Terço em Latim

In nómine Patris, et Fílii, et Spíritus Sancti. Amen.

Credo

Crédo in Déum, Pátrem omnipoténtem, Creatórem cáeli et térræ. Et in Jésum Chrístum, Fílium éjus unícum, Dóminum nóstrum, qui concéptus est de Spíritu Sáncto, nátus ex María Vírgine, pássus sub Póntio Piláto, crucifíxus, mórtuus, et sepúltus. Descéndit ad ínferos: tértia díe resurréxit a mórtuis: ascéndit ad cáelos: sédet ad déxteram Déi Pátris omnipoténtis: índe ventúrus est judicáre vívos et mórtuos. 

Crédo in Spíritum Sánctum, sánctam Ecclésiam Cathólicam, Sanctórum communiónem, remissiónem peccatórum, cárnis resurrectiónem, vítam ætérnam. Amen.


Pai Nosso

Páter nóster, qui es in cáelis, sanctificétur nómen túum. Advéniat régnum túum. Fíat volúntas túa, sícut in cáelo et in térra. 

Pánem nóstrum quotidiánum da nóbis hódie, et dimítte nóbis débita nóstra, sícut et nos dimíttimus debitóribus nóstris. Et ne nos indúcas in tentatiónem: sed líbera nos a málo. Amen.

Ave Maria

Áve María, grátia pléna, Dóminus técum; benedícta tu in muliéribus, et benedíctus frúctus véntris túi, Jésus. 

Sáncta María, Máter Déi, óra pro nóbis peccatóribus, nunc et in hóra mórtis nóstræ. Amen.

Glória ao Pai

Glória Pátri, et Fílio, et Spirítui Sáncto. Sícut érat in princípio et nunc et sémper et in sáecula sæculórum. Amen.

Ó meu Jesus

Domine Iesu, dimitte nobis debita nostra, salva nos ab igne inferiori, perduc in cćlum omnes animas, prćsertim eas, quć misericordić tuć maxime indigent. Amen.

Salve Rainha

Sálve Regína, máter misericórdiæ: víta, dulcédo, et spes nóstra, sálve. Ad te clamámus, exsúles fílii Hévæ. Ad te suspirámus, geméntes et fléntes in hac lacrimárum válle. Éja érgo, Advocáta nóstra, íllos túos misericórdes óculos ad nos convérte. Et Jésum, benedíctum frúctum véntris túi, nóbis post hoc exsílium osténde. O clémens, O pía, O dúlcis Vírgo María, 

V. Óra pro nóbis sáncta Déi Génitrix 
R. Ut dígni efficiámur promissiónibus Chrísti. 


Oremos

Déus, cújus Unigénitus per vítam, mórtem et resurrectiónem súam nóbis salútis ætérnæ præmia comparávit: concéde, quæsumus: ut hæc mystéria sacratíssimo beátæ Maríæ Vírginis Rosário recoléntes, et imitémur quod cóntinent, et quod promíttunt, assequámur. Per eúndem Chrístum Dóminum nóstrum. Amen.


Mistérios Gozosos


Annuntiatio

Visitatio

Nativitas

Donatio Domini

Inventio


Mistérios Dolorosos
Cruciatus In Horto

Verbera

Coronatio Cum Spinis

Portatio Crucis

Crucificatio


Mistérios Gloriosos
Resurrectio

Ascencio

Descensus Spiritus Sancti

Assumptio

Coronatio

Onde Está o "Hagan Lío" do Papa Francisco em Hong Kong?

O Papa Francisco é famoso por sempre pedir aos jovens que "façam bagunça" (hagan lío, em espanhol).

Nas ruas de Hong Kong os jovens católicos estão realmente fazendo uma bagunça contra uma terrível ditadura, mas cadê o Papa Francisco?

Não há nenhuma mensagem do Papa Francisco para esses jovens cristãos, nada.

As árvores queimando da Amazônia já receberam inúmeras palavras de apoio do Papa. E ele adora participar de questões internacionais, como o Acordo Nuclear com o Irã e aos acordos climáticos.

O site Breibart destaca hoje esse silêncio do Papa em favor da China, contra os católicos de Hong Komg. O site diz que os Católicos estão dominando os protestos, mesmo sendo apenas 5% da população de Hong Kong, o hino semioficial dos protestos é "Sing Hallelujah to Lord". Os protestos contam com o apoio do cardeal Zen e do bispo Chi-shing.

