CrewDog, nobody is jumping ship, at least I'm not............yet. Our Church has stood the test of time as others have floundered because the Magisterium didn't teach error or try to undermine the Deposit of Faith. Any nod to normalising adulterous relationships will be a red line for me because it would be sending out a signal that the Masons are controlling Peter.
True - abortion is a hatred for one's brothers and sisters and is also murder of the weak and voiceless.
The Pope may not speak up for the voice of the unborn who have died because of Emma Bonino. But I will always speak for the unborn because they cannot speak for themselves. Ideas kill. Bonino's ideas kill and are still killing since she still promotes the agenda of the Radical Party of Italy. It is not me who will judge Emma Bonino but the innocents who have died because of her. I pray for her conversion otherwise she will be eternally lost.
God judges the judging of another person as greater than the sin of abortion! Really? Has there ever been a more monstrous crime greater than abortion? Abortion kills not only a body but a soul that God has created for eternity. We judge Emma Bonino's actions not her person. Our Lord said, by their fruits ye shall know them. And if the fruit is bad --
What happens to the soul of an aborted baby? We don't know. Nobody knows, and that's what Catholics who are soft on abortion close their eyes to. A baptised baby is accepted into the Church because the parents and godparents profess the faith on behalf of the child. Their is nobody to profess the faith on behalf of an aborted baby. We don't know whether that soul will be deprived of the paradise that we all strive to attain. Imagine the effect this must have had on the morale of pro-life Catholics in Italy when they opened their morning paper to read praise from the Pope for one of their arch enemies. It doesn't bear thinking about.
What is your take on the pope repeatedly calling fellow catholics "hypocrites" and "pharisees"? What about their reputations?
Good gravy, the lack of charity is galling. It's common knowledge that he suffers from knee problems and sciatica. You know anyone with sciatica? When it flares up it's incredibly painful. I remember the coverage on it during his trip here to the US and the announcers talked it about it explaining why he can't kneel sometimes: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/26/vatican-pope-francis-us-trip-health/72881062/
The pope can kneel just fine - when he is at an ecumenical gathering or washing Muslim women's feet on Holy Thursday. Genuflect at the consecration or kneel for Adoration? Not so much. View attachment 4460 View attachment 4461 View attachment 4462 View attachment 4463 View attachment 4464
Sigh. Deja vu, anyone? http://motheofgod.com/threads/the-synod-and-communion.8320/page-44#post-111195
Oh, you hard hearted people... I really shouldn't be reading this stuff but it is upsetting to see. Is it not obvious just by watching the Pope that while he can kneel, getting down on his knees is difficult for him and that makes genuflecting very awkward. But no, you are filling yourself with hatred for the good man. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
It's like I'm allowed to see into an alternate universe here. There are actually catholics who proclaim to be practicing ones that sit around and carp at him for not being able to kneel when the man has sciatica?!? It flares up, that means sometimes it's bad, sometimes it's not. Half of me wants to whack some of these poor souls upside the head with a 2x4 to knock the evil cynical thoughts that old skinny legs has planted in their brain, the other half understands that this is part of the storm and they're just blinded. How sad to have lost all charity for our Pope (our Pope!). I'll take these poor souls back to my beads and offer them up for the First Friday/First Saturday Masses this weekend. Good gravy
I'm not filled with hatred for him David. I understand that genuflecting may well be a problem for him, particularly at his age. My problem is with the mixed messages he is sending on issues that the Church has been defending against all sorts of attacks from atheists such as his own friends. Issues like contraception, adultery and now abortion. His messages of mercy and inclusion to non-Catholics and cafeteria Catholics are in stark contrast to his harshness towards Catholics who have clung to the faith through thick and thin. My conscience tells me that there is something wrong, yet the message I'm getting from our Pope is that my conscience isn't as well formed as Cardinal Kasper's Lutheran friends. Let us not forget that when Jesus reprimanded the Jews on the matter of divorce, he told them that it was due to their hardness of hearts that Moses allowed divorce. Nowadays, anyone wary of undermining the Church's (Christ's) teaching on divorce is labelled as hard hearted. We will see whether Christ's teaching is reiterated or watered down in March.
