My latest in PJ Media:
Pope Francis’ new encyclical, Fratelli tutti: sulla fraternità e l’amicizia sociale (“All Brothers: On Fraternity and Social Friendship”) will be issued on October 3, the Vatican confirmed Saturday. According to Church Militant, the encyclical is “a sequel to his controversial Abu Dhabi pact with Grand Imam Ahmad al-Tayyeb last year, and will cite Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas], a Palestinian backer of terrorism, as an example of ‘peace’ and ‘fraternity.’” No, this is not the Babylon Bee; this is real.
It gets even worse. According to Vatican News, “The theme of fraternity is also present in [the Pope’s] constant embrace of migrants, epitomized in his pastoral visit to Lampedusa. His signing of the Document on Human Fraternity in Abu Dhabi in 2019 marks one more example of Pope Francis’ dedication to promoting brotherly love.”
Brotherly love. As I told Church Militant, Mahmoud Abbas has made it abundantly clear over the years that he doesn’t want peace, but the total destruction of Israel as a Jewish state and the eradication of all Jews from the region. After two jihad groups, the Mourabitoun and the Mourabitat, began violent riots on the Temple Mount in September 2015, he applauded: “We bless you; we bless the Mourabitoun and the Mourabitat. We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem. This is pure blood, clean blood, blood on its way to Allah. With the help of Allah, every shaheed (martyr) will be in heaven, and every wounded will get his reward. All of their steps, we will not allow them. All these divisions, Al-Aqsa is ours, and the (Church of the) Holy Sepulcher is ours, everything is ours, all ours. They (the Jews) have no right to desecrate them with their filthy feet and we won’t allow them to.”
Abbas envisions the total expulsion of Jews from a Palestinian state: “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli – civilian or soldier – on our lands.” And as for regarding all human beings as brothers, both Sunni and Shi’ite Islam teach that the lives of non-Muslims are not worth as much as the lives of Muslims. Reliance of the Traveller, a classic Sunni manual of Islamic sacred law, explains matter-of-factly that “the indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid for a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth that of a Muslim” (o4.9). The Qur’an calls “the unbelievers among the People of the Book,” that is, Jews and Christians who do not accept Islam, “the most vile of created beings” (Qur’an 98:6).
There is much more. Read the rest here.
CogitoErgoSum says
He should wait until April 1.
J Morgan says
Unfortunately he is not a fool for God, but a fool of the anti-christ.
CogitoErgoSum says
The attitude of this Pope toward his faith is summed up at the end of this film clip. He thinks piety and respect for the old ways within the Church are a joking matter. I admire the little boy for not allowing his hands to be pried apart. Francis just laughs it off … but that boy’s folded hands did bother him so. I just wonder why. I think deep within himself he finds his religion embarrassing. Actually, it’s not funny at all and really quite sad. See here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QgP0YaOLT4
James Lincoln says
CogitoErgoSum,
Thanks for the clip – a very odd attempt at humor by the leader of the Roman Catholic Church…
JamesC. says
The Encyclical will probably contain:
a lot of good and sound stuff, that a Christian pastor & bishop ought to say;
a lot of things that are well worth saying, but not free of all ambiguity;
and some dodgy stuff, of questionable value.
And it will probably be needlessly verbose, and three times longer than it needs to be.
I think bishops who compose Encyclicals should as a matter of course decide to write at no greater length than that of a book of the Bible. 50 pages of the equivalent of a sheet of A4 – and preferably, something much shorter – ought to be more than enough for what needs to be said. I make that about 17,000 words. Brevity really is the soul of wit. I like long books, but Encyclicals ought never to be long. If a great deal has to be said, write either a book, or a series of Encyclicals.
gravenimage says
Pope’s New Encyclical to Praise Jihad Terror Supporter as Example of ‘Peace’ and ‘Fraternity’
…………………
The denial runs to insane levels here.
JamesC. says
In a sense, he is completely right.
Mahometanism is indeed a religion of peace.
It values fraternity very highly.
Between Mahometans, that is.
But with kaffirs ? Not so much. Nor with “hypocrites”. And not with Jews.
