Rock’n’Roll Damnation
On the Highway to Hell:
Satanic Rock Band Co-Founder gets Novus Ordo Funeral in Sydney Cathedral
Just because you are the co-founder, guitarist, and songwriter of a satanic rock band and persevere in this until God calls you to judgment, doesn’t mean you cannot get a “Catholic” funeral in the Vatican II Sect.
This is evident in the case of Malcolm Young, co-founder of AC/DC, the infamous Australian hard rock band that has perverted the souls of generations since its inception in 1973 with such songs as Highway to Hell, Back in Black, Sin City, Hard as a Rock, Rock’n’Roll Damnation, and Hells Bells (caution! these song links expose the band’s foul, perverted, and demonic lyrics).
Have a look at the lyrics of what is perhaps their most well-known song, Highway to Hell, which was co-written by Malcolm Young:
Livin’ easy
Livin’ free
Season ticket on a one way ride
Askin’ nothin’
Leave me be
Takin’ everythin’ in my stride
Don’t need reason
Don’t need rhyme
Ain’t nothin’ that I’d rather do
Goin’ down
Party time
My friends are gonna be there tooI’m on the highway to hell
On the highway to hell
Highway to hell
I’m on the highway to hellNo stop signs
Speed limit
Nobody’s gonna slow me down
Like a wheel
Gonna spin it
Nobody’s gonna mess me around
Hey, Satan
Payin’ my dues
Playin’ in a rockin’ band
Hey, mamma
Look at me
I’m on the way to the promised landI’m on the highway to hell
Highway to hell
I’m on the highway to hell
Highway to hellDon’t stop me
I’m on the highway to hell
On the highway to hell
I’m on the highway to hell
On the highway to hell(highway to hell) I’m on the highway to hell
(highway to hell) highway to hell
(highway to hell) highway to hell
(highway to hell)And I’m goin’ down
All the way
I’m on the highway to hell(Source)
It looks like Malcolm Young has now received his wish, for he was called to Judgment, to give an account of his life, on Nov. 18, 2017. He was 64 years old and died of dementia. We are not aware of any reports of the man showing any signs of repentance before his passing, and neither his family’s nor his band’s official statements suggest any such thing.
Young’s funeral service and burial took place on Nov. 28 in Sydney. But of course the “Catholic authorities” couldn’t simply use an ugly, run-of-the-mill Novus Ordo temple for this abominable spectacle. No, they had to defile the archdiocesan cathedral. St. Mary’s Cathedral, pictured at the top of this post, was built as a true Roman Catholic house of God. It was solemnly consecrated on September 8, 1882, by Archbishop Roger Vaughan. As a real Catholic church, it was dedicated exclusively for the true and acceptable worship of the Most Holy Trinity (cf. Jn 4:23-24; Jn 2:14-17). In 1932, Pope Pius XI granted it the status of a minor basilica.
The funeral service was conducted behind closed doors, but video footage is available of the procession with the casket as they leave the cathedral (be sure to skip the first 15 seconds of the video, as it is filled with Satanic AC/DC music):
A number of news articles have appeared in the press regarding the Young funeral. The following two excerpts give a candid glimpse at the sick state of the Vatican II Church that would act like nothing is wrong and grant a “Mass of Christian Burial” to such an individual:
While the service was happening, Young’s guitar – dubbed “The Beast” – rested on top of his coffin. [His brother] Angus later carried the instrument to the hearse when the ceremony was over.
The service was run by Monsignor Tony Doherty, who told those gathered he had been listening to AC/DC’s back catalogue recently. “Once in a while and only once in a while, someone comes along who truly understands, who has a gift to transfer all those needs and emotions into music,” he said. “This genius of music and song had been cruelly struck silent.”
(Rhian Daly, “Former AC/DC members honour Malcolm Young at funeral service”, New Musical Express, Nov. 28, 2017)
You can’t make this stuff up.
But wait, there’s more:
While the cathedral bells may have substituted for AC/DC’s classic Hells Bells, the service was traditional, hymns including Amazing Grace, The Lord Is My Shepherd and Jerusalem soundtracking the solemn service rather than any of the band’s hits.
Malcolm was escorted out of the church by his son Ross and Angus, carrying his brother’s guitar which had been placed on top of the coffin during the prayers, with wife O’Linda and daughter Cara following behind as bagpipers played Waltzing Matilda.
As mourners and a crowd which had swelled to hundreds watched outside the church, the Scots College Pipes and Drums Band played It’s A Long Way To The Top [lyrics here] as the cortege made its way down College St to take Malcolm to his final resting place.
(Cathy McCabe, “AC/DC guitarist Malcolm Young farewelled at Sydney’s St Mary’s Cathedral”, News Corp Australia, Nov. 28, 2017)
What is there left to say? “Lift up thy hands against their pride unto the end; see what things the enemy hath done wickedly in the sanctuary” (Ps 73:3).
Maybe that highway to hell isn’t that much fun after all…
All this reminds one of the case of the pornographic sculptor and atheistic Communist blasphemer Alfred Hrdlicka, who had painted the Last Supper as a sodomite orgy and was then given a “Catholic” burial by the cathedral rector “Fr.” Anthony Faber in Vienna, Austria, under the nose of “Cardinal” Christoph Schonborn. That he was buried in a red casket with a hammer placed on top goes without saying.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is obvious that “an enemy hath done this” (Mt 13:28). The true Catholic Church has been infiltrated and eclipsed, and a satanic anti-Catholic sect has been put in its place for a short while, in accordance with divine prophecy concerning the “operation of error” that would manifest itself in the last days (cf. Mt 24:24):
And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: that all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.
(2 Thess 2:6-11)
Pray much and do penance, that our Blessed Lord will shorten these days of darkness for the sake of His elect (cf. Mk 13:20).
Image sources: Wikimedia Commons (Adam.J.W.C.; cropped) / Getty Images
Licenses: CC BY-SA 2.5 / Getty embed
;
I suppose all the liberal Novus Ordo trolls who visit this site would ask us all to pray for this unfortunate wretch. I say, let him have the prayers of his co-religionists, whoever they may be, but don’t count me as one of them.
I am surprised they didn’t play “Highway to hell” for the procession out of the once Catholic Cathedral. It would have been fitting. Actually, it would have been more fitting for the processional into the building.
Tony Doherty is worse for his praise for this guy and his “music.”
Malcolm Young is now eternally reaping what he sewed in this life. Let that be a wake up call to us all.
“Q. What opinion, then, may be formed of the salvation of any one, in particular, who is out of the true Church of Christ, and lives in a false religion?
