[8] Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same for ever. [9] Be not led away with various and strange doctrines. For it is best that the heart be established with grace, not with meats; which have not profited those that walk in them. [10] We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle.
Hebrews 13:8-10
Conservatives within the Church had another statement from the Pope as to how he feels about them:
Go here to read the rest. PopeWatch sometimes wonders if the Pope is secretly hoping that he will provoke “conservatives” and “fundamentalists” to taking this Scripture to heart:
Then the people seeing that the king would not hearken to them, answered him, saying : What portion have we in David? or what inheritance in the son of Isai? Go home to thy dwellings, O Israel, now David look to thy own house. So Israel departed to their dwellings.
1Kings 12:16
Catholics are used to regarding the Pope as the Holy Father. In this pontificate, “conservatives” and “fundamentalists”, i.e. ordinary Catholics who have been doing their best to obey the teachings of the Church, could be forgiven for viewing the Pope as an abusive step-father.
Are we being told–not so subtlety–that we are like heretics? Is this not cherry-picking scripture to use against those who are most faithful to the very truths as handed down by the apostles and understood as such for a couple of millennium? Is there now a new “doctrine” that dismisses those many firm doctrines held perfect by God’s Church? Did God change his mind about these things, or are we watching “contradiction” and schism being birthed before our very eyes?
Did I miss the part about sin and damnation, salvation, the sanctity of the Sacraments….?
This pope seems to rarely make sense, especially since his personal style is generally obtuse. Frequently, it’s hard to know what he is even talking about other than he seems to seek opportunities to denigrate faithful Catholics. Gratefully, I don’t see his Hermeneutic of Rupture lasting beyond his papacy.
I must not fail to comment on that statement that said,”…rules give to the Pelagian the security of feeling superior.”
Doesn’t he realize that this implicates also God, for those harsh 10 Commandments, the heart of the Gospels and the teachings of the apostles, who never hesitated out of true love, to lay down firm rules that we might be saved?
The Roman Pontiff is who he is and says what he says and does what he does because of his past. Argentina, Vatican OK and the Society of Jesus – these have made Pope Francis who he is. He is an old man thrust into a position of authority he did not seek and there is bitterness and anger in him when he talks about those who disagree with him, which can be typical when dealing with an unhappy old man.
I make no excuses for him. We all face situations in our adult lives that are overwhelming, or even crushing. In these situations, emitting anger is an easy thing to do, but it is not usually the right thing to do.
Argentina is a basket case of a nation. Canada blows away Argentina in economic opportunity and productivity. Poland has surpassed Argentina economically. Both Canada and Poland have free market economies that the Roman Pontiff criticizes but doesn’t understand. Vatican II has driven away countless men from the Church. The Jesuits are as far as one can be from orthodox Catholicism.
And this is who we have as the Holy Father.
Suck it up, ladies and gents. It will get worse before it gets better.
We have needed for decades a Pope who actually loves administration ( he never arrived ) rather than authoring….or authoring and yapping as in Pope Francis’ case. Pray for a Pope who doesn’t want to author a blessed thing or yap but who wants to work from 8 to 4 each day on actual regional and diocesan problems and college problems worldwide. We have an active gay theology head at Fordham and probably 5 thousand like problems worldwide and we have that because we’ve had decades of authoring Popes. Each of us would rather author a post on the internet than clean behind the refrigerator. That is precisely why Popes author or yap instead of working on administrative problems for decades now. We need a Pope who prefers cleaning behind the refrigerator to authoring or yapping.
Hummm.
After reading the entire text provided, the pontiff asks pastors not to “be preachers of complex doctrines, but rather announcers of Christ…”
It is in these so-called “complex doctrine’s,” that enhance and build up the Faith as to witness and become announcers of Christ crucified and risen from the dead.
It’s almost as if the pontiff is saying short cuts are the best means to accomplish a goal. If this we’re true, the Holy Spirit would of lead us to this conclusion centuries ago!
Complexity…. hummm..say the transubstantiation? If that’s too complex then to dismiss the importance of this doctrine would be to degrade the Eucharist, hence the sacrifice of the Mass, hence the determination that going to Mass is even important. I know he is not talking about this doctrine, but my point is if he dismisses one or two doctrine’s as being too complex to preach about, then what’s the next one to gloss over?