The grave is a very peaceful place.
curious george says
gravenimage & JamesC
+1
“To argue with a person who has denounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”
– Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
James Lincoln says
Thanks for the quote, curious george…
Wellington says
Whether ignorant or evil, the effect of Francis is essentially the same, i.e., a disaster for Catholicism, for all of Christianity, for all of the West.
And Benedict XVI is still living, seven and a half years since he resigned his office, officially for health reasons. But I remain dubious, Benedict being one of only five or six Popes to do so in the over two thousand year history of the Papacy—and the only one to do so since the 15th century.
Conclusion (and let it be noted that I am very much NOT a conspiracy theorist—for example, I am convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed JFK): In any case, a la Hamlet, there is something very rotten in the Vatican.
Yes, could be wrong, but rather doubt it. Actually, I wish I were wrong, but no real evidence to date supports error on my part. This new encyclical by the Latin American Leftist who is now pontifex maximus only confirms my assertion and in no way that I can discern refutes it.
Wellington says
Just needed to add that Vatican II (1962-1965) is still biting Roman Catholicism in its religious butt. If you seek the source of why the decrepit and woeful man who is now Pope is such, you need look no further than Vatican II.
What a disaster this ecumenical council has turned out to be. Pope Francis serves as partial proof of this.
And so, damn Pope John XXIII (1958-1963) who called Vatican II (and the next Pope, Paul VI {1963-1978}, an efficient bureaucrat but still a mediocrity, who completed the foolishness begun by his predecessor). This holy but silly man, John XXIII, did just about the stupidest thing a person can do, i.e., he attempted to fix something that wasn’t broken. The many sexual scandals, never mind the fool presently occupying the throne of St. Peter, as well as the beauty of the Latin Mass effectively done away with, can all be laid at the pontifical feet of Angelo Roncalli.
What a sorrowful legacy. And not only Catholicism, not only Christianity in general, but all the West suffers to this day for this. Pope Francis I serves as prima facie evidence of this massive folly. And the Western Left and Islam are taking advantage of this folly. You bet they are.
James Lincoln says
Wellington,
To your point regarding Vatican II:
Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate 3, October 28, 1965
===============
“The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth… They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan, to whose faith Muslims eagerly link their own. Although not acknowledging him as God, they venerate Jesus as a prophet, his Virgin Mother they also honor, and even at times devoutly invoke. Further, they await the day of judgment and the reward of God following the resurrection of the dead. For this reason they highly esteem an upright life and worship God, especially by way of prayer, alms-deeds and fasting.”
===============
And there was something very fishy about the “resignation” of hope Benedict XVI. He cited his “advanced age and deteriorating strength” as the impetus for his resignation
https://www.usccb.org/committees/ecumenical-interreligious-affairs/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-islam
GreekEmpress says
Many of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and parish priests have succumbed to the “woke” social justice concepts promoted by Pope Francis, including acceptance of unlimited illegal immigration,
urging parishioners to acknowledge “white privilege”,
and criticism of countries protecting their borders.
But the idea framed by Vatican II that Muslims worship God is, I feel, most appalling. I think they worship what they believe is a supreme being, but in no respect does it resemble the God of Christians and Jews.
Ok, I’m done. Time to join the Greek Emperor for a beer—
Happy Labor Day to all at JW!
b.a. freeman says
thanks for the link, James. i haven’t read the whole thing yet, but i got into it quite a way and saw *NOTHING* that illustrated that any of these bozos have been anything but clueless for quite a while. interestingly, since the site is owned by the u.s. conference of catholic bishops (USCCB), the earliest-mentioned quote is from 1964-11-21 (lumen gentium 16), rather than somewhat earlier, perhaps by urban II around 1095, or maybe even informed by byzantine emperor manuel II palaiologos’s dialogue 7 of “Twenty-six Dialogues with a Persian” (c. 1391), which benedict VI quoted in his regensburg speech on 2006-09-12.
sigh … there is nobody harder to convince than somebody who is certain that he knows more than U do.
Rufolino says
Pope Paul VI “an efficient bureaucrat but still a mediocrity” .
There are few Popes who are more than bureaucrats and mediocrities.
Actually Pope John was deeply loved, adored, by millions, no Pope was more loved, so presumably he meant something significant.
