Satanic “Church” Recognized by IRS for Tax Exemption

Satanic temple recognized as "church" and tax exempt.

(New York) The satanic temple of Salem in Massachusetts was classified by the federal tax authority as a "church" and thus tax exempt.

Based in Salem, a 40,000-plus city satellite organization, the satellite-host organization recently announced that it has received notification of its new tax status from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the US Federal Tax Agency.

As the Temple of Satan also said, the tax exemption will help the organization in the legal battle "against religious discrimination.” The new tax status allows Satanists to apply to public agencies for subsidies granted on the basis of freedom of worship to guarantee them. It could now claim public land as other religious organizations.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) did not comment.

The Temple of Satan claims at the same time to be an "atheistic" union. The members are not devil worshipers. According to their own information, they want to use religious freedom to fight against religion.

However, the image material published on the Facebook page makes this thesis doubtful. Anyone who acts as a Satanist also seems to be a Satanist. On the other hand, it seems correct that the thrust of Satanist activity is anti-Christian.

The organization is responsible for temporarily erecting a Satanic memorial in front of the Capitol of the State of Arkansas to "protest" against the erection of a monument to the Ten Commandments.

Seat of the Satan Temple in Salem with aberrosexual flag.

In Scottsdale, Arizona, the Satanist organization demanded that members of the City Council should be banned from the prayer that traditionally begins each session.

It is "time" that they are recognized by the federal authorities as a "church", as the federal tax authority has just done, the satanists published on the Internet.

Their jubilation is great:

"The Satanic Temple is now the only federally recognized international religious Satanic organization".

Their slogan is:

"Hail Satan!"

Satanist festival in the presence of satanic sculpture.

They moved their seat according to own report to Salem, because a witch trial took place there in 1692.  19 people were executed because of puritanical hysteria for alleged pacts with the devil in the Puritan settlement. The subject has been repeatedly processed in literature since the early 19th century. This connection was brought to collective consciousness, in particular, by Arthur Miller's play The Crucible ("Witch Hunt"), which premiered in 1953. Miller was thus criticizing the defense against Communists by Senator Joseph McCarthy, which he labeled a "witch hunt".

Since then, the topic has been taken up by various authors, directors and programmers in books, films and computer games, with an upward trend in the new century. The city itself takes advantage of the macabre interest in ghost stories or "hidden forces" for tourism. Several witch museums have been set up and special events are offered on Halloween. [Maybe the Puritans were on to something?]

Text: Andreas Becker

Image: Facebook / Satanic Temple (Screenshots)

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

The Jacobin "Spirit of the Council"

According to Cardinal Suenens the II. Vatican Council had been the '1789' of the Church. Is Liberté the same as indifferentism, égalité the same as destruction of hierarchy and fraternité the same as "ecumenism" polytheism?

The Ingratiation to the French Mob of 1789 has decayed the
Church from within and out. [photo: kreuz.net.info archive]

"The Second Vatican Council is the 1789 of the Church"

The liberal-reformist Cardinal Léon-Joseph Suenens, who was after all, one of the four council moderators, the Council rewrote much saying: "This is the 1789 Vatican II the Church." [Quoted in Marcel Lefebvre: Open Letter to Catholics, 2nd Edition, Stuttgart: Sarto, 2004, pp. 141]

If that is indeed the case, as the Second Vatican Council's strictest faith and ecclesiastical corrosion can be rejected.

The following article is a call to dialog, to Pope Franciscus's demand for comprehensive dialogue. We would like to address the following text  to the Holy Father with the request for a rebuttal.

The Jacobin "Spirit of the Council"

What is the "Spirit of the Council"? It is the "spirit" of the opening of the Church to the world, whose ruler is Satan. This spirit of the Council is summoned far more than the Holy Spirit.

Instead of being open to Jesus Christ, the Church is opened to the anti-Christian lodge opened.

With the Second Vatican Council, the idols of the anti-clerical Freemasonry, namely, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" have been incorporated into the Church. These corrosive idols of Freemasonry have entered into the Church internally as "religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism". What was required prior to the Second Vatican Council, has been actively repressed.

Coming in the Anschluss of the Second Vatican Council a provincialist, modernist liturgy has degenerated into a kind of cult of revolution and all the enemies of the revolution (of the Tridentine Mass, keep the faith) are persecuted with the means of the terror within the Church.

Such apparent decline in the Church is in accordance with the recognized religious prophecies of Our Lady of La Salette: "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist." [?]

