Pope Francis Doubles Down: Bishops’ Accusers Are Like Satan, ‘the Great Accuser’

Breitbart ^ | 8/13/18 | Thomas D. Williams

[sphinx]

So Francis’ view is that a Christian’s obligation is to remain silent in the face of grave evil?

[sloanrb]

I would disagree. Bergoglio is the worst pope.

Even the Borgias, as depraved as they were, never tried to change the doctrines of the Church. They were hypocrites and bad people, but at least they did not try to deceive the congregations with false teachings. They lived decadent lifestyles but it did not go past Rome.

Bergoglio is more dangerous because he is leading people astray with false teachings. It would be better if he lived like a Borgia and left the Catholic teachings alone. (I am not saying that the popes should live decadent lifestyles)

[onedoug]

pope homo

[landerwy]

Isn’t he accusing the accusers?

[Little Ray]

In which case you have rivals for “worst popes ever” in the persons of John XXIII and Paul VI - the Popes that inflicted Vatican II on the RC Church and paved the way for Francis.

[Little Ray]

I am sure it only applies if it is homosexual clergy molesting children and young men.

[grey_whiskers]

How about *ssholiness?
Isn’t Ann Barnhardt a sedevacantist, btw?

[grey_whiskers]

So Francis’ view is that a Christian’s obligation is to remain silent in the face of grave evil?

No, only for him and his #echo_homo clique of rump rangers and male Lewinskys.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Last night I was reading some info about former-Cardinal Ted McCarrick's background, and I connected some dots and thought --- whoa! Is this just too obvious? And why has nobody (to my knowledge) connected these dots before?

• Ted McCarrick was too old to vote in the 2013 conclave, but he was all over Rome beforehand, openly participating in the pre-conclave get-togethers, dinners and even consultative meetings
• he himself has advertised that he was a big Bergoglio supporter
• he was LONG known for schmoozing around Rome distributing envelopes stuffed with cash of unknown provenance, to curia cardinals
• Bergoglio was reputedly far down the list of papabile before the conclave, but
• yet he won the election on only the 5th ballot
• after his election, according to Viganò, Pope Francis lifted restrictions on McCarrick and in fact promoted him to fly hither and thither on important assignments as his trusted kingmaker and confidante.

Then there's this:

In the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, Pope John Paul II had ruled that, going forward, impermissible "politicking" (any kind of quid-pro-quo at all) would render a conclave invalid.

Hasn't anybody been talking about this? (Or maybe they have been and I just didn't run across it yet.)

Isn't this practically prima facie evidence that "Uncle Ted" McCarrick used untraceable cash to rig the election in Bergoglio's favor?

Making Bergoglio in fact an anti-pope?

I never would have taken it seriously, as I said, until last night reading about McCarrick's reputation as a phenomenal fundraiser and his longtime influence in Rome, and it all seemed, dare I say? almost a slam dunk.

Your thoughts?

[Mrs. Don-o]

If I may make this observation, it seems irrational to desert the Church at the very point you realize there are wolves in the sheepfold. Isn't that when you'd realize you've got to stay and defend the Church from the wolves?

It seems to me that a cut-and-run approach fails in terms of the courage and loyalty required of the Church Militant: the loyalty to oppose the Judas Priests and the Wolves-in-Shepherd's-Clothing, and defend the Bride of Christ.

I am concerned that a member of the Body, the Church, would desert his post the minute it looks like things are going to get tough.

Don't we realize that we are called to suffer for the Faith?

No fear, no flight.

It's time to fight.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I need your thoughts on this.

#49 - was the Papal Conclave of 2013 a defective (or invalid) Conclave?

[chris37]

I think my opinion on this is probably not of any value to you, Mrs. Don-o.

While I believe in Jesus Christ and pray to Him often, I don’t believe in church at all. I think it was made by man for man, and that it is utterly corrupt.

I don’t want to smear anyone’s church, or doing anything of that nature, but on the subject of this pope, I believe he is evil. I also believe that either already has or is going to destroy the Catholic Church, but that is just my opinion, and obviously I could be wrong.

[mindburglar]

Nope you don’t need my thoughts. This Pope is a Jesuit. Jesuits are not allowed to be Pope under their own rules.

