I am a 76 year old Catholic who has been very depressed about the current state of the Church but you (and the words Our Lady of La Salette) have cheered me, thank you.
Dear Dr. Ashenden, how right you are to remind us that Our Lady wants us to fight and the most powerful weapon that she has given us is the Holy Rosary. Say it every day - it is what she specifically asks us to do. Please do a talk on the Rosary for those who aren't familiar with this mighty prayer.
Greetings from Tasmania! Thank you Dr. Ashenden, so good to hear you speak the Truth for Catholics in England and encourage people. I was very fortunate to visit Walsingham in August this year for a beautiful Latin Mass in the grounds of the Abbey, a lovely day! The Bishop of Norfolk banned the Latin Mass in Walsingham in June this year, the Mass of our Martyrs and Saints! What a disgrace! I was surprised to see the C/E Vicars wearing cassocks around their beautiful church and grounds in Walsingham and their honour of our traditional Saints even St. John Vianney. God bless you with your talks of explanation and encouragement! 🎉🎉🎉😊
Dr Ashenden, you are one of the few people I always go to when there is a burning issue in the Church because of your great intellect and your sound and authentic Catholic theology. And you articulate the truth and the way it relates to the current problems in society and the Church. Imagine my chagrin when I found the audio very low. May I respectfully request that you turn the volume at its loudest when you record? We can always adjust it on our end, Sir. Thank you and may Our Lady, the Mother of God, cover you with her holy mantle and keep you close to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Our Lord.
I believe in a recent podcast, you said that you remain Catholic because it is true. I am Catholic today because I searched for truth and came to realize that it lived in the Roman Catholic Church. Holy Mary, pray for us!
1:21 “If you do not listen, and if you do not resolve to honor my name,' says the LORD Almighty, 'I will send a curse on you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not resolved to honor me.” Malachi 2:2
I reaaly enjoy your acerbic wit and your courage in facing the stark realities of our grim age, whilst still using utmost tact and verbal dexterity. If l was to be bold for a moment, I'd say that the decay from the centre in the Church is not down to anything clever ckever, or even especially covert, it's just down to applying the usual disruptive systems from other diabolical domains. Libetation theology is just the capital sin of Envy, it has never improved he lot of the distressed who are used as ideological human shields. We seem to living under rhe aegis of a counterfeit church, the CCP - the catholic communist party, so as actual Catholics we should not have been perplexed by the setting up of these "Neighbourhood Committees" at every level, synods of synods of synods recurring. Herod also being the role model here, for turning grave decisions over to an unschooled mob and agent provocateurs. So Fr Martin's lavender guards, and the current Popes little greenwash book are where we are now, awsh in banal trivialities and displacement actvities. Why are we here, heres an unpopular angle on this, which l level at myself 1st and foremost. Acedia, spiritual topor, An unwillingness to be different from the masses who mock genuine fidelity to God, and also creeping spiritual apathy. Sloth, the least glamorous of all the vices, slipping away, not with a bang, but with a whimper. Consequently the remedy is simple too, "spiritual fitness courses" for all .
It's due to old equipment. Dr Gavin needs to replace or update it, but it costs money. He doesn't have much left after paying the household bills. So be patient. Or maybe you could contribute?
Sir, I curse the Dodgers, too, just on general principle as an Astros fan. But they didn't finish at the bottom of their division at all. What did happen is that heavy favorites though they were, they got knocked out of the playoffs by the lightly regarded Arizona Diamondbacks. The Diamondbacks, in turn, just lost the World Series to the Texas Rangers. Now, get this: of all the teams in major league baseball in 2023, the Rangers were the only one not to have any Pride night at all this past season. I don't see a sign in this, but it is satisfying. The Rangers had to beat the Astros, who did have a pro forma Pride Night, to get into the World Series, however. My heart was mildly broken by the Astros' failure, however, if I'd known about the Rangers refusal to have a Pride Night, I might have been rooting for them.
You are a true realist, Dr Ashenden - unlike Emile Zola, for example, who wasn’t - you have God’s compassion and mercy, not to mention intelligence and wisdom. Thank you for your efforts and your frankness. May God keep you in good health and Our Lady protect you. I also like the calming sound of your voice and your clock chimes sound so homely. Further, you would make a great Santa Claus!
