A 17th-century engraving of Pope John XXII, who was considered heretical by some in the 1300s. Image courtesy of Creative Commons

Paris conference on deposing a heretical pope looks to the past, not the present

PARIS (RNS) Holding a colloquium to discuss dethroning an erring Roman Catholic pontiff sounds like a call to battle at a time when prominent cardinals say Pope Francis is leading the faithful astray.

Its title, “The Deposition of a Heretical Pope,” added a provocative touch after a rare challenge by four cardinals who last September urged Francis to clarify parts of “Amoris Laetitia” (The Joy of Love), a papal document they said wrongly opened the door to allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive the Eucharist.

So when plans for a conference were reported a few weeks ago, it created quite a buzz on the far right of the Catholic blogosphere.

[ad number=“1”]

As the original U.S. report was picked up and translated around Europe, it looked as if the two-day meeting in Paris could be the place where the next steps in the campaign against the pope were being worked out.

It turned out to be nothing of the sort.

The colloquium at the Law and Religious Societies center of the Université Paris-Sud brought together about 40 experts — mostly canon lawyers and legal historians — to discuss issues highlighted in a recent 1,200-page book on the issue by Laurent Fonbaustier, a professor of public law at the university.

Apart from two Dominicans in white robes and two priests in black cassocks with the wide waist sashes favored by traditionalists, the crowd seemed to be mostly lay academics.

Speakers on Thursday and Friday (March 30 and 31) went back to the New Testament and church crises down through the centuries looking for any legal precedents that might show possible ways to square the circle of papal authority.

The pope is the supreme authority in the Catholic Church but can be judged if he deviates from the faith. There is no agreement on who could be that judge.

A general view is seen of Pope Francis leading the Easter Mass in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican on March 27, 2016. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Alessandro Bianchi


 This image is available for web and print publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

After two days of discussions at the center in a southern Paris suburb, law professor Cyrille Dounot told the concluding session it was impossible to find a solution to the problem in the church’s long legal tradition.

“We’ve asked a question but we can’t answer it,” said Dounot, one of the three organizers of the colloquium. “Maybe we will be able in the future, but that’s improbable.”

Building an actual legal case against Pope Francis was never the point of the meeting anyway, he told RNS. “This is just an academic examination of a disputed question.”

Boris Bernabé, a professor of legal history and the main organizer, expressed surprise at how much attention the small colloquium had raised. Participants knew about the dispute between the conservative cardinals and the pope, but that bore no relation to their debate.

[ad number=“2”]

The colloquium was called to discuss Fonbaustier’s book, he insisted: “This is the way we show off the work of a member of our faculty.

“Our goal was not to imagine in any way — eventual or possible or totally hypothetically — a procedure for deposing a pope,” he said. “No way.”

After explaining that he wrote his thesis in the 1990s but only published it recently, Fonbaustier went even further in distancing the colloquium from any efforts to unseat the present pope.

“I’m not a believer, but I am extremely interested in these religious issues (in legal history),” he explained. “I have no religious attachment whatsoever.”

He did not want his work to be exploited by anyone else. “Of course, in the current context, I understand how it could be read. But it would be very serious if a university let itself be censored because of that,” he said.

[ad number=“3”]

Ultraconservative Catholic websites have discussed the fate of a heretical pope since "Amoris Laetitia" was issued last year.

One website reported last November that a 1975 Brazilian study about deposing a heretical pope was “making the rounds in the Vatican” and “being studied attentively by theologians and prelates in Rome.”

After Pope Francis did not respond to the call to explain his views, the four cardinals — including an American based in Rome, Cardinal Raymond Burke — released the text of their appeal. Burke also gave an interview saying the pope would automatically lose his office if he professed a heresy.

In December, a group of 23 Catholic scholars and clerics issued a letter saying the church was now “drifting perilously like a ship without a rudder, and indeed, shows symptoms of incipient disintegration." They urged the four cardinals to issue a so-called fraternal correction.

The original report by the ultraconservative website Church Militant presented the colloquium in the context of this debate.

