David Berger Accuses Pope of Being Homosexual
#41
I learned to speak Rio Port
Reply
#42
(04-15-2011, 06:29 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: I learned to speak Rio Port

Worked there?
Reply
#43
(04-15-2011, 06:42 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(04-15-2011, 06:29 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: I learned to speak Rio Port

Worked there?

at University for two years, don't recall much now, but if I worked at it... I can still read stuff from time to time
Reply
#44
{quote]You are the one who put forward the idea that to criticise a pope is "off limits" which is manifestly untrue and "papolatrous" in every sense of the word. If nothing else, scripture proves it by the example of St. Paul. [/quote]

You always seem to quote things out of context.  Show where I said "to criticise a pope is "off limits."  The context of my posts was about the INappropriateness of this subject matter of the pope being accused of homosexuality by a homo who has a few things to grind about the Catholic Church.  And there is no proof provided or any citations, which makes this report or news item an innuendo and a calumny against the Vicar of Christ.  This stuff should be shoved down the sewer and the poster should be considered nothing but a gossiper, a provider of stories that provoke indignation for those who have reverence for the ministers of Christ.  And further, I stated that stories like this put forward in a public forum provides nothing but cannon fodder for those who are the Church enemies.  Come on, it were true that the present pope is homosexual, would you still want to air this type of dirty laundry. 

Where did I state that it is not apropriate to criticoze the pope when he does things against the Catholic faith?  Read St. Bellarmine, and St. Thomas Aquinas, and other Church Fathers, and I can prove you wrong.

I stated regarding St. Paul's rebuke of Peter -- do you read and understand the Scriptures?   "Paapolatry"  It is easy to label one by that debased appellation when you are devoid of argument.  (Just like the comment, "Vince, go back to sleep.")

Galatians 2:
11 But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.
13 And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?


ANNOTATION:
"I withstood"... The fault that is here noted in the conduct of St. Peter, was only a certain imprudence, in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving offence to the Jewish converts; but this, in such circumstances, when his so doing might be of ill consequence to the Gentiles, who might be induced thereby to think themselves obliged to conform to the Jewish way of living, to the prejudice of their Christian liberty. Neither was St. Paul's reprehending him any argument against his supremacy; for in such cases an inferior may, and sometimes ought, with respect, to admonish his superior. 

The quarrel, if you want to call it that, was not DOCTRINAL (get it!??)   So quit acting like the pompous (blip)  that you are.

If you want to read more about Gal 2:11, and learn what "papolatry" really means, as associated with heretics, go here and read the annotation, you will be surprised what papolatry is and which it refers to.  From the 1582 D-R, for your own good and benefit: 
http://www.alcazar.net/StPaul'sRebuke.html

Reply
#45
(04-16-2011, 03:39 AM)Vincentius Wrote: You always seem to quote things out of context.  Show where I said "to criticise a pope is "off limits." 

Here:
Vincentius Wrote:This pope is a validly elected pope, so he is off limits (nobody judges the pope, either in the internal or external forum) to such criticisms such as his immoral character.  What you are doing is airing dirty laundry (which Tabloids do) in a public forum and giving cannon fodder to the enemies of the Church  You are actually doing what those who hate the Church are doing -- maligning the person appointed by Christ to be His vicar on earth.  Good pope, bad pope, Christ will say, "you elected him and for now he is My Pope."  You wanna contradict Christ?

Your statement seems to indicate a condemnation of any criticisms of the pope, including moral criticisms, using the faulty legal axiom of prima sedes a nemine judicatur.

Quote:"I withstood"... The fault that is here noted in the conduct of St. Peter, was only a certain imprudence, in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving offence to the Jewish converts; but this, in such circumstances, when his so doing might be of ill consequence to the Gentiles, who might be induced thereby to think themselves obliged to conform to the Jewish way of living, to the prejudice of their Christian liberty. Neither was St. Paul's reprehending him any argument against his supremacy; for in such cases an inferior may, and sometimes ought, with respect, to admonish his superior. 

