Pope Francis DID NOT Kneel Down to Get Blessing From Protestants
#31
(03-15-2013, 10:40 AM)stmykearchangel Wrote: He’s known to have a strong devotion to the Blessed Mother (is said to pray fifteen decades of the rosary every day)

By the way, did anyone catch this?  :)
Reply
#32
(03-15-2013, 03:43 PM)ggreg Wrote: I believe in freedom of speech and I believe I've backed up most of my comments with evidence.  If Vox wishes to ban me she is free to.

I enjoy ggreg's posts.  He keeps the forum alive.  I am critical of Pope Francis right now too.  I will pray for him, but he must prove us wrong because of his past actions.  Everything he has down during his first few days are not good signs.
Reply
#33
(03-15-2013, 04:20 PM)Ursus Wrote:
(03-15-2013, 03:52 PM)The Curt Jester Wrote:
(03-15-2013, 03:38 PM)Ursus Wrote: What happens, seriously? Do people like him get banned and the rest just twiddle thumbs and say nice things?

The majority of what he has said could have been condensed in a few posts.  He chooses to constantly find new ways to repeat himself in a variation of the sarcastic tone.

Condensed? Why so it gets buried and ignored. And all the other posts of simply ignore the past and pray. Just think nice thoughts, be charitable.

Being charitable has its limits. We have to defend our faith because who else will? There is active evil in the church. There is active evil, wolves in the highest offices. We can't simply ignore it.

I'd seriously question whether such methods have ever been even a teeny bit successful.  Playing the parrot might work if you've got control of the major media and can keep something in front of people's eyes indefinitely but for the rest of us, it accomplishes little.  After seeing the same content re-posted by the same people in a couple different threads I was only tempted to ignore them.

Brilliant arguments become tiresome when repeated non-stop.  Lame arguments do not become convincing when presented repeatedly.

I also wish the words "charity" and "charitable" were used in the proper manner.  The statement that "being charitable has its limits" makes no sense unless one is going by a false definition of charitable.  Even when pointing out errors in another person's actions, charity is mandatory.  In fact, "fraternal correction" is included in the definition of charity.  The core issue here is motivation.  Is the fraternal correction motivated by the love of God or love of self?  Is it spoken in a manner that tempts others to anger or reflection?

Something that is important to understand is that ridicule, sarcasm and derogatory language are never tactics successfully used by those wanting to convince others of the truth.  People that use them are sometimes successful at convincing others of their own superior intellect but that's not the goal here is it?  Sometimes people think that these methods can be used to defend the Faith but they don't work.  They creates a lot of noise but in the end, only serves to drive others away before they've had a chance to see the point.
Reply
#34
Prove it.

" ridicule, sarcasm and derogatory language are never tactics successfully used by those wanting to convince others of the truth"



You don't for example think ridiculing the Mormons or the Church of Scientology, EVER has the effect of convincing others they are nuts?
Reply
#35
I do not need to prove it.  You are proving it as we speak.

There's been a number of people loudly voicing agreement with you but they've been doing so from the very beginning.

It's obvious that you will never have success in convincing a person via rational conversation if you get started by angering them.  Angry people don't comprehend rational arguments.


Edit:  Making fun of Mormons will get a laugh out of non-Mormons.  It won't convince Mormons of the falsehood of their religion.
Reply
#36
In that case since you cannot prove it I will carry on.
Reply
#37
(03-15-2013, 10:53 AM)ggreg Wrote: 2 minutes on Google and I have already found a site with a photograph of the priest blessing Cardinal Bergoglio, being blessed by a man in a shirt and tie.  One would assume therefore a Protestant minister.  [edit confirmed below]

So as I correctly guessed an ecumenical love-in

Matt, needs to do more research.  And you need to be a little more objective in your thinking nmoerbeek

http://www.rccarqba.com.ar/

[Image: creces2.jpg]


I see two different pictures and two different men with a shirt - one of them (below) is wearing a suit and the other (above) is not. 
If the man kneeling in the 2nd picture  is Pope Francis, then it looks bad and it is hard to believe the Remnant's explanation.But I'm not sure what is going on.


[Image: bergoglio.jpg]
Reply
#38
It is Pope Francis.  The Remnant don't deny this.  Nobody does.

They simply say he knelt for a blessing from the ecumaniac Franciscan priest (who is being blessed by two Protestants at the same meeting (top Picture)) and the suited Protestant Minister snuck in for a sneaky quick blessing of the Cardinal.

Doesn't look like that though does it?  Looks like they are all willingly blessing each other in an ecumaniacs' orgy

If you have enough cognitive dissonance left on a Friday you could, I suppose, argue that Cardinal Bergoglio intended only to be blessed by the Franciscan priest, despite the fact that that was not what everyone else at the ecumaniac love-in was doing.

But you might up tomorrow with you CD tank empty and only left with common sense.  A scary prospect for some of you.
Reply
#39
(03-15-2013, 05:12 PM)Akavit Wrote:
(03-15-2013, 04:20 PM)Ursus Wrote:
(03-15-2013, 03:52 PM)The Curt Jester Wrote:
(03-15-2013, 03:38 PM)Ursus Wrote: What happens, seriously? Do people like him get banned and the rest just twiddle thumbs and say nice things?

The majority of what he has said could have been condensed in a few posts.  He chooses to constantly find new ways to repeat himself in a variation of the sarcastic tone.

Condensed? Why so it gets buried and ignored. And all the other posts of simply ignore the past and pray. Just think nice thoughts, be charitable.

Being charitable has its limits. We have to defend our faith because who else will? There is active evil in the church. There is active evil, wolves in the highest offices. We can't simply ignore it.

I'd seriously question whether such methods have ever been even a teeny bit successful.  Playing the parrot might work if you've got control of the major media and can keep something in front of people's eyes indefinitely but for the rest of us, it accomplishes little.  After seeing the same content re-posted by the same people in a couple different threads I was only tempted to ignore them.

Brilliant arguments become tiresome when repeated non-stop.  Lame arguments do not become convincing when presented repeatedly.

I also wish the words "charity" and "charitable" were used in the proper manner.  The statement that "being charitable has its limits" makes no sense unless one is going by a false definition of charitable.  Even when pointing out errors in another person's actions, charity is mandatory.  In fact, "fraternal correction" is included in the definition of charity.  The core issue here is motivation.  Is the fraternal correction motivated by the love of God or love of self?  Is it spoken in a manner that tempts others to anger or reflection?

Something that is important to understand is that ridicule, sarcasm and derogatory language are never tactics successfully used by those wanting to convince others of the truth.  People that use them are sometimes successful at convincing others of their own superior intellect but that's not the goal here is it?  Sometimes people think that these methods can be used to defend the Faith but they don't work.  They creates a lot of noise but in the end, only serves to drive others away before they've had a chance to see the point.

Exactly -- esp. with regard to the definition of "charity." Just goes to show some people don't know what they're talking about.

Like you said and like I say, anything that needs to be said can be said without being vile about it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)