It also called the conference location significant because “it was in the 1300s that the University of Paris explored the question of the possibly heretical Pope John XXII." His disputed views were declared heretical and Pope John withdrew them on his deathbed the following year.

Massimo Faggioli, a professor of church history at Villanova University, said the Catholic Church had such a long and checkered history of canon law that it was impossible to find a clear precedent for saying a pope was or was not legitimate.

“The talk about Pope Francis not being really Catholic began soon after his election,” Faggioli told RNS.

“Many people could not believe that we passed within just a few weeks from a German theologian pope to a Latin American Jesuit,” he said. “They’re trying to translate this shock into a biblical or canonical argument.”

(Tom Heneghan is a correspondent based in Paris)

Comments

  1. Heresy. The unimaginable imaginary crime.

  2. “The pope is the supreme authority in the Catholic Church but can be judged if he deviates from the faith. There is no agreement on who could be that judge.”

    God alone, who gave the law, is the Judge.
    James 4:12

    Jesus said in John 12:48,49:
    All who reject me and my message will be judged on the day of judgment by the truth I have spoken. I don’t speak on my own authority. The Father who sent me has commanded me what to say and how to say it.

    ———————-

    The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God. As the Scriptures say,

    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
    and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.”

    So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense. But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength. Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world’s eyes or powerful or wealthy when God called you. Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important. As a result, no one can ever boast in the presence of God. God has united you with Christ Jesus. For our benefit God made him to be wisdom itself. Christ made us right with God; he made us pure and holy, and he freed us from sin. Therefore, as the Scriptures say, “If you want to boast, boast only about the Lord.”
    1 Corinthians 1:18-31

  3. So. In short, up is down, down is up, sideways is neither here nor there, the weak shall be made strong, the strong shall be made weak, and I still can’t find a Ben Affleck movie that I’d want to watch.

  4. Okay, okay, we got it. It’s nothing more than sheer coincidence that a little-known, totally-boring, run-of-the-mill colloquium called “Deposition of a Heretical Pope” just happens to be taking place while Pope Francis is **messing all up** on some issues. Got it.

    But not to worry. Occasionally, those little 1,200-page sedatives that nobody reads except in the dusty cob-web backrooms of obscure French universities, CAN in fact come in handy.

    After all, ya never can tell.
    A little Vatican Impeachment, can go a looooong way!!!

  5. “Far right”, mmmmmh. Where did I see this way of doing journalism?

  6. Can one depose a heretical president?

  7. I won’t say I hated it, but it had all the suspense and interest of a Disney princess movie, but without the swell animation. Just Ben’s beautifully cleft chin, and even that he hidunder a bushel. He must have gone to The Cleft Chin Maker to the Stars!

  8. Sorry, I was pleasantly surprised by his portrayal of Batman and I still like Armageddon with Bruce Willis, but my list of “favorite” Ben Affleck movies is quite short.

  9. Unimaginable that this arcane investigation by obscure academicians should merit any media attention!
    Universal human suffering should consume our oxygen.
    Are we not now in hell with a world in constant convulsions?
    There is no safe harbor here. While some of our suffering is inflicted from nature, we humans inflict the most. Why? Why isn’t more time expended here than ousting an heretical pope?
    Academics demonstrate they have no human priority but abstract musings!
    Buddha hit the nail: life is suffering, and discussions as this Paris gathering is unnecessary suffering.

  10. The “Ultra conservative Church Militant” didn’t end so well on Game of Thrones.

  11. Amazing that these learned men can’t solve a problem which has been solved by Popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church, theologians and an Ecumenical Council long ago:

    Firstly, there have been no heretical Popes in the history of the Church to 1870. Both St. Robert Bellarmine, and Vatican I studied this question in detail:

    In St. Robert’s tome, “CONTROVERSIARUM DE SUMMO PONTIFICE, LIBER QUARTUS, DE POTESTATE SPIRITUALI, he carefully examined all the cases of every true pope who had ever been accused of heresy up to his own time. He proved conclusively that such a thing had never, ever, in fact occurred, and goes even further in chapter 6 of that book to say, “Since it can be proven that no true pope has ever become an heretic, THIS IS A SIGN FROM HEAVEN THAT IT CAN NEVER OCCUR.”