Pope Plus XII was almost worshipped, which he encouraged.
Paul VI was only a bureaucrat.
John Paul II was frightening.
The present Pope is a malignant square peg stuck in a round hole, where he should not be….
Pope John Paul the First, 1979, is now forgotten. I went to his Enthronement. A month !later he was dead. He was the very sweetest of men, full of promise, and I wept. The contrast with today’s Pope could not be greater.
Wellington says
Just curious why you asserted that John Paul II was frightening? I thought he was terrific on Communism and was subtle in his workings with Reagan and Thatcher to accelerate the demise of Communism in Eastern Europe. He also tried to reverse the harm done by Vatican II but ultimately was not successful here though I congratulate him for trying. The one negative I have about John Paul II is that from everything I can gather he didn’t grasp the iniquity of Islam as his successor, Benedict XVI, did.
curious george says
Wellington,
We will have to agree to disagree amicably on the JFK issue. Mark Shaw, in his book, The Reporter Who Knew Too Much: The Mysterious Death of What’s My Line TV Star and Media Icon Dorothy Kilgallen makes a reasonable case for other possibilities. This in not the time or place to further discuss this issue as in all probability, in our lifetime, we will never know who was involved in JFK’s death.
On the Vatican issue, the late Malachi Martin gave a glimpse inside the Vatican in his writings, especially, Windswept House.
I have mentioned in previous posts that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, aka, Pope Francis is *not* the problem, he is a symptom of the problem. He is the right man, in the right place, at the right time in history. The world is moving toward a One World Government and a One World Religion and it’s possible that the Roman Catholic Church will play a part in the formation of the coming One World Religion.
May I suggest you read the book of Daniel and then the book of Revelation in the Bible?
FYI says
And then after a post-prandial Sherry a perusal of the Book of Joel chpt 3….
{The muslims may cry out for the end of Israel to their god allah ,[HINT]”the best of deceivers”{koran 3:54}but allah is not the YHWH of the Bible and YHWH has very kindly told us how it is going to play out in authentic Prophecy}
If you want a laugh try islamic ‘prophecy’:in islam Jesus is a muslim{sahih bukhari 4:60:3448}who will return to ‘break the cross and kill the pigs’.
That makes no Theological sense,is contrary to the prophetic teachings from Jesus Christ Himself the Parousia :and then we have that ‘kill all the pigs’ nonsense.
Biblical prophecy is authentic as it comes via a particular source{see 2 Peter 1:20-21}but of course allah missed that didn’t he?islamic ‘prophecy’ is false for that reason but there is no point explaining that to islamic ‘scholars’
You are right about Mr Bergoglio:he serves a useful purpose to do with separating the minority faithful{wheat}from the blind majority{chaff} as is all explained in that Gospel.
Patricia Koenig says
I agree that Vatican II was a disaster! I think, after the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, V2 will be denounced as an invalid council, due to documented fraud and manipulation. The V2 declaration on Islam was complelely wrong. But V2 was not infallible, so it can be ignored and later revoked.
FYI says
@Patricia Koenig
This is from a V2 document.
Lumen Gentium #16
“..muslims profess to hold the faith of Abraham and along with us they{muslims} worship the one merciful God…”
But this Vatican 2 teaching is FALSE..
1]the koran denies The crucifixion of Christ {koran 4:157}
2]the koran denies the Trinity{and thus the Holy Spirit}{koran 4:171}
3]the koran’s misunderstanding of the Trinity has MARY in it {koran 5:116}
4]allah does NOT permit final penitence {koran 4:18}
5]the koran CURSES christians for believing in Jesus {koran 9:30}
6]the koran says Christians and non-muslims are ‘the WORST of created beings” koran 98:6
7]muslims disparage christians in their fatiha ‘prayers’
AND…interestingly,
allah’s greatest enemy is not shaitan as one might expect:it is a MAN called ‘the King of kings’
{Sahih muslim vol 5 hadith # 5611}
To equate ‘allah'{who is anti Christ} with the Christian God is to equate evil with good and is surely Heresy
Wellington says
Thank you for your response, curious george. May I suggest you read in its entirety Case Closed by Gerald Posner respecting the JFK assassination. Reading it cover to cover, and it is very long and dense (meant in a good way), should leave zero doubt that there was no conspiracy in the killing of JFK. I might add that no serious historian has asserted there was a conspiracy. Not one that I know of. The idea that conspiracy killed JFK is arguably the single greatest myth of the century.
