At the daily ding-dong school of apostasy…

On Gospel Text forbidding Adultery, Francis denounces “Casuistry”

To ensure that no word of Jesus Christ will ever go understood correctly again, “Pope” Francis has been on an unrelenting diabolical mission of twisting Scriptural texts as they come up each day in the Novus Ordo lectionary. Since his installation in 2013, the Casa Santa Marta’s most obnoxious squatter has been distorting biblical passages on a daily basis to advance his very own personal “gospel”, one in which we hear an awful lot about this world, especially the poor and the suffering, but next to nothing about the importance of the afterlife, the soul, grace, justification, faith, the rights and dignity of God, etc.

Before we take a look at what Francis inflicted on his hapless hearers today, Feb. 24, let’s review the Gospel passage on which he preached. The Novus Ordo Gospel reading for the day was Mark 10:1-12:

And rising up from thence, [Jesus] cometh into the coasts of Judea beyond the Jordan: and the multitudes flock to him again. And as he was accustomed, he taught them again. And the Pharisees coming to him asked him: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. But he answering, saith to them: What did Moses command you? Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away. To whom Jesus answering, said: Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you that precept. But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing. And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

This is really not a very difficult text to comprehend. It is rather black and white, even “rigid.” The only “problem” with it, for Francis, is that it is a scathing rebuke of his own heretical theology that permits adultery and even makes it into a moral imperative at times (see Amoris Laetitia, n. 303).

How was Francis going to get around this divine refutation of his own wicked heresy? Although we don’t have the verbatim text of Francis’ entire homily, we do have the following summary with substantial quotes, as reported by Crux:

Reflecting on divorce and remarriage on Friday, perhaps the key issue in debates over his document on the family Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis said the key is to hold justice and mercy together, not becoming obsessed with the fine points of legal interpretation. The pontiff’s remarks came during his morning homily in the chapel at the Domus Santa Marta, the Vatican residence where he lives, and were prompted by the day’s Gospel passage in which Jesus responds to legal scholars asking him about the rules for divorce.

The pope said Jesus “doesn’t respond as to whether it’s licit or not; he doesn’t enter into casuistic logic,” using a term from moral theology referring to the application of broad principles to concrete cases. Francis, however, appeared to be using the term “casuistry” not in that sense, but rather as a synonym for a legalistic approach to interpreting God’s will.

“They thought about the faith only in terms of ‘you can’ or ‘you can’t, up to what point you can’t [sic] and at what point you can’t’,” Francis said, referring to the legal scholars. “Jesus always speaks the truth,” Francis said, “and explains things as they were created.” For that reason, Francis said, Jesus said bluntly to his disciples: “Whoever repudiates his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if the wife repudiates her husband and marries another commits adultery.” Jesus spoke, he said, “without casuistry, and without permissions.” Francis then asked, if it’s true that Jesus defined adultery as a grave sin, how is it possible that Jesus also spoke with an adulterer and said to her at one point, “I don’t condemn you, go and sin no more?” “The path of Jesus, and we see this clearly, is a journey from casuistry to truth and mercy,” Francis said. “Jesus sets aside casuistry,” Francis said. “To those who want to test him, those who thinks in terms of the logic of ‘can or can’t,’ he describes them – not here, but in other passages of the Gospel – as ‘hypocrites.’”

According to Pope Francis, it’s not careful legal reasoning but the integration of mercy and justice that marks the path of Christ. “When temptation touches the heart, this path of exiting from casuistry to truth and mercy isn’t easy, it needs the grace of God so we can go forward in that direction,” Francis said. “A casuistic mentality would ask, ‘What’s more important to God, justice or mercy?’ That’s a sick way of thinking,” Francis said. “There aren’t two things, only one. For God, justice is mercy and mercy is justice.” “The Lord helps us understand this path, which isn’t easy, but it will make us happy, and will make lots of people happy,” he said.

(“On divorce/remarriage, Pope says keep justice and mercy together”, Crux, Feb. 24, 2017; paragraph breaks condensed.)

So we can see that Francis gets around Christ’s condemnation of his own heresy by pretending that Christ’s teaching is actually his (Francis’), and throwing a canard about “casuistry” into the mix so as to distract his listeners.

Now let’s take this sophistry apart.

