Francis Rants Against Mary Coredemtrix
Francis used his Friday homily for the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows to slam the co-redemption wrought by Mary. He used the caricature that Our Lady did not want “to take away” any title from Jesus, …More
Francis used his Friday homily for the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows to slam the co-redemption wrought by Mary.
He used the caricature that Our Lady did not want “to take away” any title from Jesus, and protested that “she did not ask for herself to be a quasi-redeemer or a co-redeemer” – as if somebody had every claimed.
“The Redeemer is one and this title does not duplicate" - he kept shooting at paper tigers.
Thus, Francis contradicted all of his recent predecessors who taught that Our Lady, as the New Eve, in a way totally dependent on Christ, redeemed the world because God willed her collaboration.
“Francis thinks he can change the teaching of the Church at his dictatorial will,” a mariologist who for security reasons cannot be named, told Gloria.tv.
#newsPkaejneusc
He used the caricature that Our Lady did not want “to take away” any title from Jesus, and protested that “she did not ask for herself to be a quasi-redeemer or a co-redeemer” – as if somebody had every claimed.
“The Redeemer is one and this title does not duplicate" - he kept shooting at paper tigers.
Thus, Francis contradicted all of his recent predecessors who taught that Our Lady, as the New Eve, in a way totally dependent on Christ, redeemed the world because God willed her collaboration.
“Francis thinks he can change the teaching of the Church at his dictatorial will,” a mariologist who for security reasons cannot be named, told Gloria.tv.
#newsPkaejneusc
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
Child of Our Lady
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
I'm on book 3 of The Mystical City of God. If there's one thing I know for sure after reading those books thus far, the world has NO idea how much God loves Our Lady. She is the pinnacle of His creation. We can never love her too much. It was her fiat that brought our Redeemer into the world. And she sacrificed her Son for our sins.
This is a First Saturday (for me in the US anyway). We are …More
I'm on book 3 of The Mystical City of God. If there's one thing I know for sure after reading those books thus far, the world has NO idea how much God loves Our Lady. She is the pinnacle of His creation. We can never love her too much. It was her fiat that brought our Redeemer into the world. And she sacrificed her Son for our sins.
This is a First Saturday (for me in the US anyway). We are supposed to be offering reparation to the Immaculate Heart for the sins and blasphemies against Our Lady. Instead of squabbling about who is or is not the Pope. Or banging our heads against the wall with the countless things this Pope does that makes us wonder, tell Our Lady you love her and pray her Holy Rosary that the Consecration of Russia will be done to end this nonsense.
This is a First Saturday (for me in the US anyway). We are supposed to be offering reparation to the Immaculate Heart for the sins and blasphemies against Our Lady. Instead of squabbling about who is or is not the Pope. Or banging our heads against the wall with the countless things this Pope does that makes us wonder, tell Our Lady you love her and pray her Holy Rosary that the Consecration of Russia will be done to end this nonsense.
mattsixteen24
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Some say that Russia was already consecrated, but it was much too late though. The argument to this is that Russia didn't convert to the Catholic faith, but our Lady only said Russia would convert. Not to what though.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Since you asked, BrotherBeowulf I'm on the side of the Church, which is the right side. I'm also on the side of consistency. I'm -not- on the side of hypocrisy and double standards like you, I've had this general conversation with dudes like you before.
Let's start with the basics: Apply your standards evenly or not at all.
If you wish to scream about "false popes", "sacrilege blasphemy and …More
Since you asked, BrotherBeowulf I'm on the side of the Church, which is the right side. I'm also on the side of consistency. I'm -not- on the side of hypocrisy and double standards like you, I've had this general conversation with dudes like you before.
Let's start with the basics: Apply your standards evenly or not at all.
