'Suppose Christ had a thing or two to say about love and forgiveness;
>but He had FAR more to say about judgement, hell-fire and damnation!
FAR MORE love than damnation.
>If you'd read a little further, and perhaps in your case, a whole lot
>further; you'd find that for the Roman Catholic Church, there is no
>forgiveness or second chance. . . only certain eternal judgement.
BS!
>'Course, as always: I not only challenge you, but invite you to disprove
>ANYTHING I've said.
How about your proving it. Rev. is a matter of interpretation or the raving of
an Old man....prove otherwise.
Digger, AKA Grumps (old and crusty)
hometown.aol.com/jynndi/myhomepage/profile.html
All errors; spilling, grimatical, ore tieping intenshunal.
Atilla THE HUN
Just a Passer By
DREADED HEATHEN
Reply if you want
Tom
Attilla played guard for Notre Dame. Got a masters in theology.
Tom
Vigilance Committee
Stan Birch wrote:
>
> > Wasn't Attilla the Hun educated in Rome by the HRCC?
> >Just a Passer By
>
> Nope. In spite of the mountains of total BS promulgated by this
> particular cult; seven mountains, in fact, there was no such entity as
> the Roman Catholic Church in Attila's time.
>
> There was no such entity until A.D. 1054.
This is your belief.
>
> During Attila's time, the concept that the Church of Rome should have
> ANY authority beyond the environs of Rome, was a totally foreign concept
> at that time. Rome's jurisdiction had already been defined by the
> Council of Nicea (A.D. 325). The authority of the Church of Rome did not
> extend beyond the immediate area of Rome itself. At that time the Church
> of Rome was merely one of MANY churches whose authority did not extend
> beyond the immediate environs of Rome itself. This is unmistakably
> confirmed by the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325:
Who did all those churches report to?
>
> Canon VI
>
> "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that
> the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all of these, since
> the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise, in
> Antioch and the other provinces, let the churches retain their
> privileges. . . .
>
> Then, almost a millennium later, in 1054, a number of enterprising con
> artists figured, that if they could collect a sufficient number of
> totally un-educated gullible dipsticks like LZ, there was a fortune to
> be gleaned. And indeed they have done very well!
Not to mention all the other churches and TV preachers. Which gullible
morons are funding them?
>
> From it's inception, the Roman Catholic Church has been run by a bunch
> of Satanists, homosexual pedophiles, fornicators, adulterers, murderers,
> et al. The list is endless. Their have never been any social norms
> beneath the ethics of Romanists.
Stan thinks the ethics of those joining the KKK are vastly superior.
>
> The fact that present-day leaders of the Church of Rome are little more
> than a bunch of predatory, homosexual kiddie-diddlers, is not exactly
> news to most of us.
Exactly what percentage of priests have been found involved in this
criminal activity? In a discussion last week, the debaters agreed that
statistics for other churches are similar.
>
> The qualifications for a good Romanist are:
>
> 1. An IQ not exceeding 85;
I bet mine is higher than yours.
>
> 2. An education not exceeding grade one;
5 years of post high school not counting various military schools.
>
> 3. Totally resistant to any concept the involves reason;
Your rants prove you qualify.
>
> 4. A completely "docile" disposition predisposed to gobbling up BS
> without question;
>
That would make me a liberal.
> 5. A complete ignorance of theology.
That would be by choice.
>
> 6. Susceptibility to brainwashing.
Sorry, I'm a skeptic.
>
> 'Suppose victims of this insidious system like LZ come to mind.
All your defining traits missed me.
>
> He thinks I hate him. But I don't.
I prefer that you do. I wouldn't even want to be distantly related to
you. In fact most humans are not.
Nothing could be further from the
> truth. I feel sorry for him. He's merely one more victim of one of the
> most insidious long-running con jobs ever perpetrated upon the civilized
> world.
>
In your besotted opinion, which is not highly valued.
