April Fool From the Lutheran Satire

Wednesday, April 5, AD 2017


A bit strange, even for The Lutheran Satire, but I fear that Ozymandias may be an accurate summation of this pontificate:


I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
Percy Bysshe Shelley
Continue reading...

4 Responses to Do They Know What Christmas Is?

4 Responses to Reformations

Tim Kaine Is No Prophet

Wednesday, September 14, AD 2016


Faithful readers of this blog know that I am a fan of The Lutheran Satire videos.  The man behind them, Lutheran Pastor Hans Fiene, has a great post at The Federalist on Tim Kaine’s prediction that the Catholic Church will ultimately approve gay marriage.  He ends on a note of optimism that I believe is completely acccurate:

What Kaine fails to recognize, however, is that Francis is the peak rather than the beginning of liberalism’s ascendancy, that his generation’s Catholicism is in its last gasp. American cultural Christianity is in its death throes. The social mechanisms that have kept heterodox people in the pews and in seminaries are evaporating. For several generations, cultural and moral relativism-spouting court preachers in soft clothing have taught their people that the church body has nothing of substance to offer them, and our nation’s children are finally responding accordingly.

So while Kaine may feel optimistic when he sees that millennials overwhelmingly favor gay marriage, he forgets that, unlike his generation, millennials also overwhelmingly favor not bothering to change the dogma of churches they’ve already quit attending. No matter how many secular cheerleaders your side may have, it will be rather hard for Kaine’s camp to win the battle for Catholicism’s future when they don’t have any actual soldiers under the age of 50.

The future of Christianity does not belong to those who want to clothe themselves in both the robes of the church and the approval of the world. It belongs to those who gladly endure the rejection of this world to taste the kingdom of God. The future of Christianity does not belong to the hordes of aging white, liberal American cafeteria Catholics or a la carte Protestants who insist it doesn’t really matter what you believe as long as you have love in your heart. Christendom’s future belongs to the stubborn young bloods of all tribes and tongues throughout the world who will actually bother to show up because they actually believe what their creeds and catechisms confess.

In the years to come, at least in our nation, our pews may be emptier but the faithful few who fill them will be looking for genuine forgiveness instead of shallow validation. The next generation of clergymen will be far more likely to proclaim it to them, just as they will be more likely to preach genuine repentance to the next generation of Kaines and Paul Simons instead of covering their ears every time those supposedly devout Catholics and Lutherans claim to be “personally opposed” to an evil they’ve consistently worked to perpetuate.

The future of Christianity does not belong to those who are certain the pope will one day see the light on gay marriage or any other unbiblical notion about marriage. The future of Christianity does not belong to those who publicly deny the doctrines of their church bodies, but to those who will boldly confess them, thank God where they are unified with other denominations, and seek to resolve their divisions until Christ blesses us with the unity he prayed for.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Tim Kaine Is No Prophet

6 Responses to Reactions to Frank the Hippie Pope

  • They obviously want to be charitable, They want to be good, They want to believe in their pope.
    They are all so young they might not have had time to really take a look at history. Just like a lot of those young idealists who want to be for Bernie Sanders… not enough life experience to take the measure of progressivism and the slick promoters of it. The words of progressives/liberalism sound so good that the ability and experience to discern is crucial.

  • Our blogger friend Mundabor has apoplectic fits over this sort of stuff – can’t say i blame him.

  • I think they miss the point, which is not to attack the Pope, but to point out the obvious problems with his unguided speech. Bless their hearts, they’re all zealous to defend the Pope, but don’t seem aware that the satire is coming from the side of orthodoxy.

  • Well, even if the Pope is not a hippie, certainly the dropout, drug-addled hippies from the 1960s who call themselves Katholyck adore and worship him. Thankfully, while I was drub-addled in my youth, unlike these hippies I was left with two living bain cells which sometimes do not fight each other.

  • Ditto, Tom. They are young. I give them credit for their faithfulness to the church, which is shown in their loyalty to the pope, even Pope Francis, while they see his weaknesses. Time will tell if it isn’t misplaced. The video is a bit over the top, even as satire. Statements are accurate but out of context. I like totally miss Pope Benedict.

