Reelected President On His Knees
After being reelected with a thin majority (51,2%), Polish President Andrzej Duda prayed on July 13 to the Black Madonna in Częstochowa.
Duda thanked Our Lady and prayed for Poland and for himself. He called the national shrine a holy and important place.
In 2015, while kneeling after having received Holy Communion at a big Mass, Duda noticed a consecrated host that was blown away by the wind. He jumped up, grabbed it and brought it to the altar (Video below). His wife, Agata Kornhauser, is the daughter of a half-jewish father.
#newsAgglenxspd
@IndwellingTrinity
"Lol you need to read some Church history @Ultraviolet."
...and YOU need to double-check the person you're replying to.
I made only one comment on this post (until now) and it was a rhetorical question pointing out a factual omission. So there haven't been any so-called "outbursts", not yet. ;-). If you're referring to any of my other discussions -eslewhere-, maybe you should reply on the appropriate post which is not this one.
"Also, Christ said to love your enemies, that doesn't negate that they're still enemies of God."
That's for God to decide. Last time I checked, E. Michael Jones hasn't ascended to the godhead. If he has in your personal theology, then you really -should- take your own advice to heart about reading Church history.
"Not sure why you're defending Jews so much,"
I'm defending the truth, which isn't the garbage you and other disciples of E. Michael Jones insist on spreading here on GTV.
"but hiding behind "anti-semitism" whatever that is"
Oh, you know exactly what anti-Semitism is, I'm certain. That's a popular deflection bigots love to employ, shifting the conversation into debating semantics rather than the facts which simply don't support their (more correctly E. Michael Jones') claims.
Just in case you truly dnn't know what anti-Semitism is, here's the Merriam-Webster definition of the term.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-Semitism
"and calling me an enemy of Christ based on nothing but your own emotional outburts"
...except I didn't. Certainly not here. Why don't you try quoting me where I did so on this post. Quote me directly. Because the only comment I made here wasn't addressing you at all.
If I'm going to call you anything, I'll say you're a Jew-hating bigot who's so breath-takingly stupid you don't even know which person you're replying to.
"They do not differentiate between true, faithful Jews, and the false Jews who hate Jesus, our Lord stated their father is the devil." -Be Ye Stupid
Speaking of differentiation...
A Jew who is ethnically Jewish remains a "true" Jew, regardless of their religious beliefs. Catholic saint Edith Stein was killed by the German Reich for just this reason. Your claim fails.
Further, you're making a fallacy of a false dilemma. There are more "Jews" than just
a.) "true, faithful Jews, and
b.) the false Jews who hate Jesus".
You assume that all non-Christian Jews "hate Jesus". Some non-Christian Jews don't even practice Judaism.
Have you taken a poll of the non-Christian Jews? Can you supply one showing they "hate Jesus"? No.
Then you have falsely accused a very large group of people without a single shred of evidence for your claim.
...becuase that's what stupid little bigots do.
Especially the real bottom-feeders who are such E. Michael Jones grouies, they even adopt his vocabulary of "false Jews" along with his errors.
"Ok, my mistake on the person I was replying to, no need to call me a 'stupid bigot'," @IndwellingTrinity
Your anti-Semitism brands you the latter and your inability to distinguish one writer from the other demonstrates you're the former.
"That's a serious lack of charity."
Y'think? ;-)
"but ya'll might as well be the same at this point based on your response."
...and then you whine about MY lack of charity. Typical bigot thinking. Doesn't matter, does it? Jews, critics, the guilty, the innocent, "ya'll might as well be the same at this point"
"Facts don't lie, nor do historical facts."
Oh boy... we got us a gen-u-wine historian here, folks.
"Either the Jews are usurious and hate the goyim or they don't,"
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Since, dear heart, you said "the Jews" you are accusing ALL Jews. You are making an accusation against everyone who can be defined as a "Jew". inb4 E. Michael Jones-powered deflections on who is a Jew.
Good luck trying to prove "the Jews are usurious and hate the goyim"
...because you're blaming all Jews as the Jews. Incidentally your statement is also a fallacy of a false dilemma, moron.
You better sit down with a good book on logic before you start diddling around with the "historical facts" spoon-fed you by E. Michael Jones..
"they either crucified Christ or they didn't."
Protip: the Romans did. Whoops. Technicality, but you're still wrong.
In terms of assigning guilt, last pope says "the Jews" didn't. So does the Catholic Church
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-12634176
--In the catechism which was produced by the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church affirmed the belief that the collectivity of sinful humanity was responsible for the death of Jesus, not only the Jews.[3] In the deliberations of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), the Roman Catholic Church under Pope Paul VI repudiated belief in collective Jewish guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus.[4] It declared that the accusation could not be made "against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today".--
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_deicide
So,no, "the Jews" didn't kill Christ. Boom. :D
"They either reject the Catholic faith or they don't."
Another fallacy of a false dilemma. Staggering displays of ignorance on your part..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Catholics
"Do you know who founded the Communists, Freemasons, Antifa, and BLM?"
Do you know who gave birth to Christ? ;-)
"Do you know that the Church specifically condemns all these movements in her encyclicals and teaching?"
Do they now? Please quote directly the Church Encyclical that condemns BLM and Antifa. By name. Cite it. Link it. Go for it.
Put up or shut up.
"go read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
It was a literary forgery, numb-skull
Snapping out "go read" doesn't support your claims, either.
"ad hominem attacks are a sin against charity."
Somebody doesn't know what an "ad hominem" attack even is. :D
"You accuse me of having a *personal* theology."
Is that a bad thing? You'd be a mighty weird kinda Catholic if you didn't. The question is whether your theology is based on Jesus or Jones. ;-)
"the very least a sin against charity."
