Maria a Corde Jesu
¡Qué lástima que nadie traduce todo esto al español y que hasta los españoles comenten en inglés! 🤨
¿POR QUÉ NO HAY GLORIA TV EN ESPAÑOL?
Abramo
@St Turibio Romo: I can only agree, contra facta non valent argumenta.
St Turibio Romo
The US were behind the "rebellion" against Assad from the beginning. It was one of the governments they wanted to vanquish to put in their own regime. ISIS and its precursors were developed, funded armed and trained by US, SA, etc. Christians were safe in Syria before the West created an army to attack the state and Christians and minorities.
adeste fideles
"We should not be afraid of new and complex situations.'
New and complex situations 😲 ....

like this? Giddy Meeting Between Pope, Homosexual "Couple"....or this?..Pope met the "transexual" woman and her "fiancée"
ľubica
🥴 🤨 🙏
adeste fideles
Synod. October 6,2015 :

'There must be an end to exclusionary language and a strong emphasis on embracing reality as it is. We should not be afraid of new and complex situations.'
These were words of Basilian Father Thomas Rosica, the Vatican's English speaking language spokesperson.
adeste fideles
✍️ 06 de Octubre 2015. Padre Basiliano Thomas Rosica, Portavoz del Vaticano ( para lengua inglesa)

"Hay que poner fin al lenguaje excluyente y un fuerte énfasis en abrazar la realidad tal como es. No debemos tener miedo de situaciones nuevas y complejas ". 🥴
Agustín Monje
Clarification: Yesterday, Pope Francis said at the Synod on the Family, that “Catholic doctrine on marriage was never put in discussion by last year’s Synod.” He also asked “not to reduce the themes of the Synod to Communion for remarried divorcees.” 🙄 🙄 🤗
Chris P.
Rather than sound bites and statements in the press - which mean nothing significant - - - - - -
We will believe the true INTENT of the Pope when we see the Pope's official document
when his Synod is over.
. . . . .
Actions speak louder than words.
.
And yes, the Pope has personally and specifically appointed HERETICS Kasper and Danneels and some others
to the Synod as voting members.
.
Francesco I
Prof. Leonard Wessell
@Abamo: I wish you would read a content and if you disagree argue against THE content, not go astray ending in insult that reveal your anti-American prejudices (and I would surmise ignorance). A comment or two about th killing a lot of people. On the battle field between armies such killing is NOT an act of "slaughter".

1.Both the German Wehrmacht and the US armies did non-slaughter killings in …More
@Abamo: I wish you would read a content and if you disagree argue against THE content, not go astray ending in insult that reveal your anti-American prejudices (and I would surmise ignorance). A comment or two about th killing a lot of people. On the battle field between armies such killing is NOT an act of "slaughter".

1.Both the German Wehrmacht and the US armies did non-slaughter killings in battle (indeed, the Wehrmacht always killed more opponents then they lost, even if thy lost the battle). However, when the Americans took Aachen, Köln and hundreds of other cities and villages, the American soldiers following orders did not round of Germans and shoot them wholesale. The Wehrmacht did do such killing and that illicit killing is "slaughter". In fact the illicit killing contributed to the opposition to Hitler ending in Stauffenberg's attempt on Hitler's life, such attempt could have killd a lot of people, but it would not have been slaughter. The nation that "slaughtered" Russians was Germany, i.e., estimated 25+ million Russians (perhaps 6+ million of whom were soldiers) were killed by German armies. German armies, after taking villages, rounded up Slaves and Jews and shot them dead. The Germans "slaughtered" 6 million Jews and up to 10 million other peoples in the camps. So, from the stand point of slaughter-"killing", the Germans outdid all, Russians, Americans and Japanese combined. You are factually off base re your accusation against Americans in WW II and neck-deep in calumny with your evaluation of Americans during WWII. You changed subject and that switch allows you to slip out of the contentious discussion by changing it.

2. Here we have the shifting-gears of your argument. My argument was aimed at what I call underreporting plus prejudicial language the Gloria.tv puts forth on occasions e political matters. Then the attack upon America, and there I find myself offended and provoked. In reality, I basically agree with the Bishop in Syria and recognize that he must seek protection from a man who has had a vicious dictatorship for decades, an Alawite minoirity tryannizing a Sunni majority. The revolt was first started by plain citizens, not by radical groups. Assad turned his military loose on his "own" people, using gas and still using barrel bombs -- and not just at fighters, rather aimed at unarmed people, men, women and children. From this point on organized and, alas, radical resistance developed. The massive attack upon helpless citizens justifies the designation of "slaughter". It is immaterial to the case of Assad if other acts of slaughter elsewhere have taken place (such as Putin's massive and murderous attacks upon Chechenians). What I would like from Gloria and anyone else is a larger contextualization and the cessation of underhanded anti-Americanisms. Most importantly, I see no point in getting all too political for a website interested primarily in religous matters. Alas, at any rate, you did not address the specifics of my complaints. If I were a young man and militarily trained I would do what some ex-American soldiers are doing, i.e., fighting withe Kurds or trying to organize Christian resistance. And you? (That was an ad hominem on my part directed at you.)
Abramo
I would trust a bishop who actually resides in Syria more than McCain. Each of us, if he were Christian and living in Syria, would be siding with the legal and democratically elected government. The interventions of the West and its satellites into Syria has had the effect that by now there is no alternative to the present government.

Putin may be "wrong" in what he did in the Crimea, but the …More
I would trust a bishop who actually resides in Syria more than McCain. Each of us, if he were Christian and living in Syria, would be siding with the legal and democratically elected government. The interventions of the West and its satellites into Syria has had the effect that by now there is no alternative to the present government.

