FRANCIS’ GUIDELINES FOR THE SYNOD
This September we saw Pope Francis carry out two major actions regarding marriage that were clearly meant to set precedents to influence the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, which will be gathering at …More
This September we saw Pope Francis carry out two major actions regarding marriage that were clearly meant to set precedents to influence the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, which will be gathering at the Vatican soon in October. This coming Synod is planned to be the first of two.
The 2014 Synod is meant to generate the information necessary for Bishops to be aware of the modern moral problems of family life; the 2015 Synod is intended to have the Bishops decide a new approach of the Catholic Church on family morals.
A 20-couple-marriage
20 couples living in sin and giving public scandal surround
the Altar of the Confession at St. Peter's Basilica
The first bombastic initiative of Francis was to invite 20 couples from the Diocese of Rome to celebrate a solemn multiple wedding presided over by himself at St. Peter’s Basilica on Sunday, September 14, 2014.
Let me stress that this ceremony was not requested by the couples, who had little relationship among themselves, but directly by the …More
The 2014 Synod is meant to generate the information necessary for Bishops to be aware of the modern moral problems of family life; the 2015 Synod is intended to have the Bishops decide a new approach of the Catholic Church on family morals.
A 20-couple-marriage
20 couples living in sin and giving public scandal surround
the Altar of the Confession at St. Peter's Basilica
The first bombastic initiative of Francis was to invite 20 couples from the Diocese of Rome to celebrate a solemn multiple wedding presided over by himself at St. Peter’s Basilica on Sunday, September 14, 2014.
Let me stress that this ceremony was not requested by the couples, who had little relationship among themselves, but directly by the …More
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
"Certainly I tell you, unless you repent and become like children, you shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven.
Who humbles himself like this child, is the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven, and who takes a child in my name, takes me.
Who annoying the least, who believes in me, it would be better than to append on neck a mill stone and he drown in the sea, where it is the most profound.
Woe to …More
"Certainly I tell you, unless you repent and become like children, you shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven.
Who humbles himself like this child, is the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven, and who takes a child in my name, takes me.
Who annoying the least, who believes in me, it would be better than to append on neck a mill stone and he drown in the sea, where it is the most profound.
Woe to the world because annoyance! It must be annoying, but woe who annoyance people!
... Look, that are not one of those small despised, because let me tell you: their angels in heaven always see the face of My Father in Heaven."
Matthew 18, 3-10
...And they brought little children to him, that he touch them. But the disciples prevented them, who wore them. Jesus saw it, and he was indignant and said to them: "Let the children come to me and do not prevented it from them, for of such is the Kingdom of God."
Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God like a child, will not come into it."
And he embraced them, and laid hands on, and blessed them.
Marcus, 10, 13-16
Who humbles himself like this child, is the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven, and who takes a child in my name, takes me.
Who annoying the least, who believes in me, it would be better than to append on neck a mill stone and he drown in the sea, where it is the most profound.
Woe to the world because annoyance! It must be annoying, but woe who annoyance people!
... Look, that are not one of those small despised, because let me tell you: their angels in heaven always see the face of My Father in Heaven."
Matthew 18, 3-10
...And they brought little children to him, that he touch them. But the disciples prevented them, who wore them. Jesus saw it, and he was indignant and said to them: "Let the children come to me and do not prevented it from them, for of such is the Kingdom of God."
Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God like a child, will not come into it."
And he embraced them, and laid hands on, and blessed them.
Marcus, 10, 13-16
One more comment from Josefine
How they want to deal with family issues, If they do not first solve the problems of children in the families?!
Not the couples must be in the center, but the future children of the couples. If children are to develop normally, they must take the first place in the family.
The parents may give attention to them and feed them, but if a child needs his mother in the early years, and it feels that the …More
How they want to deal with family issues, If they do not first solve the problems of children in the families?!
Not the couples must be in the center, but the future children of the couples. If children are to develop normally, they must take the first place in the family.
The parents may give attention to them and feed them, but if a child needs his mother in the early years, and it feels that the mother has other priorities, it is jealous and get mentally ill.
There is a correspondence between the love of God and the love of children, therefore it must not be destroyed against the purpose of God.
I think that those responsible people in the society know exactly, because the most of it have their own children. But they tear the children of other families from their security.
The couples must be trained, so that they do care on their children, to preserve the love of children, so that they are not destroyed by atheistic ideologues.
The most of the secular humanist ideologies and psychologists knows, that the injured hearts of the children destroyed their future and the families.
Mario J. Bergoglio also has studied psychology.
The Blessed Mother of God, of Jesus Christ, shows it as by she take her divine child in the first place, and carries on the arm.
Not the couples must be in the center, but the future children of the couples. If children are to develop normally, they must take the first place in the family.
The parents may give attention to them and feed them, but if a child needs his mother in the early years, and it feels that the mother has other priorities, it is jealous and get mentally ill.
There is a correspondence between the love of God and the love of children, therefore it must not be destroyed against the purpose of God.
I think that those responsible people in the society know exactly, because the most of it have their own children. But they tear the children of other families from their security.
The couples must be trained, so that they do care on their children, to preserve the love of children, so that they are not destroyed by atheistic ideologues.
The most of the secular humanist ideologies and psychologists knows, that the injured hearts of the children destroyed their future and the families.
Mario J. Bergoglio also has studied psychology.
The Blessed Mother of God, of Jesus Christ, shows it as by she take her divine child in the first place, and carries on the arm.
Professor... this is the first pope ever that have suggested apostle Paul was 'proud' of his sins.
My 12 year old son knows better!More
Professor... this is the first pope ever that have suggested apostle Paul was 'proud' of his sins.