Dangerous times.
I guess I’m supposed to be insulted? Perhaps I should abandon my family and move in with a man to gain the pope’s approval? The pope has devolved into the playground name caller who gets a few laughs the first time he insults somebody, but by the tenth go around everybody is sick of him.
Remember when we had a Pope who liked Catholicism?
That was awesome.
This Pope is to Catholicism and the Church what Obama is to Patriotism and America.
Fomenter of SCHISM!
Right back at ya, Jorge.
Paul, you’ll like this comment I recently read:
Pope Francis seems to be the Church’s Barack Obama. He comes across as this smiling, laid back “uniter” who just wants to focus on the fundamentals, when beneath it all is the hard line Chicago politics style which seethes with anger and seeks revenge when it doesn’t get its way. It’s all smiles until baby doesn’t get it’s bottle.
God help me but I am beginning to believe that the Sedevacantists might have a valid point to make. As to his Holiness holding an office he did not want… he could have refused but I think that his Jesuit EGO may have gotten in the way.
16 And when all Israel saw that the king did not hearken to them, the people answered the king,
“What portion have we in David?
We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse.
To your tents, O Israel!
Look now to your own house, David.”
(cf RSVCE)
Sorry to disappoint you folks; but it is going to get much worse before it gets better.
Pope Benedict XVI had some harsh words on Pelagianism: “”the other face of the same vice is the Pelagianism of the pious. They do not want forgiveness and in general they do not want any real gift from God either. They just want to be in order. They don’t want hope they just want security. Their aim is to gain the right to salvation through a strict practice of religious exercises, through prayers and action. What they lack is humility which is essential in order to love; the humility to receive gifts not just because we deserve it or because of how we act…” (Looking at Christ: Examples of faith, hope and charity)
The Council ofr Orange went to the heart of the matter: “If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, “The will is prepared by the Lord” (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).(Can 4) and “if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).” (Can 6)
Stepson and I have red (some remains amid the gray and skin) hair. I feel doubly blest. God gave me one face. Now, He’s clearing ground for another. Anyhow, I’ve been beaten up by better men.
.
Yesterday, I had to look up Pelagian. I don’t think that conservative Catholics believe that they are good and don’t need grace, etc. Me anyway: I believe I am fallen and need all the Confessions, penances, prayers, graces, etc. I can attain through Our Lord. I think that liberals fall for the pelagian heresy; they believe (Like how can gays be bad because God didn’t create evil?) that adulterous remarried people; gays; abortionist voters; liberals, etc. may receive Holy Communion because they are basically “good” people.
.
And, if adhering to 2,000 years of Church Teaching is Gnosticism: guilty!
.
Ironically, “Is the Pope Catholic?” is no longer a rhetorical question. .
.
The twin charges are typical post-modern doggerel: distortion, exaggeration, fabrication, false equivalence, non sequitur, omission, projection of 21st century spin, and unsupported conclusion. It’s all presented in the Screw Tape Letters. .
Count me as one who is doing her best to ‘hide behind the teachings of Christ’ in my daily service–yes, service!–as a volunteer working every day. Who would have thought that some fundamental totally faithful Catholic would do such a thing. Not only that, I live an intense prayer and sacramental life and belong to a holy, but persecuted, Order!
May it all please my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
T Shaw
I believe Pope Benedict XVI captured the essence of modern Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism, when he says, “Their aim is to gain the right to salvation through a strict practice of religious exercises…”
In other words, they do not really accept the pure gratuity of grace. The Council, however, insists, “No man shall be honoured by his seeming attainment, as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he has received it because a missive from without stated it in writing or in speech. For the Apostle speaks thus, “For if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose” (Gal. 2:21); and “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men” (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps. 68:18). It is from this source that any man has what he does; but whoever denies that he has it from this source either does not truly have it, or else “even what he has will be taken away” (Matt. 25:29) (Can 16)
It concludes, “the Apostle Paul declares, “For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in Him but also suffer for His sake” (Phil. 1:29). And again, “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and it is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). And as the Apostle says of himself, “I have obtained mercy to be faithful” (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, “because I was faithful,” but “to be faithful.” And again, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7).”
