DefendTruth shares this
- Report
Remove share
Is EMJ implying that Tucho should *not* have been exposed? Truly bizarre.
Simon North
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
When he's good, he's very, very good; when he's bad, he's horrid.
spinmeister
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
In 2021 blessings DID condone the sins of those in sinful (let's not ever use the word irregular) relationships. Remember "God can't bless sin." That's what they said then. How can we get around that? Hmm, we'll change the meaning of the word "blessing." Anyway, EMJs response is all over the place and says way more about him than anything else. His assumptions are insulting. In his mind, people …More
In 2021 blessings DID condone the sins of those in sinful (let's not ever use the word irregular) relationships. Remember "God can't bless sin." That's what they said then. How can we get around that? Hmm, we'll change the meaning of the word "blessing." Anyway, EMJs response is all over the place and says way more about him than anything else. His assumptions are insulting. In his mind, people make choices based not on facts, but on who they like or don't like, because that is obviously what he does. His comments on Twitter are scattered and bizarre, I believe they have more to do with promoting his career than any other consideration.
John A Cassani
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
The “plain sense” of this document has nothing to do with “closing the door on gay marriage.” It does no such thing, especially in this age of incrementalism. Tucho claims that the plain sense of the document is to teach about the distinction between liturgical and informal blessings. Also ridiculous. The true plain sense of this is to legitimize same sex couples (as well as known adulterous and …More
The “plain sense” of this document has nothing to do with “closing the door on gay marriage.” It does no such thing, especially in this age of incrementalism. Tucho claims that the plain sense of the document is to teach about the distinction between liturgical and informal blessings. Also ridiculous. The true plain sense of this is to legitimize same sex couples (as well as known adulterous and fornicating couples) publicly approaching a priest to receive a blessing. Nobody cares whether it’s formal or informal. No self respecting priest would ever do such a thing. The informal nature of these things means that priests are free to concoct their own blessings. How often would you expect an explicit call to repentance for sodomy to be included?
philosopher
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Anyone in these types of irregular relationships before Fidducia Supplicans could get an individual blessing. The coupling blessing is blessing the relationship, both of them together as a dyad. They are a dyad because they are unmarried or same-sex attracted and this aspect is being blessed. He's ontologically wrong on this.
Chris Muniee
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Perhaps Mr. Jones believes these Finnochio blessings are a "category of the mind."
petrus100452
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Mr. Michael Jones is wrong about almost everything concerning the faith. He cannot even spell the name of John Henry Westen right.
Ok Let's say Mr. X splits from Mrs. X and their kids and shacks up with Ms. Y from down the street. All are catholic. Mr X and Ms Y, now in an irregular union, decide 'spontaneously' to approach the local priest for a blessing after Sunday Mass at which Mrs X and her children happen to be. Mrs X witnesses the 'spontaneous' blessing happily delivered by Fr. JM. What is the Church saying to the …More
Ok Let's say Mr. X splits from Mrs. X and their kids and shacks up with Ms. Y from down the street. All are catholic. Mr X and Ms Y, now in an irregular union, decide 'spontaneously' to approach the local priest for a blessing after Sunday Mass at which Mrs X and her children happen to be. Mrs X witnesses the 'spontaneous' blessing happily delivered by Fr. JM. What is the Church saying to the abandoned and heartbroken Mrs X and her children?
Patricia McKeever
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@WilmaWilma Lopez
Of course it is blessing the sin. What a silly comment, with all due respect.
Of course it is blessing the sin. What a silly comment, with all due respect.
Patricia McKeever
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Wilma Lopez To clarify - I mean a silly comment from Jones, not your good- self!
As if! Ever! Never!
Sorry Mr Jones. You are wrong.
Patricia McKeever
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@LYunque
He's wrong, by the bucket-load.
He's wrong, by the bucket-load.
Everyday for Life Canada
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
So why not just say pay no attention to Fiducia Supplicans. Why all the superfluous words?
This is insanity
Patricia McKeever
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Gast6
Papolatrists are getting fewer in number since Francis came on the scene but there are still those clinging on to the heresy that a pope can do no wrong and even if he does, nobody should mention it, so it's interesting to read the commentary from Mr Jones, one of the last of the papolatrists. May the rest of them remain resting in peace!![😉](/emoji/f09f9889)
Papolatrists are getting fewer in number since Francis came on the scene but there are still those clinging on to the heresy that a pope can do no wrong and even if he does, nobody should mention it, so it's interesting to read the commentary from Mr Jones, one of the last of the papolatrists. May the rest of them remain resting in peace!