First, when one reads the Gospel text, as quoted above, it becomes very clear that the teaching of our Lord is not difficult to understand. Francis claims that Christ “doesn’t respond as to whether it’s licit or not” for a man to divorce his wife and marry another, but that’s simply a lie. Our Lord does respond. He says no, it is not licit — no other conclusion from His words is possible: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder…. Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her” (Mk 10:9,11).

Yet Francis, being the demagogue that he is and always trying to come up with fake support from Scripture for his own false and perverted gospel, tries to make it seem as though simply asking the question is a matter of “casuistic logic” — as though there were something inherently wrong with the question of whether divorce and remarriage are permitted or condemned. That’s not “casuistry” (in the pejorative sense Francis tries to assign to it), it’s a completely normal and legitimate question in moral theology. Notice that our Lord does not object to the question and does not criticize the Pharisees for posing it. It is only Francis who claims that there is something wrong with even asking about this.

Our Lord does criticize the Pharisees for something, and curiously enough it’s the one thing Francis completely glances over in his homily: Christ criticized the Pharisees for permitting divorce and remarriage! Moses, Jesus makes clear, only permitted it under the old law because of their hardness of heart (see Mk 10:5). But now that our Lord has ushered in the dispensation of grace and mercy, divorce and remarriage are once again forbidden — the very opposite of what Francis would have you believe — thus restoring the original design of God, “from the beginning of creation” (v. 6).

As usual, Francis’ words do not make a whole lot of sense and are clearly geared only towards one thing: condemnation of “casuistry”, one of his favorite topics to rail against (as he did in a Q&A on Oct. 24, 2016). Yet it is precisely this “casuistry”, this rigid black-and-white thinking that permits and forbids, that is exhibited by our Lord Jesus Christ in this Gospel passage, for the divine teaching clearly states that adultery is forbidden, and this is presented not as an “ideal” for which we “should” strive but as a moral absolute that admits of no exceptions.

Now let’s recall what Francis stated last November:

In education we are used to dealing with black and white formulas, but not with the grey areas of life. And what matters is life, not formulas. We must grow in discernment. The logic of black and white can lead to abstract casuistry. Discernment, meanwhile, means moving forward through the grey of life according to the will of God. And the will of God is to be sought according to the true doctrine of the Gospel and not in the rigidity of an abstract doctrine.

(from Q&A with Francis, Nov. 25, 2016; excerpted here)

This is nothing but Modernist feel-good drivel easily refuted by a brief glance at the Gospel text. The words of our Lord on adultery are rigid and black-and-white. They are, if you will, precisely a “formula”: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” This is the true doctrine of the Gospel. It is precisely a logic of “can/cannot”. There is nothing “grey” here that changes depending on what you “discern” while “moving forward” in the flow of “life”.

Ah! But then why, if adultery is a sin, does Christ offer forgiveness for it elsewhere? Obviously because Christ came to redeem us and forgive us our sins if we are truly contrite! “Be it known therefore to you, men, brethren, that through him forgiveness of sins is preached to you: and from all the things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38). There is no “setting aside casuistry” or “moving from casuistry to truth and mercy.” It’s simply a matter of generously forgiving a grave wrong that had been committed. But the wrong remains a wrong; the “cannot” remains forbidden. This isn’t legalism. This is the Gospel.

Contrary to the impression he likes to give, it is actually Francis who is the Pharisee in all this. The holy doctrine of Jesus Christ is simple, beautiful, coherent, challenging, and binding. But to Francis and his Modernist cohort, the Gospel truth is a “stone of stumbling, and a rock of scandal” (1 Pet 2:8), a “hard saying” which one “cannot accept” (Jn 6:61). Under the guise of false mercy, he and his ilk obfuscate and distort the saving truth of our Lord into a false doctrine that pleases the ears of the masses (cf. 2 Tim 4:3), while in the same breath condemning the true doctrine of Christ as pharisaical.

There is a very hot place in hell for people like that.

Image source: (Vatican News; screenshot)
License: fair use

Share this content now:

46 Responses to “On Gospel Text forbidding Adultery, Francis denounces “Casuistry””

  1. Junior Ribeiro

    “There is a very hot place in hell for people like that.”

    …and I do not want to be in their shoes when they get there!

    • Pedro

      Only too well. They are deceivers. Wolves in sheeps’ clothing. May the Almighty God have mercy on them. Or punish their obstinacy. As God wills.