You've been reading E. Michael Jone's twitter. You stink of it.
twitter.com/…/121762629875713…
"The Jews have a real and true agenda against Christianity"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Stein
"but I don't pretend they are above criticism or friend of Our Lord Jesus Christ, they are not."
www.jewsforjesus.org
You can shut up now. :D
One more comment from Ultraviolet
"You should be banned from this site, calling Catholics bigots, stupid."
You mean the way YouTube banned Jones from their site? His fan-boys cried over thatand now, here, one of them is suggesting the same thing.
By the way, you haven't earned the right to call me "stupid", not when I'm the one correcting you over and over again. But that isn't a "ban-worthy" offense on GTV.
GTV users call the Pope and Cardinals far, far worse. It's perfectly acceptable. I've noticed you haven't been taking anyone to task for that. Funny thing. That's right, they weren't criticizing E. Michael Jones. Nice double-standards, there. :D
The same "freedom of speech" that doesn't get YOU banned for repeating the delusions of an anti-Semite also protects ME when I criticize that anti-Semite and expose his nonsense AS delusional.
Simply becuase Mr. Jones disgraces The Church by calling himself "Catholic" doesn't grant him any additional protection. Why not apply that standard evenly, yes? I call myself Catholic because I -am- Catholic, passionately so. I'm a traditionalist Catholic, -and- I can support that claim, demonstrating a much greater knowledge of Church teachings than you could ever hope to possess.
I'll be doing so shortly, in fact, correcting your mis-use of the term "blasphemy". But let's finish up with Jones and his supposedly "Catholic" ideology.
The Church directly contradicts his teachings. Even the Bishop of his diocese felt compelled to publicly contradict the basis of Jones' teaching lest anyone in the Church wrongly assume silence implied consent.
"Since you think you're just absolutely crushing me with logic,"
You aren't a psychic so you have no business asserting what I "think" you're quoting me directly where I'm telling you what I think.
If you are a psychic, this is readily proven. I purchased a lotto ticket this evening. It has date. Supply the name of the lottery and the selected numbers on the ticket. I can easily post a photo of the ticket, proving or disproving your the validity of your psychic powers.
If you can do that, I will accept your demonstration as proof of your psychic powers. Then, and only then, you can claim to know what I think.
"I was speaking about Jews who claim to be Jewish as their religion, not ethnic Jews who converted to the Catholic faith."
Were you now? Suuure. You're qualifying your statements after they've been corrected.
"You make some incredibly ridiculous leaps of logic and assumptions,"
None demonstrated, unsupported claim on your part..
"it's clear you seriously need to work on your humility and charity."
LOLOL. Yes. True. I do. Still, you should learn to speak for yourself without parroting E. Michael Jones.. :D
"Jews for Jesus? Are you kidding me? Hebrew Catholics? Really?"
No I'm not kidding you and yes, really.
You're a bigot, an anti-Semite, and like most of your kind E. Michael Jones included, you're ignorant. Those groups directly disprove the claims you made.Each example was posted as direct contradiction to a claim YOU made.
"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church."
Agreed.
"You cannot claim to be a practicing Jew and a Catholic, period."
Strawman argument. I did not make a claim to the contrary.
As for Hebrew Catholics, observe: (from wiki)
--Hebrew Catholics subscribe to the doctrines of the Catholic faith and are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. Their point of differentiation lies not in dogmatic beliefs but in liturgical practices.--
Full communion means they are even MORE fully Catholic than the Orthodox schismatics both in doctrine and in acceptance of Church authority.
Liturgical practices and a different calendar aren't an issue. The Novus Ordo and Traditional Latin Mass already differ markedly in both liturgical practices AND their respective liturgical calendars.
Wiki also gives a fine example: --Where these Jewish holidays and practices do not conflict with Catholic doctrine, they are kept for ethnic reasons, much as Irish Americans might celebrate Saint Patrick's Day as a major feast day regardless of the diocese they reside in.--
Anti-Semites, of course, have no problem with Father Michael McGivney making a big to-do out of St. Paddy's day in his parish. That's just something the Irish do. But when a Father Nathan Weintraub does the same at Passover, then your kind flip out.
Typical double-standard endemic to all racial and religious bigotry. It ain't what's bein' done, it's who's doin' it, 'specially when they're jooooooz... :P
Jews can be entirely Catholic and racially Jewish. Saint Edith Stein for example. Again, you're displaying your ignorance, your malice, and the inevitable bigotry that stems from them.
"Jews who practice any form of Judaism cannot be saved, or any Catholic who brings Jewish practices into Catholicism cannot be saved because it's a sin of blasphemy..."
So long as cultural "practices" do not contradict Church teachings, they are not blasphemy.
You don't know what "blasphemy" is according to the teachings of the Church and it shows.
How you define the word and how the Church defines it are not the same. Like so many anti-Semite mouth-breathers today, you've spent far too much time with E. Michael Jones instead of the Catholic Catechism.
2148
Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech;
A racial Jew bringing cultural practices to his Catholic faith is not blaspheming. He is not uttering any of the ills stated in 2148 against God.
"Under no circumstance are Catholics permitted to involve themselves in a false religions practices."
...and you're making variation on your ealier mistake once again. Jewish culture and Jewish religious practices are not one and the same. It is the Church's purview to decide where and when those cultural practices contradict Her doctrines. It is not yours,
"Why are you even on this website?"
Because it's a Catholic web-site with a traditionalist focus. I am a traditionalist Catholic.
This is NOT, however, Stormfront and people like you shouldn't turn it into a "Catholic" version of that.