Cardinal Müller: ‘No need to correct Pope Francis on divorce’

[Nihil Obstat]

2 minutes ago, Josh said:

I thought Roy made a good comparison. Maybe he was wrong and influenced me negatively. So do you disagree with the Cardinal that no correction is needed and that the public dubia was damaging to the Church?

I believe that the issuing of the dubia is to the benefit of the Church and the papacy. Even if, in the short term, some individuals or groups feel rather affronted or stymied.

[KnightofChrist]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

Worldly attacks on the Church? Where?

The comparison of Cardinal Burke and the Pharisees. That is a typical type of accusation against Catholics from those outside the Church, ie accusing Catholics of being unloving, uncaring, judgmental, more concerned with ones outward appearance, etc etc because they believe what the Church has always taught. Growing up in the South with a great many anti-catholic accusers I've heard the Catholic = Pharisees comparison made many times when defending the Church, in short Canon Law = the Pharisees enforcing the Law of Moses, Catholic Tradition = the Tradition of the Pharisees, Catholic Prayer = the Pharisees who prayed for attention. 

It always makes me sad me to see the same kind of comparisons are made by non-traditional Catholics against traditional Catholics. Have you seen what Christ says about the Pharisees?

Among His many woes to them he says they are fit for hell and those that follow them are twice as fit for hell than they. (Matthew 23:15)

1. If you think the comparison is good then I ask you is Cardinal Burke fit for hell and those that follow him twice as fit?
2. Does Cardinal Burke preach what he does not practice?
3. Does he give burdens to others he is not himself willing to do?
4. Does he do deeds only to be seen by others?
5. Is he a hypocrite?
6. Does he shut the kingdom of heaven to himself and others?
7. Is Cardinal Burke a "child of hell" are those that follow him twice the "children of hell"?
8. Is Cardinal Burke blind and is he a fool? Is he full of greed and self-indulgence?
9. Does he outwardly appear righteous to others, but within he is full of hypocrisy and lawlessness?
10. Is he a serpent, a brood of vipers?

I could go on, but these are some of the sins that the Pharisees were guilty of committing which Christ condemned them. Comparing Cardinal Burke and the others to the Pharisees is extremely serious. Do you still believe the comparison to be good or do you wish to admit it was a mistake that you didn't think out? If you still think the comparison is good please show comparable examples of Cardinal Burke's sins that are like the sins of the Pharisees.

[Guest]

Just now, KnightofChrist said:

Among His many woes to them he says they are fit for hell and those that follow them are twice as fit for hell than they. (Matthew 23:15)

1. If you think the comparison is good then I ask you is Cardinal Burke fit for hell and those that follow him twice as fit?
2. Does Cardinal Burke preach what he does not practice?
3. Does he give burdens to others he is not himself willing to do?
4. Does he do deeds only to be seen by others?
5. Is he a hypocrite?
6. Does he shut the kingdom of heaven to himself and others?
7. Is Cardinal Burke a "child of hell" are those that follow him twice the "children of hell"?
8. Is Cardinal Burke blind and is he a fool? Is he full of greed and self-indulgence?
9. Does he outwardly appear righteous to others, but within he is full of hypocrisy and lawlessness?
10. Is he a serpent, a brood of vipers?

I could go on, but these are some of the sins that the Pharisees were guilty of committing which Christ condemned them. Comparing Cardinal Burke and the others to the Pharisees is extremely serious. Do you still believe the comparison to be good or do you wish to admit it was a mistake that you didn't think out? If you still think the comparison is good please show comparable examples of Cardinal Burke's sins that are like the sins of the Pharisees.

Well......When you put it like that then I could see how the comparison is not a good idea. I will concede I was poorly influenced by Roy with his post and it wasn't prudent of me to repost it and perhaps gravely sinful. I apologize. I hope you accept it. Now if only Hillary White and other best Catholics of all time could also find the humility to apologize for the wicked and demeaning things they have written/said about the Holy Father and CONTINUE to write and say. Like calling him a ******. That's pretty serious as well correct? I mean he is our Pope right?

Edited January 9, 2017 by Guest

[Nihil Obstat]

It certainly seems to be probably sinful to resort to vulgar insults with regards to the Holy Father. But criticism of him would not be per se sinful, so there is a fine line there.

[Guest]

I'm all for criticism. I just think the line has to be drawn when you're calling him a fa****, saying he's a false prophet, not a valid pope ect ect and showing straight up hate and contempt for him.

