Francis Proclaims a Crossbreed Theology. Francis Proclaims a Crossbreed Theology During his December 12 homily on the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Francis again dived into crossbreed-phantasies, …More
Francis Proclaims a Crossbreed Theology.
Francis Proclaims a Crossbreed Theology
During his December 12 homily on the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Francis again dived into crossbreed-phantasies, saying that during her apparitions in Guadalupe, Our Lady “wanted to become a crossbreed” with the seer, Saint Juan Diego, and also with “the people.” He also claimed that “Mother Mary crossbreeds God.”
Francis Is Repeating an Old Heretic
The Roman historian Roberto de Mattei pointed out on CorrispondenzaRomana.it that Francis was, perhaps unknowingly, repeating the heresy of Eutyches, an archimandrite at Constantinople who died in 456. He claimed that, in the Incarnation, Christ’s humanity and divinity merged, and formed a substance that was neither God nor man. Pope Leo the Great called for the famous Council of Calzedon which condemned Eutyches.
Francis Said It More than Once
De Mattei observes that Francis crossbread-theology is also expressed in what he told the Italian journalist, atheist …More
Francis Proclaims a Crossbreed Theology
During his December 12 homily on the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Francis again dived into crossbreed-phantasies, saying that during her apparitions in Guadalupe, Our Lady “wanted to become a crossbreed” with the seer, Saint Juan Diego, and also with “the people.” He also claimed that “Mother Mary crossbreeds God.”
Francis Is Repeating an Old Heretic
The Roman historian Roberto de Mattei pointed out on CorrispondenzaRomana.it that Francis was, perhaps unknowingly, repeating the heresy of Eutyches, an archimandrite at Constantinople who died in 456. He claimed that, in the Incarnation, Christ’s humanity and divinity merged, and formed a substance that was neither God nor man. Pope Leo the Great called for the famous Council of Calzedon which condemned Eutyches.
Francis Said It More than Once
De Mattei observes that Francis crossbread-theology is also expressed in what he told the Italian journalist, atheist …More
Holy Cannoli
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Pope Francis: ...Christ, after his incarnation, stopped being God until his crucifixion.
Electrical device pointed out in the photo may be:
* A continuous infusion pump for subcutaneous insulin, part of the treatment for type one diabetes.
* A device for administering an intrathecal morphine analgesia treatment, generally used to relieve chronic pain in the spine.
* An implantable medication pump …More
Pope Francis: ...Christ, after his incarnation, stopped being God until his crucifixion.
Electrical device pointed out in the photo may be:
* A continuous infusion pump for subcutaneous insulin, part of the treatment for type one diabetes.
* A device for administering an intrathecal morphine analgesia treatment, generally used to relieve chronic pain in the spine.
* An implantable medication pump to help manage pain, with daily doses pre-programmed.
“Outside these hypotheses,” the article said, “it could be a security or communication device, but everything indicates that it is one of the three used by modern medicine.”
Link
Electrical device pointed out in the photo may be:
* A continuous infusion pump for subcutaneous insulin, part of the treatment for type one diabetes.
* A device for administering an intrathecal morphine analgesia treatment, generally used to relieve chronic pain in the spine.
* An implantable medication pump to help manage pain, with daily doses pre-programmed.
“Outside these hypotheses,” the article said, “it could be a security or communication device, but everything indicates that it is one of the three used by modern medicine.”
Link
Thors Catholic Hammer
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
There is no such valid entity as pope francis.
The only lawful pope is the ghastly modernist half theologian and entirely confused Pope Benedict xvi .
Any examination of his so called resignation speech will find it filled with errors and misleading sentences.
The conclave of 2013 acted in haste and unlawfully by accepting this dogs dinner of a so called resignation speech.
The result has been the …More
There is no such valid entity as pope francis.
The only lawful pope is the ghastly modernist half theologian and entirely confused Pope Benedict xvi .
Any examination of his so called resignation speech will find it filled with errors and misleading sentences.
The conclave of 2013 acted in haste and unlawfully by accepting this dogs dinner of a so called resignation speech.
The result has been the usurpation by fraud of the Chair of the great and holy Saint Peter himself.
The only lawful pope is the ghastly modernist half theologian and entirely confused Pope Benedict xvi .
Any examination of his so called resignation speech will find it filled with errors and misleading sentences.
The conclave of 2013 acted in haste and unlawfully by accepting this dogs dinner of a so called resignation speech.
The result has been the usurpation by fraud of the Chair of the great and holy Saint Peter himself.
Holy Cannoli
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
There are 2 distinct possibilities concerning the name or title of the individual commonly known and referred to as Pope Francis.
