Seen on the web re: Illinois politicians using the Pope’s comments for cover on their vote to legalize homosexual marriage

Janet Baker
November 6, 2013 at 11:30 pm · Reply

I just don’t see it that he has been misrepresented. He said what he said. He had the chance to deny that he said we were not ‘to judge.’ But in fact that is Vatican II’s legacy, when it made the Church subsist along with all others in a greater ‘church’ where salvation may be found for all, without Christ, without the sacraments, without baptism. It is a doctrinal problem and Pope Francis’ words accurately reflect the doctrine of that cursed council. Perhaps God is letting us have enough rope to hang ourselves. It was easier to believe Benedict’s more elevated modernism, to hope it meant that everything was okay, would turn out okay, without the painful process that rooting out that council and that rotten doctrine. Maybe now the middle-of-the-roaders, who forget yesterday’s lesson as soon as they awaken each morning, will finally get it. What that awakening means for us, I do not know. It is the duty of the Cardinals to declare a manifest heretic. They can do that. If he allows a woman ‘cardinal,’ will they? By the way, this is not the first time the flaw has influenced our politics: democratic politicians, including Nancy Pelosi and Biden, cite the Council as the source of their votes on abortion.

Read more

Is it even possible for a pope (or popes) to “sink” the Barque of Peter?

PeterBarque

Whatever the state of the Church back in 1958, one thing is certain, relatively speaking, it was one hell of a lot healthier than the Church of 2013. Again, liberals who rather enjoy believing and behaving as protestants will disagree, but it’s the truth.

Pope Francis pointed out in his recent interview that John XXIII employed an approach to Church governance that is summarized in the following motto:

“See everything; turn a blind eye to much; correct a little.”

I hadn’t heard that before, but it rings true. John XXIII corrected, not a little, but nothing as far as I know. For example, he promulgated the very important Apostolic Constitution,Veterum Sapientia, and yet when bishops conferences and seminary rectors thumbed their nose at it, he did nothing.

Later in his short pontificate, John XXIII ordered that the Catechism of the Council of Trent should be republished, but that order also fell on deaf ears without any repercussion.

The high point of this spineless pontificate came in October 1962. The liberal faction among the Council Fathers’ first order of business at Vatican II was to summarily dismiss the 72 schemata painstakingly drafted over a period of more than two years by the Preparatory Commission appointed by Pope John XXIII for that very purpose. Though the mutiny-bent bishops couldn’t manage the 2/3 majority necessary according to the council’s rules to formally reject the schemata, the pope let them do it anyway.

You get the point.

Link

Did six Protestant ministers at the 2nd Vatican Council really help design the Novus Ordo Mass?

vaticansix

(Vatican II’s “Fantastic Six” didn’t really wear numbers)

Returning to the “myth” that Protestant observers did not contribute in creating the New Mass, to hold this position is to deny the obvious – not only in fact, but also in substance. In the first place, an ecumenical liturgy that would no longer offend Protestants was Fr. Annibale Bugnini’s intention from the get-go as he declared in 1965:

We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants… [my emphasis]

While we learn from the close confidant of Pope Paul VI, Jean Guitton:

The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic Liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass” [my emphasis][4].

To accomplish this ecumenical goal, the Consilium
enlisted the help of these Protestant observers:

  1. A. Raymond George (Methodist)
  2. Ronald Jaspar (Anglican)
  3. Massey Shepherd (Episcopalian)
  4. Friedrich Künneth (Lutheran)
  5. Eugene Brand (Lutheran)[5]
  6. Max Thurian (Calvinist-community of Taize).

Their contribution in creating the New Mass was immortalized in a picture taken of them during an audience with Pope Paul VI after thanking them for their assistance. The image was subsequently published in L’Osservatore Romano on April 23, 1970 with the title: “Commission Holds Final Meeting, Pope Commends Work of Consilium”.