If it only happened once or twice, no one would ever notice it. But when it becomes a pattern, one naturally asks why. Deja vu? Only because the pattern has not stopped. Why?
Why Does the Head of the Church Give Such Confusing Interviews? A consideration of how some critics of Pope Francis might have responded to our Lord’s ”difficult sayings” 2000 years ago Fritz von Uhde (1848-1911), “Christ and Nicodemus” Though they will no doubt try, the Christolators will not be able to spin these latest reckless and irresponsible words from the carpenter’s son. It is clear, apart from any so-called “nuance” or “context” (words the neo-Jews love to use), that Jesus, whom they call “Christ,” rejects 2000 years of definitive teaching on cannibalism. The sacred text of Moses is clear: If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood. (Leviticus 17:10–12) Blood is for sacrifice and not for food. This is from God and cannot be changed. There is no getting around this. Of course, I know what the Christolators will try to say in their efforts to parse this latest outrageous statement from the rabbi. They will point to these words of their Christ: “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them” (Matthew 5:17). Then they will try to lecture faithful Jews about the hermeneutic of continuity and tell us we must interpret this disgusting “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” abomination with the tradition and not against it. And yet how can that possibly be done? It is too hard a saying. Who can accept it? “Fulfilling the law” has long been code language for changing tradition de facto, even though the strict letter has been affirmed. Christolators and Messiah apologists can say the law of Moses has been affirmed, even though no one anywhere actually follows it anymore. This is the game the neo-Jews love to play. If only Jesus would speak clearly to begin with, he would not have to go out of his way to try and assure us he is not changing the law and the prophets. Everyone would know. But this rabbi Jesus has always been full of contradiction and confusion—particularly in these reckless interviews he insists on granting. Consider that on the one hand he says: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). Then he says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:38–39). Well, which is it? It can’t be both! Either Jesus is a reckless liberal pacifist or he believes Israel has a right to self-defense against the enslaving Romans. The Christolators have no credible answer for this one. cont'd
Face it: Every time this man opens his mouth, he causes confusion and consternation among faithful Jews who are looking to be built up in the faith, not driven from it in despair. Who knows what he will say next. Will he tell us he is the Son of God? He gives a sermon up on a mountain, breaking with the tradition of having it at temple during liturgy. Are a bunch of Roman clowns from the pagan theater going to show up next? And he very explicitly sets up a contrast between “you have heard that it was said” and “but I say to you.” If that is not clear enough that he means to change the law and the prophets, I confess I do not know what will convince the Christolators—these Jesus disciples and apologists who are running around as though they have real theological knowledge when they are just a bunch of fishermen. He even tells us he has “new wine” (Matthew 9:17). Is this a reference to some novel doctrine? Who knows? So much confusion these last three years! But judge not! (Matthew 7:1). Isn’t that what we are told? Relativism is okay now, I guess. In one interview, he was asked: “Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” This was a very courteous and respectful question. The interviewer praises Jesus. And yet Jesus, who loves to be nasty to faithful Jews, because it is painfully obvious he hates them, accused the interviewer of being a “hypocrite.” One Christolator, who constantly engages in despicable attacks on the good children of Abraham, even says that the interviewer had “malice” and was trying to “trap” Jesus. And then Jesus got petulant, demanding that the interviewer—who is a well-respected Pharisee—show him some money. “Whose image and likeness is this?” he said in a bullying way. “Caesar’s,” the good Pharisee said. Here was Jesus’s answer: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:15–22). Which means what? Pay taxes or no? Jesus doesn’t answer the question; he just garbles out some hazy, fortune-cookie, New-Age type answer. The Christolators love that kind of stuff. But what we should not miss in the midst of all that haze is this key question: What on earth is Jesus doing meddling into economics and tax policy? These are matters of prudential judgment, about which no Messiah should have