    • Siobhan

      I don’t think they do, if we are talking about the masses of VII Sectarians (sometimes referred to as Novus Ordo Catholics,) attending invalid NO masses in parishes throughout the world. They are immersed in the Heresy of Modernism. Also- immersed in the ramifications of the Heresy of Modernism ( such as the destruction of The Church’s very teachng on the Primacy of Peter,) –are the FSSP, SSPX, etc.

  2. James Pridmore

    Would anyone ever have imagined the continuing condemnation of a “pope” for heresy, apostasy and outright deception? That rebukes would become so routine that people just throw up their hands and pray fervently that God might mercifully end the Francis “papacy”? I realize it’s not very Christ-like of me but I hope our Heavenly Father hits the smite button soon. I’m tired of watching this thug destroy the Church from within.

    • Michael S

      He’s not “within” the Church. As a heretic, he, and all the modernists of his ilk and the last 50 years of apostasy are by definition outside of the Church. The only thing he’s destroying is the public face of what the world thinks is Catholic, but sadly is NOT Catholic and has not been Catholic for 50 years. If Franko were to suddenly croak they’d replace him with another heretic, as all the “Cardinals” are apostates or heretics themselves. It’s a complete mess, but one things for sure… these people aren’t Catholic. The Vatican along with every church occupied by Novus Ordo has fallen into the hands of the enemy. God save us.

      • Pedro

        That is a bell ringing comment, Michael S. May more true Catholics verbalize as you have here, putting the truth in plain speech that no man may ignore, if he is sincere.

      • James Pridmore

        He most certainly is within the Church today. As are his many sycophants. The fact that a small minority of the faithful reject Bergoglio has no bearing whatsoever on his office. The vast majority of the 1.2 billion Catholics still recognize him as pope. And I would also suggest that a majority of the 1.2 billion Catholics consider his ‘teachings’ to be merciful and necessary to comport with modern day mores. The mainstream media, as expected, characterize Burke and those like him as the radical far right due to rigid and doctrinaire positions. It’s exactly as Bergoglio would have it. He’d like nothing more than formal schism to occur. What better way for him to consolidate his position. Schism would leave him holding all Vatican assets as well as retaining media channels; those outlets Bergoglio et al. direct and those sympathetic to his revolution.

        When will the college of cardinals do something to correct and/or depose this imposter? Well, my guess is never. Because Jorge, sadly, has the leverage. He’s been picking a fight from the moment of his election.

        • Pedro

          “He’s been picking a fight from the moment of his election.”-This is precisely the reason he was selected, replete with his Marxist training.

        • Michael S

          A “small minority of the faithful” rejected Arianism and they were then the True Church… as Arians are heretics and outside the Church. Just as Pope Saint Pius X condemned modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies”, the modernists of the Vatican and the rest of the Novus Bogus clown show are not Catholic, but heretics and apostates.

          His “office” is illegitimate and invalid due to the FACT that a heretic cannot be elected to be a Bishop, nor a Pope (Cum Ex Apostolatus). The “office” is vacant. And the supposed “1.2 Billion” would be “Catholics” that follow this pied piper and the last 5 apostate anti-popes are pipping their way to the hot dregs of hellfire if they don’t snap out of it and pull their heads out of the sand.

          Considering the filth of post Vat2 “theology” & “mercy” as “necessary” is to be a heretic and to cut oneself away from Truth and the Church.

          Burke is also an apostate and a heretic. Just because he gets a little miffed with the leftist heresies of another apostate does not make him an orthodox Catholic. NONE OF THESE PEOPLE ARE CATHOLIC as they do NOT profess the faith FULL AND ENTIRE.

          THERE IS NO COLLEGE OF CARDINALS. Only a modernist group parading around as if they were “cardinals, bishops, priests” and even a head clown, grand high pooh bah modernist… “pope”. Not Catholic. All these people will burn unless they wake up before death.

          • James Pridmore

            Blah, blah, blah, all the same claptrap. Quite possibly the only person more dangerous than Bergoglio in the Church today is the strident, sanctimonious, arrogant militant. Congratulations on being the last true Catholic in existence. In my experience it’s always the self-righteous ones you have to watch. They often seem to have a double standard of what’s expected of others versus what’s morally acceptable for them. No doubt it’s this mechanism that allows Bergoglio to have significant leverage over certain of the clergy who otherwise might rise up; he’s got pictures.