The First Joyful Mystery, the Annunciation, we desire the love of humility. Think of the humility of the Blessed Virgin Mary when the angel Gabriel greeted her with these words, “Hail, full of grace.”
Hers is a pure (not desired or earned) gift from God Almighty.
The Gospels tell us that Jesus responds to His interrogators (late in St. John when they call Him “good teacher”) “No one is good except God.”
.
His Apostles despair (“Then how can one be saved?”) of salvation after Jesus tells the rich, young man that which is needed (in addition to following the law, sell all worldly goods, take up your cross, and follow me) to enter the Kingdom. Jesus assures them that “all things are possible with God.”
.
I painfully know that I am not worthy. When I receive Holy Communion I fervently pray, “Lord I am not worthy that You should enter under my roof. But, only say the Word and my soul shall be healed.” We don’t question whether anyone presenting himself is worthy of the Sacrament.
What are you guys accusing the pope of? Where did he call us heretics or denounce Catholicism? This isn’t a good-faith reading of his comments.
I am conservative and a faithful Catholic Yes. But I am neither Pelagian nor Gnostic. There may be conservative minded people who are, and also some progressive minded people, convinced of their own rightness or goodness….but he accuses wrongly.
For a frail old guy who may have health problems bringing him closer to death door, he sure doesn’t seem meditative. Maybe he just meditates on his anger. He needs to make a silent retreat!
“What are you guys accusing the pope of? Where did he call us heretics or denounce Catholicism? This isn’t a good-faith reading of his comments.”
He is accusing a wide swath of Catholics–namely, those who appreciate doctrinal certainty–of being Pelagians. Which is, yes, a heresy, making the adherents heretics.
He also adopted the phrase used by Protestant Karl Barth and pseudo-Catholic Hans Kung–semper reformanda–a church that must constantly change. How that can be squared with an appreciation of Catholicism is difficult to see. Especially when he says that it is “useless” to seek solutions in the past or the Church’s fundamentals.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-conservatism-and-fundamentalism-are-useless-in-seeking-solutions-to-ev/
Perhaps we could ask one of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate whether
it is a fair reading of the Holy Fathers comments to infer that he dislikes Catholics
who revere Tradition. They also might be able to provide us with some insight into
his idea of ‘mercy’.
Be nice to know what Francis thinks are these ills and problems in which no solution can usefully be sought in conservatism or fundamentalism.
.
Be nice to know what Francis means by conservatism and fundamentalism, for that matter. Other than “outdated forms and conduct that have no capacity for meaning, even culturally.”
But, come to think of it, be nice to know what those culturally meaningless outdated forms and conduct are. I mean, is there anyone who believes that being related within seven degree of consanguinity ought to be an impediment to contracting a marriage? On the other hand though, maybe that’s one of those things that ought to left to the spirit of synodality in the ever reforming church to be sussed out on a region by region basis. (Diversity, it’s what we have in common!)
.
Absent all that, what I’m reading is an admonition to be neither uptight and rigid, nor loosey-goosey in how we live our faith.
.
So then , neither a SSPXer nor a Spirit of Second Vaticanista be. Got it.
Given his great stress on the Divine Mercy, it is no wonder that the Holy Father should so vehemently reject Pelagianism in all its forms, which is a practical denial of it.
Thus, St Augustine, the greatest opponent of Pelagius, says in his letter to Simplician, “the effectiveness of God’s mercy cannot be in the power of man to frustrate, if he will have none of it. If God wills to have mercy on a man, He can call him in a way that is suited to him, so that he will be moved to understand and to follow… God has mercy on no man in vain. He calls the man on whom He has mercy in the way he knows will suit him, so that he will not refuse the call.”
He adds, “Since, then, people are brought to faith in such different ways, and the same thing spoken in one way has power to move and has no such power when spoken in another way, or may move one man and not another, who would dare to affirm that God has no method of calling whereby even Esau might have applied his mind and yoked his will to the faith in which Jacob was justified? But if the obstinacy of the will can be such that the mind’s aversion from all modes of calling becomes hardened, the question is whether that very hardening does not come from some divine penalty, as if God abandons a man by not calling him in the way in which he might be moved to faith. Who would dare to affirm that the Omnipotent lacked a method of persuading even Esau to believe?”
