Melodramatic Francis: “Pachamama’s Wounds Bleed In Us”
The earth is “sick,” “wounded,” and “bleeding,” Francis again rattled down his environmental litany. In a June 5 letter to Colombia president Iván Duque celebrating some World Environment Day, he …More
The earth is “sick,” “wounded,” and “bleeding,” Francis again rattled down his environmental litany.
In a June 5 letter to Colombia president Iván Duque celebrating some World Environment Day, he dramatised that “we cannot pretend to be healthy in a world that is sick.”
Without explaining how, he whined that "the wounds inflicted on our mother earth are wounds that also bleed in us.”
He drew attention to himself and to celebrations surrounding the fifth anniversary of his Laudato Si which - according to Francis' melodramatic words - emphasises "the cry that mother earth lifts up to us.”
Picture: © Mazur, CC BY-NC-SA, #newsAitgqnwnob
In a June 5 letter to Colombia president Iván Duque celebrating some World Environment Day, he dramatised that “we cannot pretend to be healthy in a world that is sick.”
Without explaining how, he whined that "the wounds inflicted on our mother earth are wounds that also bleed in us.”
He drew attention to himself and to celebrations surrounding the fifth anniversary of his Laudato Si which - according to Francis' melodramatic words - emphasises "the cry that mother earth lifts up to us.”
Picture: © Mazur, CC BY-NC-SA, #newsAitgqnwnob
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Apparently I didn't make myself adequately clear. Recognizing a person as holding an office is not the same as supporting what they do while in office.
Barack Obama was a US president. Bill Clinton was also a US president. I didn't vote for either of them. I didn't like either of them. My dislike and diapproval doesn't change the fact they WERE the president.
The same applies to Pope Francis. I …More
Apparently I didn't make myself adequately clear. Recognizing a person as holding an office is not the same as supporting what they do while in office.
Barack Obama was a US president. Bill Clinton was also a US president. I didn't vote for either of them. I didn't like either of them. My dislike and diapproval doesn't change the fact they WERE the president.
The same applies to Pope Francis. I don't like him. I don't approve of him. My dislke and disapproval doesn't change the fact Francis IS Pope. So, no he isn't my "fave man" man as you call him. A "fave" or "favourite" is not only approval, it's the apex of that approval.
"Let's assume you're right. Let's assume JP2 and B16 were heretics.
...considering you haven't supplied any evidence to the contrary, that may be a prudent assumption to make. ;-)
"That also means Bergolio is a heretic and that there hasn't been a legitimately elected pope for a long time."
If you are true to your standards and apply them evenly to the popes discussed, then YOU must acknowledge that.
Otherwise, you're just another brainless hypocrite who arbitrarily decides which supposed heresies and errors negate a papacy and which do not.
"So are you a sedevacantist? Or buried under cognitive dissonance due to your pride and ignorance?"
That's a fallacy of a false dilemma. Sloppy, sloppy reasoning, Jimbo. :D Y'know... you might want to hold off on accusing me of "ignorance" when you keep making these kinds of mistakes.
...especially since I'm the one who keeps having to point them out for you, poor thing. ;-)
Cognitive dissonance presupposes inconsistency. Funny you should mention it.
Like nearly all of Francis' critics, the rare sedevacantists excepted, you acknowledge and insist JPII and Benedict XVI were pope even while tacitly conceding they committed the same errors as Francis.
That's hypocrisy (i.e. moral inconsistency), pure and simple. It's an outgrowth of a failed line of reasoning generally defined as, "But Francis is different..."
He isn't. Error is error. Heresy is heresy. Apostasy is apostasy. If you choose to argue Francis isn't Pope based on those charges, you must do the same for Benedict XVI and JP II. Or you must show that what JP II and Benedict XVI did wasn't error, or heresy or apostasy and good luck with that.
Incidentally, no. I am not a sedevacantist. Quite the opposite. My views are entirely consistent. I recognize John Paul II was Pope, Benedict XVI was Pope, and Francis is Pope now.
"Bergolio isn't the pope. And by canon law, B16 is still pope."
Repeating a claim absent proof is a fallacy called "argumentum ad nauseam". Repeating it doesn't prove it. You couldn't prove a claim based on Canon law if your life depended on it. :P Heck,
I'm still waiting for you to find a picture of "the pope" still wearing his Papal ring and mozzetta. That's just grade-school level "find a picture" and you can't even do that.
"Fact is, the case for Berger being a heretic is clear, it's so obvious."
...and others, have made the same case against JP II and Benedict XVI. So? Apply your standards evenly or not at all.
If Francis is not Pope because he's a supposed heretic, the same is true for JPII and Benedict XVI. Critics have extensively documented alleged heresies against both of those popes. The Church also recognizes JP II is a saint, in addition to Pope.
"But it's also been detailed by people smarter than you."
You're confusing intelligence with education. A common mistake. It's also the reason people who are, in fact, technically better educated than I am, still lose when we argue. :D
For example: Pointing out they're supposedly "smarter" doesn't mean you are, Jimbo.
If nothing else, they know the difference between Bergoglio and Berger. And you don't. :D
By the way, being "smarter" or even better educated doesn't automatically imply being correct. That's a fallacious appeal to authority.