    The topic of a pope becoming a heretic was addressed at the First Vatican Council by Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio: “The question was also raised by a Cardinal, ‘What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?’ It was answered that THERE HAS NEVER BEEN SUCH A CASE; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for FROM THE MOMENT HE BECOMES A HERETIC he is not the head, or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.”

    Secondly:
    IF a Pope were to become an heretic, he would be deposed by GOD for the SIN of herey against DIVINE law. Being then an ordinary man, the proper Church authorities can then formally depose him for the CRIME of heresy against CANON law, in the interest of good Church governance.

    The Papal Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of Pope Paul IV teaches that: if anyone was a heretic before the Papal election, he could not be a valid pope, even if he is elected unanimously by the Cardinals. Canon 188.4 (1917 Code of Canon Law) teachers that : if a cleric (pope, bishop, etc.) becomes a heretic, he loses his office without any declaration by operation of law.

    St. Alphonsus Liguori: – “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious
    and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”

    St. Francis de Sales: – “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”

    St. Robert Bellarmine: – “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”

    St. Antoninus: – “In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a
    body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”

    Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943 – “Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of
    jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church… A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the
    Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.”

    “Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.”
    (Billot — De Ecclesia, 1927.)

    Many other theologians could be quoted to the same effect. What to do with Bergoglio? The answer is obvious!

  12. It might have added context if the article had illuminated what precisely John XXII declared that was subject to such scrutiny. No doubt the particulars can be found elsewhere, but given the illustration at the top of the page, a few more details would have been useful.

  13. I find your argument quite sound, but given that, your nom’ de plume is rather odd.

  14. There is no far right or far left in Catholicism. You are either Catholic or not.

  15. Smokin’ Aces Two. He dies in the first couple minutes and is a surprisingly strong actor as a dead guy.

  16. “A big international CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD IN ROME will be held in Rome on Saturday, April 22: “Bring clarity” the same title-appeal with which four cardinals made public their “dubia” on the most controversial points of “Amoris Laetitia,” Presentations will be given by scholars gathered from all over the world. The distinctive element of the conference is that all of the presentations will be given by laymen and women, DEMONSTRATING THAT THE CONTROVERSY THAT DIVIDES THE CHURCH TODAY IS BY NO MEANS EXCLUSIVE TO A “FEW” REACTIONARY ECCLESIASTICS – as some hazard to say – but involves the whole “people of God.” Nor for that matter are they isolated voices.” http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it

  17. Ecclesia Mellow

    Guy McClung
    Catholic Lane 4/4/2017

    Go and sin, sin on more.
    Mercy, my mercy, sin galore!

    The joy of love, not the sword,
    No division, praise me lord!

    An eye offends? That’s OK,
    Look again, not away.

    Fire everlasting not forever.
    Eternal damning, never, never.

    “Yes is yes” hurts so much.
    “No is no” is out of touch.

    No dog vomits, none returns.
    No sow wallows, no one burns.

    A rigid cross so unreal,
    Good news logic, feel, feel, feel.

    I need a church so I can sin, no hell;
    A mercy church, so all is well.

    Go and sin, sin on more.
    Mercy, my mercy, sin galore!

    Guy McClung San Antonio TX

  18. You’re really, really mean. I like that!

  19. Daniel radclife was able to play a dead guy for a whole movie. Now that is acting.

  20. I do have to say I like Ben a lot, just not as an actor. Just don’t tell my husband!

  21. you obviously don’t read these postings.

  22. If you faithfully follow all of the doctrines of the Church, you are Catholic. If you protest any of them, you no longer are. Reading dissenting people’s opinions on a website is meaningless in this regard.

  23. Not really. Just about every column posted having to do with the church, you have Catholics dumping on other Catholics for not being the right sort of Catholic, Catholics dumping on protestants dumping on Catholics.
    If that were true, no one would be catholic.

  24. You never know where these things can lead to such as 95 talking points listed written in Latin that was submitted for an academic discussion and posted on a church door in October 31, 1517. That also dealt with heresy and corruption. Heretical popes go back well into the Dark Ages.