anything at all to say. His job is to talk about sin. There is infanticide going on all around us, and yet Jesus never says anything about it, as though it does not matter to him. Let the babies be killed while I tell you what to do with your money and lecture you to turn the other cheek. Such is the disproportion and insanity into which “social justice” and “consistent life ethic” have led us, while all around us the pagans slaughter our people and this so-called Messiah says nothing about it but love your enemies! Here is another case in point. The doctrine of marriage has been discussed much of late. There is a faction that wants to change the clear Mosaic teaching. One time, Jesus was asked about this. “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” This is a straightforward question: Yes or no. This was the perfect time for Jesus, if he does not mean to change the law or the prophets, to reiterate the clear Mosaic teaching. But as is typical, he stumbles about and fuzzes it up. “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” This is not the way the Mosaic law has always been understood, and the interviewer calls the “Messiah” on it: “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” And Jesus answered, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery” (Matthew 19:3–8). So this reckless Jesus, as is typical, first lashes out at faithful Jews, accusing them of “hardness of heart.” He has already called them whitewashed tombs, hypocrites, fools, blind guides, and a generation of vipers. What will he call them next? Fundamentalists? Self-absorbed Promethean Neopelagians? Then he gives an obscure reference to some non-Mosaic law which existed “from the beginning” that somehow changes the law of marriage and divorce. And yet, we are told, he is not changing anything. Confusion and uncertainty like this is not what the children of Abraham need right now. Jesus has even expressed a kind of universalism in saying that even stones can be made children of Abraham (Matthew 3:9), thus denying extra Israel nulla salus. It might even be some weird sort of gender theory or identity politics applied to “Mother Earth.” We are all one with creation, or something. Rocks and Jews are the same. Who knows with this guy? The man has a short temper, taking a whip to faithful Jews trying to make an honest living at Temple, as though he is a socialist and hates capitalism and the free market. One time a brave reporter confronted him about his confusing words, and he even admitted he is confusing and that it is deliberate! The Christolators have been silent about this. “To you,” he said (referring to his neo-Jew sycophants), “has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven.” So he admits he is trying to keep some people from salvation! I guess faithful Jews, good children of Abraham, just don’t deserve it. And now, in the most disgusting example of this kind of confusion and recklessness, so bad I can barely bring myself to print it, Jesus suggests that his followers may even violate the law against cannibalism. “I am the bread of life,” he says. Bruce Jenner is a woman; the Messiah is a loaf of bread. Is that what is going on here? Is this what religion has come to? This is all very confusing. “If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever” (John 6:51). There it is! Smoking gun! This is cannibalism. We are supposed to actually eat Jesus, who is really bread. Is that the escape clause to convince us that it is not cannibalism—we are really just eating bread? How can we ever know with this confusing man? Why can’t he just speak clearly? The Christolators will not be able to spin this. Peter, whose name really is Simon but goes around under a pseudonym (as if we do not know who he is), says, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:68). This is blind Christolatry. Will nothing convince such people—nothing—of the danger this man is to Israel? Many have left Jesus after this latest incident, including our good and faithful brother Judas. If this so-called Christ cannot speak clearly, if he must constantly confuse and worry people that he is overturning what we have always known to be so, then he should just shut up for the rest of his life and stop giving all these interviews. If he will not, I don’t think any of us can willingly sit by while the whole nation perishes. He has become a clear danger. He must be deposed. Abraham and Moses, Elijah and Isaiah, with the help of our high priest Caiaphas, save the nation of Israel!
Where in all of that does it say that Jesus actually praised mass murderers who boasted about how many they had killed?
I did not know Pope Francis was Jesus Christ. I never was taught that. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Maybe Charlie Johnston will post this spin.