CS Lewis on the Trinity

Sunday, May 22, AD 2016




You know that in space you can move in three ways – to left or right, backwards or forwards, up or down. Every direction is either one of these three or a compromise between them. They are called the three Dimensions. Now notice this. If you are using only one dimension, you could draw only a straight line. If you are using two, you could draw a figure: say, a square. And a square is made up of four straight lines. Now a step further. If you have three dimensions, you can then build what we call a solid body: say, a cube – a thing like a dice or a lump of sugar. And a cube is made up of six squares.

Do you see the point? A world of one dimension would be a straight line. In a two-dimensional world, you still get straight lines, but many lines make one figure. In a three-dimensional world, you still get figures but many figures make one solid body. In other words, as you advance to more real and more complicated levels, you do not leave behind you the things you found on the simpler levels: you still have them, but combined in new ways – in ways you could not imagine if you knew only the simpler levels.

Now the Christian account of God involves just the same principle. The human level is a simple and rather empty level. On the human level one person is one being, and any two persons are two separate beings – just as, in two dimensions (say on a flat sheet of paper) one square is one figure, and any two squares are two separate figures. On the Divine level you still find personalities; but up there you find them combined in new ways which we, who do not live on that level, cannot imagine. In God’s dimension, so to speak, you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube is six squares while remaining one cube. Of course we cannot fully conceive a Being like that: just as, if we were so made that we perceived only two dimensions in space we could never properly imagine a cube. But we can get a sort of faint notion of it. And when we do, we are then, for the first time in our lives, getting some positive idea, however faint, of something super-personal – something more than a person. It is something we could never have guessed, and yet, once we have been told, one almost feels one ought to have been able to guess it because it fits in so well with all the things we know already.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to CS Lewis on the Trinity

2 Responses to Donall and Conall Meet Richard Dawkins


Sunday, September 27, AD 2015

17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.

18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.

19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

2 Peter 2:  17-22



Both the videos should be parodies, but sadly only the one below from those brilliantly twisted folks at The Lutheran Satire is an intentional one:


Continue reading...

4 Responses to Parodies

Shocking New Discovery About Christ!

Wednesday, July 29, AD 2015


From those brilliantly twisted folks at The Lutheran Satire.  As CS Lewis said:


You will find that a good many Christian political writers think that Christianity began going wrong in departing from the doctrine of its founder at a very early stage. Now this idea must be used by us to encourage once again the conception of a “historical Jesus” to be found by clearing away later “accretions and perversions,” and then to be contrasted with the whole Christian tradition. In the last generation we promoted the construction of such a “historical Jesus” on liberal and humanitarian lines. We are now putting forward a new “historical Jesus” on Marxian, catastrophic and revolutionary lines. The advantages of these constructions, which we intend to change every thirty years or so, are manifold. In the first place they all tend to direct man’s devotion to something which does not exist. Because each “historical Jesus” is unhistorical, the documents say what they say and they cannot be added to. Each new “historical Jesus” has to be got out of them by suppression at one point and exaggeration at another point. And by that sort of guessing (brilliant is the adjective we teach humans to apply to it) on which no one would risk ten shillings in ordinary life, but which is enough to produce a crop of new Napoleons, new Shakespeares, and new Swifts in every publisher’s autumn list. . . . The “historical Jesus,” then, however dangerous he may seem to be to us at some particular point, is always to be encouraged.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Shocking New Discovery About Christ!

  • Consider, compare and contrast the “evolving” (0 tempores, o mores!) Jesus with Mohammed and his recalcitrant followers’ unchanging faith.
    One contrast is that Mohammad’s fell revelations have no witness. He said it, and it is objective truth.
    By contrast, hundreds witnessed Christ’s crucifixion and death. Christ gloriously rose from the tomb on the third day and for forty days appeared to HIs Mother and disciples. Christ ascended into Heaven after forty days and in the presence of Mary and HIs disciples. Later, the Holy Spirit descended on Mary and the Apostles.
    Finally, the credentialed cretins can’t monkey with the “historic” Muhammad. Because .. . KABOOM.

  • “…We are now putting forward a new “historical Jesus” on Marxian, catastrophic and revolutionary lines….”

    I wonder if this historic Jesus might be that fellow with Jesuit frock and an Uzi fighting for the “preferential option for the poor” down in Nicaragua a few years back?

  • Thanks for the laugh’s.

