What do you think the election of Obama proves?
#41
(11-07-2012, 09:09 PM)EcceQuamBonum Wrote:
(11-07-2012, 10:57 AM)James02 Wrote: Obama won because of Catholic support from those in the pew, the priests, and the bishops.  What this proves is that the Church is lousy with socialists.

You think?

[Image: ob-card.jpg]
This is the unbiased picture:
[Image: AP-Photo-Oct-18-2012-Alfred-E.-Smith-Mem...Obama.jpeg]
Reply
#42
(11-07-2012, 09:28 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: It proves that its the end of the world.
There's no proof of the end of the world; just signs.
If the Church survived the Arian crisis, the Church can survive this crisis.
Reply
#43
(11-07-2012, 09:28 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: It proves that its the end of the world.

As we know it....



....and I feel fine...  :tiphat:

It occurs to me that the poor little dog in this video is long dead.  Sic transit gloria puppy as it were.  :((
Reply
#44
(11-07-2012, 09:43 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(11-07-2012, 09:09 PM)EcceQuamBonum Wrote:
(11-07-2012, 10:57 AM)James02 Wrote: Obama won because of Catholic support from those in the pew, the priests, and the bishops.  What this proves is that the Church is lousy with socialists.

You think?

[Image: ob-card.jpg]
This is the unbiased picture:
[Image: AP-Photo-Oct-18-2012-Alfred-E.-Smith-Mem...Obama.jpeg]

Oh, I know.  Point was, Obama shouldn't have been invited in the first place.  A Prince of the Church shouldn't be sitting down to eat and chuckle with one who has the blood of the innocents on his hands and who is actively trying to coerce the Church into betraying her principles.  Whether Mittens was there or not is immaterial.
Reply
#45
(11-07-2012, 10:07 PM)EcceQuamBonum Wrote: Whether Mittens was there or not is immaterial.

Whether a pro-abort pagan cultist was there is immaterial? :eyeroll:
Reply
#46
(11-07-2012, 10:10 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(11-07-2012, 10:07 PM)EcceQuamBonum Wrote: Whether Mittens was there or not is immaterial.

Whether a pro-abort pagan cultist was there is immaterial? :eyeroll:

Oh, fine, he shouldn't have been there, either.  So, yes, the "unbiased" pic is actually the more unconscionable one.  Good call. 
Reply
#47
(11-07-2012, 10:07 PM)EcceQuamBonum Wrote: Oh, I know.  Point was, Obama shouldn't have been invited in the first place.  A Prince of the Church shouldn't be sitting down to eat and chuckle with one who has the blood of the innocents on his hands and who is actively trying to coerce the Church into betraying her principles.
Yes, it certainly caused scandal, making it seem as though the "Vatican"'s mission is merely temporal.
Reply
#48
(11-07-2012, 10:13 PM)EcceQuamBonum Wrote: Oh, fine, he shouldn't have been there, either.  So, yes, the "unbiased" pic is actually the more unconscionable one.  Good call.
Jesus dined with sinners. What's the big deal?
Reply
#49
(11-07-2012, 10:28 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(11-07-2012, 10:13 PM)EcceQuamBonum Wrote: Oh, fine, he shouldn't have been there, either.  So, yes, the "unbiased" pic is actually the more unconscionable one.  Good call.
Jesus dined with sinners. What's the big deal?

Jesus didn't just "dine with sinners" like that's the end of the story.
Reply
#50
(11-07-2012, 10:28 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(11-07-2012, 10:13 PM)EcceQuamBonum Wrote: Oh, fine, he shouldn't have been there, either.  So, yes, the "unbiased" pic is actually the more unconscionable one.  Good call.
Jesus dined with sinners. What's the big deal?

Jesus refused to speak with Herod's son
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)