#1. He is truly the pope of the Roman Catholic Church and is due the respect and honor of the office.
#2. He is not pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
If #1 is true then it is fitting and proper to refer to the man as Pope Francis.
If #2 is true then it is incumbent on …More
There are 2 distinct possibilities concerning the name or title of the individual commonly known and referred to as Pope Francis.
#1. He is truly the pope of the Roman Catholic Church and is due the respect and honor of the office.
#2. He is not pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
If #1 is true then it is fitting and proper to refer to the man as Pope Francis.
If #2 is true then it is incumbent on the individual/s making the claim that he is not pope to prove by a declaration of legitimate hierarchical authority that this man has been declared not to be pope.
If an individual/s claim the man is NOT POPE but they can show NO declaration of legitimate hierarchical authority confirming this belief, then those individuals making such a claim can simply be discounted as disgruntled obsessives and their perpetual ferocious roaring is nothing more than a group of meshuggah nobodies howling into the wind.
There are a number of such nobodies at GTV.
--------------------------
Footnote:
Question: What is legitimate hierarchical authority?
Answer: You will know it when you see it but you can be sure it is not a pack of nutters kvetching on the internet.
#1. He is truly the pope of the Roman Catholic Church and is due the respect and honor of the office.
#2. He is not pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
If #1 is true then it is fitting and proper to refer to the man as Pope Francis.
If #2 is true then it is incumbent on the individual/s making the claim that he is not pope to prove by a declaration of legitimate hierarchical authority that this man has been declared not to be pope.
If an individual/s claim the man is NOT POPE but they can show NO declaration of legitimate hierarchical authority confirming this belief, then those individuals making such a claim can simply be discounted as disgruntled obsessives and their perpetual ferocious roaring is nothing more than a group of meshuggah nobodies howling into the wind.
There are a number of such nobodies at GTV.
--------------------------
Footnote:
Question: What is legitimate hierarchical authority?
Answer: You will know it when you see it but you can be sure it is not a pack of nutters kvetching on the internet.
Frà Alexis Bugnolo
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Holy Cannoli, your name is very suitable. Try reading Canon 41, which canon Mons. Arrieta, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, gives EVERY priest in the Church the right to examing the Renunciation AND DECLARE IT NULL and refuse to act on it.
Holy Cannoli
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Frà Alexis Bugnolo
I like cannolis (who doesn't). Actually I enjoy all Italian food but I am careful not to overindulge so as not to gain the appearance of a Catholic bishop. 
The Holy before the Cannoli is simply a rhyming literary device suggested to me years ago by a non-Italian.
------------------------------------
You wrote:
[Canon 41 gives] EVERY priest in the Church the right to …More
Frà Alexis Bugnolo
I like cannolis (who doesn't). Actually I enjoy all Italian food but I am careful not to overindulge so as not to gain the appearance of a Catholic bishop. The Holy before the Cannoli is simply a rhyming literary device suggested to me years ago by a non-Italian.
------------------------------------
You wrote:
[Canon 41 gives] EVERY priest in the Church the right to examing the Renunciation AND DECLARE IT NULL and refuse to act on it.
You seem to imply that EVERY priest in the Church has a right to make their own personal choice to either obey or not obey, agree with or not agree with or DECLARE IT [any directive] NULL issued by the governing body of the Church. I realize that could obviously not be true so would you be so kind as to explain exactly what you mean and how your comment contradicts what I have written in my previous post?
I like cannolis (who doesn't). Actually I enjoy all Italian food but I am careful not to overindulge so as not to gain the appearance of a Catholic bishop.
------------------------------------
You wrote:
[Canon 41 gives] EVERY priest in the Church the right to examing the Renunciation AND DECLARE IT NULL and refuse to act on it.
You seem to imply that EVERY priest in the Church has a right to make their own personal choice to either obey or not obey, agree with or not agree with or DECLARE IT [any directive] NULL issued by the governing body of the Church. I realize that could obviously not be true so would you be so kind as to explain exactly what you mean and how your comment contradicts what I have written in my previous post?
Frà Alexis Bugnolo
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Everyone in the Church with a ministery of mere execution has in virtue of canon 41 been granted to the authority not to act on the basis of any administrative act of a superior when that act is not in conformity with the code of canon law. That is a major right. That distinguishes the Church from a dictatorship of relativism where you have to obey like a good little nazi regardless of what you are …More
Everyone in the Church with a ministery of mere execution has in virtue of canon 41 been granted to the authority not to act on the basis of any administrative act of a superior when that act is not in conformity with the code of canon law. That is a major right. That distinguishes the Church from a dictatorship of relativism where you have to obey like a good little nazi regardless of what you are commanded to do.
