Posted on 03/10/2015 4:31:30 PM PDT by BlatherNaut
There is a clear correlation between the words, actions and facial expressions of Pope Francis. Isn't implying that the anonymous priest is spiteful rather judgmental?
And if some refuse to remain silent in the face of his heretical maunderings and dare to "Remain in the Truth of Christ" and to encourage others to do so, papal henchmen will simply make the magisterial teachings "disappear" from the Vatican mailboxes. Only wishful thinking could spin such corruption into something Holy Spirit-inspired.
Praying for it too.
"... the discussion about his eyes only trivializes the discussion. It also makes it look like we're so spiteful we're willing to carp about anything: his yerba mate, the way he ties his shoes."
It makes it look like "we're" spiteful. Not the anonymous priest.
The anonymous priest was the first to mention the eyes, so that’s a fair question.
"Synodgate" --- the theft of the "Five Cardinals" books back in October --- is a felony in every country (including the Vatican City State), and when Kathnet (German) broke the news, bishops were infuriated. Good. Nail, meet hammer; crime, meet moral outrage.
Obviously, I'm not saying that this corruption was "something Holy Spirit-inspired." Nobody could reasonably take my words that way.
Think of Cardinal Kasper's unguarded remark to Edward Pentin that the faithfully orthodox African Bishops needn't thinking of telling the rest of us what to do. Think of how the thugs--- like Baldisseri ---- have, by their bullying boldness, taken off their smiley-face masks themselves. It's this, the self-exposure of the perps as thieves, liars and racists, which is a work of the Holy Spirit.
It'll only get worse, but now the whole world is watching. I'm saying the African episcopate is going to ride in, guns blazing, and save the day.
Oremus, fratres.
From your keyboard to God's monitor.
Conservative Anglicans thought that for 20 years.
They were wrong.
Yet, Francis has disciplined neither Kasper nor Baldisseri to date; as a matter of fact, he holds both in high regard. "Theology on the knees"!
They can't come riding in if only one is invited to the SinNod.
OK, “he” and his allies. They’re no without allies, networks, resources.
Think that if it makes you feel better, but there's no indication that this is going to happen. Orthodox prelates have been marginalized, and we saw at the synod that the Pope feels no obligation to follow the rules that he himself has established. Why would anyone trust this man, or believe that he would permit African prelates to undermine his corrupt goals?
Key African prelate backs Communion for divorced, remarried
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/02/11/key-african-prelate-backs-communion-for-divorced-remarried/
Sorry, but that makes no sense.
???
As I read it, this scenario was offered as an example by Abp Palmer-Buckle: a polygamous man's wife #3 has lived with him and raised children with him for 35 years. Do we say she has to quit the marriage and break up the family in order to be received into the sacraments of the Catholic Church?
My response: it seems to me that if the man intended to set up a polygamous household from the git-go, none of his "marriages" were valid because of his polygamous intent. Therefore there is no objective Sacramental bond with any of the wives.
A Marriage Tribunal shouldsay that all these "marriages" were null --- no bond.
In that case,the husband --- if he's baptized --- needs to marry one of them, legitimately, via the Sacrament of Matrimony, and stop having sexual relations with the other two.
The sin is not living in a household together. The sin is having sexual intercourse with a person you are not married to.
Why wouldn't Abp Palmer-Buckle say the solution is faithful monogamous Matrimony, "forsaking all others," rather than giving Communion to wife #3 while she's still in a polygamous union?
If the Catholic Church, in effect, approves (or tacitly tolerates) polygamy, it basically destroys Matrimony.
If Abp Palmer-Buckle were a student in my RCIA class, I would make this very clear to him.
Implying that commenters who discuss Francis’ non-verbal signals “look spiteful” automatically implies that the source of the original comment (the priest quoted in post #1) “looks spiteful” as well.
Synod packing. Confirmed by Francis to vote in concert with his hand-picked Kasper cabal.
"...In late January, Francis confirmed the election of Palmer-Buckle by his fellow bishops in Ghana as a participant in the Synod of Bishops, set to assemble at the Vatican Oct. 4-25.
When it does, Palmer-Buckle says he’ll be disposed to cast a “yes” vote on the proposal of German Cardinal Walter Kasper to allow Catholics who divorce and remarry outside the Church to return to Communion under certain circumstances..."
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/02/11/key-african-prelate-backs-communion-for-divorced-remarried/
Your assumptions are like one of my old sweaters: stretched way too far to cover too much. :o/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.