            No matter what you spew and how many times you spew it won’t change the fact that Bergoglio et al. retain the appearance, at large, of the true Catholic Church. Schism will only reinforce Jorge’s hold of the sheep as those clergy who still believe in absolute truth and longstanding doctrine will wind up a splinter faction and cast as the ‘far right rot’ in the mainstream media. The purge has already begun if you hadn’t noticed.

          • Michael S

            Oh my. Site a source to a modernist and suddenly its “blah, blah, blah” and “claptrap”. The absurdity is your contradictory attitude. I’m not the last Catholic, but you certainly don’t appear to be one of the few who remain faithful. Sad.

            “… blah blah arrogant militant”… you’ve got militant right at least (Church Militant), but you sound just like Bergoglio and his Cpt. Crunch brigade of leftist condemnations against those who hold to Tradition. Dangerous to the idea that compromised heretics like yourself are actually Catholic perhaps.

            Its also cute how you self righteously condemn those who are “self righteous”, another page out of the Bergoglian strategy book. Well done, you’ve been properly formed in the modernist playbook. Do consider becoming Catholic however as your soul is at stake.

            The ship has already sunk buddy. All the “sheep” who hold Bergoglio as their “Papa” and implement his globalist heresies into their lives and in their minds are heretics. Those who teach, conform to and/or participate, even support his and the 50 year old apostate V2 “church” are heretics and outside the Church. The good news is heretics can convert… BUT tick tock Jamie, you won’t want to face Judgement on the wrong side of the fence… or sitting on the fence for that matter.

          • James Pridmore

            My 87 year old mother considers Bergoglio to be the Pope, Mikey. She’s a devout Catholic. She actually asked my father to propose marriage at St. Francis Xavier Church in their home town. He complied. My mother tells me that Blase Cupich is conservative. They told her so via the mainstream media. She thinks Jorge is humble and merciful. That’s how he’s represented in the mainstream. She has nothing but high praise for Wojtyla. We disagree on whether he should be a saint. She doesn’t question it. She is bothered by some of what she hears and sees today but not to an extent that makes her question authority. For many years she was on the altar committee and has fond memories of playing a vital role for the Church. She is obedient and she’s not alone. We often discuss the post Vatican II Church (my father was a sedevacantist while my mother strove to be a daily communicant) and while she generally hears me out, she also makes it clear that she’s too old to begin questioning how the Church is run.

            There are approximately 1.2 billion Catholics. I am confident that many more are like my mother than are like you. As for me, you’re completely wrong but a quick review of my Disqus comments would have shown that to be the case. But you obviously engage your mouth before engaging your brain. You’re a blowhard. Nothing more.

          • Michael S

            Its hard for most people… especially modernists… to understand objective speech apparently. Its not for me to judge your mothers level of culpability but it sure is a shame she wasn’t formed well enough in the faith to see the apostasy as it was happening. She’s a victim and so are the heretics that are born protestant. Objectively… you don’t get a free pass for being a mother, or for being a really devoted heretic. You also don’t get a pass for being a really really devout pagan. Go figure you have to be a Catholic that professes the faith in its entirety and you are obliged to cut away from heresy and heretics and hold uncompromisingly to Tradition. This isn’t rocket science.

            You think I don’t have family that hold to similar errors? We all know people that fall for the lies and the tricks of the world. Just because we have mothers and brothers and whatever, doesn’t mean they are exempt because it makes you feel sad. Get over it, do all you can to convert them to the truth and put it in Gods hands. Pitching a fit over me calling error error is kind of retarded.

            Rather than browse through whatever comments you’ve made in the past… irrelevant and a waste of my time. Here are your words in this very relevant thread… the words of a compromising modernist:

            You: “The vast majority of the 1.2 billion Catholics still recognize him as
            pope. And I would also suggest that a majority of the 1.2 billion
            Catholics consider his ‘teachings’ to be merciful and necessary to
            comport with modern day mores.”

            To consider the blasphemous and anti-Catholic NONSENSE and idiocy that sprays out of the pie hole of Franko the apostate clown as “necessary” is moronic and heretical. Heresy is NEVER necessary, and NEVER appropriate and to say that it is is to be a HERETIC.