Read more

Talk is “cheap”

wolfy2Since the Council we have witnessed, for the first time in the Church’s bimillenial history, the emergence of a strain of Catholic “neo-conservatism”—hence neo-Catholicism—characterized by a staunch defense of unprecedented ecclesial novelties the Popes before the Council would have viewed with utter horror. Among other novelties comprising the liberalized ecclesial status quo of the post-conciliar epoch, the neo-Catholic defends the new vernacular liturgy (including the appalling spectacle of altar girls, approved by “John Paul the Great”), the new “ecumenism,” which has all but de-missionized the Church, and the new “dialogue,” which has reduced the perennial preaching of the Gospel with the authority of Christ Himself to a vacuous  “discussion-ism” that avoids any open proclamation of the imperatives of divine revelation, especially the claims of Christ on nations as well as individuals.

Concerning “dialogue,” as Romano Amerio observed in his masterwork Iota Unum, this “is very new in the Catholic Church…” The word “was completely unknown in the Church’s teaching before the Council. It does not occur once in any previous council, or in papal encyclicals, or in sermons or in pastoral practice.” Yet this novelty suddenly appears 28 times in the Vatican II documents that were drafted in haste after the classically written preparatory schema, years in the making, were tossed into the trash following the famous Rhine group uprising on the Council’s third day. (Cfr. Wiltgen’s The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, pp. 15-60). Amerio notes that dialogue, “through its lightning spread and an enormous broadening of meaning, became the master-word determining post-conciliar thinking, and a catch-all category in the newfangled mentality.”  (Iota Unum, p. 347). The newfangled mentality to which Amerio refers is the mentality fairly described as neo-Catholic.

Read more

Editor’s note: A definition of Sacred and Apostolic Tradition: The means by which the Holy Spirit infallibly guides the Catholic Church, from age to age.

Pope’s latest homily hints that the “Spirit of Vatican II” may have been the “Spirit of the World”.

devilcolor

Pope Francis said: “It’s not enough to say: ‘But I believe in God, God is the only God.’ That’s fine, but how do you live this out in your life’s journey? Because we can say, ‘The Lord is the only God, there is no other’, but then live as if He was not the only God and have other deities at our disposal … There is a danger of ‘ idolatry: idolatry, which is brought to us through the spirit of the world. And in this Jesus was clear: the spirit of the world, no. At the Last Supper he asks the Father to defend us from the spirit of the world, because the spirit of the world leads us to idolatry. ”

The Pope continued: “Idolatry is subtle…we all have our hidden idols” and “the path of life to follow, to not be far from the kingdom of God” involves “discovering our hidden idols.”

Link

Editor’s note: The “Spirit of Vatican II” was the “hidden idol” of the liberal Catholics who did their best to wreck the Church after Vatican II … and they haven’t stopped trying … to this day.

Dirty little secret about the 2nd Vatican Council: Many of the evils the pre-conciliar popes opposed, have been triumphant in the everyday life of the Church ever since.

As the Holy Father wrote of “liturgical renewal, joyful fervor, and radiant vitality,” the Archdiocese of Detroit, by contrast (to name just one such example), was addressing the real world state-of-affairs by unveiling plans to board-up some 40% of its parishes.

His successor, Pope Benedict XVI, followed suit, painting similarly unrealistic portraits of the Council’s impact on Catholic life.

On January 1, 2013, for example, Catholics who have long since accepted bankrupt dioceses, empty seminaries and irreverent liturgies as the “new normal” heard Pope Benedict’s Message for the World Day of Peace, in which the Holy Father spoke of “the Second Vatican Council which helped to strengthen the Church’s mission in the world.”

The matter-of-factness with which the pope offered this assessment would seem to suggest that it is simply self-evident that the Council fortified the Church, and yet one is hard pressed to deny that every meaningful measure indicates precisely the opposite.

Read more

Vatican/Society of Saint Pius X controversy rages on. See the reader comments.

Link

The who, what, where, when, and why of the 2nd Vatican Council

In his latest book, The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story (Loreto Publications, 2012), Roberto de Mattei, a historian in Rome, writes: “[Ecumenical] Councils exercise, under and with the Pope, a solemn teaching authority in matters of faith and morals and set themselves up as supreme judges and legislators, insofar as Church law is concerned. The Second Vatican Council did not issue laws, and it did not even deliberate definitively on questions of faith and morals. The lack of dogmatic definitions inevitably started a discussion about the nature of its documents and about how to apply them in the so-called ‘postconciliar period.’”