A. In answer to this, I may ask another question: What opinion would you form of the salvation of one who is living in the open state of mortal sin, such as adultery, robbery, impurity, or the like? No one could presume to say that that man will certainly be lost; but every one may say that, if he die in that state, without repentance, he cannot be saved. If it be the will of God positively to save him, He will, before he die, give him the grace of sincere repentance; because God Almighty expressly requires from sinners a sincere repentance as a condition without which they cannot be saved: ‘Except ye repent,’ says He, ‘ye shall all likewise perish,’ Luke, xiii. 3. The same is to be said of a person who is out of the true Church, and lives in a false religion. If he die in that state he cannot be saved; and if it be the will of God actually to save him, He will undoubtedly bring him to the true faith, and make him a member of the Church of Christ before he leaves this world; and the reason is the same as in the other case. God, as we have seen above, requires all men to be united to the Church by true faith as a condition of salvation, and therefore daily ‘adds to the Church such as shall be saved,’ Acts, ii. 47. Now, though a man be ever so great an adversary to the Church of Christ at present, or ever so great a sinner though a member of the Church, yet, as no man can know what God may be pleased to do for either before he die, so no man can pronounce and say that either the one or the other will be lost; for, if God please, He may give the light of true faith to the one, and the grace of true repentance to the other, even at their last moments, and save them.”
—Bp. George Hay
Yes. Agreed.
And, the Catholic Church (in the 1917 Code of Canon law) forbids ecclesiastical burial to the following, unless they have given signs of repentance before they died:
1) Notorious Apostates from the Christian Faith, notorious adherent of an heretical or schismatical sect, or of the Masonic Order, or other societies of the same kind…
6) Other public and manifest sinners. (c 1240). And Canon 1241 forbids any funeral mass and even an anniversary funeral mass, or any other public funeral services. You can check it out for yourself .
If Malcolm Young gave signs of repentance for his career of debauchery, hedonism, and Satanism, may God be blessed for His mercy. If that is the case, I would say requiescat in pace.
But if the Church Herself would not permit prayers and ceremonies for various kinds of apostates and public sinners, why should I, as a faithful son of the Catholic Church, act otherwise? Besides, this fellow did not commit the crime of asking that his body be cremated (also contained in canon 1240) but far worse: he notoriously preached a message of debauchery, hedonism, and overt Satanism throughout his very public career. Just google his name or the name of his band, and take a look at the images. Read some of the lyrics to his songs.
We cannot define that he is in Hell. But, as is the case of all men, we can say that he is receiving the rewards of his actions. He is getting that for which he asked. He is reaping what he has sewed.
So, Holy Angels93: Please supply me with the details of Malcom Young’s signs of repentance.
While it is true the Church forbids public prayer, She does not forbid private prayers for such individuals.
“We notice also that the Church’s public prayers are made for the faithful only. Only a Catholic can have Catholic burial, or Masses publicly offered for his soul’s repose. For living non-Catholics, the Church’s one prayer is that they may be brought to know the Church that Christ sent to teach them. For till they know his will they cannot do it. Once they by faith accept his Church, she can give them all the other gifts he has put in her hands for his brethren. But it would be a breach of trust to give these gifts alike to those who accept and to those who refuse his first gift of faith, which is the foundation of all the rest. So she cannot pray publicly for those without, as if they were brethren. But God in binding his Church to her appointed work did not bind up his own mercy; and knowing this, we pray in secret for those dead for whom we cannot pray in public.”
—The Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine. Vol. I. Arranged and edited by Canon George D. Smith, D.D., Ph.D. (Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, 1956).
As far as signs of repentance, I don’t know. I think the most we can say is that objectively it is most likely he went to hell.
Agreed. And thus, in a public forum, I am not calling for prayers for his soul. If he is in purgatory, then the prayers of the Church Militant for the Church Suffering will be his consolation.
For what one prays privately is not in question. One can pray for any good thing. But there is something incongruent about asking for prayers for his soul publically. Something just doesn’t jive.
He was a Satanist, we are Catholics.
He was a hedonist, we are Catholics.
He was one of the leaders of a counter-Catholic culture of debauchery, we are Catholics.
He had no signs of repentance. May it please God that we be contrite and penitent at the hour our our deaths.
He ostensibly had some connection to the Novus Ordo Church. May we never have any such connection.
Can you imagine Catholics asking for prayers for the soul of Martin Luther? Should Catholics pray for Phillip Melancthon, John Calvin, or Huldrych Zwingli?
Something is not right with that, and those wretches were “Christians.”
Or how about prayer requests for the repose of the souls of Alfred Loisy, Ernesto Buonaiuti, Angelo Roncalli, or Giovanni Montini?
Again, there is something not right with such a thing. It would be hard on Catholic ears to even hear such requests. It goes against the grain, so to speak. Nevertheless, nobody is saying definitively that Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Zwingli, Loisy, Buonaiuti, Roncalli and Montini are in hell, and cannot then be the recipients of the graces of our good works. But it is another thing to say or write a request for prayers for their souls. There is an incongruity there.
So, I think there is something very disturbing and wrong with prayer requests for folks such as Malcolm Young, UNLESS there were signs of repentance. The guy was a SATANIST. Even the above examples I gave you were of men who at least called themselves “Christians.”
Let Malcolm Young be refreshed by the “graces” obtained by the prayers, mortifications, sacrifices, and good works of his fellow band members and of whatever church to which he belonged.
Show me your friends, and I’ll show you who you are
Show me your friends and I’ll show you your future
When the character of a man is not clear, look at his friends
Proverbs 13:20: He that walketh with the wise, shall be wise: a friend of fools shall become like to them.
“And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved?
And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.” Matthew 19:24-26
“And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold.” Matthew 24:12
Of course, the Catholic Church had no charity at all UNTIL John XXIII and Vatican II happened. Until then She was an uncharitable, old fashioned, out of touch, stagnant, medieval, superstitious, arrogant, and dogmatic organization. Thank God, he finally corrected her after 1925 years of error and falsehood.
I choose to be identified with that uncharitable, old fashioned, out of touch, stagnant, medieval, superstitious, arrogant, and dogmatic organization, outside of which there is no salvation.
You can choose to be part of the peace-loving, novel, charitable, humble, modern, updated, relevant, ever changing “Cult of Man” (to quote Montini) created by the Modernists with the usurpation of John XXIII and his Vatican II church.
We will never agree.
Actually, that Gospel of Matthew antedates Vatican II by more than a few years.
Actually, that uncharitable, old fashioned, out of touch, stagnant, superstitious, cold, arrogant, and dogmatic organization, outside of which there is no salvation antedated the Gospel of St Matthew by a few years. It is the Catholic Church which determined what books belong to Sacred Scripture and what books do not belong. It is the Catholic Church, and Her alone, who has the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture (the written Word of God) and Sacred Tradition (the unwritten word of God).
Do yourself a favor, and study the 1917 code of Canon law, study pre-Vatican II catechisms, study the pre-Vatican II moral theologians. Peruse the Enchiridion Symbolorum of Denzinger. There is supposed to be a hermeneutic of continuity, but nobody can find it. Maybe you can enlighten us all (out of charity, of course).
I choose to have the infallible and unerring, and therefore immutable, Catholic Church’s dogmas, disciplines and worship as my guide (including the 1917 code of canon law). For that reason, I guess my charity is as cold as ice.
There is just no way I can live up to the flaming charity of “Saint” Roncalli, “Blessed” Montini (the homo), “Venerable” Luciani, “Saint” Wojtyla, the Rat, and Jorge the humble.