[KnightofChrist]

9 minutes ago, Josh said:

Well......When you put it like that then I could see how the comparison is not a good idea. I will concede I was poorly influenced by Roy with his post and it wasn't prudent of me to repost it and perhaps gravely sinful. I apologize. I hope you accept it. Now if only Hillary White and other best Catholics of all time could also find the humility to apologize for the wicked and demeaning things they have written/said about the Holy Father and CONTINUE to write and say. Like calling him a ******. That's pretty serious as well correct? I mean he is our Pope right?

Pope Francis is the Holy Pontiff and calling him or others names like that is unacceptable. They should repent, because we will have to answer for ever idle word we state. But if they do not you cannot allow them to endanger your own soul. I don't read Ms. White's works. I stay away from those that would use language like that yet claim to be proclaiming the Faith. I would suggest that you also stay away. 

[Guest]

Do you read the Remnant? They publish her articles. How about One Peter Five? They also publish her articles.

[KnightofChrist]

7 minutes ago, Josh said:

Do you read the Remnant? They publish her articles. How about One Peter Five? They also publish her articles.

I don't read her articles, but I have read those outlets. I also don't read Mark Shea and others like him (whom I also do not care for based on similar reasons) when he worked for EWTN but I still watched, listened and read EWTN. And whatever outlet he works for or with now I would perhaps read just not his works. 

Edited January 9, 2017 by KnightofChrist

[Guest]

I think EWTN is above and beyond the other two in legitimacy. I browse all 3. The remnant I think may be in grave danger. Not my call though. Prayers for all "Catholic" media outlets.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Guest

[Nihil Obstat]

23 minutes ago, Josh said:

I'm all for criticism. I just think the line has to be drawn when you're calling him a fa****, saying he's a false prophet, not a valid pope ect ect and showing straight up hate and contempt for him.

Certainly. I do not remember if you showed me context for that quote, but in any case to actually call the Holy Father that word is not acceptable. Using that word in the context of a broader critique seems imprudent at the very best. (But perhaps not necessasrily sinful in the same manner.)

15 minutes ago, Josh said:

Do you read the Remnant? They publish her articles. How about One Peter Five? They also publish her articles.

They may publish her, but they do not necessarily formally support every single one of her utterances. We can debate the prudence of giving a platform to problematic statements, but you cannot just assume a point-to-point correspondance between all of them just because of the association.

(As a side point, are we entirely certain that was Hilary White and not that one woman who sounds like she is channeling Ayn Rand all the time? Forget her name... But do not like her, anyway.)

Ann Barnhardt. That is the very disagreeable woman who sounds like she is channeling Ayn Rand. Are we sure that it was not her? Because it sounds rather more like something she would say.

I read that Ms. Barnhardt recently denied that Francis was validly elected, and considers Benedict to remain pope. Perhaps that is why she has not been published on The Remnant recently.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Nihil Obstat

[bardegaulois]

35 minutes ago, Josh said:

Well......When you put it like that then I could see how the comparison is not a good idea. I will concede I was poorly influenced by Roy with his post and it wasn't prudent of me to repost it and perhaps gravely sinful. I apologize. I hope you accept it. Now if only Hillary White and other best Catholics of all time could also find the humility to apologize for the wicked and demeaning things they have written/said about the Holy Father and CONTINUE to write and say. Like calling him a ******. That's pretty serious as well correct? I mean he is our Pope right?

Once again, Josh, this begs evidence. I've never seen Hilary White or Steve Stojec or any writer in The Remnant use a homosexual epithet to describe Pope Francis, nor have I ever seen any even implying without evidence that he is homosexual. The only people I've ever seen do that are Mundabor (who is off his rocker to begin with) and a few angry ranters in the comments section.

Once again, you bear the burden of proof here. Be aware that false malicious statements have landed many a person in court for libel. Demonstrate it or drop it.

[Guest]

I get Ann and Hilary mixed up. I will provide quotes and search for more. Here's the first one from the Remnant contributor. 

"The call by the Antipope Bergoglio for The Church to beg the forgiveness of sodomites for having offended them, while nauseating, is not entirely shocking..."

Barnhardt

 

Menu

Skip to content

 

When I say I’ve had just about enough of this ****** sh**, I really, really mean it.