If you wish to scream about "false popes", "sacrilege blasphemy and apostasy", fine. Other critics just as determined as you, just as obsessed as you, have found plenty of supposed "sacrilege blasphemy and apostasy" during the reigns of the last four popes. If Pope Francis is a "false pope" using your quoted standards, so are the last four popes. Congratulations, you're a sedevacantist and that means you're also a schismatic.
canonlawmadeeasy.com/…/can-you-be-both…
Either that, or you must disprove each and every instance of "sacrilege blasphemy and apostasy" critics have found under the reigns of the last four popes. All of them. So long as one instance remains unproven, so long as one charge stands, that Pope is just as guilty. Assuming you're morally consistent which you're not..
Good luck trying to disprove the photos of John Paul II kissing the quran or the videos of Benedict XVI praying with Muslms and Jews. --and that's before we get into the technical aspects of "apostasy" based on supposedly heretical teachings.
But you don't care about the last four Popes, do you? That's where the hypocrisy and the double-standards kick in. Your kind never care. You aren't true to your own standards.
Instead, what you do is pick and choose your "valid" popes based on arbitrary like or dislike. You are entirely willing to ignore "sacrilege blasphemy and apostasy" from a "false pope" because you like him. That's your real standard and that isn't good enough. It brands you a hypocrite of the worst sort. You're making a mockery of the very Church doctrines you cite because you ignore them when it suits you.
"Not enough he should black out the Mass,"
Too bad he didn't. You're blaming the Pope for the actions of his Bishops. They're the ones cancelling the Mass. This is a popular tactic for Francis' critics: blaming the Pope for the actons of his subordinates. Like always, it's a double standard, like so:
"head of the Homosexual Network Strangling the Church."
...and as I've told you before, that "Homosexual Network" came into power since Vatican Council II. The abuse scandal happened under JP II and Benedict XVI.
If you blame the Pope today for homosexually sympathetic clerics in the Church, again, I say: apply your standards evenly or not at all.
Which Popes appointed those clerics?
Which Popes allowed those clerics to work their evil for decades?
You want to blame "the Pope"? Blame the last two. If you argue the Pope today is head of such a network, then by all rights you should also say the same thing about the popes who allowed that network to grow.
...but that's what you DON'T do. That's what you NEVER do. You like those Popes so, like every other fraud, you simply ignore what happened during those Papacies.
You don't care. That what gets me... Your accusations are used selectively, in bad faith, and arbitrarily based on your only true standard: your own personal feelings. That's a despicable misuse of the Church's doctrines and, no, I'm not going to be a party to your hypocrisy. You're not on the side of the Church. You're not on the side of truth. You're not consistent with yourself. So I'm not on your side because your side is stupid and wrong.
Protip: Ultraviolet photography is used in astronomy for a reason. I "see" more clearly and much, much farther than you ever will. Ultraviolet is also used extensively in detecting flaws and counterfeits, notably the flaws in your reasoning and your counterfeit selective outrage. You see, Bro? This is how you make a metaphor work. :D
"Immaculate Heart or Bergoglio. Fatima or the False Pope."
Your Fallacies Are:
1.) Fallacy of A False Dilemma "aka Black or White"
2.) Being a Hypocrite.
Here are some infographics to help you out.
Let's start with the basics: Apply your standards evenly or not at all.
If you wish to scream about "false popes", "sacrilege blasphemy and apostasy", fine. Other critics just as determined as you, just as obsessed as you, have found plenty of supposed "sacrilege blasphemy and apostasy" during the reigns of the last four popes. If Pope Francis is a "false pope" using your quoted standards, so are the last four popes. Congratulations, you're a sedevacantist and that means you're also a schismatic.
canonlawmadeeasy.com/…/can-you-be-both…
Either that, or you must disprove each and every instance of "sacrilege blasphemy and apostasy" critics have found under the reigns of the last four popes. All of them. So long as one instance remains unproven, so long as one charge stands, that Pope is just as guilty. Assuming you're morally consistent which you're not..
Good luck trying to disprove the photos of John Paul II kissing the quran or the videos of Benedict XVI praying with Muslms and Jews. --and that's before we get into the technical aspects of "apostasy" based on supposedly heretical teachings.