As for Daniel and Revelations, the former was finally codified in the second century B.C. (around 160 B.C.) and thus its prophetic predictions about what was going to happen in, say, the fourth century B.C., were made after the fact. Rather like my predicting that the Green Bay Packers would win the first two Super Bowls or that the Pirates would win the 1960 World Series.
As for Revelations, you can read into it whatever you want to, so vague (and even obtuse) is it. Even John Calvin refrained from commenting on it. How it got into the corpus of the New Testament is itself an interesting and fascinating question and problem.
JamesC. says
In defence of the Book of Revelation – it has definite theological ideas; just as Plato, Aristotle, Philo, St Paul, or a host of others do. There are certain things a particular author cannot plausibly have intended, and certain things that the same author, can with very great probability be judged to have intended.
If the Book of Revelation had been freshly discovered in 1900 or so, that would not have greatly changed what NT scholarship makes of it, but would have spared Christianity a lot of mistaken ideas that originated earlier, as a result of ignorance of its literary genre and function.
Rev is far from obtuse. As to how it came to be received as canonical – part of the answer is, that it was accepted because of the strength of the tradition that its John was the author of the Fourth Gospel.
It managed to survive being attributed to the heretic Cerinthus, and also managed to survive the fall into disfavour of Millennialism, which was formerly widespread in the Church. It was capable of being allegorised, which probably helped. The price of allegorising it was, that its character as a Jewish-Christian apocalypse was forgotten. Even though it gained & retained its position as canonical in the West, and later, in the Greek East. To this day, the Syrian Church does not accept it:
IMHO, its leading idea is that of the Gospels, and of the NT as a whole: which is, the Kingship of God, exercised in and through Jesus His Anointed. Rev.11.15 is the key to the whole book, and lies almost at its centre.
Because God is in total control, the persecuted churches can be confident of the final overthrow of all human and devilish oppressors. A message like that is Good News today, as much as when the book was written.
Most of Rev, from chapter 3 to 20, is a “book of judgements”, and judgement is an important function of a king. It is or should be an exercise of righteous dealing with others – and the Davidic King anointed as God’s Chosen should in particular show it, as a sign of his faithfulness to God’s Covenant. As the Righteous Davidic King Who judges His Church and the Jews & the Gentiles with righteousness, Jesus shows Himself to be the Universal Davidic King of Psalm 72.
I think Rev is a beautifully appropriate conclusion to the NT, and to the Bible as a whole, thematically and theologically. So I’m very glad that it is placed at the end of the NT. The structure of the book is elaborate: it is held together by patterns of 7s – most obviously in the beginning.
And it is soaked in allusions to the Old Testament. It constantly recalls the Exodus and the Hexateuch. To understand what St John is saying, a close acquaintance with the OT is essential. If we cannot appreciate the use St John made of his OT sources, his ability as a literary artist and theologian will be less clear than it could be. It is a great pity that Rev is better known for its more lurid scenes, than for its value as an expression of “the Good News of the Kingdom of God”.
curious george says
Wellington,
Thank you for your courteous reply.
I have read many of your comments in the short time I have been accessing Jihad Watch and realize that my trying to debate you would be akin to my getting in the ring with Muhammad Ali.
We are where we are and we believe what we believe, for better or for worse.
The only other comment I would like to make on the book of Daniel is that Yeshua HaMashiach validated the authenticity of Daniel, that is good enough for me.
So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut shoot.
Matthew 24:15-22
What we believe or don’t believe isn’t going to change what’s coming. The turmoil that we are currently witnessing is just the warm up act. The worst is yet to come. The bad guys are winning the battle, they are defining the terms, and he who defines the terms, wins the argument. With the bad guys, the issue is never the issue, it’s the narrative that matters and they are experts in the art of manipulation and deception.
As Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) once said, “The organized minority will beat the disorganized majority every time.”
And it does appear that is exactly what is happening now.