> On the other hand, I full-well recognize that LZ would be the candidate
> of choice to light the fire while I was tied to a stake. In doing so, he
> would be honoured as a true son of Romanism, i.e. a true son of Satan
> Hisself.
I'd have to be really hungry Stan.
Your punishment is already taking place. To carry around that much hate
is not healthy. I'd really hate to waste disk space on that kind of
hate material. You can call it theology or "knowledge" but it is just
ammo for hate speech. The fact that you enjoy spouting it shows how
sick it has already made you. Get well soon.
LZ
Guess Who?
- do he?
I expect he's a big fan of Ian Paisley, since old Stan has memorized
several of Rev. Paisley's rants by heart................
I'll bet a few of them old fashioned "Inquisitors" could make him
whistle a different tune about his views on........ Well, never mind!
I like Catholics, and wish there were more of
them............................................
Don
Jynndi
Stan,
Glad to see you are getting rid of all that pent up anger. In time you may even
be able to climb out of the gutter and join the human race.
Vigilance Committee
Hurry up your pace though. We're all getting older.
LZ
Vigilance Committee
Stan Birch wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Stan Birch wrote:
> >>
> >> > Wasn't Attilla the Hun educated in Rome by the HRCC?
> >> >Just a Passer By
> >>
> >> Nope. In spite of the mountains of total BS promulgated by this
> >> particular cult; seven mountains, in fact, there was no such entity as
> >> the Roman Catholic Church in Attila's time.
> >>
> >> There was no such entity until A.D. 1054.
> >
> >On Sun, 05 May 2002 Vigilance Committee <lin...@att.net> wrote:
> >This is your belief.
>
> Well, yeh . . . that's simply history. There is a world of difference
> between CATHOLIC and ROMAN CATHOLIC.
> The two terms are in fact the antithesis of one another. Here's the
> Grolier Ency. take on it:
>
> The word catholic comes from the Greek word Katholikos, meaning
> "universal." It was first used by Ignatius of Antioch (d. about
> AD 107) to distinguish the entire body of Christians from
> individual congregations. Subsequently, the word distinguished
> true believers from false believers. After the break (1054)
> between the Western church and the Eastern church, it was used to
> identify the Western church; the Eastern church was called
> orthodox. At the time of the Reformation in the 16th century, the
> Church of Rome claimed the word catholic as its title over the
> Protestant or Reformed churches. In England, catholic was
> retained to describe the reformed, national church, although a
> distinction was made between "Roman" Catholics and members of the
> Church of England. The term Anglo-Catholic was coined at the
> time of the Oxford Movement in the 19th century. In popular
> usage, Catholic commonly designates a Christian affiliated with
> the Church of Rome. --Grolier Ency.
>
> The Roman Catholic Church was formed when the Leo IX Bishop of the
> Church of Rome declared that he was the Universal Bishop of the whole
> Church. Of course to effect his agenda, he had to depose the
> Patriarchs of the other churches; so he zapped Michael Cerularious,
> Patriarch of Constantinople with excommunication. Michael zapped him
> right back. His edict of was summarily ignored, and so was the Church
> of Rome; so the Church of Rome started it's own church, which it called
> the Roman Catholic Church.
>
> In the decade that led up to this event starts, with Benedict IX being
> chased out of Rome by a mob in 1045. He fled for protection to his
> uncle Count Gregory whose army controlled the hill country of
> Tusculum. So John, Bishop of the Sabine Hills moves in and proclaims
> himself Pope under the name Sylvester III. Well his little adventure
> came to an end when Benedict stormed the Vatican with an army, and
> seized the throne once more.
>
> Then Benedict met this young chick, and decided to devote his life to
> copulation. So as was the custom in the Church of Rome he sold the
> office of Pope for 1,500 lbs. of gold to one of his buddies, Giovanni
> Gratiano. That would be about $10,000,000 in today's money. So
> in May 1045, Giovanni became pope Gregory VI.
