Revelation or Mindless optimism?

It has come to the AATS's attention that lately that a certain heretical practice has became increasingly popular. This practice known as 'divine revelation', has been spreading through the charismatic non-denominational 'my-religion-is-not-a-religion' denominations.
These people believe that God will speak through their mouth and give them divine revelations this way. For lack of a better word i shall refer to the one receiving the 'divine revelations' a medium. The revelation usually goes this way.

1. The medium will start to pray fervantly for God to appear.
2. God starts to speak through the medium's mouth and the medium claims she/he is not speaking the words. The Lord is.
3. Everything 'God' said is considered gospel truth.

For those of you who have ever picked up a good book will probably recall the Taiping revolutions during Qing Dynasty in China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion#Theology
Please take a second to read it.

It is happening here now in our country!!!!! Men has not learnt anything! Here we have people who claims that they ARE God. "How do you know if it is not God speaking through the mouths of these blessed people' you might ask me. Ill tell you why I do not believe in a SINGLE word of it.
First, Its a load of crap, its blasphemous. It takes alot of pride to believe that you are on the same position as God and you can command the Lord to talk through your mouth at will.
Second, I thought them heretics adopt the sola scriptura, the view that anything outside the bible is not to be believed? Are these heretics contradicting themselves again? Or can you claim that this is biblical? Please quote a passage from the bible that goes somewhere along the line of
"and Lo, a common gentile opens his mouth and speaks the words of the Lord while the congregation shouts amen and danced in the beat of techno music"
But given that they can have religions that are not religions and denominations that are not denominations. I will give that they are incapable of logic or reason.
Thirdly, Ive witnessed many of these 'revelations' and noticed many grammatical mistakes and pronouciation errors from these revelations. So God is perfect in all ways, but not in languages?
Fourthly, i cannot believe that ALL these revelations are unanimous and agree with each other.
So is God contradicting Himself or are the Heretics contradicting themselves?
Lastly, it seems that these revelations usually speak of things that people like to hear. Our Lord condemns error and does not say yes to everything.

I believe anyone with half a brain can see clearly that these 'divine revelations' are either a scam or words coming from mindlessly optimistic mediums. I do not deny the fact that our Lord can give revelations in that manner if He so wish but how can we know if a certain revelation is true?
So must we believe in all 'revelations'? Today i can go to a heretical temple and claim that i have the revelation. And if i say all the things that they want to believe, then my words will be words from the Lord. But infact I made up the words, how then can any christian, heretic or pagan point a finger at me and say 'you are fake'. They cannot because there is no way to prove. They cannot because they want to believe what i said was infact the words of God. (provided i say some things that they really want - like you will get a big house wealth etc) And me on my part will want to believe that i am so blessed that God speaks through my mouth. It then degenerated further into a self-deception. What good can come out of this deceptions? Nothing.
You might benefit from the effects of certain self-fulfilled prophecies, but thats the best you can get. If you are to believe in a PERSON that his words are God's. It takes admirable faith, but it also makes you dumber then dumb. Its one thing to have faith in the Lord, another to have faith in Men.

That is all. If you believe in illogical things that arent even biblical, grow some brains.

Yours Unamalagamatedly,

The Unamalagamated Inquisitor

Alliance against Theosophical Liberal Catholics

Good day My beloved Brethen and assorted bunch of heretics and schismatics who frequent my blog.

Someone mentioned to me one day "your blog's entries have nothing to do with Theosophical Societies!' Who exactly are we against?

The first Theosophical society was formed in 1875, by this lovely lady Helena Petrovna Hahn,
or "Madame Blavatsky". Mdm Blavatsky claimed that all religions contained some truth and is only misinterpreted by inperfect men who can only see a little of the truth. In short none of the religions owned the whole truth but are partly true. Therefore all of them are false yet contains some aspect of truth. Through the application of New Science can we discover truth.

This is a very sweet thing and everyone loves the 'ooh lets forget our differences and put flowers on our heads' feeling. I might like to eat poisoned apples, but that doenst mean poisoned apples are good. Theosophy is the poisoned apple.
Why is it so? Liberalism has been around since the beginning of time. The slimy little snake saying to Eve "You certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad."
Since the beginning, liberalism has been around. Liberate ourselves from the confinement of God's rules and teachings. Liberate ourselves to things that we want, rather then things that is the will of God.