Wellington says
I thank both JamesC. and curious george for their replies. Being the agnostic that I am, I see religion as a construction by man to provide him purpose and contain behavior.
Christianity does this aptly and because of its emphasis on the dignity and worth of the individual it goes very well with democracy, as does Judaism. Buddhism and Hinduism are subtle and no threat to liberty that I can detect, but neither prizes the individual as much as Christianity and Judaism do and this works somewhat against the innovative capacity of man, thus it is not a coincidence that the West invented philosophy, democracy, the scientific method and the most extensive technology of any civilization in history, though these great achievements of the West owe even more to ancient Greek thought than to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Nevertheless, the two intellectual cornerstones of Western Civilization are Greek philosophical thought and Judeo-Christian religious thought. Both traditions, one secular and the other religious, contributed mightily to civilization here on Earth and freed man’s intellect.
Islam though is horrible and is quite repressive and totalitarian; it serves as a recipe for the closing of the mind. Any good in it (there isn’t much) can be found in many other belief systems so there is no solid reason to keep any of it around and I look forward to a time in future history when it will only exist on the extreme margins of human society. What makes it such a menace to mankind is that in addition to the two ordinary threats that can be found in virtually all religions, the threat of what will happen to a person in the next life for not believing and the threat of a deity (or deities) doing harm to a person in this life for not believing, Islam has a unique third threat, i.e., the command to believers to use force in this world to spread and sustain Mohammed’s creed. 109 verses in the Koran instructing Muslims to do exactly this compared to 0 verses in the New Testament instructing Christians to use force to spread and sustain Christianity illustrates the uniqueness of Islam, a uniqueness that is in no way laudable, indeed it is despicable.
I do not think there is any way to prove (or disprove) that there is a higher power. Reason alone fails as Kant demonstrated conclusively I think by showing that all intellectual arguments for the existence of God, however clever, and some are very clever, for instance the ontological argument, ultimately fail because existence is not necessarily a category of an idea. Thus, a la Kierkegaard, man has no option but to take that leap of faith. But I decline to take that leap. It’s just not in me to do so. It is not the way I am constructed but I can respect and work with people who do take that leap unless it’s an Islamic leap.
While not possessed of any faith, I nevertheless have hunches and my hunch about God is that He is a legend but a necessary legend. As I think it was Voltaire who said if God does not exist, we still needed to invent Him. Or as another shrewd skeptic observed, one Benjamin Franklin, if man is bad with religion, imagine what he’d be without it. Islam is the exception to this rule which is bitterly proven correct by the course of the last century or so of man’s history. Well, I’ve gone on long enough and I thank again JamesC. and curious george for their replies and I concede to JamesC. that my use of the word “obtuse” to describe Revelations was both inapt and inept. Mea culpa.
James Lincoln says
Wellington,
Your post from Sep 8, 2020 at 12:07 am is well-written and well thought-out.
Many Christians that I know personally would not have a problem with it.
Agnostics have pointed out to me that there are many good “universal teachings” in the New Testament – and that there is value in being familiar with its contents.
But, to your point, Christianity – after all is said and done – does require a “leap of faith”…
curious george says
Wellington & JamesC,
Thank you both for a cordial and informative dialogue.
Wellington, thank you for your insight and the information on the book, Case Closed.
JamesC, thank you for the comments on the book of the Revelation of Yeshua Hamashiach. I’m in agreement with you, it’s essential to have read and have some understanding of the Tanakh (Old Testament) in order to understand the book of Revelation.
66 books written by 40 authors, all in harmony with one another. As the saying goes, “The Old Testament Is The New Testament Concealed, The New Testament Is The Old Testament Revealed.”
The answers are therein contained for those who are willing to search the Scriptures honestly and with an open mind on a daily basis. After all, one can only gather so much information, then it’s time to make a decision.
The late Joan Peters, author of the book, From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine, is an example.
Her original concept was to write about the plight of the “Palestinian Refugees.” She started her research and after 2 years into the project, she realized that the narrative she had been feed was not matching the information she had uncovered. She contacted her publisher to tell them she was returning the advance on the book and that she was now going to write about the “plight of the Jewish people” and their right to be in the land.
“Personally I’m always ready to learn, although I do not like always to be taught.”
– Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Lightship Chaplain says
If this attempt at brainwashing for Satan’s New World Order, wasn’t so tragic – it might be funny!
curious george says
+1 Lightship Chaplain
Against stupidity even the Gods themselves contend in vain.
– Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805)
somehistory says
He didn’t pick up his Douay. In his blindness, he picked up his copy of the dictionary moslims use. In fact, his Bible is covered in dust…if he even has one and his books on islam are well-worn and ill-used. in the furtherance of lies to mislead the flock. “If possible, even the chosen ones.”
JamesC. says
That translation was for English-speaking Catholics, and has in any case been replaced by more recent ones.
Italian-speaking and Spanish-speaking Catholics have their own translations. They would have no more reason to bother with old-fashioned English Catholic Bibles than Catholics in Pakistan would have, to bother with the Baltimore Catechism.
There is a recent Italian Bible, which has the approval of the Italian Conference of Bishops. He probably uses that.
somehistory says
I’m not Catholic. I have had, over my lifetime, several different Bibles, one of them being that translation. I also have a couple in French and Spanish, and one in German. I have the Christian Scriptures in Greek.
My point was this: the pope is not reading any Bible for information or instruction in “leading” the “flock of God.” This idiot is more likely reading the filthy book of the moslims and using words…such as “peace” the same way moslims use them.
If he is even reading the Bible at all….he’s not reading it with understanding nor with a view to obedience to God.
JamesC. says
He reads the Bible for sure, as his writings and speeches show.
That does mean that he is au fait with Mahometanism.
He is boxed in, to some degree, by the example of his predecessors at and since Vatican 2. Ever since 1964, V2 and the Popes have been friendly to Islam – in a way which has led them to present Mahometanism as far more Christian-like & benign than it really is, and to overlook its abhorrence of Christianity & Judaism as also of other religions.
First, the modern Popes on Mahometanism:
https://www.usccb.org/committees/ecumenical-interreligious-affairs/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-islam
And now for something better:
https://www.thomasmore.org/15-popes-whose-islamophobia-saved-the-christian-world-from-muslim-takeover/
somehistory says
A person doesn’t have to read the Bible if they have someone write what they wish to say for them. Besides, he twists Scripture just as satan the devil did when talking to Jesus, “tempting” Jesus to disobey His heavenly Father and worship satan. Imo, this was no real temptation for Christ, but that’s another subject.
On top of that, the pope even attempted to make changes to the Bible…something that earns one a curse, according to what Jesus gave John to write.
And as for being “boxed in,”…all he has to do is tell the Truth, and make a good attempt to follow the Truth. His problem then of having to follow what other popes have done would be over.
Better to be honest than to live the life of luxury, fame, (or infamy) having crowds clamor to meet and touch and lie like a cheap moslim prayer rug. The dishonest life has no reward…only Judgment and punishment.
Not much good comes from just reading the Bible and then forgetting what it says, or reading it and then twisting it to meet one’s own ideas of right and wrong.
And he wouldn’t play kissy-face with the moslm if he didn’t have affection for the evils of islam. Let’s see him slap the moslim’s hand as he did the lady who grabbed his.
FYI says
Authentic Christianity and “a proper reading” of the Gospel shows it to be opposed to..Heresy and Apostasy. Those are two things mr bergoglio the Globalist pope is very good at promoting and doing.
No one has done more to undermine Catholicism and let down christians that smiley Jorge{the ‘pope of the EAR’ who is far too busy listening “to the groans of the Earth” to hear the cries of persecuted Christians in islamic countries}
Those pachamama idols displayed in Rome were a bit of a clue along with the circus in the vatican.
Perhaps francis prefers the koran as it is apparently ‘opposed to every form of violence’ {despite the 164 jihadist commands in it}
roberta says
This guy has got to be an atheist. The poop is a heartless sob that enjoys the slaughter of Africa’s Christians.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
“Pope Francis’ new encyclical, Fratelli tutti: sulla fraternità e l’amicizia sociale (“All Brothers: On Fraternity and Social Friendship”)”
I thought all papal encyclicals are written in Latin. When did they switch to Italian, and why? If you’re going to abandon Latin, why did Francis not write his encyclical in his native language, Spanish? (Or did some Italian church functionary write it?)