>
> Well after a couple years Benedict got bored with his little whore, so
> in 1047, came back to Rome and declared himself pope again. Sylvester
> III did the same thing. So now there were three popes, each ruling
> whatever portion of Rome their armies were able to control. All three
> claimed to be the one and only vicar of Christ and possesor of the
> keys of heaven by virtue of apostolic succession, and all that drivel.
>
> It didn't take long before the citizens of Rome got rather weary
> of this nonsense, so they called on Emperor Henry III to get rid of
> the whole lot of these characters. It looked like a good opportunity
> for Henry, so he marched in with army and got rid of all three popes,
> and auctioned off the lucrative office to his buddy Clement II. Not to
> be dispensed with that easily, as soon as the Imperial army left Rome,
> Benedict was back in there with his army and set himself up as pope
> again. This lasted eight months until Henry returned and chased him out
> for good.
>
> Then Emperor Henry installed his ambitious buddy Leo IX. Leo,
> discontent with being a small frog in a big pond, only having
> jurisdiction over Rome, figured he could take over the entire church,
> and declared himself to have primacy over all of the other churches.
> Upon hearing this nonsense, the Patriarch of Constantinople, amidst
> gales of laughter, sent Leo a message, telling him where he could shove
> it. After zapping each other with excommunication, Leo and his gang
> separated from the catholic church, and formed a new church of their
> own: the Roman Catholic Church!
>
> >> During Attila's time, the concept that the Church of Rome should have
> >> ANY authority beyond the environs of Rome, was a totally foreign concept
> >> at that time. Rome's jurisdiction had already been defined by the
> >> Council of Nicea (A.D. 325). The authority of the Church of Rome did not
> >> extend beyond the immediate area of Rome itself. At that time the Church
> >> of Rome was merely one of MANY churches whose authority did not extend
> >> beyond the immediate environs of Rome itself. This is unmistakably
> >> confirmed by the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325:
> >>
> >>
> >> Canon VI
> >>
> >> "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that
> >> the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all of these, since
> >> the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise, in
> >> Antioch and the other provinces, let the churches retain their
> >> privileges. . . .
> >>
> >On Sun, 05 May 2002 Vigilance Committee <lin...@att.net> wrote:
> >Who did all those churches report to?
>
> They didn't report to anyone. At that time there were five apostolic
> sees: Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Rome.
>
> If you're wondering if they might have reported to the Bishop of Rome .
> . . definitely not! The Bishop of Rome only had jurisdiction in ten
> provinces surrounding Rome extending the "the hundredth milestone."
>
> Like, they had no idea that the pope was infallible, else they wouldn't
> have convened a council of over 300 bishops to decide upon matters
> relating to faith. They could have saved a lot of time and effort by
> just asking the pope. Of the eight ecumenical councils held during the
> first thousand years, no pope of Rome ever attended, and with the
> exception of one council, wasn't even invited. The popes didn't have any
> status in those days.
>
> >> From it's inception, the Roman Catholic Church has been run by a bunch
> >> of Satanists, homosexual pedophiles, fornicators, adulterers, murderers,
> >> et al. The list is endless. Their have never been any social norms
> >> beneath the ethics of Romanists.
> >
> >Stan thinks the ethics of those joining the KKK are vastly superior.
>
> You might be right.
Is that an admission of membership? Since hate is their principle
motivating factor, it would seem you instantly qualify.
>
> >> The fact that present-day leaders of the Church of Rome are little more
> >> than a bunch of predatory, homosexual kiddie-diddlers, is not exactly
> >> news to most of us.
> >
> >Exactly what percentage of priests have been found involved in this
> >criminal activity? In a discussion last week, the debaters agreed that
> >statistics for other churches are similar.
>
> I have no idea how many are involved. If other churches have the same
> stats, then they are either better at covering their tracks, or simply
> not newsworthy. Anyway, in other churches, the clergy have their own
> wives and family . . . . a prerequisite for the clergy according to the
> Apostle Paul.