Professor de Mattei outlines the two main schools of thought in that discussion. The first and more theological approach presupposes an “uninterrupted ecclesial Tradition” and therefore expects the documents of Vatican II to be interpreted in a way consistent with authoritative Church teaching in the past. This is the “hermeneutic of continuity” emphasized by Pope Benedict XVI.

A second, more historical approach advocated by Professor Giuseppe Alberigo and the “School of Bologna” maintains that the Council “was in the first place an historical ‘event’ which, as such, meant an undeniable discontinuity with the past: it raised hopes, started polemics and debates, and in the final analysis inaugurated a new era.” The “event-dimension” of the Council is Exhibit A in making the case for the elusive “spirit of Vatican II” that looks beyond the actual words of the conciliar documents to the momentum that they supposedly generated.

Link

The fine line between church dogma and church geopolitics concerning Muslims and their particular beliefs

In declaring that both Muslims and Catholics adore the one and merciful God, the Council obviously did not mean that Muslims and Catholics regard that God in exactly the same way, or that the differences were insignificant. The Council is silent on the question of whether or not the Muslims’ adoration is blind or informed. So what, then, is the Council actually saying?

Read more

Editor’s note: The Council was deliberately leaving plenty of room for liberal clerics and politicians to demagogue the issue.

A 50-year personal retrospective: Vatican II was no “New Pentecost”.

by Doug Lawrence

Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 2, chronicles the authentic events of the first Christian Pentecost, which were shortly followed by the miraculous expansion of the Church and the subsequent baptism of countless souls, all over the known world.

The Catholic Church came into existence on Pentecost. The fire enkindled by the Holy Spirit on that great day still burns bright. Billions of souls, from scores of generations, subsequently came to know and love God, through their faithful participation in the work, worship, sacraments and devotions of the Catholic Church.

There was nothing sufficiently wrong with the Catholic Church to warrant anything like the destructive and spiritually violent “New Pentecost of the 1960’s” that has since been blasphemously proclaimed by so many, for so long, with little more than 50 years of  “rotten fruit” to show for it.

I lived through the heady days of the 2nd Vatican Council, which was shortly followed by what was arguably the greatest apostasy in the Catholic Church, that the world has yet witnessed.

I knew the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church. I loved the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church. Through the good offices and sacraments of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church, I came to be a friend of God. All of that was turned upside down, violently torn asunder, ransacked and roughly trampled underfoot (sometimes literally) in the riotous aftermath of the council known as Vatican II.

That’s why I can say with certainty that Vatican II was NO “New Pentecost”. It was instead, a purely political (not “pastoral”) revolution, that for a time, effectively took over the leadership of the Holy Catholic Church, to absolutely NO good end. And it may well take another hundred years, with God’s good help, to properly restore all that has been lost.

So, there’s your 50-year retrospective on the 2nd Vatican Council, through the eyes of one still exasperated Catholic soul, who actually lived through it!

Related article

It has been 49 years since the opening of the Second Vatican Council

Only now is the Catholic world finally realising that the decrees of the Second Vatican Council were completely misinterpreted during those crucial years that followed its closing.

It appears that the Sacred Council’s documents have very little in common with what came to be termed the “spirit of Vatican II” – a phrase that seems to have been deployed by modernists as a means of hijacking the Church’s 21st Ecumenical Council.

Read more

“The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much Needed Discussion,” Msgr. Brunero Gherardini.

“It is absurd…to even think that modern and contemporary culture–that which is understood as having its beginning in the Enlightenment and which today finds expression in ‘weak thought,’ or materialism, or indifferentism and relativism–can be recognized as a natural development of ancient Tradition.”

-From a book on the 2nd Vatican Council, by Msgr. Brunero Gherardini: Canon of St. Peter’s Basilica, a secretary for the Pontifical Academy of Theology, a professor emeritus at the Pontifical Lateran University, and the editor of Divinitas, a leading Roman theological journal.