  25. Francis is the second pope in my 74 years worthy of the title. John XXIII was the other. I got my graduate degree in Theology because of John and I respect Catholicism be cause of Francis. The USCCB is having an illicit relationship with the GOP.

  26. Are Amoris Laetitia and Laudato Se doctrine?

  27. Short answer is that it has to do with precisely when after their deaths faithful Catholics will be in God’s presence.

  28. If you are a Catholic, but don’t believe all of the Church’s doctrines, which derive from its divinely revealed dogmas, then you automatically protest them–as in, you are a protestant. That means you are no longer Catholic, otherwise the Protestants would still be Catholic.

  29. ‘This is just an academic examination of a disputed question’, Absolutely. I’ll buy that. As unrelated to Pope Francis and his public dissenters as those 95 theses were to the Protestant Reformation.

  30. I’m sure the GOP catamite Cardinal Hughes would love to impeach Francis.

  31. Well, by all means, let’s take our assessment of spiritual issues from a fantasy-hstory TV series.

  32. “Are we not now in hell with a world in constant convulsions?”

    No, we’re in “the world” — which is the anteroom to hell. There are two doors leading out of “the world” — the big, broad one leads directly to hell, and the little, narrow one leads to redemption.

  33. Sounds like the “theology” of fear and it occupies your mind, heart, alas!
    This dangerous “theology” is your motivation, not love!

  34. Complain to Jesus — He’s the one who drew the distinction and issued the warning.

  35. Wow! Eschatology has you ‘all shook up’, hasn’t it?

    What to do? Focus on Christ. You know: on the positive.

  36. So, this out of context quote trumps the deeper ethic and teaching of love, especially of the enemy?
    Every saying has equal value evidently for you!

  37. The eschatological focus comes from Christ himself, and therefore needs to be integrated into your spiritual viewpoint. It is to be held, as Christ held it, in balance. Without balance, one falls into either apocalyptic hysteria or fuzzy universalism, and while both qualify as “religion,” neither qualifies as “Christianity.”

  38. Rationalize anything, interpret accordingly.
    “Without balance, one falls into either apocalyptic hysteria or fuzzy universalism, and while both qualify as “religion,” neither qualifies as “Christianity.”
    How ’bout Jesus before Christianity?
    He never heard of the concept.
    Wasn’t JC fuzzy about true worship?

  39. “How ’bout Jesus before Christianity?”

    At bottom, this is a definitional quibble. Let me bypass the issue by calling it “the Christian faith” – which is something that began to happen just as soon as Jesus embarked on his ministry in Galilee, and started attracting followers (actually, even before that, at his baptism, when John declared his faith in Jesus as the Christ). Christ’s preaching defined what He wanted his disciples to believe, and the eschatological theme (including the element of separating sheep and goats unto judgment and reward) was a consistent and fundamental element of His preaching. If we reject it or deliberately ignore it we lose the right to call ourselves fully “Christian” – or, if you prefer, fully “followers of Christ.”

  40. “…Pope John withdrew them on his deathbed the following year.”
    Well, there it is. There’s the answer: “Deathbed.”

  41. They are part of Pope Francis’s ordinary magisterium. And that’s the problem.

  42. Not sure, but I think John XXII’s heretical declaration had to do with the Beatific Vision. He seemed to have claimed that souls of the faithful departed do not get the Beatific Vision until the Last Judgement. That was contrary to the teachings of his predecessors.

    Of course just as he was about to find out if his declaration was true or not, John XXII recanted his teaching at his deathbed. Thus he died still a Pope and a Catholic.

  43. Ahhh. I see. That may perhaps be an interesting question, but one in my mind that would not rise to the level of heresy, but then I’m not Catholic

  44. Thank you for the clarification.

  45. I visited the site, browsed a bit, and have come to the conclusion that your usage of the term is a formative declaration rather than a personal nominative.

  46. Precisely! If one focuses on Christ, there is always and inescapably perfect balance. Love is its foundation and its walls (‘my strength and my fortress’).

    There is, therefore, no reason to fear (‘Love casts out fear.’), and every reason for unbounded confidence.