Blessings, I feel your pain in using reason and discussion to bring people to Christ. I don't think it can be done with that alone, but I don't think it can be done with prayer alone. We are spiritual and body. I think Peter was maybe thinking in 2 Peter 1:12-15. I also think the example in the Bible are always discussion and praying from the OT saints, to Jesus, through today. Jusus said they didn't listen to Him, so they won't listen to us. Yet He encouraged us to be the light (and not covered it) and salt of the earth. So, much of things seem to be cherry picking. Grace OR Truth. This truth or not that.
Dr. Ashenden: First of all, thank you again. Secondly, since you brought up the baseball parallel, many have noticed that the Texas Rangers, who won the championship in 2023, are the only team/organization in Major League Baseball that refused to have a “pride” night during this year’s season. An interesting thing….
Actually, the curse on the Dodgers was even worse than what you said. They were actually the second best team in the MLB. They were expected to go all the way to the World Series, and possibly win it. But they were out in the first round of play. Everyone was shocked. And the Texas Rangers, the team that won the World Series, was the only team not to have a “pride night” at their stadium. Out of 30 teams, only one did not have a pride night. And they won the World Series. Interesting…
thankyou. and yes as the vatican begins to undermine the faith and our held beliefs, their blessings will be curses. the true church will emerge not in perversion but conversion and chastity. not in the likes of the pop stars but for those who see hope in struggle and suffering and offfer all to God the Father as the truth, the way the life.
One of the great blessings which followed from the Second Vatican Council was the introduction of the new Lectionary. With the new two year cycle for Sunday readings and three year cycle for week day readings, the Sacred Scriptures are made much more available to the Faithful. I cannot see how the ills of the Church can be solved by limiting the access of the Faithful to readings from the Sacred Scriptures, nor by having the readings in a language which the Faithful do not understand. The Mass (and the Lectionary) were translated out of Greek into Latin in the fourth century so that the common people (the “vulgar”) might have those in their own common (or “vulgar”) language. So, we had the Latin Mass and the Bible in the “Vulgate” to ensure that the common people might understand them. A true traditionalist would wish to revert to the use of Greek in the Lectionary and the Mass.
@@Mark3ABE Not so, Holy Mass was not intended, as far as I know, as a year long Bible course, and of course the vast majority of Catholics can afford a Bible and should be reading it every day. Cheers.
It is a commonplace that wisdom and learning are not the same and our Woke experience should innure the least reflective Christian to distrust what runs against his Gospels.
The citizens assembly in Ireland was a duplicitous means of out sourcing contentious issues by the cowardly and devious politicians why does the Synod remind me of the stratagem?
Or was it a sleight of hand by the Pope to make people think they are being listened to. Then doing nothing. I say this given the state of western culture it seems so obvious what subjects people would have raised. Maybe I'm more hopeful that this is the case. Make sense? I pray for the church
I will never anymore listen to nor pray anymore for F the first, but I will pray for Benedict the XVII, dear Father Ashenden (no irony at all intended here), cos your presence, word an brain effort, a great consolation, I see as truly coming from God the Eternal Father, through your blessed soul. Thank you ever so much for all you give.
Dearest Dr. Ashenden! I, too, listen to the end of your vids. :) But may I ask you to please speak louder or get a mic? You have a gentle voice and even at top volume, I can barely hear you as I crank up my computer and putter around my office. LOL. Many thanks. Your witness and wisdom is invaluable. God bless.
He needs new equipment which costs money (that he doesn't have). So give him time. He's aware of the problem, since many in his audience remind him of it.