O Paul Joseph Johnson mostrou ontem os jovens de Hong Kong na luta contra a política chinesa que tem usado até a imigração em massa de chineses do continente para conter os protestos (oferecendo benesses estatais para quem for morar em Hong Kong). Johnson também mostrou os jovens cantando o hino católico.





Vejam parte do texto do Breibart

Yore: Pope Francis Goes Silent on Hong Kong Protests as Christians Take Major Role

“One who mounts a tiger can never get off.” ~ Chinese Proverb

“Hagan Lío.” “Take to the streets.” “Make a Mess.”

Pope Francis famously bellowed “Hagan Lio” to the 300,000 young Catholics gathered at World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro on July 26, 2013, urging them to shake up the complacency of their lives.

Sounding more like the socialist community organizer Saul Alinsky than the Vicar of Christ, Francis prodded young Catholics to take to the streets and shake up the establishment. He challenged that the young people, “must go out, they must show their worth. Young people must go out to fight for values, to fight for values.”

Where is his “Hagan Lio” shout out to the young people of Hong Kong?

Millions of young people are risking their lives to march for freedom from the oppressive Chinese extradition law and broken promises of Communist Party leader Xi Jinping – who, under the “One Country, Two Systems” policy cannot legally impose draconian communist laws on Hong Kong. If the pontiff supports this youthful movement for freedom and democracy, he has made a well-kept secret of it.

The deafening silence from Vatican City exposes the communist fault lines buried within this pontificate.

It’s not as if Francis hasn’t been asked to intercede and speak out in support of the young protesters. Even before the Hong Kong marches began, a delegation of young Hong Kong Catholics handed the pope a petition to intervene with the Chinese Communists to overturn the extradition bill. The pope received the petition and asked the students to pray for him.

Even though only five percent of Hong Kong is Catholic, there’s a strong Catholic presence among the Hong Kong protesters. Catholics dominate the leadership in the demonstrations — particularly with the movement’s adoption of the hymn “Sing Hallelujah to the Lord” as its unofficial anthem. Notably, the 87-year-old retired Hong Kong Cardinal Joseph Zen has spoken out and participated in the marches. The fiery and fearless Zen has clashed with Pope Francis over the Vatican’s secret “suicide” pact with the Chinese Communist government signed on Sept. 22, 2018, over the appointment of Chinese bishops.

Additionally, Hong Kong Auxiliary Bishop Joseph Ha Chi-shing led an ongoing prayer vigil outside the Legislative Council building joined by thousands of Christians. Bishop Ha told the media that he would not leave the young protesters, and said, “I don’t care. No matter how long they stay, I will continue to stay with them. The shepherd should not just be with the sheep but also guide them.”

Pope Francis seldom shies away from global politics or high political stakes. In the past seven years, Francis has personally supported the JCPOA Iran deal, President Barack Obama’s concessions to communist Cuba, the U.N. climate agenda, the Paris Climate Treaty, called candidate Donald Trump’s border wall “unchristian,” challenged Italian politician Matteo Salvini over the migrant issue, and personally negotiated a highly destructive secret pact with the Chinese communist government last year.

Why the papal abstention and evasion of the Hong Kong protests? One doesn’t have to look far for the answer. Argentine friend and close Vatican collaborator, Bishop Sanchez Sorondo, of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences lavishly made the jaw-dropping observation “that the government best implementing the social doctrine of the Church would be the People’s Republic of China.”

You heard that right. The Francis papacy extols the good works of the murderous, tyrannical, and oppressive Xi regime and his CCP thugs. Shockingly, the Pope is choosing sides in this Hong Kong freedom crisis by his shameful silence.

...

Yet, not a word from Francis.

Francis protects Francis. His global political agenda reigns supreme, beyond inquiry, explanation, or justification. Despite his incessant calls for “dialogue” and “transparency,” he operates in secrecy and self-interest.

He shares these traits with Xi, his latest collaborator on the global stage, who together in September 2018, negotiated a secret agreement, condemned by much of the world. Curiously, the notorious sexual predator, Cardinal McCarrick, was personally tasked by Pope Francis to start negotiations with the Chinese. McCarrick observed that, “A lot of things that China worries about, [Pope Francis] worries about—about the care of poor, older people, children, our civilization and especially the ecology.”

Apparently Francis, like his new ally Xi, doesn’t worry about freedom.

The young of Hong Kong stand together, but without the supportive voice of the Vicar of Christ.