  47. Me neither so I didn’t see what the big deal was. I did find it interesting that when Angelo Roncalli became Pope in 1958, he chose the name John XXIII. Apparently he didn’t mind the association with an alleged heretic. Of course he went on to start the Second Vatican Council, which many claimed and still claim was heretical.

  48. Even though I’m not a Catholic, I have my personal admiration for Pope Francis. He’s progressive, forward looking, reformist and above all speaks with less dogma and more spirituality. Conservative Catholics are chewing their knuckles. It is time a forward looking Pope with great interest in saving our planet and protecting mankind from narrow-minded, traditionalists should be supported by one and all.

  49. ‘Progressive’? ‘Forward looking’? Makes sense only as a piece of hyperbole.

    Yes, Francis is the only person I know who can boldly march forward while standing still.

  50. It’s a lot better than the rapid backwards advancement of the last two.

  51. You forget JP I. WHat a different world we might be living in had he not so conveniently and accidentally checked out after 30 days and a threat to investigate Vatican ties to less than savory enterprises.

  52. Hell and damn Atkin is the true message of so much of Christianity. You need only read the postings here to see where the emphasis lies for so many people.

  53. I was raised Catholic, but abandoned it rather early and sampled lightly from the mélange of spiritual systems from the East which travelled on the winds of the Jet set in the 1970’s. Like most Americans of the period I imbibed enough to become both drunk and dangerous, as it were, without of course deeply examining that whereof I partook. Whatever merits there are in such systems of belief, I have since hung my hook on Christian evangelicalism, but with reference to the Catholicism of my childhood, I always wondered why John was such a popular choice among Rome’s presiding Bishops’ as opposed to other possible options. After all, there have only been 6 pontiffs named Paul, 10 (?) Leos, etc.

  54. The benchmark of success isn’t the failure of others; it is going beyond where others should have been, not marking time there.

    Truth is Francis has accomplished nothing except heightened public expectation that he’s a progressive. Cynics would say that he has pulled the wool over all our eyes.

  55. I didn’t say he was any good, he’s just better than the last two.

  56. I get you now.

    Yes, he’s better than the previous two; I grant you this. But better ain’t good enough.?

  57. It takes two to schism. The schism started long before Luther when the Roman hierarchy separated from the Bible with its doctrines and sale of church offices. .

  58. Pope Francis is the very model of a modern Modernist Heretic.
    My prediction:
    –God’s gonna take him down by unexpected means.
    Maybe even by a miracle.
    But the fallout is going to be horrific by the law of unintended consequences.

    [Puts on tinfoil hat; starts making popcorn]

  59. Get a second-hand copy of Malachi Martin’s “faction” novel “Vatican.” He admitted that this was the most autobiographical of all his books, with the nefarious prelates under thinly disguised aliases. He has a lot to say about the murder of JP I.

  60. His morals also left something to be desired in even a mediocre pope.
    (understatement of the century)

  61. Remembering the while that
    “He who loves me keeps my commandments.”

  62. Thanks for that.

    There was also a book entitled “a thief in the night” I think, written a few years after he died.

  63. And a thanks in return — I will look it up; have not heard of it.

  64. You have come close to the mindset of the Pharisees.

    Love isn’t about keeping a code of rules, since love cannot be encspsulated in written formulae.

    Jesus left only two ‘rules’: first and foremost, love of God; second (and like it) love of neighbour as oneself. He didn’t go on to spell out what this would mean in practice, because, ultimately, loving in God’s name comes down to love in the power of his spirit, without which no one can truly love…purely, as God himself does.

    The Holy Spirit is not a moral rule, but a living, transforming power. His action in people is often misunderstood by those who prefer to see service of God as reducible to a list of moral ‘dos and don’ts’. That’s why the Pharisees as a whole were hostile to Jesus: he just wouldn’t conform to their concept of divine service.

  65. Excuse me, go look at Mark 10:19. Jesus says you have to first obey the 10 commandments (yes, a code of rules, a list of moral do’s and don’ts 🙂 before you can understand the principle of Love behind them that matures to the greater love that Jesus suggests in Mark 10: 21.