But you don't care about the last four Popes, do you? That's where the hypocrisy and the double-standards kick in. Your kind never care. You aren't true to your own standards.
Instead, what you do is pick and choose your "valid" popes based on arbitrary like or dislike. You are entirely willing to ignore "sacrilege blasphemy and apostasy" from a "false pope" because you like him. That's your real standard and that isn't good enough. It brands you a hypocrite of the worst sort. You're making a mockery of the very Church doctrines you cite because you ignore them when it suits you.
"Not enough he should black out the Mass,"
Too bad he didn't. You're blaming the Pope for the actions of his Bishops. They're the ones cancelling the Mass. This is a popular tactic for Francis' critics: blaming the Pope for the actons of his subordinates. Like always, it's a double standard, like so:
"head of the Homosexual Network Strangling the Church."
...and as I've told you before, that "Homosexual Network" came into power since Vatican Council II. The abuse scandal happened under JP II and Benedict XVI.
If you blame the Pope today for homosexually sympathetic clerics in the Church, again, I say: apply your standards evenly or not at all.
Which Popes appointed those clerics?
Which Popes allowed those clerics to work their evil for decades?
You want to blame "the Pope"? Blame the last two. If you argue the Pope today is head of such a network, then by all rights you should also say the same thing about the popes who allowed that network to grow.
...but that's what you DON'T do. That's what you NEVER do. You like those Popes so, like every other fraud, you simply ignore what happened during those Papacies.
You don't care. That what gets me... Your accusations are used selectively, in bad faith, and arbitrarily based on your only true standard: your own personal feelings. That's a despicable misuse of the Church's doctrines and, no, I'm not going to be a party to your hypocrisy. You're not on the side of the Church. You're not on the side of truth. You're not consistent with yourself. So I'm not on your side because your side is stupid and wrong.
Protip: Ultraviolet photography is used in astronomy for a reason. I "see" more clearly and much, much farther than you ever will. Ultraviolet is also used extensively in detecting flaws and counterfeits, notably the flaws in your reasoning and your counterfeit selective outrage. You see, Bro? This is how you make a metaphor work. :D
"Immaculate Heart or Bergoglio. Fatima or the False Pope."
Your Fallacies Are:
1.) Fallacy of A False Dilemma "aka Black or White"
2.) Being a Hypocrite.
Here are some infographics to help you out.
BrotherBeowulf
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
The German cardinals along with the Homosexual Network Strangling the Church are the very ones who put Bergoglio in. Kasper. McCarrick. Danneels. St Gallen Mafia.
Wake up, rub the UV rays out of your eyes, and smell the sulphur.More
The German cardinals along with the Homosexual Network Strangling the Church are the very ones who put Bergoglio in. Kasper. McCarrick. Danneels. St Gallen Mafia.
Wake up, rub the UV rays out of your eyes, and smell the sulphur.
Wake up, rub the UV rays out of your eyes, and smell the sulphur.
BrotherBeowulf
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
More sacrilege blasphemy and apostasy from false pope Bergoglio, head of the Homosexual Network Strangling the Church.
Not enough he should black out the Mass, antipope Bergoglio must attack the Virgin Mary like the satanic minion he is.
Immaculate Heart or Bergoglio. Fatima or the False Pope.
Who's side are you on.More
More sacrilege blasphemy and apostasy from false pope Bergoglio, head of the Homosexual Network Strangling the Church.
Not enough he should black out the Mass, antipope Bergoglio must attack the Virgin Mary like the satanic minion he is.
Immaculate Heart or Bergoglio. Fatima or the False Pope.
Who's side are you on.
Not enough he should black out the Mass, antipope Bergoglio must attack the Virgin Mary like the satanic minion he is.
Immaculate Heart or Bergoglio. Fatima or the False Pope.