As the ancient Chinese proverb warns, Pope Francis mounted the red communist tiger.

He will never get off.

Elizabeth Yore is an international child rights attorney. She was the former Special Counsel to Oprah Winfrey and the General Counsel of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. She is the founder of YoreChildren.com.

Netflix Filme "Two Popes" e o meu Livro

A Netflix resolveu fazer um filme chamado Two Popes para contrapor Bento XVI e Papa Francisco.

Não sei se o filme é bom, mas quem faz Bento XVI é o Anthony Hopkins (católico que já fez o ótimo O Rito) e quem faz o Papa Francisco é Jonathan Pryce (está muito parecido com Bergoglio e já interpretou Juan Péron)

O filme é dirigido pelo brasileiro Fernando Meireles (que dirigiu Cidade de Deus).

O trailer acima mostra Bento XVI em conversa com Francisco, em certo debate cultural/teológico, em que Bento XVI confronta os sapatos de Francisco. E também aparece Bento XVI sempre usando branco

No trailer, Bento XVI diz que os sapatos pretos de Francisco em si já é uma crítica a ele.

O caso dos sapatos pretos de Francisco foi o primeiro problema que surgiu e despertou aqueles que começaram a ver que Francisco queria revolucionar a doutrina da Igreja. Papas e cardeais usam sapatos vermelhos.

Por isso, meu livro sobre o Papa Francisco se chama: "Papa Francisco dos Sapatos Pretos à Heresia?". Comprem o livro clicando aqui, para que entendam melhor a questão dos sapatos e muitas outras controvérsias de Francisco.

E o fato de Bento XVI usar branco depois de ter abdicado é uma desgraça ou um disfarce.

Repito, não sei se o filme é bom. Não confio na Netflix em nada.

Aparentemente, parece que o filme quer colocar Bento XVI como antiquado e Francisco como moderno e popular.

Se for isso, é mais uma estupidez de quem não entende da doutrina, da história da Igreja e do que é o verdadeiro progresso (Cristo).

Chesterton era Anti-Semita?

O jornal The Catholic Herald colocou frente a frente dois analistas para responder se G.K. Chetserton era ou não anti-semita. Essa é seguramente a maior acusação contra Chesterton, aqueles que detestam tudo que Chestertin representa costumam se assentar na hipótese de que Chesterton seria anti-semita, que ele odiava os judeus.

O jornal foi bem aberto e deixou que as duas partes falassem.

O primeiro responde que sim que Chesterton era anti-semita. O autor é Stephen Daisley, jornalista do Scottish Daily Mail.

Depois Ann Varmer, autora do livro Chesterton and the Jews, responde que não.

A minha avaliação dos dois artigos é o seguinte:

Daisley pinça partes de artigos de Chesterton, usa fontes socialistas e também usa o irmão de Chesterton para defender que GK Chesterton era anti-semita.

Ann Varmer responde aos ataques de Daisley mostrando que as partes de textos de Chesterton foram mal usadas diante dos textos completos e diante do método paradoxal e satírico de Chesterton contra até ele mesmo, mostra quem era a socialista em que Daisley apoia seus argumentos, mostra que pelo método usado por Daisley, Churchill e H.G Wellss também seriam anti-semitas (pois na época o debate judeu era disseminado) e mostra que Chesterton defendeu o irmão (que fazia ataques aos judeus) por razões sentimentais, mas depois se afastou das palavras dele. Além disso, Ann lembra que Chesterton defendeu o sionismo (movimento político que defende a autodeterminação do povo judeu). Junto de Churchill, Chesterton foi um dos primeiros a defender os judeus contra o nazismo.

Devemos lembrar também que Chesterton detestava o militarismo prussiano (alemão) e também detestava Hitler. Além disso, é preciso saber que Chesterton morreu em 1936, antes da Segunda Guerra.

Eu achei que Daisley usou um método que eu chamaria de "método Voltaire" para destruir reputação. O texto de Dasiley é frágil porque é panfletário, não é análise acurada.

Em todo caso, julguem vocês mesmos os textos. Leiam os dois textos, clicando aqui.

Macron Saúda China e Rússia Contra o Ocidente e Contra Trump

Não sei se é mais estúpido do que dizer "a nossa casa está queimando" em referência a Amazônia, mas, como diz o texto, será que Macron sabe que ele é do Ocidente. Não sei, tenho dificuldade de entender a mente de políticos franceses (parecem adorar estar do lado errado). Tipo de gente que torce para o bandido.