Putin may be "wrong" in what he did in the Crimea, but the fact remains that over 90% of the population there do not want to go back to the Ukraine. The same is true for Lugansk and Donetsk. Plus: It was not Putin who started the conflict in the Ukraine but the West by supporting a coup d'etat (again) against a democratically elected president.
Reesorville
McCain believes that the people the US are training is not Al-Qaeda. The Syrian archbishop thinks all the rebels are Al-Qaeda. Neither are bad people, they just understand the facts differently.

I suspect the archbishop is incorrect and not all the rebels are terrorists- the CIA probably knows better than him about the ideology of the rebels they are training; he has authority over spiritual …More
McCain believes that the people the US are training is not Al-Qaeda. The Syrian archbishop thinks all the rebels are Al-Qaeda. Neither are bad people, they just understand the facts differently.

I suspect the archbishop is incorrect and not all the rebels are terrorists- the CIA probably knows better than him about the ideology of the rebels they are training; he has authority over spiritual matters, not over political facts.

And McCain is also incorrect because even 'moderate rebels' are a sin in God's eyes, since He gave authority to governments to rule people (Romans 13). For the same reason as this, however, one must also reject what has happened in the Ukraine, which means that Putin is still wrong.

The rule of a government over people is just as much a part of the natural law as is the law governing family and sexuality. A society requires a family with a mother and a father in order to continue. It also needs people to respect the laws of the state and not to take up arms and fight against it, otherwise the society also cannot continue.

It is called natural law, because you don't need revelation to know this- by reason you can plainly see it. It is so ridiculous to watch people who condemn homosexuality because they say it threatens society and goes against reason, while at the same time supporting the people who are fighting the lawful government in the Ukraine, turning cities into battlegrounds and driving people from their homes as thousands die in bloodshed... and somehow not coming to reason that civilization can't exist like this either.

The people fighting the government are just like the people who want to marry the same sex- they are both violations of the natural law upon which the whole society is underpinned.

When Catholics in Poland in 1830 rose up in rebellion against Russia, Russia was Orthodox and it was persecuting Catholics, and yet the Pope condemned the rebellion and called on Polish Catholics to obey the Czar because his authority was from God. Even a government that is against the Truth still has to be obeyed, because the natural law is like this.

Only in extreme circumstances where life is threatened and there is no other recourse, or obedience to the law would mean to commit sin, can rebellion ever be morally permissible.
Abramo
You are free to call Assad a «slaughterer of Syrian opponents» but these opponents are the same that now are running the Islamic State or Libya. You want to blame the bishop for not criticizing Assad: What is the alternative to Assad? Futher: There is no modern statesman in the 15 most important countries of the world who could not be called a «slaughterer». So, if you have something against …More
You are free to call Assad a «slaughterer of Syrian opponents» but these opponents are the same that now are running the Islamic State or Libya. You want to blame the bishop for not criticizing Assad: What is the alternative to Assad? Futher: There is no modern statesman in the 15 most important countries of the world who could not be called a «slaughterer». So, if you have something against slaughterers: The biggest slaughterers since II World War were the American Presidents. Plus: I am happy that Putin is not a friend of the (decadent) West. Who in his sound mind, is?
Prof. Leonard Wessell
@Abramo, there is nothing wrong reporting what anyone has to say. What I object to is jingle-istic underreportings, something that Gloria.tv is prone to do at times. I have no doubt that at the moment Assad is the best protection of Christians in Syria and, alas I have no doubt that Obama will not adequately defend the Christians. (Out of the almost 500k refugess from the mideast the the Obama …More
@Abramo, there is nothing wrong reporting what anyone has to say. What I object to is jingle-istic underreportings, something that Gloria.tv is prone to do at times. I have no doubt that at the moment Assad is the best protection of Christians in Syria and, alas I have no doubt that Obama will not adequately defend the Christians. (Out of the almost 500k refugess from the mideast the the Obama administration has allowed into the US, 95% are Muslim -- I hold that Obama is pro-Islamic in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian Mullahs and earlier Morsi in Egypt, for which I condemn him.) I understand the US support of Stalin's Russia in WWII, but condemn the leftists in the US who stood by and allowed for the take over of Eastern Europe. I understand that Bishop Hindo feels protected by Assad, the slaughterer of Syrian opponents including civilians, but I miss any criticism of Assad, a War Criminal from the Bishope. (I think of my Kurdish friends who adore George W. Bush for stopping Saddam's attacks upon the Kurds and await the good Bishop's condmning words for similar deeds.) Gloria.tv takes up the criticism and slips in a put-down of the CIA (which is only doing what it is ordered to do) without balancing matters. Putin is NO friend of the West, he is ideologically an enemy of the US and the West and I find it unbelievable that anyone thinks that Putin is going to engage ISIS in a serious manner, as that would bring Russia into another Afghanistan. Indeed, Putin does not have the military hardware to do more than pin-prick ISIS. Only the US with massive military power (a carrier off shore has more firepower than whole armies) can do that. Alas, Obama will not use the power. Some of the candidates for the Republic Party nomination for the presidency are talking tough in my line of thinking. In summary: I am an opponent to Obama, and when it comes to Obama's pushing of abortion and homosexuality I would like him arrested, given a trial and then .... (use your imagination). Alas, the man is in power and responsible for American interests. I find that Gloria.tv (and not only Gloria) is too glib about "America" or "the Americans" and thereby overlooks the complexity of the situation, but drives home a value judgment tinged with put down terms --- allowed for sure, but bound to provoke me.
Abramo
@Prof. Leonard Wessell: What's wrong with reporting the opinion of a Catholic bishops who is directly involved in a matter of highest actuality and which regards the future of Christianty in a whole country? This is not about Gloria.tv.