Many pedophiles are married you ignoramus. Catholic-bashing has been
going on for years, just as anti-Semitism has. With the current
scandal, those living under rocks (like you) feel safe coming out and
spouting your pent up venom.
>
> The primary argument against "celibacy," is that it doesn't work; and
> is attributed as the root cause of aberrant behaviour amongst those who
> so confined.
Only by the totally ignorant. A very high percentage of the criminals
were homosexuals, although that fact has been largely ignored. They put
themselves in positions where they can prey on helpless victims. If
they weren't priests they would become scoutmasters, school teachers,
camp counselors or psychiatrists.
Keep your tirades coming. I'm sure psychologists will be using you as
textbook material.
LZ
Jynndi
>I've NEVER said I "hated" the Catholic Church. 'Course I haven't said
>much about the "catholic" church, although I had a thing or two to say
>about the "Roman Catholic;"
OK, then you merely hate the "so-called" Roman Catholic Church. That is
evident from your posts, also your insulting comments of those who profess to
be RCs.
Get your hate out on the NG. where no one gets hurt. It's better than burning
churches, temples, and people as some of your temprament have done. How do you
sleep with such hatred in your "soul" ?
Vigilance Committee
Stan Birch wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 06 May 2002 Vigilance Committee <lin...@att.net> wrote:
> >> The primary argument against "celibacy," is that it doesn't work; and
> >> is attributed as the root cause of aberrant behaviour amongst those who
> >> so confined.
> >
> >Only by the totally ignorant. A very high percentage of the criminals
> >were homosexuals, although that fact has been largely ignored.
>
> No . . . that hasn't been ignored. You asked about "criminals;" and
> homosexuality doesn't fit into that particular pigeon hole, so I didn't
> address it.
In the case of the pedophile priests they are one and the same.
It's pretty much common knowledge that over the last decade,
> some 70% of new recruits to the priesthood are homosexuals. While homos
> tend to embrace the men-with-boys profile; certainly an ethic accepted
> and endorsed by the Boston diocese; stats are hard to come by.
"Common knowledge" by whom? It is certainly news to me.
>
> I remember full well, that when the institutional rape of orphans by
> homosexual pedophile priests, was investigated, it was revealed that
> homosexual pedophiles were actively recruited for the priesthood, by
> dangling carrots like orphange-duty as an inducement.
>
I'm sure you have a police report as proof of that statement or was it
just a newspaper article written by one of your KKK friends?
> >They put
> >themselves in positions where they can prey on helpless victims. If
> >they weren't priests they would become scoutmasters, school teachers,
> >camp counselors or psychiatrists.
>
> I am certainly cognizant of the efforts by the homosexual lobby to be
> granted the "right" to be scout leaders, In that endeavour, the
> homosexual lobby donated over three million dollars to the Clinton
> campaign. Talking about a tower of virtue . . . ! If I recall
> correctly, Clinton managed to have a bill passed that prohibited the use
> of Federal lands by scouting organizations that did not accept homos as
> scouting leaders. :-( That's pretty sick . . . but so was Clinton and
> his Democrat supporters. Nevertheless the fight goes on . . predatory
> pedophile homos seeking the right to unrestricted access to our
> kids/grandkids. :-( Dunno how you feel about that, but my progeny
> aren't for sale.
My parents and the nuns who were my teachers for the first 7 grades
taught me right from wrong. If some priest or any other adult had tried
anything with me he would have received a kick in the shins and I would
have been off and running. Older bullies that gave me a hard time only
did so once. After that they lived in fear that I would catch them in
the open when I was carrying my trusty sling-shot.
>
> >Keep your tirades coming.
>
> Do you really figure I need encouragement?
>
> > I'm sure psychologists will be using you as textbook material.