Trust that that God is guiding the Church in ways we poor limited humans may not understand, and follow the Pope and Magisterium in Hope and Faith. He knows better. Cast aside so many negative doubts, which arise through pride. Uncharitable misjudgements cannot come from the Holy Spirit.+
Definitely, we humans are limited, but many of us Catholics believe our Pope is particularly so when it comes to upholding the principles of the Church.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It's encouraging to hear you putting your trust in God, despite what happens in the clergy or the synodal meeting. I do not share your analysis. Pope Francis doesn't aim to change doctrine. He wants to change our hearts. His goal is to enable us to act like Jesus when he meets Zacchaeus or like the proverbial Samaritan. Doctrine alone is not enough. Prayer is needed as well. Attention for my neighbor too. It's the third point Pope Francis puts his focus on. Some doctrine centered Catholics neglect this aspect of ecclesiastical life. If doctrine is not affected they say: "Waste of time. Nothing important happened." If doctrine seems to be affected, they say: "Heresy". "We can not bless sin." Is blessing sin intended when blessing gay relations? It depends. If same sex relations were always sin, church could not allow monasteries. In a monastery live many persons of the same sex who are no relatives in relations similar to a family. So I reason there are different kinds of same sex relations. Some are sinful, others are not. Having sex is a criterion causing it to become sin. What do those men (or women) intend? If they want the blessing as a help to stay chaste I see no reason to deny that support. If they truly love each other, they wouldn't want the beloved one to become involved in sin. I know a couple where one is divorced. They married but decided not to have sex to avoid adultery. That sacrifice strengend their faith and their love. Why shouldn't gay or lesbian persons have the same strength if they support each other? I agree with the Pope: It is a question of discretion. Of course that puts a lot of stress on the pastors. They can no longer rely on a general rule. Why bless some and not the others? Wouldn't that wound the rejected even more than a situation with no blessings at all? In the end a pastor needs the courage to show the line. Even more so if he has to decide for every single case. I think that is a good point to reason against blessings. "We can not bless sin" is an oversimplification ignoring important aspects. "Discretion" opens Pandora's box, and we don't know if what emerges makes the live of persons with same sex attraction in the Church generally better.
How do we tell the leaders of the Church that we are so dissatisfied with them and what they are doing? How do we raise our concerns? How do we get to tell them that there are erring? What do we have to do to make them realise what is wrong? (BTW the video is so very quiet. I have to keep turning your videos up quite a lot. The microphone looks to be of good quality, but its placement may be wrong.)
In the long tradition of the Church, renewal has not, generally, come from the top down. In the case of St. Francis of Assisi, renewal came from the ordinary Laity, forming themselves into a Monastic Order which gave new life to the Church from amongst the simple and uneducated, the poor and the powerless. I listened to the Testimony of a well known Protestant Evangelist recently. He was asked who had had the most influence on his life and Faith. He replied, without hesitation “Mother Theresa”. He knew sanctity when he saw it and it made no difference to him that Mother Theresa was not a Protestant. Truth is truth and goodness is goodness, wherever it may be found in any part of the Christian Church. So, renewal will, in all probability, come from the Laity up, not from the clergy down. After all, with only one or two exceptions (St. Paul, for example) how many of the Apostles were members of the “clergy” of their day? Those who sat in the seat of Moses were important, but Jesus did not look to them for his Apostles. The See of Rome is important in the Church, however, I very much doubt whether renewal in the Church will originate in Rome, however many “Synods” the Pope might call and for however long they might run. While the early Church was blossoming and growing, the Pharisees and Sadducees continued their long, interminable and inconclusive, debates on the question of “resurrection from the dead”. Our Lord rose from the dead to resolve the point in rather a more dramatic way than their long theological discussions ever could!
I’m older and have traveled extensively in the U S and Europe and South America. I have not witnessed growth in Catholic church membership or attendance. In Brazil, the fastest-growing “?religion” is TV Evangelism.
An interesting comment. I watched an interview with the late Cardinal Pell after he was released from prison. He admitted that he had learned a lot from the TV evangelists on the terrestrial TV channels which he had been permitted to watch. He admitted to having had some difficulty with the letters of St. Paul and having these basic teachings set out in a simple way by these TV evangelists helped him in his understanding. He treated his four hundred days of unjust imprisonment as a spiritual retreat (funded by the Government) from which he benefitted enormously. Otherwise, he would just have been sitting at a desk ploughing his way through the Vatican accounts, trying to unravel all of the theft and dishonesty going on there - a thankless task. The evangelical churches are growing, in previously Catholic countries like Brazil, because they present more of the truths of the Catholic Faith these days than the Catholic Church itself does. They suffer from some shortcomings. The Council of Trent considered that Protestant theology was often almost Pelagian in its approach. Nevertheless, there is often more of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ found there than there is in a typical local Parish Church.