In addition, the Virgin at La Salette communicated to us that "the false light enlightens the world." The Masonic "Enlightenment" is the light that leads to eternal darkness.

The "Council-Demon"

Pope Benedict XVI. described the pastoral spirit of the Council consequently as "Council-Demon". [Konzils-Ungeist]

The Second Vatican Council, the Church's Magisterium has fraternized with the Jacobean Magisterium and the idols of the French Revolution's mob has increased within the church:

• The Mob-Idol of religious freedom is a decomposition of the truth "extra ecclesiam nulla salus." The word "religion" is a word that can exist in the plural only hypothetically. In the scriptures it says namely: "And in none other is there salvation. For there is no other name given among men under heaven by which we must be saved "(Acts 4:12). On the subject of religious freedom it can be said: "O Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name!"
• The Mob-Idol of collegiality undermines the authority of the earthly Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Pope, and is a kind of democratization through an enabling act of fellow bishops, who probably prefer to put on an all red Phrygian cap of equality as they proclaim its gospel. Strictly distinct hierarchies are only in inhumane Masonry and exploitative financial system.
• The Mob Idol of "ecumenism" denies the first Commandment of God and replaces it with a Masonic "universal brotherhood" (Nostra Aetate). As is known, Freemasonry puts Jesus Christ, Buddha, Plato, Confucius, FC Bayern Munich, Karl Marx, Mohammed or Zarathustra at one and the same level. 

The religious meeting in Assisi illustrates this world wide, Masonic chain of brotherhood of most diverse "religions", in which the most diverse worship "gods" are convened.

But a real brother is the one who does the will of our Heavenly Father: "For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother" (Matthew 12:50).

When the religious meeting of the chain of brotherhood in Assisi took place,  the impression likely to be created was that God has lost the good pleasure of His Church, and now every wannabe Religion is pleased, though He says in Scripture: "I am the way and the truth and the life No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6).

The three Masonic Mob idols would supplant Christianity, which in the German tax-Church goes counts for success.

People Worship Service Instead of God

The eternal yesterday "spirit" of the Council is the "spirit" that opens the churches to empty them and to deify the mere world: Nostra Aetate, the word "man", occurs 29 times more than "Jesus", which occurs only once, while the word "Muslim" appears at least 3 times. The ratio of the responses of God to man is, according to Nostra Aetate, at least 1 to 29.

A so blatant self-aggrandizement of the people of God (as we know it coming only from the Lodge), can not be understood as an opening to Jesus Christ, but quite the opposite.

Link to kreuz.net...

© kreuz-net.info, EMail: redaktion@kreuz-net.info, Impressum

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com  

AMGD

SSPX Reaffirms its Wish to Continue to Criticize Vatican II and the New Mass

Edit: The Society of St. Pius X and its Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, are reconfirming their allegiance to the spiritual legacy of their founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in their willingness to continue reaffirming the timeless traditions and dogmas of the Church and resisting those things which they say are inconsistent with it, like Religious Liberty, False Ecumenism and Collegiality. Bishop Fellay also identifies two Romes, which may as well refer to two parties working against each other during the discussions on the side of Rome.

The following letter, which comes from DICI, the Society of St. Pius X’s website, is going to reiterate the Society’s notion that the agreement they were expected, but not prepared, to sign is not something which they can accept. If you recall, the Society was being prepared to be brought into the official structure of the Church without the rigid and draconian restrictions on their religious liberty. As of present date, the CDF and the parities who have drafted the most recent Preamble for their signature, demand a level of obedience they expect from no other part of the Church at present date. We don’t know what this means, or if this is going to be accepted by those responsible in the Vatican for this reconciliation. Here’s an excerpt of the letter from Bishop Fellay:

Letter to Friends and Benefactors (April 2013)

15-04-2013

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

It has been quite a long time now that this letter has kept you waiting, and it is with joy, in this Easter season, that we would like to take our bearings and to present a few reflections on the situation of the Church.

As you know, the Society found itself in a delicate position during most of the year 2012, following the final approach of Benedict XVI in attempting to normalize our situation. The difficulties resulted, on the one hand, from requirements that accompanied the Roman proposal—to which we could not and still cannot subscribe—and, on the other hand, from a lack of clarity on the part of the Holy See that did not allow us to know precisely the will of the Holy Father or what he was ready to concede to us. The trouble caused by these uncertainties vanished as of June 13, 2012, with a clear confirmation, on the 30th of the same month, by a letter from Benedict XVI himself clearly and unambiguously spelling out the conditions that were being imposed on us for a canonical normalization.