The quarrel, if you want to call it that, was not DOCTRINAL (get it!??)   So quit acting like the pompous (blip)  that you are.

You're shooting a strawman, here. I never claimed that St. Paul's rebuke was an argument against the pope's supremacy but rather an example where an inferior publicly reprimanded and morally judged a superior because of his actions. St. Peter's behaviour was endangering the faith, so St. Paul stepped in harshly. In the cause of God, one should not spare even his superior.

Quote:From the 1582 D-R, for your own good and benefit:   
http://www.alcazar.net/StPaul'sRebuke.html

Thanks for the link but this does not argue against my position, rather it reinforces it.
Reply
#46
(04-13-2011, 04:12 PM)Lavalliere Wrote:
(04-13-2011, 03:44 PM)JoniCath Wrote:
(04-13-2011, 11:04 AM)ggreg Wrote: I'm not sure it is a majority, but I reckon it must be a lot of them (a large minority) for things to get as messed up as they are.  I think this is what Vetus is getting at.

And I'll bet a penny to a pound that at least one of the last 5 Popes has been a practising homo.   Paul VIth had some strong evidence against him.

Those are some pretty serious charges & it seems to me that this thread is nothing but a bunch of gossip.   :fish:
This is the kind of thing that one hears at a beauty shop & the gossipers are NEVER able to prove anything. It's a sort of {well, my sister's brother-in-law's best friend knows their gardener & he said.........

I think you ought to get yourself a copy of Randy Engel's book Rite of Sodomy

Why bother?  After all 20 years of research by Engel would not be anything more than a "bunch of gossip."
Reply
#47
(04-13-2011, 06:39 PM)Hawaii Five-0 Wrote:
(04-13-2011, 04:12 PM)Lavalliere Wrote: I think you ought to get yourself a copy of Randy Engel's book Rite of Sodomy

Yes, this book will blow your mind.  My late mother, Patricia Morley, was one of the first Catholic faithful to publicly expose a Bishop of the Church for being a pederast.  Her struggle to expose Bishop Ferrario and his Homo network is documented in Randy Engel's book.  If you are interested in reading an excerpt from the book, here's a link - http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/060627 

Just think what Mrs. Engel left out of the book because she could not FULLY substantiate it?

A fish rots from the head.
Reply
#48
Anyone who's looked into abuse in the Church knows that the level of homosexuality in the Church is beyond comprehension. 
Reply
#49
Therefore it's a foregone conclusion that when you put homosexuals in charge of something, it gets pretty extremely scewed up.  Sounds like our forefathers knew what they were talking about after all when they considered that disposition to make a man unsuitable for the ministry.
Reply
#50
(04-13-2011, 05:12 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: David Berger Now Accuses Pope of Being Homosexual
Editor: David Berger is up to no good. Since trying to ride the sex abuse scandal on anti-Church magazine Der Spiegel for all it's worth, he's now taken to attacking the Pope. Cardinal Meisner does nothing.

The homosexually disordered David Berger spits poison and gall in the ecclesiastical pot from which he eats.  Cardinal Meisner isn't bothered in the least.

(kreuz.net) The scatological-theological plump-plump of David Berger, who's still employed by the Archdiocese of Cologne, has broken off again.


http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2011...being.html
We've GOT to honor Pope Benedict's request to "pray for him that he may not flee for fear of the wolves". I think he is surrounded by them even in the Vatican. This David Berger person, as bitter as he is, is probably the least of the Pope's worries.

I'm concerned at the moment by the fact that Cardinal Schonborn's new Catechism has been returned to sender. Thank God that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Cardinal Burke) will set up a special working group to collect reported errors and distribute corrections in translations of a new catechism created for young people .  Then, too, there is Cardinal Kaspar & his complete rejection of the Ecumenism of Conversion. God send the angels to watch over Pope Benedict.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)