This guy is a douche. I don’t listen to anything this clown has to say. Just like every other Jesuit scuzzbag. There’s a bunch of fags and molesters running the Catholic Church. There is also a bunch of good guys going after them.

It ain’t easy being a good guy. It should be the easiest thing on Earth. I mean, being good is natural. Apparently it’s not to a sizable and aggressive minority of assholes.

So there is a Pope who is a scumbag. There are Cardinals who are scumbags. There are Bishops who are scumbags. There are other guys who are not scumbags.

I got shit to do. No interest in the soap opera. I know who they are.

[Mrs. Don-o]

So you believe in Jesus Christ? You think? Then you owe it to Him to see how Christ looks at the Church. Scripture tells us over 100 times that

• Christ "builds" His Church
• Christ tells you to "listen" to His Church
• His Church is swept with awe at His miracles
• evil men try to destroy the Church
• the Church is persecuted

• The Church sends Barnabas as an apostle
• Saul and Barnabas taught the Church
• evil King Herod persecuted the Church
• the Church had prophets
• Saul and Barnabas appointed the Church's elders
• the Church sent preachers out, then called them back to report

• The Church made rulings and settled controversies
• the Church overseers sent letters identifying and authorizing leaders
• the Church is said to be "of God" and "purchased by His blood"
• the Church commended deacons
• those in the Church are urged to remain in agreement

• Paul teaches "everywhere in every church"
• the church should "judge" those within it
• believers are told of the practices observed in the churches of God
• It is God who placed in the Church its Apostles, prophets, teachers

• The purpose of prophecy is to edify the Church
• God's grace is given to the churches
• Christ and the Church are not two, but One Body<
• the love of husband and wife shows the love of Christ for the Church
• "Everything must be done to build up the Church."

I could make this four times longer, but you get the idea. Christ loves the Church, and dies for the Church, spilling His blood to purify Her.

Do you think Christ EVER ceased to love the Church, to defend Her, to rescue Her, to purify Her?

Don't you see He's going to do that again? Don't you see He's doing that NOW?

Jesus Christ makes so much of His Church; without the Church, we see so little of how and what He loves.

[G Larry]

I have read this before and much more.

While I agree with the premise that this should never have happened in the first place, none of the Canon Lawyers I've read have identified a resolution.

It would be easy to conclude, "this is God's mess to clean up".

As we read many times in the Old Testament, God brings chastisement when his people abandon Him. (and, as a whole, we certainly have)

Later when His people repented, God shows His Mercy.

Let the repentance begin!

Both the faithful and the guilty!

[chris37]

Church isn’t a thing that I’m going to do.

I don’t need other people in order to have a relationship with Jesus.

Sorry, but I’ve had my fill of gay priests and evil people who attempt disguise their evil by going to church.

You can go if you want to, but I’m not going to.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

My thoughts are Malachy nailed it.

[gogeo]

He sounds like the Church Lady.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"I don’t need other people in order to have a relationship with Jesus."

You are exactly and precisely wrong about that. If you think you have a relationship with Christ without the Body of Christ, then you have a relationship not with the Jesus Incarnate but with some wispy bodiless entity.

It means you don't see with the eyes of the Christ, think with the mind of Christ, or love with the heart of Christ: because He looks upon the Church, understand Her condition, and pours out His blood to purify Her and make Her His own.

You have a non-Biblical Christ because you do not see how He deals with His betrothed, the Daughter of Zion -- foreshadowing the Church --- and accompanied her through 4000+ years of earthly pilgrimage.

You have a non-Gospel Christ because you do not see how He explicitly founded the Church and has accompanied Her for the past 2000 years and promises that He will never leave Her until the end of the world.

You have mistaken the Church for the self-strangled traitor Judas, and for "gay priests and evil people" who you think have defeated Christ. You think THEY are the Church?

No. The Church is not the Body of Judas or the liar or the murderer or the sodomite. That is spiritual deception. You are letting the evil win its repulsive masquerade. How little you understand. If you don't perceive that Jesus is rushing through Time and Space at the speed of thought, to rescue and defend His Bride, you won't with Her when He triumphs.

[heterosupremacist]

douche? clown? scuzzbag? fags? molesters? assholes? scumbag? REALLY? If you want to be taken seriously, you better clean up your act.