    It’s about time for Tom Hanks to star as the lead in the new screenplay; “Jesus the Environmentalists.”
    Not only is it true that Jesus was married, but he founded Green Peace.

    Dan Brown made his thirty silver pieces. Why not others? There seems to be no problem with recycling garbage to make a buck.
    Until the last breath is taken, I suppose.

  • In keeping with the satircal line, the only piece of evidence that Jesus might have been married is that he did not fight against his execution.

  • Thanks for the levity Don, And this is how we should view much of the stuff coming out of the Vatican nowadays where we come to find out that Jesus is not who He said He was but rather more like President Obama. Who would have known? What a wonderful teacher we have in Pope Francis!?

  • As the Son of God, Christ was a brother to all persons. For Christ to marry a woman, Christ would have committed spiritual incest but marrying His spiritual sister. Christ did all that He did for His Father in heaven. Christ’s Father in heaven is an infinite God. Finite persons cannot complete Christ’s mission of salvation for us.

  • Philip: In Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code, Brown gives us his opinion on the opinion of Da Vinci of The Last Supper, which Brown calls the truth. Yes, for Da Vinci and Brown and may be Tom Hanks but for Catholics it is still hearsay, two opinions against the truth. Now, more opinions, but the perjury was that Brown called the Da Vinci Code God’s honest truth.

  • Thanks Mary.
    I appreciate the clear explanation.

Saint Patrick and the Trinity

Sunday, May 31, AD 2015

Well, the Trinity is a hard concept for human minds to grasp, something we often encounter when describing God.  Saint Patrick probably never used a shamrock to describe the Trinity, but I like to think he did state what the Trinity is when he spoke to two daughters of an Irish King:



St. Patrick, full of the Holy Spirit, responded, “Our God is the God of all, the God of heaven and earth, the God of the seas and rivers, the God of the sun and moon, and all the other planets; the God of the high hills and low valleys; God over heaven, in heaven, and under heaven; and He has a mansion, that is, heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them. He inspireth all things. He quickeneth all things. He enkindleth all things. He giveth light to the sun, and to the moon. He created fountains in the dry land, and placed dry islands in the sea, and stars to minister to the greater lights. He hath a Son, coeternal and coequal with Himself; and the Son is not younger than the Father, nor is the Father older than the Son. And the Holy Ghost breatheth in them. And the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not divided. I desire, moreover, to unite you to the Son of the heavenly king, for ye are daughters of an earthly king.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Saint Patrick and the Trinity

Donall and Conall Teach Richard Dawkins About Circular Arguments

Sunday, May 10, AD 2015


From those twisted folks at The Lutheran Satire.  Dawkins, and others of his mindset, attempt to erect Science as a substitute religion, even as they absolutely refuse to seriously entertain the truth of Hamlet’s observation:    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.  Attempting to turn the intellectual instrument of Science into a religion underlines this statement from CS Lewis that looks increasingly prophetic as the years roll by:

“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.”  

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Donall and Conall Teach Richard Dawkins About Circular Arguments

  • Dawkins is an idiot. And Dawkins is an atheist. That’s redundant.
    The fool saith in his heart there is no God.

  • Lewis is certainly right. “If you start by treating the uniformity of nature as an hypothesis and no more,” says Mgr Ronald Knox, “you will find your hypothesis upset by every recorded case of witches flying, tables turning, Saints being levitated, oracles coming true, horoscopes being verified, broken limbs being cured by faith-healing, and the like. It is no good to say that there may be some higher law under which such phenomena would come, for that is a petitio principii; it assumes that things do work by law, and you haven’t found the law. It is no good to say that they are bogus statements of fact, for apart from your conviction of the uniformity of nature you have no ground whatever for supposing the evidence for them to be otherwise than fully adequate.”
    Besides, it is blindingly obvious that there can be no “scientific” proof that nature is uniform, by which I mean an empirical proof based on observed regularities. To say that all past experience confirms our belief in the uniformity of nature gets us nowhere, unless we assume that all future experience will do so, too. But that the future will resemble the past is simply a special instance of the uniformity of nature, so that argument is perfectly circular.
    We cannot even claim that experience makes uniformity even probable. Hume, in one of his better moments, points out that “probability is founded on the presumption of a resemblance betwixt those objects, of which we have had experience, and those, of which we have had none; and therefore it is impossible this presumption can arise from probability.” That presumption is simply our old friend, the uniformity of nature.
    The best that can be said for it is that it is what Kant would call an “heuristic principle,” a useful working principle in the investigation of phenomena.