It is interesting to stand back and consider why, exactly, the Church should have decided, from about the 1950s onwards, to recruit the clergy and members of religious orders mainly from those who were of a homosexual orientation. There were some very obvious practical advantages, at least initially. In the 1950’s in most countries, homosexual activity (between men, at any rate) was a criminal offence. Therefore, the Church did not need to actively police the requirement for chastity if the clergy were homosexual. The Police would do so for them! There would be no problems with the clergy “losing their vocation” and leaving the Priesthood to get married. Nor would there be any illegitimate children, nor the seduction of married women and the destruction of marriages. It may have seemed a safe and logical way forward. Of course, in the early years in which this policy was followed, the Church only needed to draw the attention of the clergy to the fact that they must obey the Law of the land. There was no moral issue involved. Then, of course, came the “sexual revolution” and the decriminalisation of homosexual behaviour. Now, the Church could no longer look to the Police to enforce chastity amongst the homosexual clergy. A Priest was just as likely to “loose his vocation” to set up home with a gentleman friend as he was to marry a woman. Suddenly, the policy of recruiting the clergy from the homosexual community ceased to be such a safe option. The Police were no longer there to enforce chastity amongst the clergy. However, by then, matters had progressed too far. The existing clergy did not wish to have their arrangements disturbed by having those with a heterosexual orientation brought into the clergy. So, the policy was adopted of maintaining the pretence, to the outside world, that the clergy were all holy men, committed to a life of celibacy and chastity, who had renounced their preferred option for marriage and the family to serve the Lord more fully. It is only in recent years that this pretence has started to fail and fall apart at the seams.
The readings from Sunday are followed by the priests homily. The womer the worst.I either endure or am occassionally inspired by these.I respond by skipping the first 15 minutes of mass to avoid openly cringing in the pews.
If you skip the Liturgy of the Word you miss hearing the Word of God. The homily is not so important. You also crucially miss the absolution for venial sins given by the priest after the Confeteor :(“May Almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins and bring us to everlasting life”). Therefore, if you arrive ( by design) only for the Liturgy of the Eucharist, you may endanger yourself spiritually with regard to reception of Holy Communion. The quality of the priest’s homily is not important whereas your presence for the whole Mass is. Please reconsider your practice and go to Confession about it.
Gavin, The most interesting revelation today is contained in the comments. That is to say, that Rome has offered to ordain you to the Presbyterate, but only on condition that you agree to remain silent and give up all public commentary on the current affairs of the Church. That is to say, ordination has been offered to you as a sort of bribe, in return for your silence. The Church of England, I think, took a similar view. While it raised you to the Episcopacy in view of your undoubted abilities, it did not wish to offer you a public platform, so declined to appoint you to a Diocese - as the old joke goes, “Long time, no See”. The Church only ever wishes to silence true prophets. There is no need for it to silence “cranks”. You were quite correct to decline to accept the “bribe” of ordination to the Presbyterate. There are many prophets and teachers in the Church today who remain in the lay state and, in fact, are far more effective, and far more free, in that state. We are all part of the universal priesthood of all believers - as much as Catholic, as a Protestant, teaching.
Well, Isaiah does call God Father, and there was a tradition of it amount the Pharisees, but it was never as pronounced as it is in the church. God often takes things people already have on their minds (by Providence of course) and turns them from the sparks of ideas to grand traditions that span time.
I so appreciate your talks but I was straining to hear this one as the audio was very low. Would it be possible to increase it, please, dear Dr Ashenden?
w a i t ... I was just hearing you on Larry Chapp's channel ... did you state you are a bishop of the Duarte Costa lineage? Because the late Pope Michael I and presumably Michael II recognise(d) your orders, if so.
God won't curse anyone. Would God be worse in His dealings with humanity than what Jesus's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount taught? "Love your enemies. Do good to them that hate you"❤
It is sad what has happened, an insult to the holiness of a priestly calling, as it is reflected by the holiness of Mary, who was chosen, in "mind" and soul, first and fore most, a real woman whose caring is also a symbol, that people may reflect upon her devotion to Christ's calling, as a mirror of the magnitude of the presence and extent of the power and devotion to giving, and what he had come to give, and gave, which was ultimate respect and caring for people and their problems, as a spiritual man of God. So, these lavenders feel that if he cares for everyone's problems, and homosexuality is no longer considered a problem, according to society and social norms, why should he have a problem about what priests, or anyone else is up to, behind the scenery or scenes. I can't seem to find an apt analogy, or perhaps hyperbolic understatement that fits, except the readings seem to suggest that Jesus could see that, certainly, prideful people were better off not invested or inhabiting holy orders representing higher moral discernment. Well, it seems to be the truth, no matter how you cut it, if people can't decide to remain as Catholics, or don't come back. 24:06 24:06
Dr. Ashenden, your broadcast's low volume remains a persistent problem. Here, I'm comparing your broadcast volume with other U2b sites. Thank You. [-R. Wolf]. My cellphone's volume is set on MAX, yet your voice volume remains low.