In such we start to believe in everything we want to believe. We start to believe that God gave truth to all religions and all religions lead to Him. We start to believe in ourselves rather then God. Truth is only one. There can only be one truth and the rest are false. Or all of them are false. It will be a logical contradiction to believe that all religions are true since all teachings contradict each other.

Although this blog's title is an Alliance against Theosophical Societies, its true enemy are the Liberal Catholics. Whom in their belief has turned them theosophical. Why is it so? Modernist Catholics believe that all religions lead to truth. They believe that though Truth is unchanging, there are other ways to truth other then the catholic way. Therefore, you will reach God if you are a protestant heretic, you will go to heaven even if you do not believe in Christ and reject Him. So long as you keep your faith in whatever religion you are in, you are fine.
I believe the logical extension of this belief will be to become Theosophical. The "Theosophical Societies" that this Alliance is against is the Liberal Catholics. The ones who have no respect for tradition that our Lord has laid down, and so engaged in the modern world that anything goes. The desire for ecumenism has led the Liberal catholics to put their faith (which is handed down by God) on par with other faith. They believe that 'your faith is as good as mine so long as you believe in God".

Nothing is further from the truth. If all faith leads to God, then why bother be catholic? I might as well become buddhist or muslim. It wouldnt make a difference. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself has laid the foundations of His Church when he said to Peter "And I say to thee, That thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."(matthew 16:18) The Catholic church, led first by Peter, is the Church our Lord founded. The others, are creations of men. Martin Luther, John Wesley, King Henry VIII and many others. They are men. They believed that they can know the truth. But since Vatican II, modernist and liberal catholics are beginning to forsake the ways of the church that God build to follow the ways of churches created by men. The new mass, is created by six protestant ministers so it can be more acceptable to the world outside the church.
The Church is changing itself to 'fit the time'. Ok, this all sounds sweet and gooey. Does that mean that soon we will having buddhist idols in our churches and have a rock concert inside our church where the Tabernacle is? The sad thing is, these atrocities have already been done.
Authorized by liberal bishops and priests.Even bishops and priests, who is supposed to uphold traditions and know what they are doing, agrees to such atrocities. What chances will the common laity hold? "the priest says this is OK, who are you to decide that it is wrong? You are spiritually immature!" And the next thing you see the priest dancing around on stage like a
monkey holding the Monstrance. (you can find the video clip from youtube about this real incident by a liberal bishop) An utter sacrilege.

"Indeed deliberate and notable irreverence towards the Holy Eucharist is reputed the worst of all sacrileges"- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13321a.htm

And it is.

This is the fruit of Vatican II, this is the result of compromising with the world. We surrender the ways God passed down as sacred tradition for popular worldy beliefs. We surrendered the sacred mass for singalong sessions created by schismatical heretics(the protestants and no I refuse to call them 'our separated brethen').

You have a choice, 'eat the sweet apple called liberalism and join the crowd. Or follow our King our Lord in His teachings passed down.' (and no im not talking about the 'manifestations' that is going on in some non-denominational denominations, dont play God like that. Its sacrilegious)


Yours Unamalagamatedly,

The Unamalagamated Inquisitor

Ecumenism or Assimilation?

Hello, this is the Unamalgamated Inquisitor
How pleased I am to see you all here. The birds are singing on the trees, the Sun's golden rays reflecting off the morning dew. It is surprising what innocent and agreeable pleasures we lose every morning.

Todays topic of inquiry is this: Whats the difference between Ecumenism and assimilation?

Are these two terms interchangable? Do we necessary need assimilation before ecumenism? The inquisitor says assimilation is necessary for ecumenism. However, the question (and what a big problem this is) comes with 'who will be assimilated'?