In this latest piece for WhatIsUpWithTheSynod.com , which is going to continue even though the Synod Against the Family is now concluded, I go specifically after sodomite priests, namely one Fr. James Martin, a Jesuit flower – but I repeat myself.

CLICK HERE TO READ IT.

One of the comments says that we need to start calling these people out and asking them directly and publicly, “Father Rosica, are you a homosexual?” “Cardinal Weurl, are you a homosexual?” (I have no videographic evidence of Donald Weurl being a flower, but I do know that when he was in seminary his nicknames were “Weurl the Girl” and “Donna”.) “Archbishop Cupich, are you a homosexual?”  “Pope Francis, are you a homosexual?”

Absolutely.  I agree 100%.  Hound them.  Make it so they cannot appear in public without being point-blank asked if they are fags. Over and over and over again.

Same with the lesbian nuns.

Enough of this sodomite croutons, and enough of cowering in fear of these depraved perverts.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

Barnhardt

Menu

Skip to content

Breaking Blockbuster: Prima Facie Evidence that Francis is, in fact, Antipope

I just had a conversation with someone a few hours ago about how incredibly dark these days are, and how A.) we should implore our Blessed Lord to arise from His slumber on the fantail of the boat and save us from these heretical/apostate jackals and B.) how Our Lord will surely give His Remnant Church a “trail of breadcrumbs” so that we can know where we need to be and where His Church is so that we can stay close to Him........

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Personally, I think Ms. Barnhardt is not quite all there. Perhaps she has been unwittingly affected by the diabolical narcissism she writes about so often. Her writing reminds me of conspiracy theorists. Strong rhetoric, single minded focus, invented jargon, extreme language and opinions, etc. 

I am a traditionalist whom many people on this site might describe as radically so. In that context, in my opinion Ms. Barnhardt is dangerous. I cannot describe precisely how, but my intuition tells me very strongly that this is the case.

[Guest]

"While probably not a sodomite himself, Pope Francis, being a few dilithium crystals short of a warp core, is also probably quite susceptible to flattery, and thus doesn't mind the fags he surrounds himself with, because they are probably amusing and charming at table, and tell Pope Francis how FABULOUS and BRILLIANT he is. Sodomite men, especially, tend to be shameless flatterers, which is why your 80 year-old aunt just LOVES her super-cute flower hairdresser and can't understand why the mean old Church says that he and his anal sex partner/victim can't get "married" and adopt pet children. (For me, it was my RCIA sponsor, not my aunt.) All because the fags tell their hags how GORGEOUS their outfit is... and then ruthlessly mock her as soon as she is out of earshot. Think of Pope Francis, the flower hag par excellence, sitting at Casa Santa Marta for his well-watered lunch with Monsignor Ricca dressed in a pale-pink argyle sweater, and a host of other desperately amusing fags in the Antony Blanche mold..." - Remnant contributor Ann Barnhardt

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

I am a traditionalist whom many people on this site might describe as radically so. 

You're a Saint man. As long as I can remember coming to Phatmass your post have always been consistent and helpful. Over 10 years. Radical is not a bad thing when it's the right kind.

@bardegaulois I will post more later. Have to take a break. There's some to hold you over. 

Edited January 10, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

Also I See a Mediator of Meh has edited the word f** and f***** out of my post. Which is fine but just know that's the original language that was used.

[Guest]

Just now, Josh said:

Think of Pope Francis, the flower hag par excellence, sitting at Casa Santa Marta for his well-watered lunch 

This should read "the f** hag par excellence"

Just now, Josh said:

Also I See a Mediator of Meh has edited the word f** and f***** out of my post. Which is fine but just know that's the original language that was used.

If this isn't the case apologies. I see it remains in some places. So perhaps it's a f ilter or something.

The Pope Is Dope.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

As a side point, are we entirely certain that was Hilary White and not that one woman who sounds like she is channeling Ayn Rand all the time?

Yeah I mixed them up. Ann does/did write for both Hilary and the Remnants website. And made these statements and more while with them. And as far as I know is still affiliated with both.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Guest

[Nihil Obstat]

I do not often get such strong intuitive feelings about a person being dangerous, but when I do I pay very close attention.

[Guest]

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

I do not often get such strong intuitive feelings about a person being dangerous, but when I do I pay very close attention.

Spiritually dangerous or violently dangerous? Or both? Obviously 100% yes on the first. But wondering if you're implying the second one as well?

Edited January 10, 2017 by Guest