For goodness sake, it's likely due to old equipment which he can't afford to replace at this time. Maybe you can help him with that, and stop people complaining.
I think producing these videos is very important in there different styles. However it greatly saddens me to see the Roman Catholic Church being seduced by let us say powers and principalities. I used to like Pope Francis but now see him as a rather dangerous man who needs to go. Surely, looking at the US Episcopal church and the state of the CofE should show this is not the way forward.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you say vis a vis the “lavender” movement within the Church. But, I question your idea that the proper reaction is to stay on our knees and pray. Firstly, I must point out that the Church staying on her knees and praying in the 1930s led directly and inevitably to the horrors of the 1940s in Germany. Secondly, I must point out that remaining part of a corrupt Church, contributing time, effort, and treasure to a corrupt Church, simply makes oneself complicit and corrupt. One cannot be heard to say, “I was part of it, but I’m not responsible for it, because (even though I remained a part of it) I never agreed with it." That’s a laughable defense, and one I’d hesitate to offer at The Judgment Seat. Yes, I agree we all have to fight to preserve the moral and spiritual integrity of the Church. But at some point in time, when the Church and its leadership have clearly gone too far, we need to be prepared to pull away, and continue the good fight from without. We must not allow ourselves to be counted among the apostate, heretical, sacrilegious, pagans who would make a mockery of the Mass, and purport to bestow God’s blessing on mortal sin, if the current progressive movement takes root and succeeds in achieving its declared goals. And, to sit, or kneel, and witness such outrage, would constitute tacit approval and place our own souls in jeopardy. We cannot allow that. So, when would it be time to get out? I suggest that time would be when: The first woman is ordained a Deacon or priest with the express or implied consent of the Vatican, or; When the first self avowed openly practicing homosexual is ordained a Deacon or priest with the express or implied consent of the Vatican, or; When the first marriage or blessing of a same sex couple is performed by a Catholic Priest with the express or implied consent of the Vatican. That’s where the line should be drawn in the sand. Waiting any longer beyond that time would be a pointless and dangerous exercise in futility.
So we are not to take Jesus literally when he said "If you do not eat my fesh and drink my vlood you do not have eternal life"? And when he said "Behold your mother"?
In the first instance, he was warning his disciples about the hypocritical Pharisees. In the second, he is instituting the Holy Eucharist, and giving us his blessed mother thru John the faithful disciple. The events are not comparable.
The doctrine of “transubstantiation” is well explained by the Council of Trent. Our Lord, wishing to allow us to have a union with him as close as that of “eating his body and drinking his blood” gave us the Eucharist. Human nature does, of course, find the suggestion of eating human flesh and drinking human blood totally abhorrent, so Our Lord made use of bread and wine, normal food and drink (“my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink”). So, in the Eucharist, we eat bread and drink wine. So, given the clear teaching of the Church that the “accidents” (that is to say, the physical, chemical and all other properties which could be ascertained by human science) remain entirely those of bread and wine, how can we “eat his body and drink his blood”? Jesus explains, of course, when his Disciples asked about this, by saying “it is the Spirit which gives life, the flesh is unavailing”. So, the change is entirely “Spiritual” and not, in any way, physical. Nevertheless, since, as Christians, we believe that it is the Spirit which gives life, it is only the Spiritual reality with which we are concerned. The term “material substance” in Greek Scholastic Philosophy” means the spirit behind the outward form - the supernatural reality which holds all matter in existence. Almighty God created all matter out of nothing - so it is He who holds it all in existence. If he wishes to maintain the outward form of the matter which He himself has created, while, at the same time, changing the substantial nature of that matter into something else, then that is entirely within His power. So, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Our Lord not simply by way of some linguistic “hyperbole” but by a “real” change in the substance behind the outward form of the bread and wine, which, nevertheless, continues to remain, in all respects bread and wine. The suggestion that the bread might become “beating heart tissue” is abhorrent to a Faithful Catholic - a denial of the doctrine of transubstantiation itself. I am not sure just what is involved in these so called “Eucharistic miracles” but it is a possibility that they are a deceit of the Enemy who would, of course, wish to deny the doctrine of transubstantiation in such a way.