Link

It’s time to for the Pope to officially bring to a close the 1st Vatican Council (Yes … the FIRST one!)

Pope Pius IX Presided
Over the 1st Vatican Council

The outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war led to the interruption of the 1st Vatican Council. It was in fact never resumed, nor was it ever officially closed.

It’s high time Vatican I was finally and officially wrapped-up.

And of course, since Vatican I was never properly completed, it wouldn’t be much of a stretch for the Pope to go ahead and declare the 2nd Vatican Council to be null and void.

After all, how can you have a 2nd Vatican Council when the 1st one is still (at least technically) still going on?

This wasn’t my idea, either. “The Spirit of Vatican II” provided all the necessary inspiration. Honest!

Another “take” on Matthew 13:28 – A parable for the modern church

Matthew 13:24-30 Another parable he (Jesus) proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle weeds among the wheat and went his way.

(The 2nd Vatican Council was a legitimate, duly called and properly conducted church council. But enemies of the church took advantage of the council’s aftermath, introducing dissent, heresy, and confusion, into even the highest offices of the church.)

And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle weeds.

(As the various authentic reforms of the 2nd Vatican council were implemented, the results were oddly, not very good. In fact, the most substantial results were great apostasy, falling away, scandal, and widespread spiritual anarchy.)

And the servants of the good man of the house coming said to him. Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? Whence then hath it cockle weeds?

(Faithful Catholics remarked, “How can this be? Was not the 2nd Vatican Council an authentic church council? Did not all the bishops, in union with the pope, agree with and sign all the various documents and decrees? Did not the fathers desire only what is good for the church? Was not the Holy Spirit truly present there, as faithful guide and advocate?”)

And he said to them: An enemy hath done this.

(An enemy HAS done this!)

And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up?

(Something has obviously gone dramatically wrong! What shall we do now … start over?)

And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it.

(The Catholic Church has been in existence for 2000 years and it is built on Rock. It has withstood many similar attacks. Scripture, Tradition, authentic Magisterial Teachings and the Holy Spirit, will most certainly see it through.)

Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather into my barn.

(My grace shall be sufficient for the truly faithful, who love me, and whom I also love. To Hell with the rest of them!)

It’s high time the “God of love” showed us Catholics a bit of his wrath!

“Ticked off” Jesus – from the Book of Revelation

First of all, let me state for the record, that the 2nd Vatican Council was legitimately called, that it met all the usual standards for church councils, and for those reasons, I find no fault with it.

That said, the liberal, modernist cardinals, bishops and priests who led the POST-Vatican II revolution, and who were themselves led by some unknown, probably demonic, obtuse spirit, (most certainly NOT God, the Holy Spirit) couldn’t have done much more damage to the Catholic Church, if they had used molotov cocktails and guillotines.

In retrospect, a guillotine would have been more merciful, while the molotov cocktails would have been more efficient, and more in keeping with the times.

Instead, we Catholics have been forced to endure over forty years of what is more akin to “water boarding” … being slowly suffocated … one drop at a time … as those in charge patiently, stealthily, often gleefully, defiled and deconstructed that which took twenty centuries of God’s grace to build up.

Traditional religious art and statuary, which for many hundreds of years, served to teach and inspire both peasants and kings, is produced no longer.

Church buildings that had once reflected the glory of Heaven, are today, mostly banal structures, vaguely reminiscent of convention centers.

Religious orders, once the repository of all that was good in Western civilization, have either vanished, or turned into affinity groups for community organizers, gays and lesbians.

No one (except perhaps for Father Corapi) authoritatively teaches the Catholic faith, anymore. Local ordinaries act as celebrity toastmasters. Teaching, baptizing (and evangelizing) have all suffered in the process, but for a good cause!

The unofficial new tradition of the post-counciliar church is: “We don’t teach that anymore” (in English and Spanish, of course!)