These conditions are of a doctrinal nature; they entail the total acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and of the Mass of Paul VI. And so, as Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Vice President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, wrote in a letter addressed to the members of the Society of Saint Pius X at the end of last year, on the doctrinal level we are still at the point where we started out in the 1970’s. Unfortunately we can only agree with this observation by the Roman authorities and acknowledge the current relevance of the analysis by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of our Society, which was unwavering in the decades following the Council, until his death. His very accurate insight, which is at the same time theological and practical, is still valid today, fifty years after the start of the Council.

And also:

“Compelled by the facts, it is necessary to conclude that the Council has favored, inconceivably, the diffusion of liberal errors. Faith, morals, and ecclesiastical discipline have been shaken to their foundations according to the predictions of all the popes. "

  Link to DICI….

Intemperate Prime Minister Cameron Insults Church

Edit: the retiring Bishop of the Diocese of Motherwell recently expressed some concerns about the Liberty of the Catholic Church in the United Kingdom on December 10th, which was systematically greeted in the press, to include one "Catholic" blog, as an "intemperate rant". here, here, less offensive here, and here.

Considering that the Prime Minister didn't address any of the Bishop's concerns, about whether Catholic educators would be able to teach according to their consciences without losing their jobs, or how the Catholic Church is being steadily driven out of its traditional role in poor relief, adoption services and medical care by an increasingly hostile government, we thought the Bishop's response was rather mild. The Prime Minister, actually just told the Bishop that he'd have to be happy with being able to wear a cross in public, and that he insultingly stated that the Catholic Church and the Bishop should, "get with the program".

What program is that? Violating Catholic teaching to satisfy the increasingly capricious and decadent Government of the United Kingdom?

We just received the exchange from a reader in Scotland, which wasn't cited by any of the anti-Catholic media. She assured me that the press wouldn't be fair about it. So we've edited the Bishops second letter and included the important points omitted by the usual suspects in the press. Interestingly, the Catholic Herald and the Tablet are awol on this it seems.

This is another addition which Elizabeth thought was the most significant thing about the letter to the Prime Minister:

"So far as the Roman Catholic Church, whose Catholic adherents -the largest minority (approx. 6 million) in the UK - the one faith group not provided for in law - is concerned, you are out of your depth. We will take no finger-prodding lectures from anyone or any group devoid of moral competence. I suspect it is only a matter of time before you go one step further and outlaw the teaching of Christian doctrine on sexual morality on the grounds of discrimination."

Here's an excerpt addressing the issues:

You have publicly declared that "the values of Christianity are the values we need"; that Christian values were central to Britain and should be "treasured". Yet at the European Court of Human Rights your government is contesting appeals by Christians in their attempt to reverse UK Tribunal and Court judgments against them. Judgmenets that forbid them from practicing their Christian values and living as their consciences dictate. 

Your reasoning -- "that we are not supporting these cases as we want to defend UK legislation and do not think that the law in this issue should be dictated by Strasbourg" -- is saying in effect that while you claim to be an advocate for "Christian values" to be "treasured" and practiced in our nation that UK judgments against the rights of Christians must nevertheless be upheld at all costs. You vacillate -- ambivalent about the role you wish to perform -- the Disciple of David or Nero! With such a contradiction between your statements and actions on what basis can you expect anyone -- Christian in particular -- to trust or respect you? 

... Which brings me to your regrettable reproach of the Church of England. [He attacked the Church of England for not approving Women Lay-Bishops]  With your customary linguistic aplomb you protested that the Church needed to "get with the program me"; that it needed a "sharp prod" towards the modern world. Disagree with decisions by all means but such graceless comments were indelicate to the point of being offensive. And this from a prime minister belittling the nation's established church. Hardly an example to set for society in general and especially for the youth of this country. 

... You have already started with your indecent haste to rush through the Gay Marriage Bill. Counsel from respected legal experts warn of the damage that redefining marriage will do to Christian religious freedom and the protection of family life, all of which will further undermine Christians freedom of conscience. We face the prospect of teachers being forced to teach against their religious beliefs or face dismissal (your own education minister refused to rule out such a possibility); the likelihood that parents would have no right to withdraw their child from lessons endorsing gay marriage; the probability of public sector workers losing their jobs for not promoting the governments new vision of marriage and careers being rejected for fostering because of their Christian beliefs. This amounts to a serious threat to civil liberties even to the extent of preventing people doing things which are manifestly good for society. 