But, in your overwhelming charity, tell me something. Is there ANYTHING that would stop the Novus Ordo from giving an ecclesiastical burial to a person?
I am not certain how you can assert the ‘Catholic Church’ antedated the Gospel of St. Matthew.
St. Matthew’s Gospel was written circa 41 A.D.
The Acts of the Apostles was written circa 64 A.D. (See below)
The Church was first identified in Acts as ‘The Way’ and then later as ‘Christian’, the term ‘Catholic’ appeared sometime later, first having been identified as such in a letter from St. Ignatius of Antioch written to his fellow Christians in Smyrna circa 107 A.D.
“Saul, with every breath he drew, still threatened the disciples of the Lord with massacre; and now he went to the high priest and
asked him for letters of commendation to the synagogues at Damascus, so
that he could arrest all those he found there, men and women, who
belonged to ‘The Way’, and bring them back to Jerusalem.” Acts 9:1-2
“…so that at Antioch the disciples were first named ‘Christians’…” Acts 11:26
I regret that the greater part of your reply is so much ‘shibboleth’ to me.
You ask; however, :
“Is there ANYTHING that would stop the Novus Ordo from giving an ecclesiastical burial to a person?”
I would imagine the answer is yes. A mafiosi.
I am sorry. I was mistaken. I thought Our Lord Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church. That is what my pre-Vatican II catechism says, which references Matt. XXVIII 19-20 and also Matt XVI 18, and ff. The Council of Florence taught that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Christ, (denz 703), as did the First Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (Denz 1821 and ff.), as did Leo XIII (Denz 1959 and 1960). St. Pius X condemned those who would think otherwise (Denz 2052, 2055, 2088) especially in his Oath against Modernism (Denz 2145) which says that Our Lord founded the Church while he sojourned amongst us. But like I say, I was mistaken (because I was deluded by that bad pre-Vatican II dogmatic Church). Thank you for correcting another error forced on us by that phony institution. I am glad I ran into a true disciple of Christ who finally set the record straight. I certainly would not want to go to the grave believing a lie. Thanks to the God of Surprises for this enlightenment.
However, regarding your Mafiosi (sic) answer, I am shocked! Where is your charity? How can you presume that a Mafioso would not get the grace of conversion just before he dies? How can the Novus Ordo Church be so cold, uncharitable, and judgmental as to refuse an ecclesiastical burial service to anyone?
Of course, a Mafioso who takes the natural lives of his victims is far worse than the murder of souls (as in the case of Malcolm Young). But still, you never know, God could save such an individual. Furthermore, why punish the Mafioso’s relatives who will not have the consolation of sending him off with the Mass of the Resurrection, complete with balloons, flowers, and eulogies? I can’t believe the Novus Ordo Church could be so uncharitable and cold!
[OK, enough sarcasm. It is no wonder St. Pius X said Modernists should be beaten with fists. You, sir, would be a prime candidate for such treatment.]
I will keep you in my prayers.
Ut inimicos sanctae Ecclesiae humiliare digneris, Te rogamus audi nos.
Ut omnes errantes ad unitatem Ecclesiae revocare, et infideles universos ad Evangelii lumen perducere digneris, Te rogamus audi nos.
Ut omnibus fidelibus defunctis requiem aeternam donare digneris, Te rogamus audi nos.
Benedicat tibi Dominus, et custodiat te.
Ostendat Dominus faciem suam tibi, et misereatur tui.
And yet according to some wearing a BEAST T-shirt is good for millennials because its a “new way” to spread the message of Christ. It’s a deception which would lead to music like this:
From AC DC “Hells Bells”
I’m a rolling thunder, a pouring rain
I’m comin’ on like a hurricane
My lightning’s flashing across the sky
You’re only young but you’re gonna die
I won’t take no prisoners, won’t spare no lives
Nobody’s putting up a fight
I got my bell, I’m gonna take you to hell
I’m gonna get you, Satan get you
Hell’s bells
Yeah, hell’s bells.
Don’t follow this path but rather the REAL saints who we ought to BE like who say things like this:
“The greater number of men still say to God: Lord we will not serve Thee; we would rather be slaves of the devil, and condemned to Hell, than be Thy servants. Alas! The greatest number, my Jesus – we may say nearly all – not only do not love Thee, but offend Thee and despise Thee. How many countries there are in which there are scarcely any Catholics, and all the rest either infidels or heretics! And all of them are certainly on the way to being lost.”
-Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor of the Church
“The more the wicked abound, so much the more must we suffer with them in patience; for on the threshing floor few are the grains carried into the barns, but high are the piles of chaff burned with fire.”
-Pope Saint Gregory the Great, Father and Doctor of the Church
“Christ’s flock is called “little” (Luke 12:32) in comparison with the greater number of the reprobates.”
-Saint Bede the Venerable, Father and Doctor of the Church
“It is granted to few to recognize the true Church amid the darkness of so many schisms and heresies, and to fewer still so to love the truth which they have seen as to fly to its embrace.”
-Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church
“Be one of the small number who find the way to life, and enter by the narrow gate into Heaven. Take care not to follow the majority and the common herd, so many of whom are lost. Do not be deceived; there are only two roads: one that leads to life and is narrow; the other that leads to death and is wide. There is no middle way.”
-Saint Louis Marie de Montfort
I agree.
I would like to add that even without the satanic words, the “music” itself is improper, disordered, and geared to exciting the passions. Its main constituent is the beat. Then the second constituent is the rhythm, 3rd, there is usually little to no harmony, and lastly, there is very little to no melody. In other words it is music turned upside down.
Melody should be the chief component, then harmony, and then rhythm. Beat should not normally be used, but if it is, it should be subservient to the first two elements.
As a medicine to the constant barrage of garbage music one hears all over the place, I would encourage folks to listen to Renaissance, Baroque, Classical and even Romantic era music. Certainly, Gregorian Chant is great, too. By contemplating the melody, the order, the proportionality, and the beauty of the music, one will, in some measure, counter the perverse effects of the music which we are all forced to hear just about everywhere.
Modern music is one of the ways that the modern culture is slowly injected into one’s mind and soul. It is like an intravenous slow drip of poison that will eventually kill off the Catholic Culture in us.
Modern music, and the culture that goes with it, is opposed to right order, and certainly to Catholicism. It cultivates disorder in just about every way. Its adherents are often ugly, disheveled, longhaired, demonic-looking folks, or at least they lead impure lives. Its origins are filthy and depraved, and its musical form is disordered.
That’s why the new Chrissstian Rock “music” is so disgusting.
Just like Bishop McKenna once said “Rock music is devil music.”
I simply do not understand how people can be so apathetic about going to hell. It has shocked me how many times someone has said to me, “Yeah, I know I’m going to hell, and I don’t care.”
This includes those who are supposedly Catholics.
This is why the Novus Ordo revolution succeeded: boneheaded, stinking apathy among the vast majority of Catholics.
It is that they say that they do not care about Hell because they do not really believe that it exists.
How sad that the only thing you need to do to get a Catholic funeral these days is exist!