>
> They're already doing that! <har!!> My most wondrous summa cum laude
> daugher-in-law, in the midst of her doctoral studies in Clinical and
> Forensic Psychology, never fails to avail herself of the opportunity to
> picking at me by interrogating me endlessly in the most personal manner.
>
> She never tells me if I've passed the test. But when, as she has a
> propensity to do, throws her arms around me and exclaims: "I love you
> Dad!;" I really don't care a whole lot about her take on the test. :-)
Everyone knows that psychologists are often kookier than their
patients. I suspect she is actually doing a clinical analysis of you
for her Doctorate.
LZ
Jynndi
>Date: 5/6/02 10:19 PM Eastern
>You are one sad, sick, and sorry son of a bitch, wallowing in your
>hatred and bitterness, despising any and all who disagree with your
>perverted views, and badly in need of professional help.
Canoli,
YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!
He's one sick puppy.
Vigilance Committee
Stan Birch wrote:
>
> >>Stan Birch wrote:
> >> No . . . that hasn't been ignored. You asked about "criminals;" and
> >> homosexuality doesn't fit into that particular pigeon hole, so I didn't
> >> address it.
>
> >On Mon, 06 May 2002 Vigilance Committee <lin...@att.net> wrote:
> >In the case of the pedophile priests they are one and the same.
>
> Not according to canon lawyer Fr. Thomas Doyle, co-author of the
> Doyle-Moulton-Peterson report on sexual abuse in the clergy. In 1990 he
> said that amongst 50,000 priests 3000 were "currently involved sexually
> with minors;" and about 6,000 with adult men; and about 12,000 with
> adult women. (National Catholic Reporter, Sep. 17, 1993)
>
> A study commissioned by the American Bishops revealed that 66% of
> priests were psychologically underdeveloped, not having achieved the
> level of growth appropriate for their age. (Bottenkotter: Dynamic
> Catholicism, 272.)
>
> >It's pretty much common knowledge that over the last decade,
> >> some 70% of new recruits to the priesthood are homosexuals. While homos
> >> tend to embrace the men-with-boys profile; certainly an ethic accepted
> >> and endorsed by the Boston diocese; stats are hard to come by.
> >
> >"Common knowledge" by whom? It is certainly news to me.
>
> I've heard these figures from a number of Roman Catholic priests being
> interviewed on TV.
>
> One priest revealed that Catholic priesthood had become a haven for
> homosexuals, and that currently 45-50% of Roman Catholic priests
> are homosexuals.
>
> A while back, on the Donahue Show, a priest in an advanced stage of
> AIDS, quoted the same 50% figure; but of the new recruits to the
> priesthood, he estimates 60-70% are homosexuals. This particular priest
> revealed his own active relationships with other priests. About 200
> priests have now been diagnosed with AIDS; which makes any pedophilic
> activities an even more urgent matter.
>
> My son was told me about a friend who studied for the priesthood.
> Seminarians lived in open homosexual relationships, with no shame
> whatsoever or effort to hide their lifestyle.
>
> John Kacarab, a concerned Roman Catholic reform-advocate says the
> following:
>
> "Bishops and priests are in positions to destroy the Church and are
> working hard to do so. I have a tape of two seminarians talking
> about the abuses going on in the seminaries in the USA and Canada.
> It truly is unbelievable. Homosexuality is approved of and
> encouraged. Pornographic films are shown. Piety is not encouraged,
> nor is silence. They no longer wear cassocks, and if you do your
> harassed. It goes on and on, too much to list. I got the tape from
> the Love Tape Ministry. Its title is "Coming of the Anti-Church".
> What an eye-popper!"
>
> Father (Cardinal?) John O'Connor interview - WGRZ Channel 2, 8:30 am May
> 28,1995 said:
>
> "The current infiltration of the priesthood by homosexuals could do
> for sodomy, what modernism did for the pill. Although the Church
> [of Rome] does not *officially* approve of sodomy, they accept it in
> practice."