Being a hater of coffee naturally i will often use coffee related examples in my articles. Instant Coffee Powder + water = instant coffee.
Both give away a little of their properties and we have an end result containing both the properties of coffee powder and water but are neither coffee powder nor water.
This seems to be the reigning version of Catholic ecumenism these days. Catholic + protestant = Catholic Ecumenism. We compromise, we adopt practices of the protestants, actually more like them charismatic my-religion-is-not-a-religion religions, whose services consist of a charismatic cult leader talking about success in life that results in better profit and Church sing-along sessions. Suddenly every religion leads to truth. So since they all lead to truth, shall we just drop our faith and become theosophical? Shall we just promote Buddhism instead of Christianity? Shall we put a statue of Guanyin in the grotto of our Blessed Mother?
Shall we give in and say that Muhammad indeed is the prophet of God and the Jews are right about the Messiah?
They all lead to truth anyways. "NO!" the inquisitor says. Because compromising is not an option. Compromising is putting coffee powder into water and coffee powder will no longer be coffee powder. Catholicism will no longer be catholicism when mixed with protestant practices.

It is just a practice, you might say. But adopting foreign practises will eventually lead to the a change in beliefs too. Already we have catholic priests who claim things like a Saint Martin Luther and that all religions lead to truth. How much more defiantion from the truth faith are we willing to compromise so we can adopt to the norms of the world. So we can 'play nice' and undermine our traditional background just to please the world.

There is only ONE truth. And this Truth is God. And the path to this truth is the church that God Himself created. Everything else is man made, every other path.

Do not mistake Ecumenism with "Religious Tolerance" these two are completely different.
Just because I disagree with my muslim friend's belief doesnt mean that I have to kill him or hate him. That is Religious Tolerance. To try to convince my friend to convert, that is ecumenism. If I Kiss the 95 theses of Martin Luther and making a lutheran believe im accepting that the reformation was necessary, thats selling out, thats the Novus Ordo (non traditional) Catholic ecumenism, the scourge of the church in the opinions of the Unamalgamated Inquistor.

True ecumenism is only possible when we can convince other Christians to follow the one true path. Not the other way round. Not adopting protestant practises while holding on to certain choice Catholic traditions. The Inquisitor will accept nothing but the whole package. Or he might as well become a mormon who believes in the true Presence.

My Story:
"Bye Bye Tampines Theosophical Church of St Martin Luther"

Greetings and good day! I am the UnAmalgamated Inquisitor! Good Evening.

You are just in time to witness the opening of this new blog.
You might wonder why the purpose for such a page. Am I a crazy member of a medieval society? Am I an insane conservationist who have no respect for the current norms of society?

Yes, I am a Catholic. Always was and always will be. Today's post is the reason for me joining the SSPX instead of the usual church that I go to. The answer is simple, I am sick of the constant
"ecumenism" in church. When ecumenism reaches the point that we will lose our identity, it is no longer true ecumenism. When it comes to the point that we have to give praise to leaders of certain denominations to the point of naming them as Saints just to prove our desire to amalgamate. It crosses the line.
A few weeks ago a priest of my old church claims during a catechism class for elects that he truly believes that Martin Luther is a saint. An excommunicated person who split the church a saint? And which pope canonises this Saint Martin Luther, pray tell?
It is already bad enough that the churches in singapore are slowly adopting practises of churches that we would have called 'heretics' and 'pagans' in a less pretentious era. Living Stone "cellgroup meetings". Rock concerts during a solemn Mass. All this would be tolerated had the church not show the complete disregard for catholic tradition and history by calling Martin luther a Saint.
His reason being that Martin Luther has woke the church from its sleep by starting the reformation. Thats like saying Judas is a saint because he betrayed the Lord so that our Lord can be glorified in Calvary? Are we catholics or are we really gnostics in disguise?
What will we have next? King Henry VIII patron saint of Chastity? Atilla the Prince of peace?
Therefore, for the sake of my sanity and for the sake of orthodoxy. Ive decided to leave the Tampines Church and join SSPX which still has respect for tradition.

Behold! The Unamalgamated Inquisitor is born! Standing defiantly against the onslaught of heretical practices, paganism and blatant blasphemies done in the name of Catholicsm.

For those of you who believe that I am evil, shismatic or both, Only God can Judge Me.

I am a happier person leaving the Tampines Church, which is no more then a collection of charismatic protestants who believes in the True Presence while masquerading as true catholics.

Good bye! and Good riddance!