  • It’s the height of irony.

    All people MUST have a sort-order. (example: if you have a dollar to spare, and both the kitten shelter and puppy shelter need a donation, which one do you donate to? sort-order) With the abolition of a common culture then the Left has been reduced to relying upon “science” and “reality” as their sort-order. Yet these things can lead down roads you don’t want to go.

    Example: Atheists tend to not have children (at the very least, not at population replacement levels). Religious people (with VERY few exceptions) tend to have lots of children. Therefore by the rules of natural selection (“the most kids win”), atheism is maladaptive and religion is to be preferred, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE RELIGION IS TRUE.

    So then, if “science” is your sort-order, you have 1 of 2 conclusions: 1) Religion is the preferred way, atheism is to be avoided like you would avoid any other lethal disease or 2) Extinction is (somehow) ok, there’s nothing wrong with it. Guess which conclusion you’ll most often see people trying to argue for on the internet.

    Yet if there’s one thing that would have to be agreed upon: Science cannot thrive if sapience goes extinct. Animals, rocks, plants, and celestial bodies don’t perform science. Therefore in just this one example, we see how people abandoning a common frame of reference leads to the end of Science.

    (and this gets even funnier when you run across those who swear by “pure rationality” and try to think statistically and etc etc – check next time how many offspring they’ve produced, or if they’ll even acknowledge they’re a dead end)

  • Nate Winchester wrote, “Religious people (with VERY few exceptions) tend to have lots of children…”
    It would be more accurate to say “with numerous exceptions.” One thinks of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has seen the collapse of its total fertility rate in a generation, from 6.8 in 1986 to 1.85 in 2014. One finds a similar, if less spectacular decline in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco.
    In Europe, Greece and Italy, which have amongst the highest levels of church membership, have among the lowest TFRs, 1.34 and 1.40 respectively. In secular France, it is 2.08, the highest in Europe, against an EU average of 1.59.
    Catholic Poland has a TFR of 1.32, whereas the largely secular Scandinavian countries have rates above the EU average, Denmark 1.73, Norway 1.77 and Sweden 1.67.

  • Really, MPS? Yeah, funny how these two maps:
    Are almost mirror images of each other.

    One thinks of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has seen the collapse of its total fertility rate in a generation, from 6.8 in 1986 to 1.85 in 2014. One finds a similar, if less spectacular decline in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco.
    In Europe, Greece and Italy, which have amongst the highest levels of church membership, have among the lowest TFRs, 1.34 and 1.40 respectively. In secular France, it is 2.08, the highest in Europe, against an EU average of 1.59.
    Catholic Poland has a TFR of 1.32, whereas the largely secular Scandinavian countries have rates above the EU average, Denmark 1.73, Norway 1.77 and Sweden 1.67.

    Aaaaaaannnd what’s their historical trends in religious belief. (funny how you take a trend there and then compare it to a single point to reach a conclusion, sloppy sloppy) You have the record of religious belief trends over time for Iran, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco? Though I find it funny you bring up them compared to themselves when their rates (1.83, 1.72, 1.99 and 2.13) are still exceeding the european average (as well as many other countries on the high end of religion scale)

    Then I found that the French government doesn’t collect statistics by religion, so it is impossible to say what the precise fertility rates among different religious groups in France are. Though given that Algeria and Morocco, the two nations which send the largest numbers of Muslim immigrants to France, has fertility rates of 2.38 (according to the UN’s 2008 figures) one has to wonder how much of France’s babies are propped up by imported religious folk.

    Of course it’s funny to see you argue over the minutiae of difference in the different European countries when the point stands: THEY’RE ALL BELOW REPLACEMENT LEVEL! 1.32 vs 1.77? Doesn’t matter, you’re both extinct.

The Moral Law and the Ritual Purity Law

Saturday, November 8, AD 2014

Those wonderfully twisted folks at The Lutheran Satire explain the distinction between the moral law and the ritual purity law to internet atheists.  It is an important issue and I have addressed it before:


A question arose yesterday in a thread, posed by Michael:

I have a real question. Homosexuality, as a sin an abomination, is mentioned in Leviticus. That book, however, also says:
 – disrespect of parents should be punishable by death
 – sleeping with a woman during her period should make both parties outcasts
 – don’t eat pork
 – shellfish are an abomination

So my question is, why are some of the verses ignored and others so important?