    (And they are the 10 commandments, not the 10 suggestions.)

  66. The two rules are actually “Summations” of the law. And that means keeping the law which Jesus explicitly refers to in Mark 10:19.
    And you need to know that they are “a code of rules,” “a moral rule” which GOD Himself “encapsulated in written formulae”: The 10 Commandments, which Jesus said he did not come to destroy, but to perfectly fulfil.

    We cannot grasp the moving principle of Love behind the 10 Commandments until we grow mature in keeping them, so that the Holy Spirit can move us to the higher plane of Love such that we can want to embrace the suggestion Jesus gives in Mark 10:21. This does not mean that keeping the 10 Commandments is no longer necessary– it means that keeping them is, to a spiritually mature and virtuous person, second nature and effortless.

    And they are indeed called, “the 10 Commandments” not the 10 suggestions”.

  67. You’re a biblical literalist, aren’t you? Well, I’m sorry to disillusion you, but not everything Jesus said was intended by him to be understood exactly as stated; it couldn’t have been, since some of his instructions would have been humanly impossible, or just morally wrong. For example, ‘Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.’ (Matt. 5:48) is not humanly possible, and literally following this, ‘It would be better for him (the one who tempts to sin) if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea…’ (Luke 17:2) , would be a moral violation of Jesus’ command to love even one’s enemies.

    When Jesus (at Mark 10:19) appears to suggest to the rich man that all he need do to inherit eternal life is to keep the Commandments, it can only be by appearance: at Matt 5:17, Jesus makes clear that it is HIS mission to fulfil ‘the law and the prophets’. I’m sure you’re not suggesting that we can do what only Jesus could do: redeem ourselves.

  68. As we humans are not capable of fulfilling the Commandments (otherwise Jesus would not have needed to become incarnate and do it for us), then we cannot, by dint of our weakened nature, ‘grasp the moving principle of love behind the 10 Commandments ‘.

    We will NEVER be able to fulfill the Commandments, but if we have faith in the one who did, then his righteousness is granted to us as pure and loving gift, with no merit on our part. Your approach to personal redemption has mere humans save themselves by their own efforts. This is impossible and blasphemous.

  69. Actually, I think of Pope Francis as a sort of “theological Michael Jackson”, moon-walking backward while appearing to go forward. 🙂

  70. I bow to your superior understanding of the gospels. 🙂

  71. Oh, the credit isn’t mine:it belongs to Christ.

  72. There were a lot of self described prophets wandering around in those times. There are older stories with a similar plot. ..all stories are the story of man.not god.

  73. If your mind is fixed on profane matters, profane lessons are the only thing that knowledge or experience can teach you. If you are convinced there is no God, you can only see a Godless world before you. You are a prisoner of your own self-imposed limitations.

  74. You’re the one bringing up hatred d for the homosecual. You bring up necromania an bestiality.

  75. You’re confused (not exactly a newsflash) and apparently responding to someone else — I haven’t brought up any of those things.

  76. “Word salad”is your designation for anything you can’t understand. And that’s quite a lot — which is why you employ it so often.

  77. “Page 117, of the pope’s book, On Heaven and Earth, in regards to same-sex unions
    “If there is a union of a PRIVATE NATURE, THERE IS NEITHER A THIRD PARTY NOR IS SOCIETY AFFECTED. Now, if this union is given the category of marriage and they are given adoption rights, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and female mother that can help them shape their identity. – Jorge Mario Bergoglio
    Approval of same-sex sexual unions is approval of same-sex sexual acts.
    Prior to being elected pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, by condoning same-sex sexual acts in relationships that he referred to as private, did not include children, and were not called marriage, denied the Sanctity of the marital act. To deny the Sanctity of the marital act, is to deny that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Is The Author of Love, of Life, and of Marriage, and thus deny Salvational Love, God’s Gift of Grace and Mercy. To deny The Divinity of The Blessed Trinity, is an act of apostasy.

    The Word of God Is The Judge. The Law of noncontradiction is clear in regards to The Word of God; one cannot be for Christ if one is against The Word of God Made Flesh

  78. “[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”
    [Galatians 1:8]

Leave a Comment