Depois que Trump foi embora da França, o Macron resolveu atacar a França e dizer que a China e a Rússia vão dominar o mundo e que isso é bem-vindo, pois "o Ocidente cometeu muitos erros".

O texto diz que ele deve ter pedido permissão a Angela Markel para fazer exaltação à China e à Rússia.

Macron é um moleque, deveria sim ser chamado de "Micron".

Vejam texto do Zero Hedge.

After Trump Leaves France, Macron Warns World "Is Living The End Of Western Hegemony"

Having skulked off stage following his joint press conference with President Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron took the opportunity to bash Trump and embrace Putin (presumably after getting permission from Angela Merkel).

“We are living the end of Western hegemony,” Macron told diplomats on Tuesday, pointing to the rise of Beijing and Moscow as signs of a shift on the world scene.

"The world order is being shaken like never before..."

“It’s being shaken because of errors made by the West in certain crises, but also by the choices made by the United States in the past few years – and not just by the current administration.”

So a shot clearly aimed at Trump but we wonder if Macron realizes he is part of the "West" he describes as making errors?

Macron then doubled down, warning that it would be a “strategic mistake” for Western nations not to change their attitude toward Moscow.

"Pushing Russia away from Europe is a profound strategic mistake."

“We’re either pushing Russia into isolation, which increases tensions, or to ally itself with other major powers like China, which would not be in our interest,” Macron said, calling for the “rethinking” of relations with Moscow.

Otherwise, Europe will be stuck with “frozen conflicts” and will remain “a theater for strategic struggle between the US and Russia,” he stressed.

These “choices” are impacting “the conflicts in the Middle and elsewhere, making it necessary to rethink military and diplomatic strategies,” Macron noted.

Ironically, Macron's Putin-pandering comments came after US President Trump was bashed by most of western media for daring to suggest inviting Putin to attend the G7 event next year, (which Trump will be hosting).

Which is odd because journalists claimed one key G7 dinner was "ruined" over Trump's insistence that Russia would be vital to discussions:

During the seaside meal, French president Emmanuel Macron and European Council president Donald Tusk opposed Trump’s demands. A diplomat present told the publication that the evening was tense: “Most of the other leaders insisted on this being a family, a club, a community of liberal democracies and for that reason they said you cannot allow president Putin — who does not represent that — back in.”

Apparently Italian prime minister Giuseppe Conte, who formally announced his resignation early this week, was the only G7 leader present to back Trump's proposal. 

Bispo Schneider: Vaticano está Traindo Cristo como Único Salvador da Humanidade

Papa Francisco assinou documento em Abu Dhabi junto com um líder religioso muçulmano no qual diz que Deus "deseja" a diversidade religiosa. Isto é, Deus abençoa e  deseja todas religiões. Isto é, não precisa acreditar em Cristo ou na Santíssima Trindade para ser salvo. Tá liberado geral.

Isso fez com que muitos condenassem o Papa como herético ou mesmo apóstata.

Em reunião com o Papa Francisco, o bispo Schneider perguntou diretamente ao Papa sobre isso e o Papa disse que na verdade quis dizer que Deus "permite" a diversidade religiosa, não desejava.

Mas o Papa ludibriou Schneider, além de não corrigir o documento publicamente, o Papa convocou comitê multi-religioso para promover a ideia de que Deus "deseja liberdade religiosa". O comitê conta com católicos e muçulmanos.

Daí, obviamente, foram perguntar hoje a Schneider o que ele achava desse comitê.

Ele não titubeou, disse que o Vaticano do Papa Francisco está traindo Cristo e também todas as almas que  não entenderão que a Igreja é a única porta para Cristo. O Vaticano está abandonando os missionários da fé, que procuram evangelizar o mundo.

Em suma, eu diria, o Vaticano promove apostasia do cristianismo.

Vejam  parte do artigo do  Life Site News.

EXCLUSIVE: Bishop Schneider says Vatican is betraying ‘Jesus Christ as the only Savior of mankind’

ROME, August 26, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — The Vatican’s decision to implement a document affirming that the “diversity of religions” is “willed by God,” without correcting this statement, is tantamount to “promoting the neglect of the first Commandment” and a “betrayal of the Gospel,” Bishop Athanasius Schneider has said.