            Again… tick tock Jamie… tick tock…

          • James Pridmore

            I stand by what I wrote. But I’m not in the majority I referenced. Had you done your homework instead of shooting off your arrogant blah, blah, blah, you’d know that. But cretins like you think they have the high ground only you don’t. Bergoglio, regrettably, has the leverage. To think your ranting somehow places you in a Catholic majority is laughable. But as I stated, arrogant, sanctimonious militants like you are a present danger. You are exactly the type of buffoon Bergoglio is playing off of in the media.

            What I am is a realist. You can continue to delude yourself about all your claptrap but I’ll continue to face facts. We are at war. Bergoglio et al. come dressed for battle every day. They are winning. It’s time for someone, anyone to put a stop to the imposter in the Vatican who is more like Aleister Crowley, freemason and occultist, than a Doctor of the Church.

            But as I stated in my first post, I doubt anyone will attempt to correct or depose Bergoglio. It appears that no one has the courage or maybe they realize schism will only bolster the revolution of Bergoglio et al. in the end. I hope I’m wrong. If I’m not wrong then I pray God intercedes and, mercifully, puts Jorge out of his misery.

          • Michael S

            Don’t stand by your nonsense, that was your way out with a little saving of face. Perhaps you typed that in haste… just an error. NOPE, you’ve now confirmed your compromising approach. Homework? I’m suppose to study you and your comment history before I can call you a compromising modernist when you say a compromising modernist thing? That’s a new one. But I’ll pass. I’d never have time to do anything else if I followed that line.

            “Catholic majority”… what does that even mean Jamie? Do you believe that the Catholic Church is a democracy? Because its not, never has been and that would add to the list of the heretical ideas you hold too. Where there’s one, more are sure to follow because error leads to error. What a tragic tale.

            Boldly standing against heresy and error appears “arrogant” to heretics. And according to fence sitting compromisers or “realists” like yourself… We (those who boldly stand for TRUTH and NOTHING LESS) are the “real danger”. What a crock of Francis style sophisms. Do you think about what you say before you put it out there? You are literally play by play out of Franko’s arsenal. UNBELIEVABLE!

            Then you condemn ole Franko for what now? He’s a little to leftist for you? Isn’t he just being a “realist”? Facing facts? Come on. You have to see the contradiction here. Calling him a “occultist” although probably true is not the issue here. Secret sins don’t have the moral effect on the public as do PUBLIC sins of apostasy and heresy. This is the issue.

            I come to battle with the Truth and 2000 years of Tradition on my side and you call me a “militant, arrogant… threat… blah blah” yet you turn around out of the other side of your mouth and call for war against Bergoglio “to put a stop to this imposter”… what nonsense. And replace him with who? Another Novus dis-Ordo heretic? That will accomplish nothing but another line in the anti-papacy. Wake up! How can you not see what’s going on here???

            This is what happens when you compromise. Your whole life and mind become contradictory… error breeds error and your whole life becomes a contradiction. Shake it off man. You can do it. You are not alone in this battle against error, compromise and contradiction. Step it up!

          • James Pridmore

            You somehow think your position is the dominant position in the ‘true’ Catholic Church. You’re delusional. Your strident, sanctimonious blah, blah, blah is meaningless. It’s just prattle apparently intended to make you look informed or something but has no basis in reality. But arrogance is your hubris. Like Satan.

          • Michael S

            So, no refutation at being called a modernist, or believing the Catholic Church is a democracy or any of the Francis style insults you so “arrogantly” condemn me with?

            If “arrogance” was heresy then maybe you’d be on to something. BUT its not. Modernism is though and compromise is condemned over and over and over and over and over again. Stand up and be a man oh Jamie who calls for war.

            What do you stand for? Being non-arrogant? Francis arrogantly stands for that JUST LIKE YOU DO. Lets all hold hands and be nice to eachother, but don’t point out any errors because that’s just “militant”… COME ON.

            Now that I’ve pointed out your errors “militantly” you have no logic or reason or doctrine to fall onto… not even any tradition… nope… all that’s left is to compare my “arrogance” to Satan. WOW. What about your arrogance?

            Its not very nice to call people “arrogant” or “sanctimonious”… wow, I think you are contradicting yourself with a double standard yet again. ERROR BREADS ERROR. COMPROMISE FRACTURES THE MIND. W A K E U P.