I would put the word Catholic in quotation marks.
You know how rock chicks (male and female) are so idolized? If there is a tragedy above the obvious, it maybe that Malcom thought the Novus Ordo was Catholic. Who can say?
GO CALVIN. ACDC BOWS TO YOUR WISDOM!
Another BEAST acronym for a Novus Ordo T shirt: BE A Satanic Troubadour.
I can hear the Novus Ordites now:
It is obvious the guy was good willed , and was just trying to reach this audience “where they were at.”
He loved life, and lived it to the fullest.
He was inspirational to many young people.
The satanism was just an act: he really didn’t mean it.
etc.
It is said that playing Bach’s music to plants adds strength and vigor to their growth but playing Hard Rock noise to plants stunts the plants. Can it be that plants sometimes have more sense then humans.? I’m looking hard but I can’t see the ‘genius’ in this fellows music, I’m afraid I’ll have to side with the plants this time.
I knew that eventually there would be one commenter complaining that we are “presuming his damnation”. Let me address it.
Of course we cannot say with absolute certitude that Malcolm Young is in hell, since we do not know what happened before his death. However, if we simply allow ourselves to be led by what is externally evident, there can be no other conclusion. The simple fact is that IF Young persevered in his sinful ways until the end, then he is most certainly damned. Since we have no indication to the contrary, it would be very destructive to souls to act as though “we just don’t know”. It is this attitude — which may allow those who have it feel like they are being humble, but I don’t think that’s the case — that ultimately relativizes Christ’s and the Church’s teaching on the very real possibility of damnation and the reality of hell. If you can live any way you please, and in the end nobody “really knows” whether this will save you or damn you, then Catholic teaching is pointless and misleading.
And so this is *my* no. 1 problem with this attitude: It does nothing except water down the Catholic teaching on the reality of damnation. We must start acting as though those who are publicly known to have led sinful lives without any external indication of repentance before death, are truly and acutally in hell. This can only help us to live better lives ourselves.
As the tree leans, so shall it fall. That’s what I’ve heard the theologians teach.
My No. 1 problem with Novus Ordites and R&R crowd is that they speak from an orifice that is not in their head, but from one that is found much lower. They don’t speak rationally with facts, but emotionally from their bowels.
My goodness! We live in a world of pantywaists. Can we never make any judgements based on any sound principles or any sound authority? How do these miserable wretches hold a job? What do they do for a living?
Do these people ever make judgements on the fruit or vegetables they buy at a market, or do they just take the produce that is closest to their hands without any inspection or discernment of the condition of the food?
There is no more outrage over the evils in society, because modern men lack the backbone and intestinal fortitude to stand for anything. Rather, they stand for nothing. It is peace, luv, and joy all the time. And for goodness sake, we cannot be judgmental, because all of us are agnostic, and none of us can know the truth, let alone act on it.
Society as a whole has been emasculated.
You are the one that does not speak from the head but rather your bowels. You are the one who has no objective facts to support your conclusion. You are the one who allows your bias to taint your reason and judgment when you claim you must be satisfied that Young’s soul was in a state sufficient to receive a Catholic funeral(not the requirement of the Church ever in its history). This is not a matter of private judgment it is a matter of Church authority which is not vested on you no matter what may believe.
My understanding of death is that moment when the soul departs the body. The precise moment of which is not known. My further understanding that God ‘pursues’ (if you will) everyone with His Grace until the moment of death.
Who are we to say that just short of death, i.e. the separation of the soul from the body, who might have repented and been saved? And, not knowing this, why should any deceased person (even those we may revile) may not benefit from prayers offered for their repose?
Amen brother! Where do people get this nonsense that we shouldn’t assume that people who apparently persevere in sin until the end are lost? Have they ever read any Catholic books?
The Church is not a democracy and whether the “public” is sufficiently satisfied that this man was repentant at death is irrelevant and not a requirement of the Church(before V II for a funeral).
“Of course we cannot say with absolute certitude that Malcolm Young is in
hell, since we do not know what happened before his death. However, if
we simply allow ourselves to be led by what is externally evident, there
can be no other conclusion.”
These two statements are contradictory and prove your logical fallacy. You have no objective evidence to prove your assertion in the second part of the quote and it is contradicted by the first and is rank speculation.
Who is this “we” that must be satisfied that Young was repentant such that “we” will be satisfied about the state of his soul such that he should be granted a Catholic funeral?
In the end though why are you so concerned about this? You do not “believe” that Young or the Church that performed the funeral is Catholic so it is no different than a bunch of pagans burying a dead person to you. By your standard Young could not possible be forgiven because the NO sacraments are invalid (of course we don’t know maybe he received extreme unction from a sede priest since with subjective speculation anything is possible), so what difference would it make–right? Are you worried about scandal from a none Catholic sect? That would be a bit odd, don’t you think?
It is because the Novus Ordo pretends to be Catholic.
I beg to differ: The Catholic Church’s supreme prelate, the Roman Pontiff, can declare INFALLIBLY the salvation of a particular soul. It is called “canonization.” Look up the term. You may find it of interest.
Regarding damnation, without declaring definitively the damnation of a soul, the Church’s prelates can excommunicate someone. If an excommunicated person should die before being re-admitted to the Church, he is presumed DAMNED. You might look up the term “excommunication.”
“Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive him and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.”
From the movie Becket: (a fairly accurate portrayal, as Hollywood goes)
https://youtu.be/NRt2cKvJLlE
You may also want to look up some pre Vatican II moral theologians teachings on public sinners, as well as the 1917 Code of Canon Law 1240 and 1241.
Canonization is or should I say was, a long process requiring miracles to verify a soul is in heaven. There is no way to know if a soul is in hell (if sow prove that to me by reference to the magisterium in this regard). None of your other examples prove this man was objectively unrepentant and therefore outside the Church. You are not the judge of whether or not this man was entitled to a Catholic funeral that is up to his priest.
Can you show where the Church before 1958 ever canonized a public heretic/sinner who showed no signs of repentance?
You answer a the question with a question based on a faulty premise. You have yet to meet your burden of proving that young was an unrepentant sinner. His standard as a sinner, which you are, does not deprive him of a Catholic funeral.
Your intellectual dishonesty is breathtaking.
You failed to answer another question.
By the way, what question did you ask that I answered with a question?
Your dishonesty is breathtaking.
Your stupidity is annoying. Your question was about canonization. Can you please show me where a cause for Young’s canonization is being opened by the Church?
Wrong. My first question which you didn’t answer was…St. Edmund Campion wrote that Martin Luther was in hell. Padre Pio also
said Luther was in hell. Were they being arrogantly presumptuous for
saying so?
The reason for the question was because you accuse us sedes of doing what these two men did.
The second question was: Can you show where the Church before 1958 ever canonized a public heretic/sinner who showed no signs of repentance?