Holy Cannoli
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Frà Alexis Bugnolo wrote:
Everyone in the Church has in virtue of canon 41 been granted to the authority not to act on the basis of any administrative act of a superior when that act is not in conformity with the code of canon law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Who decides whether an act of a superior is “not in conformity with the code of canon law”? You seem …More
Frà Alexis Bugnolo wrote:
Everyone in the Church has in virtue of canon 41 been granted to the authority not to act on the basis of any administrative act of a superior when that act is not in conformity with the code of canon law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Who decides whether an act of a superior is “not in conformity with the code of canon law”? You seem to be saying that everyone or anyone is permitted to decide for themselves?
For example, what if my own personal prejudices, biases, hatred, inclinations, anger, resentment or dislike for a certain individual in the church or a given teaching of the church negatively affects me personally. Do I get to decide myself whether or not a person or act is or is not n conformity with canon law?
If I decide, may I then reject that person or that teaching if, looking to my own conscience, I regard those personal feelings of mine to be valid and in conformity with canon law?
For example, if I reject the Church’s prohibition on artificial contraception and the entirety of Humanae Vitae your post seems to say that I am then permitted to ignore that teaching because I personally believe that it is not in conformity with canon law plus I don’t want to be thought of as a good little obedient Nazi?
For whatever reason if I personally have honestly determined that a certain act (teaching) or a person is “not in conformity with the code of canon law”, then, anything goes.
If I totally reject the validity of the man commonly refereed to as Pope Francis, I may then publicly declare him not to be a true pope and attack him verbally with such vehemence that would easily rival an attack on the greatest mass murderers in history. I may then add to the verbal attack using the worst possible terms and even by referring to the man considered to be Pope Francis by hundreds of millions of Catholics, as an anti-pope and a tool of Satan?
Taking this idea a bit further, If there are no witnesses to legally verify my ‘hate crime’ may I then refer to a black man as a “good for nothing mulignan or melanzana ”(eggplant)? Or can I freely call a Mexican a “lazy mojado” (wetback)? Can I now call the Jews “conniving morta christo” (Christ killers)? How would making any of these remarks differ from disparaging and impugning publicly the man commonly refereed to as Pope Francis by over one billion Catholic worldwide?
Is there a remote possibility that using these demeaning terms with respect to a pope or to any man does nothing to affect or harm the man we are calling these names but it actually does quite the opposite by negatively impacting our own psyche and fouling our own souls?
Everyone in the Church has in virtue of canon 41 been granted to the authority not to act on the basis of any administrative act of a superior when that act is not in conformity with the code of canon law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Who decides whether an act of a superior is “not in conformity with the code of canon law”? You seem to be saying that everyone or anyone is permitted to decide for themselves?
For example, what if my own personal prejudices, biases, hatred, inclinations, anger, resentment or dislike for a certain individual in the church or a given teaching of the church negatively affects me personally. Do I get to decide myself whether or not a person or act is or is not n conformity with canon law?
If I decide, may I then reject that person or that teaching if, looking to my own conscience, I regard those personal feelings of mine to be valid and in conformity with canon law?
For example, if I reject the Church’s prohibition on artificial contraception and the entirety of Humanae Vitae your post seems to say that I am then permitted to ignore that teaching because I personally believe that it is not in conformity with canon law plus I don’t want to be thought of as a good little obedient Nazi?
For whatever reason if I personally have honestly determined that a certain act (teaching) or a person is “not in conformity with the code of canon law”, then, anything goes.
If I totally reject the validity of the man commonly refereed to as Pope Francis, I may then publicly declare him not to be a true pope and attack him verbally with such vehemence that would easily rival an attack on the greatest mass murderers in history. I may then add to the verbal attack using the worst possible terms and even by referring to the man considered to be Pope Francis by hundreds of millions of Catholics, as an anti-pope and a tool of Satan?
Taking this idea a bit further, If there are no witnesses to legally verify my ‘hate crime’ may I then refer to a black man as a “good for nothing mulignan or melanzana ”(eggplant)? Or can I freely call a Mexican a “lazy mojado” (wetback)? Can I now call the Jews “conniving morta christo” (Christ killers)? How would making any of these remarks differ from disparaging and impugning publicly the man commonly refereed to as Pope Francis by over one billion Catholic worldwide?
Is there a remote possibility that using these demeaning terms with respect to a pope or to any man does nothing to affect or harm the man we are calling these names but it actually does quite the opposite by negatively impacting our own psyche and fouling our own souls?