Who's side are you on.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
“Francis thinks he can change the teaching of the Church at his dictatorial will,” He ain't the only one. The Germanic Cardinals have the pontiff beat for craziness.
mattsixteen24
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Something Francis and the Dimond brothers agree on. The argument ive heard is that the title is not correct. Christ alone redeemed man. So they say how is she a co redeemer? Alone and co? Which one is it?
Rafał_Ovile
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Etymology of latin prefix co - in the sense "together, with" , not in part as composition of two equal... Per analogiam Mary is Mother of God concceived without sin but not God - Person in Holy Trinity
Dr. Mark Miravalle Professor of Theology clarifies this dilemma in one of his lectures...
Dr. Mark Miravalle Professor of Theology clarifies this dilemma in one of his lectures...
mattsixteen24
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Rafał_Ovile but alone vs together?
She is a Redeemer alone.
She is a Redeemer together.
She is a Redeemer with Jesus.
Any more term? May God bless the lovers of archive.org.
She is a Redeemer together.
She is a Redeemer with Jesus.
Any more term? May God bless the lovers of archive.org.
One more comment from Pattfm
mattsixteen24
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Pattfm that link you posted is just archive.org
Miles - Christi
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Francisco ultraja a María.
François insulte la Vierge Marie.
Francesco oltraggia Maria
Unfortunately, I still don't have the english translation done. But I imagine that most of you will be able to understand some of these three beautiful latin languages ...
François insulte la Vierge Marie.
Francesco oltraggia Maria
Unfortunately, I still don't have the english translation done. But I imagine that most of you will be able to understand some of these three beautiful latin languages ...
Novella Nurney
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Yes indeed that's fairly clear. It is not considered prudent to insult the Mother of God . I've yet to see Francis excercise prudence in any capacity.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Novella Nurney Let us all Pope Francis' extreme prudence in not criticizing or offending Communist China. ;-)
Marietta 427
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Mary is not "a redeemer." Much, less, she is not "alone a redeemer." or "a redeemer alone?" What the hell are you talking about, Pattfm?
Mary is the Mother of the Redeemer. She helped in her Son's work of redemption because that's what good mothers do.
She is the Mediatrix of Grace, but she is not co-redeemer, especially because these days, the prefix "co-" means co-equal. I know what people …More
Mary is not "a redeemer." Much, less, she is not "alone a redeemer." or "a redeemer alone?" What the hell are you talking about, Pattfm?
Mary is the Mother of the Redeemer. She helped in her Son's work of redemption because that's what good mothers do.
She is the Mediatrix of Grace, but she is not co-redeemer, especially because these days, the prefix "co-" means co-equal. I know what people mean when they call her co-redemptrix, but the "co-" has evolved in our society to mean "equal." Rightly or wrongly, that what the prefix "co-" has meant. And it's not right to apply it in the case of Our Blessed Mother. Mary is not equal with her Son, her Lord and her God.
There are only four Marian dogmas that we ought to believe:
1. Mary is the Immaculate Conception.
2. Mary is ever-virgin.
3. Mary is the Mother of God.
4. Mary has been assumed into Heaven with her body and soul intact.
That's it. None of those says she is a co-redeemer, or an "alone redeemer." Only God can re-create what He has created. Only God can redeem what He has made.
Mary is the Mother of the Redeemer. She helped in her Son's work of redemption because that's what good mothers do.
She is the Mediatrix of Grace, but she is not co-redeemer, especially because these days, the prefix "co-" means co-equal. I know what people mean when they call her co-redemptrix, but the "co-" has evolved in our society to mean "equal." Rightly or wrongly, that what the prefix "co-" has meant. And it's not right to apply it in the case of Our Blessed Mother. Mary is not equal with her Son, her Lord and her God.
There are only four Marian dogmas that we ought to believe:
1. Mary is the Immaculate Conception.
2. Mary is ever-virgin.
3. Mary is the Mother of God.
4. Mary has been assumed into Heaven with her body and soul intact.
That's it. None of those says she is a co-redeemer, or an "alone redeemer." Only God can re-create what He has created. Only God can redeem what He has made.