The reason for this question is due to the fact that you began a comment to BurningEagle: Canonization is or should I say was, a long process requiring miracles
to verify a soul is in heaven. There is no way to know if a soul is in
hell (if so prove that to me by reference to the magisterium in this
regard). None of your other examples prove this man was objectively
unrepentant and therefore outside the Church at death. You are not the
judge of whether or not this man was entitled to a Catholic funeral that
is up to his priest.
I’m asking the questions to show that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t answer the questions which furthers the proof that you don’t.
I answered the question about what Pio (strange you consider pio a St since he was canonized by, who you claim is false pope, JP II in 2002 making his canonization invalid but lets not let facts get in the way) and St. Edmond said by responding their opinions are not de fide and therefor not binding and not a matter of faith to be obeyed. I also answered by saying sedes including you are no St Edmond. Your cult of personal opinion bears not weight of authority thus I called you protestant. These are, as I said, false premises and do not rebut my original post that no man may judge the state of another mans soul without objective proof, like suicide, such that he should be denied a funeral.
Sedes have no authority to make claims that a man should not be given a Catholic funeral because they do not know the state of his soul at death. Thus my repeated demand of objective information to show he was unrepentant at death which you have not answered nor have your confederates.
It is admitted by Mr. NO watch, whoever he may be, that the state of Young’s soul at death is not know–that ends the discussion and invalidates the basis of his argument. I said that the decision about whether or not he is entitled to a Catholic funeral is up to the Church through it’s priest not the public and a bunch of laymen sedes.
Your statement about canonization is irrelevant to the discussion at hand because it has nothing to do with whether or not the Church should give a person a Catholic funeral. You also did not answer my question which you quote, to prove that the Church teaches that it can verify a person is in hell. I therefore answered all of your questions. But again your deflection has no bearing on the issue at hand.
No, I don’t claim Pio was a saint. I put it in parenthesis and explained that they are your saints. You can’t even get simple facts right. Lol. You have judged and condemned us for doing what your saints have done. You still haven’t answered the question: Were they [Campion and Pio] being arrogantly presumptuous for saying so?
Pios opinion about a souls ultimate destination is not relevant to whether or not Young should have been give a Catholic funeral which is the issue in this discussion. Your question is a diversion. If assured salvation is the standard no one is entitled to a Catholic funeral. If pio or St Thomas had said a person who is given a Catholic funeral at the direction of the Church should not have been because they sinned in life I would hold the same opinion that they had no right to do so.
Not a diversion. You accused us of doing what he did. That’s the point. You originally stated: “No one, not one person here, not one priest or prelate can presume either salvation or damnation, God alone does this. This is my no. 1
problem with the sede crowd is their unbending arrogant presumption of
damnation on all sinners without considering the unknown state of a
man’s soul.” You’re now diverting the issue about the Catholic Funeral. I was addressing your point about presuming. We all see through your dishonesty!
The rules of the Catholic Church (pre 1958) would bar this man from any Catholic rites. If you do not want to look them up, then why should I do your work for you. You can consult the 1917 code of canon law. You can consult moral theologians (Jone is written in English). If a guy routinely did not make his easter duty, and it was a known fact, he was barred from an ecclesiastical burial. Of a guy asked that his body be cremated, he was barred from an ecclesiastical burial. I’ll put the onus on you: Prove me wrong.
The above long quotation I gave you was from the Roman pontifical. It is part of the excommunication ceremony. As part of the Church’s liturgical books it cannot teach error. “we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church” – those are strong words!
Malcolm Young was a public sinner! He promoted Satanism and hedonism. I would love to find out that he repented. But there is no indication. Therefore it is a scandal that he get an ecclesiastical burial.
I guess anyone gets a burial from the Novus Ordo these days. Who in your estimation should NOT get an ecclesiatical burial?
The “rules” you claim were so rigidly applied before 1958 and pre V II is not supported by history. Thankfully the Church is not as legalistic and pharisee like as Sedes who would have cursed Christ for pardoning the thief on the Cross. You have no evidence that Young was not repentant, it is not your call, and the Mr. NO watch admits “‘we’ do not know the state of his soul at death”. That ends the debate. Actually there is no debate because “we” have no say in the matter.
The real Church (as you would say) routinely granted Catholic funerals to public sinners who were far worse than Young:
Jewish mobster and murderer Dutch Schultz converted to the Catholic faith on his deathbed. He was given a Catholic funeral and is buried in a Catholic cemetery. Uncharitable pharisees like you were outraged by this but the Church made the call.
Oscar Wild notorious homosexual converted to the faith on his deathbed and was given a Catholic funeral.
Countless Catholic mobsters were granted lavish funerals after being murdered. How could they have repented?.
John F. Kennedy. Open and notorious adulterer was murdered, so there is a strong argument he did not have time to repent yet he was granted a funeral. Same for his father, mother ect.
Nazi war criminals were given extreme unction at the hangman’s noose and were granted funerals(they were not hung in public so the public, who you claim must be satisfied, had no idea what they did).
As for your last question: “Who in your estimation should NOT get an ecclesiastical burial?”
It isn’t my call who should and should not be given such a burial, the Church does not grant me with that authority and never did. I am not a judge of another man’s soul at death and neither are you. I still find it amusing and hypocritically inconsistent that you consider Young’s
burial “ecclesiastical” when you claim that the burial was not Catholic. No you are just a bad willed person who’s knee jerk default is to calumniate fellow Christians who do not agree with your personal opinions.
As an aside, one of the many false allegations leveled at the Church by protestants is that it is filled with public sinners, drunkerds and reprobates. As they would say, the Catholic just goes out and sins because he believes he will be forgiven in the confessional; how outrageous they would say. You see Catholics in a real Catholic world, in which you do not live, do not dress the moral icon in public and then sin mightily in private like the puritanical prodies. They understand the fallen nature of man, submit to the graces of God through the Church, and avoid the phony standards of the post Christian mindset.
How do you know the Jewish mobster converted? Somebody must have spilled the beans to the public! I wonder why?
How do you know Oscar Wilde converted on his deathbed? Somebody must have made known this most private of secrets! I wonder why?
So, has ANYTHING been said that this man even asked for the “priest?” No. Only that a “priest” visited him (likely after he was already incapable of a moral act). It would be edifying for the fans of AC/DC to find out that their hero had a deathbed conversion to what he at least thought was the Catholic Church. But no! There are no details whatsoever- unlike the cases of deathbed conversions you site.
Regarding mobsters, if they were not notorious public sinners, then as Catholics they would be buried with an ecclesiastical burial.
I do not believe Kennedy was a notorious public sinner at the time. He certainly did not advertise his failings as if they were virtuous (as certain Satanists do).
None of the examples seem to fall under “Notorious Apostates from the Christian Faith, notorious adherent of an heretical or schismatical sect, or of the Masonic Order, or other societies of the same kind…”Other public and manifest sinners.”
Fine and dandy. You win! Everybody, regardless of what they professed and what they did should get an ecclesiastical burial. If that is the case, the Church was wrong in the old canon law until the New Canon Law came out. And, the new “Cult of Man” is wrong in the New Canon law, because apparently those new canons in JPII’s canon law are not to be obeyed either.