It is a good question and sometimes confuses Catholics and non-Catholics.  The answer to the question is in the very earliest history of the Church.  After the ascension of Jesus, the apostles went about the great task of making “disciples of all the nations”, and Christianity began to spread among Jew and Gentile alike.  The question quickly arose as to whether Gentile converts would have to be circumcised (the males only of course!) and follow all of the Jewish laws regarding ritual purity.  If they were asked to do this, it would mean a complete revolution in their life.  They would no longer be able to even eat a meal with their Gentile relatives and friends.  Like the Jews, the Christians would be a people set apart, cut off from interacting in the simplest ways with non-Jews for fear of violating the hundreds of laws of the Old Testament regarding ritual purity.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to The Moral Law and the Ritual Purity Law

  • Great post.

    If we revert to living by the law for righteousness sake, Christ is of no use to us.

    So, “Christ is the end of the law, for righteousness, for everyone who believes.”

    We don’t follow ANY law, in order to become righteous (that has already been accomplished for us on the Cross. “It is finished.”)

    But we do follow laws because we know that they were given for our good and the good of the neighbor.


  • Father Zuhlsdorf has href=http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/11/a-sin-that-cries-out-to-heaven-sodomy-homosexual-acts/#comments>a post on this St. Peter’s List post that relevant to Donald’s post.
    Fr. Z quoting from the original post [bold emphasis Fr. Z’s]:

    When Lev. 18:22 is cited as an undeniable condemnation of homosexuality in Scripture, it is often met with certain sophist rebuttals, e.g., Leviticus also outlaws shaving, tattoos, and eating pork. First note that these statements are an assertion, not an argument. The underlying argument that is needed on both sides is how one decides what is still valid law and what is not. In short, as Catholics we know that the OT is perfected in the NT and the NT is foreshadowed in the OT; thus, we see in Scripture Christ’s intent to perfect the law, not abolish it. Certain laws, however, demand a change in order to be perfected. For example, the OT law of circumcision was perfected in the Sacrament of Baptism. The Levitical laws on purity are a subject we see both St. Peter and St. Paul address. Homosexuality, on the other hand, was restated as a sin by St. Paul. In reverse, one could always ask those who use this argument against Leviticus what their hermeneutic for understanding the OT and NT is. It will, inevitably, be their own autonomous will.

  • At the Reformation, there was a fierce debate over the prohibited degrees of marriage in Leviticus 18: 6-17, with the Reformers insisting that these were binding on Christians, that the Church could establish no others and that they were indispensible.
    The Council of Trent dealt with the issue in its 24th session.
    Canon III – If anyone says, that those degrees only of consanguinity and affinity, which are set down in Leviticus, can hinder matrimony from being contracted, and dissolve it when contracted; and that the Church cannot dispense in some of those degrees, or establish that others may hinder and dissolve it ; let him be anathema.
    Canon IV – If anyone says, that the Church could not establish impediments dissolving marriage; or that she has erred in establishing them; let him be anathema.
    The Council did not specify which of the Levitical degrees were dispensable, as the Council Fathers were unable to agree.
    All the Reformers construed Leviticus 18 as forbidding marriage with a deceased wife’s sister (Henry VIII’s “Great Matter” being a case in point.) However, in the 19th century, the new biblical scholarship in Germany and greater familiarity with Jewish commentators called this into question. In the UK, there was a 50 year battle in Parliament, with a fresh bill every session, referred to in Gilbert & Sullivan’s Iolanthe, where the Queen of the Fairies sings, “He shall prick that annual blister, marriage with deceased wife’s sister.”

