Hostile Takeover

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Delicious
Share on digg
Digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

 

Pat Archbold at Creative Minority Report thinks we have crossed a line in this pontificate:

The Pope appoints the pro-sodomy heretic Radcliffe (who called sodomy “Eucharistic”) to a significant curial consulting position the same week he, along with most most Irish Bishops, said absolutely nothing about the pending Irish pilgrimage to Gomorrah and then, even while acknowledging it is a heresy (indifferentism), he goes ahead and announces that he agrees with the Devil that all Christians are one and that is doesn’t matter if they are Evangelicals, or Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic.

This is not commentary or opinion. These things happened. Make of that what you will.

Go here to read the over 194 comments.  In corporate legal terms I think the Church is being subject to a hostile takeover attempt.  I will leave to the commenters speculation as to the source of this takeover attempt.  Saint Michael pray for us!

 

More to explorer

23 Comments

  1. Interesting times, that’s for sure. The Pope is on the verge of teaching formal heresy.
    And Ireland. Still not one single peep about the Ireland scandal from the Pope. This is simply too huge and tragic of an event for the Pope NOT to speak out. And yet, crickets.
    St. Michael, pray for us!

  2. It seems so long ago when this Pope declared his disdain for the “gay lobby” occupying the Vatican.

  3. Its obvious that Bergoglio supports the radical gay agenda, in spite of
    what he or his lieutenants at the Vatican say in opposition to
    gay marriage, which I dismiss as propaganda which gives Bergoglio
    the appearance that he is “a son of the church.”

    What’s next is my greatest fear.

  4. As I, perhaps incorrectly, understand it, Radcliffe, said homosexual love was eucharistic. While that may very well be nonsense, and I think it is (If I had a dog, I could love and sacrifice for my dog. Does that mean my love for my pet is eucharistic?), nonetheless, that’s not the same as saying sodomy is eucharistic.
    .
    Also, his position is advisory, which only means as much as the people he’s advising want it to mean.
    .
    I guess I’m saying that the news seems bad, but there’s no need to run off into the heat of the day over it. At least not yet.

  5. Who will stand and fight?

    From the book of Judges Chpt. 7 we see the Lord tell Gideon that his army of 32,000 is TOO many to fight the 135,000 Midianites. He cuts his troops to 10,000. Still too many. Only 300. The 300 proved to be the faithful. They with God destroyed the enemy camp.

    What of todays battles?

    Are we witness to the 32,000 that are lukewarm! Many not fully committed to the cause. These interesting times lead me to ponder the possible honing down of the true warriors for Christ. So many giving up and caving into the enemy camp prior to the battle.

    Courage?

    The lack of it is easily seen.

  6. “As I, perhaps incorrectly, understand it, Radcliffe, said homosexual love was eucharistic.”

    That assumes Radcliffe has the same understanding of Eucharistic as the Church. My understanding is that Radcliffe sees the Eucharist as a bringing together of the community and binding us more fully together. Nothing of the Sacrifice of the Cross, atonement for sins, Redemption through that atoning sacrifice and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

    Some further points from a review:

    “258. Instead, Fr Radcliffe proposed a Eucharistic sexual ethic that started with Jesus’s gift of his body at the Last Supper. This might help us to overcome the dualism – the splitting of body and soul – which has been a constant problem for Christian thought, especially since Descartes. ‘If we are in essence minds, then what we do with our bodies is not that important.… Our permissive society has an implicit contempt for the body’.

    259. He went on to discuss sexual intercourse as ‘mutual generosity’ – the complete gift of the body to the other person. ‘When you have sexual intercourse with someone, then you say with your body, “I give myself to you and I receive you as a gift …”’

    264. The challenge to the Church is to ‘cherish the inherent meaning of sexual intercourse as covenantal… while coping with the inevitable failures that even the best Christians will experience’ …

    266. ‘How does all this bear on the question of gay sexuality? We cannot begin with the question of whether it is permitted or forbidden! We must ask what it means, and how far it is Eucharistic. Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non-violent. So in many ways I think it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift…’

    268. We can also see how homosexuality can be expressive of mutual fidelity, a covenantal relationship in which two people bind themselves to each other for ever. ”

    Source:

    http://catholicityandcovenant.blogspot.com/2013/12/we-must-ask-how-far-it-is-eucharistic.html

  7. I do not know to whom Pope Francis was speaking in the 1st You Tube video above, but I neither saw nor heard anything overtly wrong. Am I missing something?

  8. “I do not know to whom Pope Francis was speaking in the 1st You Tube video above, but I neither saw nor heard anything overtly wrong. Am I missing something?”

    Start at 4:16 Paul.