As Pope Benedict XVI has declared: "Religious freedom is the pinnacle of all other freedoms. It is a sacred and inalienable right. It includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one's conscience in religious matters." These statements should be uncontested as they are enshrined in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. In a recent report the UN special rapporteur said: "The state has to respect everyone's freedom of religion or belief as an inalienable -- and thus non-negotiable -- entitlement of human beings." Sadly, under your premiership, this most basic of human rights is no longer being respected in the UK>

Finally, with regard to your demand that the Church "get with the programme" let me remind you that the Christian Church is a fact of history, an incarnation of Christianity. Christ created a Church for all time, not to suit the specific mores of an era. It embraces every nation and culture known to man and has withstood the rise and fall of empires and civilisations for over two millennia -- and all this amazingly without any direction and guidance from you or your peer group. 

Yours,  

Bishop Devine

Berlin's Archbishop Woelki For Dialogue With the SSPX

Edit: this is the first that it's clear that the Society is expected, at least according to Archbishop Woelki, to accept the Second Vatican Council completely. It's also important to note that the Society continues to distance itself from and isolate Bishop Williamson.

The leadership continues to hold out hope for the "conservative" leadership of the Church.


Deutschlandradio Kulture interviewed Berlin's Archbishop Woelki about a relationship with the SSPX.  Here is an excerpt from the interview.

D-Radio:   But to whom is this rejection directed -- perhaps even to a Pope, who still directed a reconciliation with the Ultra-orthodox Society of St. Pius X, even though aware a member was a holocaust denier? [This again...]

Woelki:  For that reason, I believe the Pope has performed a very importance service.  His task consists precisely in forming reconciliation and unity, and in fact it comes straight from his office and in Tradition, which is also that of Taizé.  So it is not enough now to just close a group out, rather we stress here also the political arena is just as important as dialogue, to get to know people, and only then, when one speaks to another, can one integrate and then reconcile.  And I think that this is the important mission of this Papal office, to stand for the unity of the Church and seek this unity of the Church.

D-Radio:  But isn't it difficult to communicate and integrate this group of all things?

Woelki:  I don't know.  Therefore I think one doesn't know about this group ... It is surely a difficult group, it is not my group and one has to be very careful to maintain that now all, who belong to this group, are holocaust deniers or even belong to radical right bodies of thought.  There is in fact one of these, completely  insensible and irrational men, who did this, and so far as I know, the other so-called Bishops, who are also not approved by us,  by the Catholic Church,  have even distanced themselves from this man.

No, there is a group, that has problems with accepting certain statements in the Second Vatican Council in a certain way.  And I think that the dialogue has shown that the Pope is clearly on the level with the Second Vatican Council, and that he and now also these men, whom he has commissioned to lead this conversation has made it clear that the SSPX must accept statements about the Second Vatican Council otherwise no communion with the Catholic Church is possible.

Commentary from SSPX German District:  HE Bishop Woelki here represents the represents the course of most conservative Church leaders: In contrast to the enemies of the Society, they do not throw all the Bishops and priests in the Williamson-bag and recognize that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X has nothing to do with right--wing ideologies.

Because the current course is now set in Rome is on reconciliation and brotherhood,  the discussions with the Society will continue.

The Society of St. Pius X is regarded in this way as a mule, who has simply not yet understood that the Council "as a whole" has to be accepted.

This approach completely bypasses the problem of course:  The Catholic Church is in complete collapse 50 years after the Council.  You must pray for Msgr Woelki and all the other more or less conservative bishops that they come to appreciate at last this context:  the reason for the massive apostasy is the Council, at least those portions  that the progressives exploit with their new theology of the equality of all religions,  to prey on the Church.   This is how the Church has lost its purpose and consciousness of mission, and in consequence the loss of Holy Mass (replaced by a community meal) and therefore also vocations.

So long as the bishops do not recognize the crisis in the Church and their causes, there will remain a dialogue, which completely misses the point.

Link to SSPX German District...

Equality Bill Struck Down in House of Lords

In what would have spelled greater persecution for Catholic priests and bishops, the Equality Bill was struck down by the House of Lords today. It isn't a victory for Religious Liberty, as if that were a laudable thing, but it is a temporary reprieve. Anyhow, Catholic Culture calls this a victory for religious liberty, but we'd like to hear them make a distinction between the liberty and exultation of our Mother the Church and false principle of "religious liberty".

Catholic Culture article...