            Side note on “sanctimonious”… do you know the definition of this word? Because I don’t think it means what you think it means.

          • James Pridmore

            Yes, I know the word sanctimonious. It suits you along with arrogant, strident, militant and lazy. And, as I questioned, maybe you have problems that cause you to act the way you do. Possibly alcohol? Your screeds seem to be barely coherent. But that arrogance apparently makes you believe you are in possession of esoteric knowledge. It’s laughable.

            You don’t hold the high ground. You hold nothing. You don’t speak for the 1.2 billion Catholics out there. And I see no need to defend myself to you. My Disqus comments are public. You would see my position on modernism and Vatican II if you weren’t so lazy. But rather than research it and realize your error, you prefer to ignore the truth because it doesn’t suit your delusional narrative. You’re a buffoon.

            Let me guess Mikey. Your whole life you’ve been told what tremendous potential you have? Only you’ve never realized it, have you? I think your parents should have been more forthright with you. Psst, you’re nothing special.

          • Michael S

            How “arrogant” of you to call me a “buffoon”. And how “lazy” of you not to lift a finger to defend the contradictions you have “publicly” published. You’re just a walking contradiction aren’t you Franko? Whoops… you are so similar to Franko in your tactics and your “militant” condemnation and ad hominem wishy washy nonsense… you’ll have to forgive the slip… perhaps it was intentional? But that would be “arrogant”.

            “Barely coherent”? You’re really losing grip on reality with all that compromise eh heretic? Sad. I am typing in plain English. Perhaps English is not your first language? Or perhaps the alcohol problem is your own guilty projection? Who knows? The more you type the less sense you make… you might want to quit while you are behind.

            Lets see… you think its just fine and dandy for Franko the apostate to teach his “necessary mercy to fit the times” (paraphrase, because its so stupid I can’t bare to type it word for word), you also think apparently that the Catholic Church is a democracy and that the “Majority” is all that matters… another heresy, at least by proxima. You also feel free to “militantly” condemn anyone who is “arrogant” with pure and “self righteous” arrogance… (NOTE: this is a perfect example of Pharisaical HYPOCRISY)

            Did I leave anything out? Whatever, it will suffice.

            More ad homenim… put down the crack pipe… or the bottle of scotch, or whatever you’re imbibing and go take a nap. Other heretics are getting ashamed for you. Sleep it off… then wake up and stop being a heretic, a compromiser and whatever other nonsense you hold to and become Catholic.
            Good day!

          • James Pridmore

            Have a good night Mikey. But do yourself a favor and put down the bottle.

          • James Pridmore

            I would if I were you Mikey, you clearly have serious issues. I’m seriously concerned for your welfare.

            As for me, I welcome New Jerusalem. It can’t happen soon enough.

          • Michael S

            Typical for a heretic to put the cart before the horse. JUDGEMENT comes at death. We don’t all go to heaven. Even non-heretics that actually hold the Catholic faith without compromise are not all saved. Attachment to sin sends people to hell in droves. I could very easily be one of them. But you… have NO chance if you don’t drop your nonsense and stand up… be a man… and hold to the faith without compromise and contradiction.

          • James Pridmore

            Come on Mikey, give yourself more credit, you’re definitely bound for hell.

          • Michael S

            Well, its a step in the right direction that you even believe in hell. Congratulations! You’re one step closer to being a non-heretic. Keep coming… you can do it! Try another step in the right direction…

          • James Pridmore

            Nah, the truth is you’re also incredibly boring. Add that to lazy, arrogant, sanctimonious and militant. In fairness, it’s probably not your fault but as a result of your *ahem* problem. There’s no shame in it. But let’s just put ‘addled’ on the list.

          • Michael S

            (Sigh) You’re rather “lazy” attempt to deflect defending your errors and contradictions by calling me lazy for not hunting through everything you’ve ever written in the past sure makes a lot of sense. Wait… no it doesn’t, because its ABSURD.

            Absurdity is followed by pathetic ad hominem baseless accusations. You and Hillary and Franko all play from the same playbook. Go to bed! Take your liberal handbook and burn it. Goodnight Hillary, Jamie, Franko… whoever you are, same “claptrap” style plays. Why are you even here? Did you Troll on accident?