  9. ” Father may we be one, so that the world will believe you sent me”. attributed to Jesus Christ who really said: “that they may be one as we are” John 17:11. The unity of the one church is established on the unity of the Trinity, The Father and I ARE ONE…not “may we be one” maybe perhaps in the future, but not really now. ..a repudiation of the Blessed Trinity. God is outside of time and being outside of time is unchangeable .The Trinity is One God in Three Divine Persons. The sovereign Person of Jesus Christ, is Head of the Catholic Church, the triumphant in heaven, the militant on earth and the suffering in purgatory. The triumphant in heaven, the saints, are one in Jesus Christ.
    .
    The confusion about who must reach across the heresy to be ecumenical must be clarified. The heretics must reach to Jesus for heaven. No one can do this reaching for Truth except the soul . Once the soul has descended into hell, there is no changing his errors.

  10. The first video starts at 1:19. . Christ said, I go to my Father. The Holy Spirit cannot come until I send Him. The Holy Ghost came because Jesus Christ, crucified, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Jesus Christ, and Him crucified, is the only way to heaven. The sinner cannot go to heaven because he does not will it.
    We are brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ, crucified, because Jesus asked His Mother Mary to be our mother. It is through Mary, that we become brothers and sisters in Christ. Christians who refuse to accept Mary have a problem with unity.

    Pope Francis did not even bother to make the sign of the cross over us.

  11. Jimmy Akin has a different point of view on the first video above. He begins with commenting on the Zenit News article which reported on that video.
    .
    http://m.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-pope-francis-say-it-doesnt-matter-what-kind-of-christian-you-are-9-thin/#ixzz3bH4HKunY
    .
    I disagree with many of Pope Francis’ appointments of liberal progressives (and sodomite supporters – is there a difference?) to positions of more power. I disagree with him on issues relating to politics, the environment, economics, etc. But having viewed the video again, I simply do not find it objectionable. Yes, what Mary De Voe wrote about Protestants not accepting Mary and about Jesus being the head of the Catholic Church (vice Protestant ecclesial assemblies) is true, and yes, Pope Benedict XVI’s Dominus Iesus applies:
    .
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
    .
    I guess I must be exceptionally dense this morning. Maybe too much neutron embrittlement of the containment structure around my brain..
    .
    🙁

  12. Paul: Has Jimmy Aiken ever said anything critical of the pope? His job as a Catholic apologist is to agree with every word uttered by him. Aiken makes a living out of “interpreting” and “clarifying” each word that comes from the pope’s mouth. I don’t recall him having to do much clarifying when B16 was calling the shots. It’s time that people realize that Pope Francis is an unmitigated disaster for the Church and it will only get worse as long as he remains in the chair of Peter.

  13. D Black, maybe you are correct. All I know is that I was never confused under JP II or B XVI, but I am never unconfused under Francis. I came into the Church under JP II. I would have never come into the Church under Francis.

  14. Since when did a pope of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, the successor of St. Peter, who is to confirm his brethren and feed the LORD’s lamb and sheep, require an Akin to digest the food first? – My post @Creative Minority Report.

  15. @Paul W Primavera: […] I would have never come into the Church under Francis. Reason to give thanks to God for who in his mercy called you when he called you.
    *
    On ecumenism: [Benedict XVI Pays Tribute to Blessed John Paul II in New Interview | ZENIT.

    BENEDICT XVI: One of the principal problems of our work, in the years that I was prefect, was the effort to reach a correct understanding of ecumenism.

    Also in this case it is a question that has a double profile: on one side, affirmed with all its urgency, is the task to work for unity and to open ways that lead to it; on the other, it is necessary to reject false conceptions of unity, which would like to reach the unity of the faith through the shortcut of the watering down of the faith. […].

  16. Paul W Primavera: If you have never read any of the wonderful encyclicals written by our Holy Popes prior to Vatican II, I’d suggest you take some time to do so.

    They were never ambiguous and always defended the true teachings of the Catholic Church, handed down to them from Jesus through His Apostles.

  17. All Christians have the same chance for salvation, keeping in mind salvation is not a written exam. The Catholic Church has no monopoly on the Holy Spirit. Catholics should not regard themselves as the biggest, and, therefore, the best in the world wide church. Such an attitude does not give glory to God and does not foster evangelization.

  18. “Such an attitude does not give glory to God and does not foster evangelization.”

    It does happen to be true though, and all other considerations are secondary once that is stated.

  19. I wish coud term it geriatric dementia, but I can’t and neither can anyone else. He is a liar as is his whole “team.” Where are the leaders who will confront this foolish individual and tell him to be still? Liars and clowns, all of them. They betray the sheep a strut around without shame. Sickening.

  20. how dare those non-Catholic Christians believe that they love Jesus and that Jesus loves them?

    how dare they believe that following their consciences is what God desires of them?

    how can they not know that they must agree totally with some (not all, but at least those who have convinced themselves that they alone know the wholeness of the truth) of us catholics if they want to be saved?

    where do they get this idea that if they believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and repent of their sins they will be saved?

Comments are closed.