7 Responses to Martyrs Read Joel Osteen Tweets

Saint Patrick’s Bad Analogies: Updated

Monday, March 17, AD 2014

From those wickedly funny folks at The Lutheran Satire.  On Saint Patrick’s Day it is good to recall this from his confession of faith:

For there is no other God, nor ever was before, nor shall be hereafter, but God the Father, unbegotten and without beginning, in whom all things began, whose are all things, as we have been taught; and his son Jesus Christ, who manifestly always existed with the Father, before the beginning of time in the spirit with the Father, indescribably begotten before all things, and all things visible and invisible were made by him. He was made man, conquered death and was received into Heaven, to the Father who gave him all power over every name in Heaven and on Earth and in Hell, so that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and God, in whom we believe. And we look to his imminent coming again, the judge of the living and the dead, who will render to each according to his deeds. And he poured out his Holy Spirit on us in abundance, the gift and pledge of immortality, which makes the believers and the obedient into sons of God and co-heirs of Christ who is revealed, and we worship one God in the Trinity of holy name.

Anyone who can say Amen to that will be honoring Saint Patrick today in a manner he would truly approve.


The folks at The Lutheran Satire delve what happens to YouTube captioning in a video filled with bad Irish accents and Trinitarian jargon:

Then Donall and Conall tangle with Mormon missionaries:


Continue reading...

6 Responses to Saint Patrick’s Bad Analogies: Updated

  • Saint Patrick’s Breastplate, or the “Cry of the Deer”

    Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me
    Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me
    Christ on my right, Christ on my left
    Christ when I lay down, Christ when I sit down,
    Christ when I arise
    Christ in the heart of everyone who thinks of me
    Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me
    Christ in every eye that sees me
    Christ in every ear that hears me.

    St. Patrick’s Confession:

    “2 And there the Lord opened my mind to an awareness of my unbelief, in order that, even so late, I might remember my transgressions and turn with all my heart to the Lord my God, who had regard for my insignificance and pitied my youth and ignorance. And he watched over me before I knew him, and before I learned sense or even distinguished between good and evil, and he protected me, and consoled me as a father would his son.

    “3 Therefore, indeed, I cannot keep silent, nor would it be proper, so many favours and graces has the Lord deigned to bestow on me in the land of my captivity. For after chastisement from God, and recognizing him, our way to repay him is to exalt him and confess his wonders before every nation under heaven.”

  • Martin Luther refused to acknowledge man’s acceptance of the faith and Jesus Christ as our Savior as an act of good works.

  • Pingback: Saint Patrick's Day - BigPulpit.com
  • The U-Tube captions one is hysterical

  • I found my calling. I am looking around for wise-ass Catholics to put stuff like this together!
    Thansk again!

  • “I found my calling. I am looking around for wise-ass Catholics to put stuff like this together!
    Thansk again!”
    The virtue of WISDOM is a full-bodied virtue.

18 Responses to The Westboro Baptist Chipmunks

  • Outstanding! I had to rewind it three times because I was laughing so hard I couldn’t hear the next stanza!
    St, Lawrence better watch out. He has competition!

  • Some of the Calvinists remarked that they found it hilarious. Others went into bible-quoting sociopathic tailspins. Ahh, the Sola Scriptura roulette wheel. ‘Round and ’round she goes; where she stops nobody knows.

  • Did anyone catch the “Choose Your Pope” video available after the Chipmunks ended? It was almost as funny and just as pathetic.

  • Everyone knows there is a postscript after the credits, right?

  • Martin Luther overlooked the fact that people who act in good will to accept their Faith, a gift from God, have already performed a free will act of good works. Belief consists in believing and loving God. Loving God, too, is a work of faith. Believing and loving are free will works of the human person.
    I watched popewatch-frank-the-hippie-pope/. The two most seriously evil things in the world are atheism and despair, well, maybe, three, disrespect for the Person of God. The Supreme Sovereign Being is three Persons. The atheist is to be tolerated. Atheism is a lie and unconstitutional. Without the Person of God, there is only void. Despair is a lie about God. Despair is the chief seduction of the devil. The devil is a liar.
    And while this comment is not very funny, I am going to post it.

  • Here is funny: “Two blondes are facing each other across a wide stream. One yells to the other, “How do you get to the other side?” The other blonde replies, “You are on the other side!””