So, you win. I lose. There are no rules, there is no morality. There is no such thing as the sin of scandal. Any and all institutions that claim to be “Catholic” or “Christian” are valid and praiseworthy, no matter what they do or say.
And yet the saints on few occasions when asked whether a person made it or not said the very same things a sede would say based on external evidence of no repentance. Even St. John the Baptist told Herod that if he would not give up his “marriage” to his brother’s wife (while his brother was still alive) that he would die in sin. No sede desires anybody to go to hell and no sede knows the secret hearts of man, but are you going to just say everybody (including Malcolm who had an bad effect on others with his music) is just in good shape since the Lord is so merciful? Keep this in mind from saints who say ‘The greater part of men choose to be damned rather than to love Almighty God.’ St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori and ‘Shall we all be saved? Shall we go to Heaven? Alas, my children, we do not know at all! But I tremble when I see so many souls lost these days. See, they fall into Hell as leaves fall from the trees at the approach of winter.’ St. Jean Marie Baptiste Vianney
Of course, to Novus Ordites, those Saints of old, and their outdated religion are devoid of charity. Only in the Vatican II “Cult of Man” does one find true charity.
Of course as a typical sede your personal “belief” is more important than objective reality. You believe, therefor, it is so, as is evidenced by your statements about what so called “Novus Ordites” believe. If you do not see the problem here you are either bad willed or ignorant. Objectively your bias clouds your reason.
You win. I lose. There are no rules, there is no morality. There is no such thing as the sin of scandal. Any and all institutions that claim to be “Catholic” or “Christian” are valid and praiseworthy, no matter what they do or say.
This man’s judge is God not you are your sede sycophants. He did not need to satisfy you regarding the state of his soul at death so that he can obtain your permission for a Catholic funeral. Show me where “external evidence of repentance”(to the public at large) is required by the Church to receive a Catholic funeral?
Can. 1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals…
1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;
2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for
reasons contrary to Christian faith;
3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted
ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.
from your own 1983 code of law.
You have no proof Young was in any of those categories and that he “failed to give signs of repentance before death”. You make the allegations you show the proof. Again you have no objective proof he remained a “manifest sinner”. You do not make the call, the Church which you reject does.
Since you say “your own 1983 code” then that assumes it is not your code so what do you care? The scandal is not made by the true church, right? Do you also wring your hands over a voodoo ritual? Do you care what the baptist church believes? Do presume to dictate what they do?
Voodooists do not blasphemously claim they are the Catholic Church. You are making our point for us.
Voodoo is a practice which mixes Catholic and African pagan practices. You have made no point except that which is peppered with your personal opinion. No one has yet to show me objective evidence Young was unrepentant notorious sinner who by church law should have been denied a Catholic funeral. Even Mr. NO watch admits “we cannot know the state of his soul at death”. That ends the debate. The Church makes the call you and a bunch of laity who identify as Sede have no say in the matter.
I would call a satanist a notorious apostate. But I guess you would not.
Just showing how hypocritical and idiotic you are. Keep commenting Georgeorwell. You’re only proving N.O.W. right about the novos ordo religion and its followers.
1917 Code of Canon Law states in
Canon 1083: The following persons are to be deprived of ecclesiastical burial, UNLESS THEY HAVE BEFORE DEATH GIVEN SOME SIGNS OF REPENTANCE:
1. Notorious apostates from the Christian faith, and persons notoriously known to belong to a heretical or schismatical sect, or to the masons, and other societies of the same kind;
2. Persons excommunicated or interdicted by condemnatory or declaratory sentence;
3. Culpable suicides;
4. Those dying in a duel or from wounds received in it;
5. those who have given orders to cremate their body;
6 All OTHER PUBLICLY KNOWN SINNERS
We follow the Code of Canon law of 1917, but you do not follow it, nor your novus ordo’s 1983 Code which states similar points. Why? Because you deny that Young was a public sinner (along with the rest of the AC DC group). Their songs have scandalized the entire world for years now. So the issue here is that if we were still living in the good ole days when everything was generally Catholic this wouldn’t have happened, but in the “New” Novus Ordo religion anything can happen and that’s the problem because it isn’t Catholic!
That’s canon 1240. You must have confused the reference in a commentary to the actual canon number.
Then what were all the references to Satan, then? The band that he founded and the songs that he co-wrote were so blatently Satanic, that his followers wore satanic horns to their concerts! Where is the misunderstanding?
https://goo.gl/images/1hAXQU
https://goo.gl/images/TKN5mv
https://goo.gl/images/HtGMAq
St. Edmund Campion wrote that Martin Luther was in hell. Padre Pio also said Luther was in hell. Were they being arrogantly presumptuous for saying so?
BLESSED Edmund Campion. The arch-Modernist Montini (Paul VI) “canonized” Blessed Edmund Campion. Pope Leo XIII beatified him.
I should have put quotation marks around “St.” because he’s supposed to be one for Georgeorwell assuming he’s not a sede. Same goes with “St.” Padre Pio.
There is a process for sainthood with proof of the beatific vision by miracles. Your premise is therefore false.
What miracles? You mean the hoaxes and lies from your false religion.
You are very presumptive aren’t you? You do not address the issue. Your private belief trumps truth and ascertainable objective reality. You are indistinguishable from a protestant.
You are very presumptive aren’t you? You do not address the issue. Your private belief trumps truth and
ascertainable objective reality. You are indistinguishable from a
protestant.
I can play that game to but I actually do answer the questions and address the issues. You do not. You make false accusations and misrepresent the facts.
Now you presuppose you know or have the authority to tell me what my religion is? You are a heretic protestant.
And now you presuppose you know or have the authority to tell me what my religion is by calling me a heretic protestant. What a hypocrite you are!
Neither where/are the magisterium of the Church and what ever they may of said is not de fide. You are no St Edmund.
You didn’t answer the question which is par for the course for novus ordoites. You accuse of us of doing what your saints have done.
Again you “believe” your perceived reality and suppositions are truth. I did address the issue. What a saint may or may not of said carries no weight of infallibility nor is it de fide.
You still have not answered the question proving once again that you can’t be honest. And so I’ll say it again, you have accused us of doing what your saints have done.
Infallibility is an entire separate issue.
I think sedes/trads have weak arguments about the “inherent sinfulness of rock music”; the Bible also discusses devil worship and other sins, but we don’t consider this to be an inappropriate piece of writing. AC/DC is definitely a more exaggerated example that would be hard to defend from a Catholic standpoint; I suppose I wonder more in my mind about if some of these works were slightly censored or changed, if they would be viable.
To me a lot of rock music seemed neutral; consider the “Highway to Hell” song. I always envisioned this as being like a drama, like there is a character saying “I am on the highway to hell”, and that this is not something to emulate. If this was in the context of a story where there was a bad rebellious youth and he was saying those things, Catholics wouldn’t outright condemn that – that would be condemning all villains, writers couldn’t use villains at all! A lot of the “evil” imagery of rock music seemed like in the context of “villains” from stories; again, even the Bible mentions demons.