“Social Justice” no longer refers to merely feeding the hungry, clothing the naked,  or housing the homeless. Today, we write big checks to groups that aren’t even Catholic, or if  we’re kind of preoccupied with local scandals … or attempting to curry favor with one politician or another … we write big checks to groups that are outright anti-Catholic

Theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas –  “the Angelic Doctor” – are out. Congar, Rahner, and Von Balthsar are in.

The radical types who took over all the universities, as well as the Democratic Party, may also be observed running the Catholic dioceses and seminaries!

Between all of them, it’s as though the Catholic Church was founded in Rome, on December 8, 1965 … by communists, socialists, homosexuals and feminists … and as of late … radical, eco-pagans.

Bishops are CEO’s of dioceses that are often worth a hundred million dollars, or more. With responsibility for that amount of assets, it’s no wonder they often don’t have the time or energy to properly monitor or support their priests. If only those assets were all in cash!

The Vatican bureaucracy, hobbled by communists, masons, and homosexuals … runs as always … ponderously … and strictly at it’s own pace … as if Heaven really can wait!

The Pope heroically carries on as best he can, under the circumstances. God love him.

Which brings us to the heart of the matter:

Like the lucky but habitual speeder, who usually got away scott-free, but was finally pulled over, even though he wasn’t speeding at the time … Pope Benedict and all his liberal, modernist pals (including Pope John Paul II) were the main cheerleaders at the 2nd Vatican Council, where they never met an innovation they didn’t like, and where they presided over ALL that followed.

They just couldn’t wait to “shake things up” … to bring the church out of the “dark ages” … to “open up the windows and let in some air” … and to “counter” all that was done and taught by the church, in the “bad old days”.

The huge dose of radical innovation set things a bit on fire, and failing to keep a close eye on it, that little fire eventually turned into a real blaze, a blaze that first heated things up in America, and now, is making the Vatican pretty hot, for our dear Pope!

So, whether or not the pope is actually guilty of any of the priestly abuse cover-ups that people are accusing him of, it’s good for him to suffer a bit. He deserves it. And if he’s smart, he’ll spread the pain around to his fellow bishops too, since suffering is integral to the authentic Catholic faith, and they can all use the practice.

Heaven knows, what remains of the faithful Catholic laity has been suffering … mostly in reverent silence … for over forty years!

I know I’m ticked off about all this … and I’m sure I don’t know the half of it. Imagine how ticked off someone would be if he could “read” people’s hearts and minds!

God bless Pope Benedict XVI … and all the bishops. I have a hunch they’re going to need it!

Read: “The death of a Catholic seminary”

Still Trying to Interpret Vatican II… over 40 Years Later

Why the Council’s “true interpretation” remains elusive even to its staunchest defenders should be obvious after forty years of wandering in the post-conciliar desert: Except where it simply repeated a constant teaching of the Church, Vatican II is utterly meaningless. Insofar as its supposedly “distinctive” teaching is concerned, the Council is a collection of ambiguities that tend to cancel each other out, leaving us, in essence, with nothing.  It is precisely the nothingness of Vatican II that has led to the endless debate over what it means…

Read more

When the ’60s radicals took over the Catholic church

When Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council in l960, almost every bishop in the world was puzzled. Vatican Councils historically are only called when the Church is in some desperate need or is fighting a very serious heresy (a widespread attack on a dogma of faith, i.e., Mary was not the Mother of God).  But this was a time when the Catholic Church seemed to be in her glory.  We had an abundance of priests and nuns.  Seminaries were full. Catholic schools were overflowing.  It was not uncommon that attendance at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was standing room only.  Almost every Saturday, there were lines for Confession.

So why call a council?  Pope John was warned by some Bishops that in their midst were some (not many) liberal Bishops who would use the council to “modernize” the Church. Previous Popes, especially Pope St. Pius X, had warned that the Church must never be “modern”. She must be unchangeable because what is modern in 1940 will not be modern in 1960 and what is modern in 1960 will not be modern in 1980. By remaining FOREVER unchangeable, you are always relevant.  Pope John promised it would be a PASTORAL Council and not DOCTRINAL or DOGMATIC so that the Deposit of Faith (our beliefs) and the liturgy of the Mass will not change.  It has been said that before he died, he saw the council change in a direction he was unable to stop and thus welcomed death knowing the council would die with him.  Unfortunately, it was re-opened by Pope Paul VI, his successor, who invited 6 Protestant clergy to act as “observers”.  Behind the scenes, these “observers” were allowed much more input and became unofficial participants.  Thus, the Roman Catholic Mass could become “Protestantized.”  At the end of the council, one of the Protestant ministers is quoted as saying:  “This is the best council the Protestants ever had!”