You'd know that if you were at least as smart or as well educated as the person your arguing with right now.:D
Y would also notice I haven't argued Francis wasn't a heretic. I'm arguing YOU don't apply your standards evenly for invalidating the papacy.
Those learned writers argue Francis isn't Pope because he's a supposed heretic. Ironically, they cite other possible heresies advanced by JP II (in points VI and VII) while condemning Francis. That made me smile...
..and so?
If heresy negates a papacy as your own source argues, then Benedict XVI and JP II weren't Popes either, since other critics have gone point by point through their papacies contrasting their statements with established Catholic doctrine and teachings.
Can't have it both ways, Jimbo.
"You ally yourself with the Devil. You just do. At least be man enough to admit it. Bro."
Is Nancy Pelosi a US Representative? Yes or no?
If she is, then by your logic, you ally yourself to what she stands for including being pro-abortion.
durr-hurr, "at least be man enough to admit, bro". :P
Barack Obama was a US president. Bill Clinton was also a US president. I didn't vote for either of them. I didn't like either of them. My dislike and diapproval doesn't change the fact they WERE the president.
The same applies to Pope Francis. I don't like him. I don't approve of him. My dislke and disapproval doesn't change the fact Francis IS Pope. So, no he isn't my "fave man" man as you call him. A "fave" or "favourite" is not only approval, it's the apex of that approval.
"Let's assume you're right. Let's assume JP2 and B16 were heretics.
...considering you haven't supplied any evidence to the contrary, that may be a prudent assumption to make. ;-)
"That also means Bergolio is a heretic and that there hasn't been a legitimately elected pope for a long time."
If you are true to your standards and apply them evenly to the popes discussed, then YOU must acknowledge that.
Otherwise, you're just another brainless hypocrite who arbitrarily decides which supposed heresies and errors negate a papacy and which do not.
"So are you a sedevacantist? Or buried under cognitive dissonance due to your pride and ignorance?"
That's a fallacy of a false dilemma. Sloppy, sloppy reasoning, Jimbo. :D Y'know... you might want to hold off on accusing me of "ignorance" when you keep making these kinds of mistakes.
...especially since I'm the one who keeps having to point them out for you, poor thing. ;-)
Cognitive dissonance presupposes inconsistency. Funny you should mention it.
Like nearly all of Francis' critics, the rare sedevacantists excepted, you acknowledge and insist JPII and Benedict XVI were pope even while tacitly conceding they committed the same errors as Francis.
That's hypocrisy (i.e. moral inconsistency), pure and simple. It's an outgrowth of a failed line of reasoning generally defined as, "But Francis is different..."
He isn't. Error is error. Heresy is heresy. Apostasy is apostasy. If you choose to argue Francis isn't Pope based on those charges, you must do the same for Benedict XVI and JP II. Or you must show that what JP II and Benedict XVI did wasn't error, or heresy or apostasy and good luck with that.
Incidentally, no. I am not a sedevacantist. Quite the opposite. My views are entirely consistent. I recognize John Paul II was Pope, Benedict XVI was Pope, and Francis is Pope now.
"Bergolio isn't the pope. And by canon law, B16 is still pope."
Repeating a claim absent proof is a fallacy called "argumentum ad nauseam". Repeating it doesn't prove it. You couldn't prove a claim based on Canon law if your life depended on it. :P Heck,
I'm still waiting for you to find a picture of "the pope" still wearing his Papal ring and mozzetta. That's just grade-school level "find a picture" and you can't even do that.
"Fact is, the case for Berger being a heretic is clear, it's so obvious."
...and others, have made the same case against JP II and Benedict XVI. So? Apply your standards evenly or not at all.
If Francis is not Pope because he's a supposed heretic, the same is true for JPII and Benedict XVI. Critics have extensively documented alleged heresies against both of those popes. The Church also recognizes JP II is a saint, in addition to Pope.
"But it's also been detailed by people smarter than you."
You're confusing intelligence with education. A common mistake. It's also the reason people who are, in fact, technically better educated than I am, still lose when we argue. :D
For example: Pointing out they're supposedly "smarter" doesn't mean you are, Jimbo.
If nothing else, they know the difference between Bergoglio and Berger. And you don't. :D
By the way, being "smarter" or even better educated doesn't automatically imply being correct. That's a fallacious appeal to authority.
You'd know that if you were at least as smart or as well educated as the person your arguing with right now.:D
Y would also notice I haven't argued Francis wasn't a heretic. I'm arguing YOU don't apply your standards evenly for invalidating the papacy.
Those learned writers argue Francis isn't Pope because he's a supposed heretic. Ironically, they cite other possible heresies advanced by JP II (in points VI and VII) while condemning Francis. That made me smile...
..and so?
If heresy negates a papacy as your own source argues, then Benedict XVI and JP II weren't Popes either, since other critics have gone point by point through their papacies contrasting their statements with established Catholic doctrine and teachings.
Can't have it both ways, Jimbo.
"You ally yourself with the Devil. You just do. At least be man enough to admit it. Bro."
Is Nancy Pelosi a US Representative? Yes or no?
If she is, then by your logic, you ally yourself to what she stands for including being pro-abortion.
durr-hurr, "at least be man enough to admit, bro". :P