          • James Pridmore

            Put down the bottle, Mikey. You’re blathering on and on only semi-coherently. You clearly have an inflated sense of self worth. It’s not warranted. I realize it’s a tough blow to the ego but you’re mediocre at best. You may want to try humility. Have a good night and sleep it off.

          • Michael S

            So you are “lazy”, and either a liar or a moron? Hard to tell, since I’ve never claimed to be:
            1. A drinker 2. Better than anyone 3. Holier than thou 4. Anything more than mediocre.

            Do try to keep it honest heretic. It makes the conversation go smoother. Perhaps this is why you are so confused with my PLAIN ENGLISH.

            But heretics usually have no problem with lies because they believe lies… and live a lie. Sad. Put down the “self righteous” hammer of “arrogance” and pick up your Rosary. You’re running out of time.

          • Michael S

            Whoops again. I forgot to comment on your “esoteric knowledge” red flag. What are you some kind of Rosicrucian or some freako Gnostic? Secret knowledge? You get weirder by the message. Then you go on to accuse me of trying to be special?

            I’m just like everyone else buddy and we are all held to the same commandments of God. What’s special about that? I’m special for recognizing that I have to do what God has commanded us to do through His One and Only Church? That’s pretty thin modernist. Go to bed… sleep it off… before you hurt yourself with all that nonsense.

          • James Pridmore

            Are you a drinker Mikey? Because your screed reminds me of someone with a problem. Alcohol or maybe pharmaceuticals?

          • Michael S

            HA! Another modernist tactic… AD HOMENIM! Classic. Come on buddy, put the modernist handbook away, you’re becoming painfully predictable. No reason, no logic, no evidence, no sources… gotta draw from the personal attack card. Well played, but not really. LAME. How do you take yourself seriously?

          • Michael S

            Compromising types, modernists, etc… talk out of both sides of their mouth. Its easy to miss their nonsense.

  3. Pedro

    “Eli! Eli! Lama sabacthani!”, Jesus’ words ring in our ears as, once again, His Divine Humanity is tortured by the words of this Pharisee, Francis. May God have mercy on this heretic. Holy Mary, Hammer of Heretics, intercede for the True Church, the faithful remnant in the catacombs and hiding places.

    • Michelle

      “Eli! Eli! Lama sabacthani!” Jesus quotes the first line in Psalm 22., in the way first century Jews did to call attention to the whole psalm, like we do for our modern hymns. The psalms were not numbered for easy reference as they are now. The context being Jesus was being ridiculed and mocked while hanging on the cross and psalm 22 was his answer to the ugly crowd. They pretty much shut up after that response from him. Pope Frank, bulls of bashan, dogs, lions, wild oxen please read Psalm 22. The Lord hears, dominion belongs to him, he rules. For you cannot keep yourself alive and you will bow to the dust before Him.

  4. Michael S

    God save us… the double tongued trickery of these modernists gets more sophisticated every day. “… when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?” Every day there seems a little less of it… faith that is.

  5. Thomas

    I guess the next logical question would be: Where did annulments come from? Do you believe that every annulment is false and those who have them are in adultery? If the Church created annulments and their rules, then wouldn’t they be allowed to change those rules?

  6. MaryMirele

    If you read more excerpts from the Pope’s homily (, you’ll see he actually does believe adultery is a black-and-white situation:

    “They only thought of the faith in terms of ‘it can’ or ‘it cannot’ be done, up to where it can, up to where it cannot “ be done. The Pontiff describes it as the “logic of casuistry,” in which “Jesus does not enter.”

    In fact, the Savior addresses a question to them: “But what did Moses order? What is in your Law?” And they “explain the permission that Moses gave to repudiate one’s wife, and they are in fact the ones who fall into the trap. Because Jesus describes them as ‘hard of heart’: ‘Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote this norm for you,’ and He says the truth, without casuistry, without permissions – the truth,” continued Francis.

    Jesus never negotiates with the truth, commented the Pontiff. And He does so also when His disciples ask him about adultery, to whom He repeats: “One who repudiates his wife and marries another, commits adultery toward her, and if she has repudiated her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

    • Novus Ordo Watch

      Being a typical Modernist, Francis will affirm in one sentence what he denies three sentences later. In Amoris Laetitia, he made clear that he sees sin not as a transgression of the divine law but as an imperfect attainment of virtue.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.