>
> "Mrs. Randy Ankell (sp?) author of "Sex Education, the Final Plague,"
> has discovered that homosexuality is being advocated by homosexual
> bishops, priest and nuns in an effort to condition to accept
> homosexuality as a valid alternate lifestyle."
>
> O'Connor says that although their teaching and lifestyle are against
> canon law, the reason these homosexuals are not expelled is because
> those who are in authority are of the same mind.
>
> Homosexuals first got control of the Roman Catholic Church by
> infiltrating the seminaries. O'Connor recounted the events leading up
> to the appointment of Bishop Untener, Rector of the seminary in Detroit.
> Untener was showing porno movies to the seminarians, and when nominated
> for the episcopacy, Rome was informed of his activities, and a request
> made to withdraw his nomination. At this point Cardinal Dearden stepped
> in and said he had no problem in securing Untener's appointment as
> Bishop of Saginaw.
>
> Untener was involved in the "gay rights" movement, and had the mass
> adapted to the homosexual mentality, an act that O'Connor calls " a
> frightful sacrilege against God." Cardinal Dearden never denounced
> these activities, but instead promotes a homosexual organization,
> "Dignity," which whose aims are to have homosexuality normalized and
> accepted within the Church.
>
> >> > I'm sure psychologists will be using you as textbook material.
> >>
> >> They're already doing that! <har!!> My DIL . .
>
> >Everyone knows that psychologists are often kookier than their
> >patients.
>
> That's not quite the way she would put it. She grins when she concedes:
> "they all have their own unique neuroses."
I gather you are studying for a doctorate in Hate Sciences. Sounds like
you are ready to graduate. Only hate could drive someone to devote so
much time and research to a particular subject. You remind me of Joe
McCarthy and his phobia.
LZ
Jynndi
>I gather you are studying for a doctorate in Hate Sciences. Sounds like
>you are ready to graduate. Only hate could drive someone to devote so
>much time and research to a particular subject.
It always amazes me how much energy people will put into hate and revenge. If
Stan put half that effort into something worthwhile (like charity) maybe he
would ccomplish something other than spewing his message of HATE.... HOW SAD!
Dfrenchy
>Stan put half that effort into something worthwhile (like charity) maybe he
>would ccomplish something other than spewing his message of HATE.... HOW SAD!
Why is that something you disagree with, or something you don't want to hear,
is HATE? I don't know, or care, if his assertions are true, but if they
are..... is it HATE????
Don in NH
Jynndi
>Why is that something you disagree with, or something you don't want to hear,
>is HATE?
If you've been payimng attention you KNOW that I never accused ANYONE of hate
until Stan launched his poison pen attacks. If this isn't hate it will do until
the real thing comes along.
Jynndi
> think you starting to recognize a little cognitive dissonance
>in these exchanges. :-) You've obviously noticed that not so much as a
>single phrase has been offered by my detractors in defense of anything
>I've said;
Stan, you got a little carried away with your verbage (NOT unusual). But hell
will freeze over before any of your detractors come to the defense of your hate
mail. 8--(
Jynndi
>Date: 5/7/02 1:35 PM Eastern
>So when you ask for a response: "So Mother Teresa was a person of total
>evil?" What do you think?
>
>
I think you better get professional help real soon. (and NOT your daughter the
doctor)
Vigilance Committee
Stan Birch wrote:
>
> >Vigilance Committee <lin...@att.net> wrote:
> >>It always amazes me how much energy people will put into hate and revenge. If
> >>Stan put half that effort into something worthwhile (like charity) maybe he
> >>would ccomplish something other than spewing his message of HATE.... HOW SAD!
> >
> >On 07 May 2002 16:47:25 GMT, dfre...@aol.com (Dfrenchy) wrote:
> >Why is that something you disagree with, or something you don't want to hear,
> >is HATE? I don't know, or care, if his assertions are true, but if they
> >are..... is it HATE????