In an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews on a Vatican-backed iniative to promote the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together,” the auxiliary of Astana, Kazakhstan, said that “however noble such aims as ‘human fraternity’ and ‘world peace’ may be, they cannot be promoted at the cost of relativizing the truth of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and His Church.” 

The spread of this document in its uncorrected form will “paralyze the Church’s mission ad gentes” and “suffocate her burning zeal to evangelize all men,” Bishop Schneider said.

...

A “Higher Committee”

Last week, the Vatican announced that a multi-faith “Higher Committee” had been established in the United Arab Emirates to implement the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together,” which Pope Francis signed on Feb. 4, 2019, in Abu Dhabi, together with Ahmad el-Tayeb, Grand Imam al-Azhar, during a three-day apostolic visit to the Arabian Peninsula.

Members of the seven member (Catholic and Muslim) commission include Pope Francis’s personal secretary, Fr. Yoannis Lahzi Gaid, and the president of the Ponfical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Archbishop Miguel Angel Ayuso Giuxot.

In a statement on Monday, Aug. 26, Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni said that Pope Francis “encourages the efforts of the Committee to spread knowledge of the Document; he thanks the United Arab Emirates for the concrete commitment shown on behalf of human fraternity and he expresses the hope that similar initiatives can spring up throughout the world.”

Controversial document

The Abu Dhabi document drew controversy for stating that a “pluralism and diversity” of religions is “willed by God.”

...

On March 1, 2019, during an ad limina visit of the bishops of Central Asia to Rome, Bishop Schneider, whose diocese is located in a predominantly Muslim nation, expressed  concern about this formulation to Pope Francis. The Pope said that the phrase in question on the “diversity of religions” meant “the permissive will of God,” and he gave explicit permission to Bishop Schneider and other bishops present to quote his words. 

Bishop Schneider in turn asked the Pope to clarify the statement in an official manner.

Pope Francis appeared to offer a clarification at his Wednesday general audience on April 3, 2019, but no official clarification or correction to the text has been given to date.  

According to Bishop Schneider, in implementing the Abu Dhabi document without correcting its erroneous affirmation on the diversity of religions, “men in the Church not only betray Jesus Christ as the only Savior of mankind and the necessity of His Church for eternal salvation, but also commit a great injustice and sin against love of neighbor.”

...

"From a pastoral point of view, it is highly irresponsible to leave the faithful of the entire Church in uncertainty in such a vital question as the validity of the first Commandment of the Decalogue and the divine obligation of all men to believe and worship, with their free will, Jesus Christ as the only Savior of mankind. When God commanded all men “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him!” (Mt 17:5) and when, consequently, in His judgment He will “inflict vengeance on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thess 1:8), how can He at the same time positively will the diversity of religions? The revealed unambiguous words of God are irreconcilable with the phrase in the Abu Dhabi document. To affirm the contrary would mean to square a circle or adopt the mindset of Gnosticism or Hegelianism.

One cannot justify the theory that the diversity of religions is positively willed by God by adducing the truth of the deposit of faith regarding free will as a gift of God the Creator. God has granted man free will precisely so that he may worship God alone, Who is the Triune God. God has not given man free will in order to worship idols, or to deny or blaspheme His Incarnate Son Jesus Christ, Who said: “He who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (Jn 3:18)."

...

"From a pastoral point of view, it is highly irresponsible to leave the faithful of the entire Church in uncertainty in such a vital question as the validity of the first Commandment of the Decalogue and the divine obligation of all men to believe and worship, with their free will, Jesus Christ as the only Savior of mankind. When God commanded all men “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him!” (Mt 17:5) and when, consequently, in His judgment He will “inflict vengeance on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thess 1:8), how can He at the same time positively will the diversity of religions? The revealed unambiguous words of God are irreconcilable with the phrase in the Abu Dhabi document. To affirm the contrary would mean to square a circle or adopt the mindset of Gnosticism or Hegelianism.

One cannot justify the theory that the diversity of religions is positively willed by God by adducing the truth of the deposit of faith regarding free will as a gift of God the Creator. God has granted man free will precisely so that he may worship God alone, Who is the Triune God. God has not given man free will in order to worship idols, or to deny or blaspheme His Incarnate Son Jesus Christ, Who said: “He who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (Jn 3:18)."

...

Vejam a entrevista completa no site da Life Site News.