Thank you; but could you theoretically still be recognised as a validly ordained Catholic priest, thus negating the need for conditional ordination? @@DrGAshenden
@@DrGAshenden I am curious now on how many prophets were priests. I have never really reflected on it. I imagine it is a mixture but given the oath structure for many today could one be in the days of Our Lord's time on earth and speak freely?
@@DrGAshendenIn my ignorance of your case this glancingly reminds me of a gagging order. Also tangentially brings to mind that what bullies seek is to trigger a disequilibrium that exceeds their own. Many may envy your outward success, some will discern how narrow and stony your path is.
It is about the Torah of Abraham and the church of God, and Spiritual Israelites inherited by Jesus not a new church. I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity'.
Is it wrong to hope and to pray that one day you will become a Deacon or a Priest in the Catholic church one day... soon. England needs clergy like you like never before.
See Gavin’s comment below. Rome has offered to ordain him to the Presbyterate- on condition that he agrees to remain silent. A bribe which he has (very wisely) declined to accept. The Lord has raised up many great Prophets in the Church today. Most of these are in the lay state and therefore free to speak their minds openly.
GAVIN: My experience as a, one time, member of the Church of England is that the senior clergy did NOT encourage a lot of homosexual men to become priests in a self-replicating system. What they did do was to encourage homosexual men to be DISHONEST in their dealings, in imitation of them: if you admitted to hoping to meet a same-sex partner, with whom to share life, you were immediately turned down. I imagine the same was true for the Roman Church, too. When the same emphasis is laid on the virginity of heterosexual couples who present for a 'wedding', as is laid on compulsory celibacy for life, for all homosexual people, then I might listen to your argument. I think what Francis 1st is doing is absolutely fantastic: there is a man who knows Jesus (although I don't know what his 'past' was like when he was Primate of Argentina). By the way, it would be nice if you could refrain from insults: which you intend to be insulting. What is "the lavendar community"? Who is in it? You full intend this to be an attack, delivered with a smile. And the technique workd!
@@Mark_Dyer1 Ha ha, very good! One day the homophobia will disappear ( hopefully! ) from the church. I liked what you said about virginity before being married. Does a priest even have such an awkward conversation with a couple soon to be married? Would an examination of the bride to check for virginity be in order!? I mean we can't have the church "blessing sin" can we? And I'm sure Catholic couples use contraception without a priests knowledge. Because a gay couple cannot hide who they are is the only reason the church can make such a fuss.
@@DIBBY40 Thank you so much for the support. I suspect Dr Ashenden is one of those people who considers there is a, specifically, 'homosexual act'! Not for no reason was buggery once referred-to as 'Catholic contraception'! If Pope Francis is attempting what I think he is attempting, then a lifetime's reading of Christian theology and Christology, leads me to conclude that the Spirit is with him: not with the 'scripture-worshippers'. My consolation, indeed God's gift to me for ceasing to attend any church during my adult lifetime, has been forty years, shared with a handsome gentle atheist. Fortunately, God's blessings exist because God exists: not because the 'Revs' of this world do. As a convinced Christian I ask the Lord's blessing on us in my own right. A recent 'Civil Partnership' (the Church has, yet, to decide what it means by 'marriage', over 'wedding'!) has taken care of the legal niceties: as we are now 71 and 77.
@@Mark_Dyer1 If a straight man is sincerely convinced of his love for two women, should the church bestow its blessings on his mistress as well as his wife? Our instincts are barely on speaking terms with objective truth.
pretty soon this pontiff and his ilk will change the liturgy of the hours i to the lgbtq +++ peoples way if love is love and affirm the curse of their blessings. instead of truth and our tradition we will pray to the gods created by inductive relativism.