>
> <Har!!> I think you starting to recognize a little cognitive dissonance
> in these exchanges. :-) You've obviously noticed that not so much as a
> single phrase has been offered by my detractors in defense of anything
> I've said; just opposition to my right to say it.
WHERE has anyone opposed your right to say anything? I have seen no
such opposition. I think it's a brazen lie. In fact, I've been
encouraging you to keep posting so as to rid yourself of your pent-up
hatred. Hating to such an extent is just not healthy. Ask your
educated daughter-in-law.
The same ethic is
> recognizable in the recent Romanist coverups of widespread predatory
> pedophilia amongst the clergy.
>
> But you have to give LZ a little slack. He was brought up and
> brainwashed within a system where "It always amazes me how much energy
> people will put into hate and revenge," i.e. knowledge is equated with
> hate.
You don't get it. I have knowledge of a great many things. Things
which I find useful in everyday life. Of what use is your vast store of
vituperative garbage? What motivates you to seek even more of it? Is
it sustenance for your evil soul? Only carrion birds feed on such
knowledge. What motivates you to air it on USENET? To exhibit your
store of knowledge? To impress one and all with your store of salacious
facts?
>
> The entire Romanist cult, as with most cults, is predicated upon
> ignorance. Knowledge is their greatest threat. 'Suppose Guttenberg was
> the greatest threat of all to Romanism; the inventor of the printing
> press, started printing the Bible as his first order of business. You
> can't imagine how much distress this caused Rome. For centuries, Rome
> had been in the lucrative business of selling Salvation. Those reading
> the Bible would discover that it was a "free gift." It couldn't be
> earned nor purchased. Can you imagine the devastating effect that would
> have upon Rome, whose main source of revenue, was selling salvation?
It may surprise you how many universities were founded by the RC church
and are still run by it. Most of those attending are not Catholics.
Many use hospital facilities run by the church. The U.S. government has
chosen Catholic Charities as the most efficient distributor of services
to the poor and has contracted with them in many cities.
Don't you think you should be alerting the public at large and the U.S.
government of the inherent evil of this institution and encourage them
to sever all contact?
>
> Tyndale, the first translator of the Bible into English, after being
> guaranteed safe conduct by the Church of Rome, to the Council of
> Constance, was immediately burned at the stake upon his arrival.
>
> Then along came another translator, Wycliffe. Although they probably
> would have burned him at the stake for committing such an abomination;
> they were far too busy trying to resolve the fact that they had three
> popes, all successors of St. Peter. Like, TV comedy doesn't hold a
> candle to hilarious musical chair games played by the Church of Rome. So
> after getting rid of a couple extraneous popes, they focused their
> attention upon Wycliffe . . . he had to be burned at the stake.
> Disappointed by the fact that he had now been dead for thirty years;
> they dug up his remains, and burned them at the stake. Talk about sick!
>
> 'Course the sale of salvation by the Church of Rome continues even into
> our generation. Never ignoring an opportunity to fleece the flock, and
> taking advantage of disaster to top up the Vatican coffers; the Roman
> Catholic Archbishop of Winnipeg preyed upon the fears distressed mothers
> who had kids fighting overseas, not knowing if they would ever see them
> again. For mere $40, he assured them, that if their sons were killed,
> they could be assured of assured of immediate entrance into Heaven. This
> unconscionable Romanist con job so utterly disgusting, that it makes me
> want to puke.
>
> Here is the verbatim Romanist spam:
>
> ARCHBISHOPS'S HOUSE
> 353 ST. MARY'S AVE.
>
> Winnipeg, Man., March 1st, 1944.
>
> My Dear Catholic Parents,
>
> I have received from the Pastors of the different Parishes a
> list of those who have boys overseas. Some time ago, as you are
> aware, I called on the Catholic Mothers to enroll their boys as
> Perpetual Members of the Society of the Propagation of the Faith.