Anyway, so lyrical content is one discussion, if there is blasphemy I can see that being clearly wrong or some other overt offensive lyrics that directly speak of worshipping Satan.
But say “Highway to Hell” was performed with altered lyrics (a “cover”) or as an instrumental without lyrics. This becomes even more grey of an area to me; I saw another commentator suggest that rock music was inherently disordered in how it sounded, because the constant beat suggests of committing sins of impurity. This brings up so many problems though: does this mean that all percussion is banned for Catholics, any drumming? What about “The Little Drummer Boy”? Is it just a steady rhythm that is objected to (because there are rhythm-less, or less intense rhythms in “rock” music)? Also, rock music comes from jazz – is jazz also objected to? Also there is often no clear demarcation between different genres of music, there is jazz rock and all kinds of different forms of music. Another good example illustrating the grey area of this issue to me is the “Trans-siberian orchestra” which is a rock-classical crossover and plays very traditional Christmas music with added rock accentuation; or Yyengwie Malmsteen (spell?) comes to mind for example, as a rock guitarist who plays classical pieces (basically simliar classical notes but with guitar distortion). Is there an objection to electronic music, like electronica with a steady beat (or beatless)? For a musician coming in to traditionalism, this has created quite a headache.
This anti-rock attitude has seemed overly reactionary, or at least not based on clear guidelines. Yes, there have been some rock musicians who have had overt occult sympathies, lyrics, and inspirations – yet there are so many musicians out there today, there is no way all of them are like this. There seems to be divided opinion among trad clergy/trads I have discussed this with as well. I also recall one of the popes I thought condemned waltz’s and tango dancing, although I don’t know if this was the musical form or the dance itself that was the problem.
Also recently I found a “surrealist” Salvador Dali painting that was approved by Pius XII, which I expect trads would condemn it they didn’t know this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Madonna_of_Port_Lligat “Dalí submitted it to Pope Pius XII for approval, which was granted.”
I have wondered if some trads’ condemnation of modern art has been out of their lack of artistic interest or ability, or simply due to personal taste rather than on any objective morality involved in the matter. Even abstract art that may look “ugly”, does not seem necessarily morally offensive, since some of the works are simply colorful patterns. Although there are definitely clear cases of art that is morally offensive.
Overall I haven’t found a clear guideline for art/music by trads.
And to some the inside of St Peters is painted like a gay bathhouse. Sedes and some so called Trads tainted by Protestant puritanical heresy claim all kinds of things they don’t like are sinful yet have no authority to do so.
“We are not aware of any reports of the man showing any signs of repentance before his passing.”
That’s between the priest and the individual. Something like that doesn’t make the papers. It’s not for public consumption. What was reported is that he was visited by a priest last year. Give him the benefit of the doubt, since you weren’t there to witness. God wants us to love our neighbor. Pray for his eternal rest because, like Christ, we, His disciples, desire the salvation of all men.
No, it is not simply between the priest and the individual, because here we are dealing with a *public* sinner, and in order to get rid of that status, there has to be *public* repentance.
Of course we desire his salvation, as well as the salvation of all men. But that really isn’t furthered by an attitude of “we can’t assume someone who spent his life being a public sinner didn’t die in his sin”. On the contrary — such an attitude is very harmful to souls, and is one of the reasons why so many “Catholics” get away with being pro-abortion, feminists, homos, etc.
Don’t waste your time. The “Cult of Man” has sucked out of its adherents the ability to understand even natural virtues and truths.
They cannot grasp even the basics of the natural law, which is evidenced by Jorge’s continual acceptance and promotion of homosexuals, and those who advance the homosexual and transvestite causes; as well as his idiotic condemnation of the death penalty.
If they cannot grasp those things, how are they going to grasp the concept of public crimes demanding public repentance? If Novus Ordites ran all the governments, there would be no jails, no punishment of crimes, let alone punishments that fit the crimes. No, everybody is forgiven, and everyone gets a free pass. Criminals would run amuck. And the only folks who would be considered “evil” would be the few who would be so old-fashioned and superstitious as to believe in, and live by, the doctrines and disciplines of the Catholic Church (pre-1958 for you trolls reading this).
I guess I was all wrong. I think Jorge should start the process for the canonization of Malcolm Young. He was a “family man,” he was a “musical genius,” he was an inspiration to millions of young people, and he (apparently) was a Novus Ordite. Oh, and he was also the cause of so many costume makers getting rich from the sale of horns worn by his adoring followers.
Was it reported whether he was coherent at the time of the visitation from the “priest?” The guy had to quite the band because he couldn’t remember stuff he had worked on. He no longer could function in September 2014! So I wonder what his condition was in November 2016 or whenever the novus ordo clergymen visited him. Did he ask for a clergyman, or was this his wife’s idea?
There are a lot of questions that need to be answered in order to avert the huge public scandal of his so-called “Catholic” burial.
Some indication that he repented of his career of sin and, therefore, some reason why the Novus Ordo could give an ecclesiastical burial without scandal to this public sinner would satisfy me.
I looked at many reports online for some indication of repentance, but could only find reports of his dementia, and lung cancer, and heart problems. The reports I saw indicated that he could no longer function as a band member. Even before retiring, he was having so much trouble that he had to repeatedly practice his stuff over and over just to be able to remember it for a performance.
Believe it or not, I was hoping to find something that gives an indication of remorse.
The dementia is very troubling. He went to a home for folks with dementia in 2014. It is probable he was incapable of repentance by 2016. That is what is so scary about mental problems. If a person is so badly demented that he is not held responsible for what he says or does, he can neither merit or sin in that condition. His soul will be fixed in the state it was in when he was last coherent enough to be responsible. May Almighty God, through his Holy Mother, the Mediatrix of all graces, grant that I be in His friendship if He permits me to be afflicted with dementia.
But, if you do not see the scandal of the Novus Ordo giving this fellow an ecclesiastical burial, then we should agree to stop arguing. It is of utmost importance that at least the Novus Ordo clergyman avert the scandal by giving to the public the reasons for this.
As Catholics we pray for the poor souls in purgatory many times a day. “Fidelium animae, per misericordian Dei, requiescant in pace.” But take note that Catholics pray for the departed faithful. We do not pray for all the departed, but for the souls of the FAITHFUL departed.
In that case, it would have been absolutely necessary for the “Archdiocese” of Sydney to issue a clear statement in order to prevent scandal. Something like this confirms untold souls in sin!
You can privately pray for anyone you like, but please do not confuse the venial sins of the soldiers in 2 Maccabees with the lifelong mortal sins of Malcolm Young.
Dude, you never asked me a question about objective evidence. You made a statement about it. You’re the one doing the attacking. Look at yourself. Such a hypocrite!
Well “Dude” I did ask the question over and over–so answer it or shut up.
It is your putrid puritanical self absorbed neo-protestant hog wash attacking the Church’s (which you do not believe to be the Church yet are somehow paradoxically concerned about its every move) decision to give a Catholic a funeral that was the opening shot of the attack. It is not I that is pretending to be a magisterium of personal fascist opinion that presupposes it has the right to dictate what the Church chooses to do for a departed Catholic going so far as to arrogantly state that “we” sedes should be given proof of this man’s repentance before such a funeral should be conducted or it be scandal to all.