O Tour Bergoglio em Buenos Aires

O jornalista americano George Neumayr (que escreveu o livro The Political Pope) foi para Buenos Aires. Lá ele decidiu fazer o tour Bergolgio na cidade que passa por locais pelos quais o Papa Francisco passou na sua vida e na sua formação religiosa.

O tour custou 100 dólares.

Mas ele disse que ele fez sozinho, não havia ninguém fazendo com ele, e os argentinos que o levaram aos locais não falaram bem do Papa, muito pelo contrário, e até negaram o que diz a biografia de Bergoglio sobre seus tempos em Buenos Aires.

Basicamente, os argentinos que Neumayr encontrou relacionaram o Papa Francisco a Juan Peron, uma pessoa traiçoeira, sem princípios, um "camaleão" que pode mentir e usar abusadores sexuais para manter-se no poder.

Neuymayr estuda bastante a Igreja e já estudou muito a vida do Papa Francisco e é também um jornalista investigativo sobre os abusos sexuais nos Estados Unidos. Ele pode ter um viés terrível contra o Papa, mas ele tem também fundamento que justifique esse viés.

Ele contou sua experiência no site do The American Spectator.

Vejam abaixo a descrição do tour Bergoglio de Neumayr.

Pope Peron

Argentine Catholics say Bergoglio rose to power as a ruthless chameleon.

I am still in Buenos Aires collecting stories about Jorge Bergoglio. Some of them are real doozies; others are too sketchy and explosive to repeat.

One persistent and widespread story about Bergoglio is that he used bailing out bad priests as a form of leverage over them.

“Bergoglio would call up those investigating, say, a pederast priest and tell them to back off,” a Buenos Aires Church insider told me. “He then would inform the offending priest of his intervention and then use that to extract total obedience from him.” Many such priests were in Bergoglio’s debt.

Some have wondered why as pope Bergoglio has surrounded himself with so many crooks, creeps, and degenerates. But that is no mystery to Argentine Catholics. “He did the same as archbishop,” says one. “He uses their secrets to control them.” It was this nasty management tactic that led Bergoglio into an alliance with Theodore McCarrick and countless other abusers.

Argentine Catholics describe Bergoglio as an ecclesiastical Peron — a ruthless, socialism-addled chameleon willing to tell any lie and try any low tactic to preserve power.

“Peron used to say he is a weather vane, that he moved where the wind went,” a journalist said to me. “Bergoglio was like that too. On Monday he was a liberal. On Tuesday he was a conservative. On Wednesday he was a liberal again. And so on.”

To try and understand Bergoglio, I visited key places in his life in Buenos Aires — from where he was born to where he worked. I have to say it was a pretty dismal tour. My guide noted at the outset of our trip that much of the Bergoglio story rests on “lies” designed to boost the tourism industry. “It costs $100 to go on a Bergoglio tour,” he said. 

Needless to say, I didn’t see anyone on one of them. In an economy in which interest rates have risen to 75 percent, a hundred dollars is a major investment.

One stop on the tour is the confessional at the Basilica of St. Joseph, where Bergoglio supposedly decided to become a Jesuit. My guide laughed at that yarn. “The dates don’t even match up in the official accounts. In fact, he had decided years before,” he said. He added that Bergoglio’s reason for entering the order was not spiritual but political: he knew the order was rapidly moving to the left and he was eager to take that ideological journey.

“The Jesuits were penetrated by the Communists, and Bergoglio was one of them,” observed a journalist. Indeed, Bergoglio had received his political education at the knee of a Paraguayan communist named Esther Ballestrino, who was his boss at a Buenos Aires laboratory after he got the equivalent of a high school degree in chemistry. Bergoglio has said that he “owes” much to that “great woman.” He has gushed about how she introduced him to communist periodicals and literature and regaled him with stories of the “Rosenberg trial.”

Bergoglio has proudly taken credit for concealing her Marxist literature in a Jesuit library during her persecution. “She was dropped out of a plane and her body washed ashore,” said a Catholic familiar with this period of Bergoglio’s life. “In stark violation of canon law, Bergoglio had her buried in a Catholic church, even though she wasn’t a practicing Catholic.” I have been told that that church where she’s buried is now a monument of sorts to revolutionary socialists. I plan to visit it before I leave.

One hilarious place I have already gone is Bergoglio’s old vicariate. My guide informed me that across the street from it is “a whorehouse” called the Hotel Helen. I looked over at it, and sure enough it didn’t look like a hotel: for one thing, it had no windows. Buenos Aires, where prostitution has been legalized, is chock-a-block full of such windowless “hot sheets” holes.