It is not our intention to give you a step by step history of Vatican II.   However, you should know that when the council closed, the wheels were in motion like a train at full speed.  In the driver’s seat were the “modernist” bishops who’d used the council like a vehicle to take it to their own destination—a more “modern” church, open to innovation, causing weakening of faith and much confusion.  Pope Paul VI seeing the end result of Vatican II said in no uncertain terms: “THE SMOKE OF SATAN HAS ENTERED THE CHURCH!”

Read more

How is it that Catholic politicians continue to violate Catholic principles with impunity?

More than forty years after the 2nd Vatican Council, the Catholic Church remains mired in confusion and still lacks confidence in its own re-oriented and re-purposed world view.

No wonder, since many traditional Catholic teachings and practices have been so “watered down” as to be almost unidentifiable,while others have been quietly de-emphasized or otherwise put away in the false hope that the Catholic Church might somehow become more acceptable to devotees of the world, the flesh and the devil.

This leaves the bishops in the difficult position of teaching equivocally about that which until fairly recently, has always been clearly defined, unequivocal, divine truth.

Equivocating about the truth is just another form of  lying … and lying is something that any politician (and most sensible Catholics) can easily identify, appreciate and understand.

So … and politicians obviously have absolutely no compunction about this … it’s merely the Catholic politician’s version of the lie vs. the bishop’s.

One politician to another!

President Obama isn’t even Catholic, yet he instinctively understands this, since for Obama and his ilk, there is no such thing as absolute truth.

What We Have Lost: 5-Part Video Series On the Post-Vatican II Catholic Church

Five Part Video Series that’s well worth watching:

What is a CINO?

kenendyobama

Q: What is a CINO?

A: CINO means Catholic In Name Only. Alternative meaning: Christian In Name Only. See above photo for examples. 

I will confine my explanation to Catholics, alone.

Real Catholics manifest their close, personal relationship with God by accepting all the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church, by the charitable service they typically and freely render to to their neighbors, in the name of Jesus Christ, and through their consistent and faithful participation in all of the work, worship, sacraments and devotions of the Catholic Church.

Real Catholics also typically engage in frequent prayer, while maintaining an ongoing regimen of Catholic studies, in order to keep the conscience fully informed.  

If  a real Catholic suspects he might have offended God or man, he promptly makes a good faith effort to mend his ways, and through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, gratefully receives God’s forgiveness and grace.

Real Catholics also take God at his Word, as it has been authoritatively and clearly explained through his one, holy,  Catholic, and apostolic Church, according to the will of God the Father, the promises of Jesus Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit.  

CINO’s remain affiliated with the Church primarily for the personal and political benefits that go along with their membership. To A CINO, the Church is little more than a semi-private club.  

In order to justify their positions, CINO’s tend to rely on the flawed opinions of those who only appear to have moral authority, since any other course of action would require a modicum of personal disicpline and at least some allegiance to authentic Catholic Church teachings. 

CINO’s rely on their own malformed consciences to provide the necessary rationalization for whatever types of  lusts, perversions, and other abominations they might personally prefer. As a result, CINO’s typically claim to never sin … at least in a serious way … and hence … see no need for Confession or similar types of things.

CINO’s believe that “the Spirit of the 2nd Vatican Council”  pretty much did away with the need for priests and church hierarchy, dogmas and defined truths, sacraments and/or formal worship.

With CINO’s, conscience … not Christ … is King … and so long as a CINO manages to keep his conscience “in the dark” … just about anything is permissible … especially since CINO’s typically believe that the prospect of Judgment Day is only a cruel hoax … and that God … if he truly exists … is really just a big “cream puff” … who will tolerate just about anything.