  • I watched a bunch of their videos. I found them pretty funny. Did not see “Choose Your Pope.” As an Irish Catholic American, who actually has spent a lot of time scratching his head over the mystey of the Trinity, I found “St. Patrck and his bad analogies” (or similar title) very very funny.
    Mary Devoe, I have spent a lot of time on YouTube flaming morons who think “Louis CK Investigates the Catholic Church” as cutting edge humor (it is nothing but vile bigotry going under the guise of “humor”), ANYTHING by Bill Maher and Catholicism (which again is nothing but vile bigotry disguised as comedy), Sarah Silverman videos, etc.
    The anti-Christian bigots who run the mass media own ALL that space (i.e. the nasty, snarky humor that the next generation craves), and they market this garbage as “cutting-edge” and “rebellious” to the stupid sheep (Jon Stewart got that idiot and his friends in the White House.)
    Yes, I agree that taking a swipe at the Pope (particularly by a bunch of people who follow the teachings of a guy who can be easily satirized) is a low blow. But I also think, given the reality of our culture, their defense of Christianity in general is really a pretty brilliant use of satire satire, which I think can and should be emulated and improved on. ( I am sure I can find 50 Catholics funnier than those guys at any given Catholic high school (having gone to one myself.)
    Tearing down the nasty Louis CKs, Jon Stewarts, Sarah Silvermans and most of all that stupid Bill Mahers of this world (these guys do a pretty good lampoon of Bill Maher in a video about somebody trying to destroy Christmas) is an essential first step in getting the right message across to the people inheriting the Earth. It is a good first step, and I thank God (with a KEY assist from McClarey) for pointing them out.

  • The Choose your Pope clip features a Thoroughly Modern Millie sort of young lady who attended the best colleges and actually went to a Roman Catholic Mass seven times and is therefore qualified to interrogate several “candidates” for Pope. ’twas not hilarious but a bit of wry satire, funny were it not so sad.

  • Of all the Protestant denominations, the Lutherans [with their major differences] remain the closest to the Catholic Church.

  • Watched it, watched it again, sent out the link to friends, watched it again. Very nice.

  • CatholicsRock: “As an Irish Catholic American, who actually has spent a lot of time scratching his head over the mystey of the Trinity,”
    God is perfect LOVE. Perfect LOVE needs someone to love. Perfect LOVE needs someone to love Him. Jesus Christ loves His Father perfectly and His Father loves His son perfectly. The love proceeding from the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit. The Three distinct Persons in the Blessed Trinity are one Sovereign Being.

  • Mary DeVoe – thank you for your explanation. I had sort of given up trying to understand it, as a descendant (genealogically and intellectually) of the people who needed St. Patrick to explain it to them. I am sure St. Patrick used small words and spoke very slowly to my forebears as well – and finally, in exaspiration, picked up a clover.
    One of the things that makes the story great (to me) is that even though he finally had to resort to theological fallacies to get his point across, he spawned an entire nation of people with faith deep enough to put up with centuries of nasty, brutal, hellish British depredations and subjugation – all for their Faith. Even though his teachings were “imperfect” they reached the place where God calls us to love.
    The other offshoot of teaching to people like me was that St. Patrick figured out how to actually TEACH people like me (ie people thicker than two bricks – who actually make up the majority of people on the planet – after all it is a well known statistic that 50% of people graduated in the bottom half of their class!) and founded the university system as a result.
    Happy St. Patrick’s day!

  • Dear sweet God, is this what Irish Irish Catholics are to expect next from our Trans Pond diaspora ?!


    Well at least we can laugh at ourselves if no one else.

  • Funny video and the postscript from God a fitting ending.
    Re the Westboro Baptists:
    A volunteer group, the Patriot Guard, was founded in response to their cruel “mission”. An excerpt from http://www.patriotguard.org:
    “Our main mission is to attend the funeral services of fallen American heroes as invited guests of the family. Each mission we undertake has two basic objectives:
    1. Show our sincere respect for our fallen heroes, their families, and their communities.
    2. Shield the mourning family and their friends from interruptions created by any protestor or group of protestors.
    We accomplish the latter through strictly legal and non-violent means.”

  • Botolph,

    I believe the High Church Anglicans/Traditional Episcopalians are the “Protestants” closest to the Western/Latin (though the Latin is now almost nonexistent) Catholic Church. The Ordinariate was created for them. We could argue that they may not be Protestant, but it’s Sunday and I’m tired of
    -arguing with the six year old today.
    -watching the penguins lose to the Flyers, again, and:
    -cold weather.

  • “he finally had to resort to theological fallacies to get his point across.”
    The clover was a God-send.

  • Pingback: Did Christianity Give Us Gay Marriage? - BigPulpit.com