But even more grimly comic were the walls around the vicariate, adorned with jagged, broken wine bottles so as to deter intruders. Hey, Pope Francis, that is not very welcoming! It is just one more contradiction in a sorry story full of them.

Cientistas Abandonam A Religião Darwinista

Um cientista de Yale, chamado David Gelernter, que desde sempre foi darwinista, publicou artigo chamado "Giving Up Darwinism". Após muitas pesquisas, ele se convenceu que a teoria da evolução de Darwing simplesmente não funciona.

Com isso, ele viu que o darwinismo é uma verdadeira religião, muitos colegas não estão aceitando que Darwin estava errado e estão ameaçando ele,

O vídeo acima reúne, Gelernter e mais dois cientistas renomados que afirmam que Darwin estava errado. É o vídeo bem interessante, mas eu náo tenho tempo para traduzí-lo agora.

Em todo caso, vou mencionar algo interessante, Gelernter diz no vídeo que foi difícil abandonar uma "bela" teoria como a teoria de Darwin. Enquanto, outro cientista, David Berlinsky (o do centro de calça jeans), diz que "nem por um minuto" chamaria a teoria de Darwing de "bela" (ele já tem tempo que ataca a teoria darwinista e ressalta a complexidade enorme e contínua de uma simples célula). E Stephen Meyer disse que a teoria tem um apelo por ser abrangente, cientistas gostam disso, mas pelo o que se sabe desde  século 20 a teoria não serve mais.

O ponto central que convenceu Gelernter de que Darwin não serve mais é a "explosão cambriana", uma explosão de vida de muitas espécies de forma repentina, sem evolução, sem conexão com espécies anteiores.

Eu não sou biólogo, mas já li sobre o assunto, e inclusive de cientista que diz há muito tempo que Darwin errou. Então o assunto não chega a ser uma novidade para mim. Mas não deixa de ser notícia.

Se você desejar ler o artigo de Gelernter clique aqui.

Aqui vai um relato do fato pelo site The Blaze

Prolific Yale professor turns against Darwinism, warns Darwinians ‘will destroy you if you challenge’ the theory

David Gelernter, prominent writer and Yale University professor, believes it's high time for people to drop Charles Darwin's outdated theory of evolution.

Gelernter explained that he has dissociated himself from the theory — and has received backlash for doing so.

What are the details?

In a recent essay published in the Claremont Review of Books, Gelernter wrote, "Darwin has failed," and insisted that scientists move past Darwin and his theories altogether.

Gelernter, who has been a proponent of Darwinism since childhood, argued that the longstanding theory of evolution simply doesn't give a thorough enough explanation of, perhaps, the most important component of modern science: the actual origin of species.

According to the essay, titled "Giving up Darwin," the Cambrian explosion, as well as modern discoveries in molecular biology, have dashed Darwin's theories of evolution as he understood it to occur.

"Most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged," Gelernter wrote. "The incremental development of new species is largely not there."

He also added that he feels it is important not to discount the theory of intelligent design, which is an equally important concept as Darwinism has been to science.

"Darwin's theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life," he wrote. "Those brave new Cambrian creatures must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated. They could not have all blown out suddenly, like a bunch of geysers."

He pointed out that the concept of intelligent design is not necessarily his favorite theory, but insists that it is an "absolutely serious argument," pointing out that the theory is the very "first, and obviously most intuitive that comes to mind."

What else?

In June, Gelernter said that Darwinian scientists will absolutely "destroy" those people who dare try to diminish its importance to science.

"I have to distinguish between the way I've been treated personally, which has been a very courteous and collegial way by my colleagues at Yale, they're nice guys and I like them, they're my friends," he said in June remarks. "On the other hand, when I look at their intellectual behavior, what they publish, and, much more important, what they tell their students, Darwinism has indeed passed beyond a scientific argument."

"As far as they are concerned, take your life in your hands to challenge it intellectually," he continued. "They will destroy you if you challenge it."

"[I haven't seen anything] approaching free speech on this topic," Gelernter admitted. "It's a bitter rejection, not just — a sort of bitter, fundamental, angry, outraged, violent rejection, which comes nowhere near scientific of intellectual discussion. I've seen that happen again and again. 'I'm a Darwinist, don't you say a word against it, or, I don't wanna hear it, period.'"

"I am attacking their religion," he concluded. "It is a big issue for them."