My 12 year old son knows better!
My 12 year old son knows better!
Galahad... the tradKnight page has issues, I have gone to 2 computers and it keeps crashing, could you please copy paste this info to my mail?
Thanks...More
Galahad... the tradKnight page has issues, I have gone to 2 computers and it keeps crashing, could you please copy paste this info to my mail?
Thanks...
Thanks...
Prof. Leonard Wessell
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Galahad, you have presented an excellent horrifying report. No irony here. The report was very informative, the content was horrifying. My compliments for noting the parallel between Luther and Francis. Howeever, the comparison is not fully fair. Luther actually strays less from the truth that Francis. I explain myself so:
Luther held that humans are sinful, cannot stop being sinful. Because he …More
@Galahad, you have presented an excellent horrifying report. No irony here. The report was very informative, the content was horrifying. My compliments for noting the parallel between Luther and Francis. Howeever, the comparison is not fully fair. Luther actually strays less from the truth that Francis. I explain myself so:
Luther held that humans are sinful, cannot stop being sinful. Because he could find no forgiveness for his sinning, he became despondent until he concluded that God forgives humans as they are. God's forgiving, indepentent of any repentence, sanctifies and, thereby "saves" the believer sola fide. Luther did not mean that people should go about seeking knew sins to commit. He met that sinning per se will not condemen IF and ONLY if the sinner has faith that God has already forgiven the sin. So, onr should noz get up tight if onr feeld sinnful -- it is already discounted. The result is that Luther does at least leave "sin" as sin. (Note: Because God has forgiven the hapless sinnning sinner, the sinner feels relieved, happy and THANKFUl >>>> automatic "good works" flow. As Protestant theology developed doing "good works" became a criterion for having been forgiven. "Good works" were smuggled in through the backdoor.)
Francis is an irrationalist in the Kantian sense that one can "know" nothing about the SUPER-empirical-natural realm. Existencialists believed that same and tried to live in a godless world. Francis has latched on to "feeling", gushy, lovy-dovy emotionality, as the empirical mechanism for attaining God (or, perhaps better, the Holy Ghost swoops down and seizes the believer and this is felt via emotions >>> penachant for Penecostal liturgical exuberance). Francis seems, re sin, to allow the act of immersion of the actual sinner into "love-grace", into those gushy feelings, to be sanctifying 1. even if the sin (fornification or adultery) continues (which is close to Luther) or 2. (as I think your article is indicating) the sin itself is purified of sinfulness by love, thereby becoming no longer sin. (By "sin" here I mean acts dealing with sexuality, not murder.) This would be different from Luther who did not lose sight of sin nor try to cleanse the nature of "sin" of its sinfulness, only freeing sola fide the sinner from the consequential burden. Francis, if this second interpretation is correct, would, on the other hand, be actually changing morals, i.e., asserting (at least materially) that previous "sin X" is qua the content of X now no longer a sinful act, rather a moral act.
Assuming my thesis is correct and that I have caught your idea, I am faced with a problem. A Pope, in and by the act of changing "sin" into "morality", would be contradicting one essential feature traditionally ascribed to Papal powers as the Keeper of the Keys. Am I right? On the surface, this looks like that at least traditional claim for the Magisterium has be falsified. In science a "falsified" theory is, well, not a true theory. In theology?
Luther held that humans are sinful, cannot stop being sinful. Because he could find no forgiveness for his sinning, he became despondent until he concluded that God forgives humans as they are. God's forgiving, indepentent of any repentence, sanctifies and, thereby "saves" the believer sola fide. Luther did not mean that people should go about seeking knew sins to commit. He met that sinning per se will not condemen IF and ONLY if the sinner has faith that God has already forgiven the sin. So, onr should noz get up tight if onr feeld sinnful -- it is already discounted. The result is that Luther does at least leave "sin" as sin. (Note: Because God has forgiven the hapless sinnning sinner, the sinner feels relieved, happy and THANKFUl >>>> automatic "good works" flow. As Protestant theology developed doing "good works" became a criterion for having been forgiven. "Good works" were smuggled in through the backdoor.)
Francis is an irrationalist in the Kantian sense that one can "know" nothing about the SUPER-empirical-natural realm. Existencialists believed that same and tried to live in a godless world. Francis has latched on to "feeling", gushy, lovy-dovy emotionality, as the empirical mechanism for attaining God (or, perhaps better, the Holy Ghost swoops down and seizes the believer and this is felt via emotions >>> penachant for Penecostal liturgical exuberance). Francis seems, re sin, to allow the act of immersion of the actual sinner into "love-grace", into those gushy feelings, to be sanctifying 1. even if the sin (fornification or adultery) continues (which is close to Luther) or 2. (as I think your article is indicating) the sin itself is purified of sinfulness by love, thereby becoming no longer sin. (By "sin" here I mean acts dealing with sexuality, not murder.) This would be different from Luther who did not lose sight of sin nor try to cleanse the nature of "sin" of its sinfulness, only freeing sola fide the sinner from the consequential burden. Francis, if this second interpretation is correct, would, on the other hand, be actually changing morals, i.e., asserting (at least materially) that previous "sin X" is qua the content of X now no longer a sinful act, rather a moral act.
Assuming my thesis is correct and that I have caught your idea, I am faced with a problem. A Pope, in and by the act of changing "sin" into "morality", would be contradicting one essential feature traditionally ascribed to Papal powers as the Keeper of the Keys. Am I right? On the surface, this looks like that at least traditional claim for the Magisterium has be falsified. In science a "falsified" theory is, well, not a true theory. In theology?