This is the teaching of St Paul, who says, “For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” (Rom 9:15-16)
Canons Concerning Justification-Council of Trent
Canon 1.
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.
Canon 2.
If anyone says that divine grace through Christ Jesus is given for this only, that man may be able more easily to live justly and to merit eternal life, as if by free will without grace he is able to do both, though with hardship and difficulty, let him be anathema.
Canon 3.
If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost[111] and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought,[112] so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.
Canon 4.
If anyone says that man’s free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God’s call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.
Canon 5.
If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing only in name, indeed a name without a reality, a fiction introduced into the Church by Satan, let him be anathema.
Canon 6.
If anyone says that it is not in man’s power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil as well as those that are good God produces, not permissively only but also propria et per se, so that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of St. Paul, let him be anathema.
Canon 7.
If anyone says that all works done before justification, in whatever manner they may be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins, let him be anathema.
Canon 8.
If anyone says that the fear of hell,[113] whereby, by grieving for sins, we flee to the mercy of God or abstain from sinning, is a sin or makes sinners worse, let him be anathema.
Canon 9.
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.
Canon 10.
If anyone says that men are justified without the justice of Christ,[115] whereby Her merited for us, or by that justice are formally just, let him be anathema.
Canon 11.
If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost,[116] and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.
Canon 12.
If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy,[117] which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.
Canon 13.
If anyone says that in order to obtain the remission of sins it is necessary for every man to believe with certainty and without any hesitation arising from his own weakness and indisposition that his sins are forgiven him, let him be anathema.
Canon 14.
If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved and justified,[118] or that no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are effected, let him be anathema.
Canon 15.
If anyone says that a man who is born again and justified is bound ex fide to believe that he is certainly in the number of the predestined,[119] let him be anathema.
Canon 16.
If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation,[120] let him be anathema.
Canon 17.
If anyone says that the grace of justification is shared by those only who are predestined to life, but that all others who are called are called indeed but receive not grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema.
Canon 18.
If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace,[121] impossible to observe, let him be anathema.
Canon 19.
If anyone says that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel, that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, but free; or that the ten commandments in no way pertain to Christians, let him be anathema.
Canon 20.
If anyone says that a man who is justified and however perfect is not bound to observe the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe,[122] as if the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life without the condition of observing the commandments, let him be anathema.
Canon 21.
If anyone says that Christ Jesus was given by God to men as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey, let him be anathema.
Canon 22.
If anyone says that the one justified either can without the special help of God persevere in the justice received,[123] or that with that help he cannot, let him be anathema.
Canon 23.
If anyone says that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace,[124] and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or on the contrary, that he can during his whole life avoid all sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema.
Canon 24.
If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works,[125] but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.
Canon 25.
If anyone says that in every good work the just man sins at least venially,[126] or, what is more intolerable, mortally, and hence merits eternal punishment, and that he is not damned for this reason only, because God does not impute these works into damnation, let him be anathema.
Canon 26.
If anyone says that the just ought not for the good works done in God[127] to expect and hope for an eternal reward from God through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if by doing well and by keeping the divine commandments they persevere to the end,[128] let him be anathema.
Canon 27.
If anyone says that there is no mortal sin except that of unbelief,[129] or that grace once received is not lost through any other sin however grievous and enormous except by that of unbelief, let him be anathema.
Canon 28.
If anyone says that with the loss of grace through sin faith is also lost with it, or that the faith which remains is not a true faith, though it is not a living one, or that he who has faith without charity is not a Christian, let him be anathema.
Canon 29.
If anyone says that he who has fallen after baptism cannot by the grace of God rise again,[130] or that he can indeed recover again the lost justice but by faith alone without the sacrament of penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and Universal Church, instructed by Christ the Lord and His Apostles, has hitherto professed, observed and taught, let him be anathema.
Canon 30.
If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world[131] or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened,[132] let him be anathema.
Canon 31.
If anyone says that the one justified sins when he performs good works with a view to an eternal reward,[133] let him be anathema.
Canon 32.
If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.
Canon 33.
If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Christ Jesus, let him be anathema.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm
“Canon 18.
If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace,[121] impossible to observe, let him be anathema.”
So much for that marriage fidelity thing being too difficult to achieve.