> I said: "What better guarantee for any boy exposed to the hazards
> of war! A guarantee, should he be killed, that he will go at
> once to his Maker, to be with Him for all eternity. A guarantee,
> should it be God's will, that he will return to his dear Mother
> and to those who love him." This has been explained to you over
> and over again, from the pulpit and you have been urged to enroll
> your boys. A few who have been personally contacted, have
> answered the appeal, but all the others have maintained a stolid
> indifference. If I were to conclude that you are indifferent to
> the safety of your boy, I would be doing you a grave injustice.
> You are not indifferent. What then would be the reason for the
> inaction! Some say, in fact many say, they cannot afford it.
> That is not a reason, that is a specious excuse, unworthy of a
> Catholic Mother. You receive a portion of the boy's pay, and
> what better use could you make of it. "Oh", you answer, "I am
> trying to have a nest egg for my boy when he returns." When he
> returns. Wouldn't it be better to take the best means you know
> to ensure the boy's return. If he does not return, what good
> under heaven, will the "nest egg" be to him. I am not advising
> you to take the boys' money, I would much prefer that you use
> your own money. But, if you must take the boy's money, take it
> as a loan. Surely you will be able to make it up in the years to
> come. Do you not think, with a little economy and a few less
> shows, you will be able to set aside one dollar a month, until
> the full amount is paid up? It is not necessary to pay the
> $40.00 at once. You can pay any sum you wish by installments.
> You can pay, say $5.00 a month, or $10.00 every three months. You
> can take a year, you can take two years, you can even take three
> years. Three years, that is almost the equivalent of One Dollar
> per month. The important thing is to ensure the boy's safety, as
> far as we can do so, AA his safety in time and eternity.
>
> One Catholic Mother in this Archdiocese enrolled her boy on
> Feb. 20th, paying $20.00. He was killed on Feb. 22nd. Do you
> not think that the mother's heart found some consolation in what
> she had done?
>
> I have placed this matter in the hands of the Franciscan
> Fathers at 233 Carlton Street (Tel. 29 136). If you want further
> explanation, see them or get in touch with them. If time
> permits, they will probably get in touch with you.
>
> Dear Catholic Parents, we have a chance to do something that
> will live long in the Annals of the Church in Western Canada, and
> let us merit God's blessing by doing it.
>
> Yours very devotedly in Xto.,
>
> Alfred A. Sinnott,
> Archbishop of Winnipeg
>
> While LZ and his ilk might embrace this sort of crap; for those who
> managed to get past grade one, it's neither endearing nor amusing.
I knew the Canadians have a reputation for being frugal but this sure
takes the cake as a fund-raiser. I guess the good archbishop was having
a hard time making his quota from the local cheapskates. Did he retire
to a nice place on Lake Winnipeg?
LZ
Lon VanOstran
>
> >From: Vigilance Committee lin...@att.net
>
> >I gather you are studying for a doctorate in Hate Sciences. Sounds like
> >you are ready to graduate. Only hate could drive someone to devote so
> >much time and research to a particular subject.
>
> It always amazes me how much energy people will put into hate and revenge. If
> Stan put half that effort into something worthwhile (like charity) maybe he
> would ccomplish something other than spewing his message of HATE.... HOW SAD!
That amazes me too. I just don't understand why some of you seem to hate
Stan because he believes something you don't want to hear.
Lon, who couldn't help but notice.
Vigilance Committee
I feel sorry for him. I think he is a sick man. I encourage him to
keep venting until he has unloaded his entire burden. I'd hate to carry
such a load of putrefaction on MY back.
LZ
Jynndi
>Stan because he believes something you don't want to hear.
>
>Lon, who couldn't help but notice.
I don't recall anyone mentioning or even implying they hate Stan to ther
contrary most pity him., however almost every one of Stan's posts reeks of
hatred.
Digger, who noticed Stan's hatred consistently.