It’s amazing how hateful and judgmental people like you are and yet how you accuse a sede of being that way. Why don’t you just call him St. Malcolm Young because I’m sure your pope or one of his successors will do that within the next 10 years.
I am the judgemental one now? Fascinating. I am not the one who made the claim Young did not deserve a Catholic funeral you sede sycophants did.
It is also amusing how much unfounded inference is inserted into this by like minded cultists about what others may think. Claiming that I am an Novus Ordite(what ever that is), believe in universal salvation, and now think Young is a saint–as you just did.
I could care less about Young, I hated his music. But I know nothing about his personal life, convictions, or the state of his soul, neither do you so I have no right, nor do you to say what the Church should have done with him. What you hate is the Church that buried him, so you use him as a pretext to spew your hatred. You hide behind sanctimony to cover your bad will. I have seen this in other situations usually while debating protestants and sodomites. Both use the sede tactics of “jamming the hater”, spew false allegations and calumniate their detractors. When faced with a simple question but and unanswerable one because it exposes their bad willed illogical position, they resort to the false premise, change the subject or character assassinate.
I answered your question in an earlier post where you asked, “Show me where “external evidence of repentance” (to the public at large) is required by the Church to receive a Catholic funeral?” Go look at my answer. I was just making a comment to you to call Malcolm a saint since we don’t know where he went. The Novus Ordo makes apostates saints like JPII so it’s limitless. Yes you write like you’re a psycho
Sorry I missed your citation to Church authority for the answer to this question:
“Show me where “external evidence of repentance” (to the public at large) is required by the Church to receive a Catholic funeral?
The code of cannon law does not answer the question either. So do repost it and prove me wrong. Prove that the public and the Church must both have proof of repentance before death to grant a funeral to a Catholic.
Again except a different comment from me after the quotation
1917 Code of Canon Law states:
Canon 1083: The following persons are to be deprived of ecclesiastical burial, UNLESS THEY HAVE BEFORE DEATH GIVEN SOME SIGNS OF REPENTANCE:
1. Notorious apostates from the Christian faith, and persons notoriously known to belong to a heretical or schismatical sect, or to the masons, and other societies of the same kind;
2. Persons excommunicated or interdicted by condemnatory or declaratory sentence;
3. Culpable suicides;
4. Those dying in a duel or from wounds received in it;
5. those who have given orders to cremate their body;
6 All OTHER PUBLICLY KNOWN SINNERS
Was not Malcolm Young a public sinner? He could have had a last minute conversion moment, which I hope he did but there was no sign for us to know so Canon law here applies in order for a Catholic burial to take place.
Okay Lee now read very carefully and slowly. You did not answer the question you see because what I have been asking for over and over from you and your fellow Jammers is proof that he did not:
Canon 1083: The following persons are to be deprived of ecclesiastical
burial,” UNLESS THEY HAVE BEFORE DEATH GIVEN SOME SIGNS OF REPENTANCE”:
As I have confronted you and your cabal of village idiots with this question over and over you have yet to show that he did not “give signs of repentance before death” (that is what my “objective evidence question means”).
Also the Code of cannon law is not for you as a lay person to interpret and enforce, it is for the Church and always has been. Whether or not the first part of the Code is met such that he is granted a funeral is for his priest to decide–NOT A BUNCH OF LAYMEN SEDE! This has always been the case and remains so.
You have no proof that he was unrepentant, you do not stand in a position of authority to make the judgement call, your utter failure of proof means–YOU LOOSE!
You can’t prove he was repentant, so Canon law applies when there is no sign. You’re a loser and can’t handle it because you’re a psycho
I don’t have to prove anything for two reasons you do not grasp:
1. I have no right to do so under cannon law in this context; and
2. I am not the one pretending to be oh so scandalized by this funeral because, though we don’t know, we must assume Young failed to repent, because, well, the NO sucks.
“Show me where “external evidence of repentance” (to the public at
large) is required by the Church to receive a Catholic funeral?
P.S. You still did not answer this question.
If you don’t have to prove anything then why do you keep commenting? We didn’t say Young failed to repent because he could have privately which we hope. We’re saying there was no public sign of it. Quit confusing the issue. Canon Law answered your question in the context of how you asked the question and yes I did answer your question and you don’t accept it. P.S. Go get a mental evaluation to find a cure for your sickness
You never asked the question to me. So you answer my question or shut up. And we can dictate, judge, and condemn what your false church chooses to do for the departed. And we’re going to keep on doing it!
Their beef is he is not a sede and in perfect grace, part of the remnant elect like them. This is all a bad willed pretext to attack the Church nothing more.
No, our beef is that The Novus Ordo, which pretends to have a “hermaneutic of continuity” with the Catholic Church, has decided to give an ecclesiastical burial to a Satanist. It is a huge scandal. I hope for Young’s sake that he did have remorse for his satanism and tried to make amends with Christ. BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT, WHATSOEVER.
How effeminate and weak sedes are, always complaining about how scandalized they are by the least little thing, like the death of an obscure and washed up musician.
What a joke, you don’t give two sh%ts about Young’s soul, my soul, or anyone else’s soul. This is a bad willed pretext to attack the Church, nothing more.
How weak people like you are, always complaining about sedes because you call them names and expect people to take you seriously.
What a joke you are because we told you we don’t know where Malcolm went and said over and over how we hoped he had a last minute conversion and yet you say we don’t care about anybody’s soul. You need to find a cure for your mental state
I guess I was all wrong. I think Jorge should start the process for the canonization of Malcolm Young. He was a “family man,” he was a “musical genius,” he was an inspiration to millions of young people, and he (apparently) was a Novus Ordite. Oh, and he was also the cause of so many costume makers getting rich from the sale of horns worn by his adoring followers.
Thats the novus ordo! Golf, soccer shoes, guitars. We are all going to heaven, just pay tribute to my life! Dementia at 64? Hmmm.
The following words of St. Alphonsus Liguori provide a good reality check as far as whether one can ever reasonably suppose — without, of course, claiming definite certitude — souls of individuals who did evil in life to be damned:
“O faithful souls, who love God, be not troubled at seeing yourselves in contempt and tribulations on this earth. … On the day of judgment you shall be called truly fortunate, and shall have the honor of being declared to belong to the court of Jesus Christ. … But, on the other hand, how horrible shall be the appearance of Herod, of Pilate, of Nero, and of so many other great men of this earth who are now damned!”
Source: “Preparation for Death” by St. Alphonsus
https://archive.org/stream/preparationforde00ligu#page/240/mode/1up
The typical objection will now be made that “You’re no Saint Alphonsus!” That is quite true but beside the point. The point is that all the writings of this saint were declared entirely safe for the faithful to read, and the saints are to be imitated. St. Alphonsus is here giving us an example that those who, to all appearances, died in their sins, are to be presumed damned. And this is entirely reasonable. Any other destination but hell cannot be *presumed*.