It seems to me that The folks who would be most receptive to Pope Francis’ teaching are those sinners who have no desire to repent and instead, at Pope Francis suggestion, rely totally on God’s mercy in order to avoid prideful self-help Pelagian ideas such as obeying the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Every day Pope Francis becomes more like Martin Luther who said: “”God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.”
Kudos to the Dogmatic Council of Trent.
As for the Pastoral Council of Vatican II that is another matter.
DonL wrote, “”Canon 18.
If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace,[121] impossible to observe, let him be anathema.”
One of the Five Propositions of Jansenism, condemned in Cum Occasione was
““Some of God’s precepts are impossible to the just, who wish and strive to keep them, according to the present powers which they have; the grace, by which they are made possible, is also wanting” – Declared and condemned as rash, impious, blasphemous, condemned by anathema, and heretical.”
I don’t see this as a big deal
–
1) I’ve known plenty of liberals who are guilty of the Gnosticism decried by the Pope.
–
2) In evangelization it is best to start simple. Complexity is good for those who are ready for it. Just look at China and India, where Evangelicals are doing far better at spreading the Gospel than are Catholics. It just makes sense to keep the ‘big guns’ of Aquinas etc. out of the action until they are really needed.
A very substantial work done by some diocesan priests showing how Francis has been deviating from what the Church has taught until now. It’s worth visiting http://en.denzingerbergoglio.com/
All these denunciations of Pope Francis are truly terrible!!! The hate expressed here proves to me how much we need him. I never understood the church was really all about love in the pre-Vatican 11 days. NOW I KNOW WHY!!! BTW, that’s Pope Francis ( not just Francis ), and he is Catholic. Sorry so many of you here, lacking in common Christian charity, don’t make that grade. SHAME!!!
TomD wrote, “In evangelization it is best to start simple.”
What did the Apostles preach? It is well documented in Acts
They proclaimed
(1) the age of fulfilment has dawned, the “latter days” foretold by the prophets (Acts 2:16; 3:18, 24);
(2) this has taken place through the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ;
(3) by virtue of the resurrection Jesus has been exalted at the right hand of God as Messianic head of the new Israel (Acts 2:33-36; 4:11; 5:31);
(4) the Holy Spirit in the Church is the sign of Christ’s present power and glory (Acts 2:17-21, 33; 5:32);
(5) the Messianic Age will reach its consummation in the return of Christ (Acts 3:20; 10:42);
(6) the preaching of the good news closes with an appeal for repentance, the offer of forgiveness and of the Holy Spirit, and the promise of salvation (Acts 2:38; 3:19, 25; 4:12; 5:31; 10:43).
In other words, their preaching was
(1) categorical, not argumentative;
(2) concrete, not abstract;
(3) concerned with facts and actions and, above all, with a Person; not with ideas or notions or reflections.
Linred wrote, “I never understood the church was really all about love in the pre-Vatican 11 days.”
Pascal points out that the Jews fell into the same error: “The religion of the Jews seemed to consist essentially in the fatherhood of Abraham, in circumcision, in sacrifices, in ceremonies, in the Ark, in the temple, in Jerusalem, and, finally, in the law, and in the covenant with Moses. I say that it consisted in none of those things, but only in the love of God, and that God rejected [réprouvait] all the other things.”
I never understood how people can think it possible tobe concerned with facts and actions and… not with ideas or notions or reflections.
Vatican 11? Was that before or after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
There’s always something amusing reading comments from people who accuse others of lacking in charity even as they all but imply that the others have lost souls.
Chalk it up to “Cult of personality.”
Today the sound bites and popularity parades rule. Just look at the first black so-called President. This is what keeps me up at night… the young who can’t wait to vote for the first female President. Then what? The first Homosexual Yak transplant! That last one REALLy keeps me up at night!
Vatican 10 ushered in changes to doctrine that still challenge the good Catholic. 41.7; The pastoral application of reconciliation will be telepathy transmission only. No verbal communication due to the harshness of speaking your sins out loud. So rude.
? it is always good to find a way to laugh Philip!
Anzlyne.
Trying to lighten-up a bit.
Last week was too heavy.
Have a joyous weekend….. oh, but you already knew what I was going to say. Your good Anzlyne. 🙂