JamesC. says
They used to be in Latin, with the occasional exception, such as Pius XI’s Mit Brennender Sorge in 1937. He wanted German Catholics to be in no doubt that Nazism was an anti-Christian, immoral and idolatrous ideology, so it was published in German.
Modern Popes don’t write their own Encyclicals. I have heard that Leo XIII (1878-1903) was the last Pope to do so.
The choice of Italian may arise from the fact that Rome is an Italian see. Since Italy has its own problems with Mahometan immigration, the Encyclical may be intended primarily for the Italian bishops, and secondarily for the rest of the Catholic episcopate worldwide.
We will probably not know the answers to these questions until the Encyclical is published.
For what it’s worth, an encyclical letter is intended primarily for the bishops of the world. The ordinary Catholic in the street is not the primary or intended recipient. Catholic bishops would have the background to understand what the Pope is driving at, so Popes do not make explicit points that might flummox or bother people who are not Catholic bishops. What is obvious and uncontroversial and familiar to a Catholic bishop, might be unfamiliar, bothersome, and scandalous to a layman with no knowledge of theology.
JamesC. says
As for the switch to the vernacular, that was beginning to happen before PF, but he is the first Pope since antiquity to use the vernacular habitually for Encyclicals.
JP2 released the editio typica of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992, in French. The Latin edition is a translation; it is not the standard text of the CCC. The CCC supersedes the 1566 Catechismus Concilii Tridentini – the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
JamesC. says
CORRECTION:
“ That does mean that he is au fait with Mahometanism.”
ought to be:
“ That does not mean that he is au fait with Mahometanism.“
janicevanguilder says
is there a betting pool as to when this joker is going to reveal his conversion and commitment to islam?
Patricia Koenig says
I’ll take 100 to 1 odds that Frankenpope will lead the apostate One World Religion (that will include and approves Islam).
Barbara says
I pray the K of C do NOT donate any more money to the pope. I do not trust he would use the funds where they are needed most. I am afraid he would donate the money to terrorist.
The K of C could donate the money to those truly in need, in his name.
Ade Fegan says
Retarded dove
Wiley jackal
Jan Favre says
No wonder, the Chrislamist Pope is consistent with himself.
E T says
Yes Somehistory “all he has to do is tell the truth, and make a good attempt to follow the truth.“
I remember Barack Obama’s comments:
“The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”
“The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer.”
“Islam has always been a part of America. As a student of History, I also know civilizations debt to Islam.”
“Islam is not part of the problem in combating extremism- – it is an important part of promoting peace.”
“So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.”
“In ancient times and in our times the Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.”
“Throughout our history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”
“We’ve seen those results of generations of Muslim immigrants – – farmers and factory workers, helping us lay the railroads and build our cities, the Muslim innovators who helped build some of our highest skyscrapers and unlock the secrets of the universe.”
“Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”
“We will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities.”
“America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. instead they overlap and share common principles of JUSTICE, progress and tolerance.”
“These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and in Islam’s role in advancing justice, tolerance, and the dignity of ALL human beings.”
“Islam has always been part of America.”
The campaign for 1 Million Muslim Votes supports Joe Biden.
Reziac says
“I am the best of deceivers.” — Allah
“War is deceit.” — Muhammad
kEYS says
Normandy Allied cemeteries:
Stars of David and Christian Crosses.
NO MUSLIM CRESCENT MOONS !
Reziac says
[quoted from my CM comment]
My Latin is 50 years rusty, but even I don’t get “Let us all, brothers, consider the Good Shepherd” when I read “attendumus, omnes fratres, bonum pastorem”. I get “[Let us] Pay attention, all [who are] brothers, to the good shepherd”. It doesn’t mean “all men are brothers”; it means “all men WHO ARE brothers.”
St.Francis understood that not everyone is, nor wishes to be, our brothers. As should be flamingly obvious from even a cursory glance at the Middle East. [My fingers tried to type “missile east” … hmm.]
Patricia Koenig says
“Omnes” means “all” in Latin. There is no Latin word for “who” in that phrase. “Who” in Latin would be: qui or quis or quisnam. Check an online translator yourself and see.
CogitoErgoSum says
Pope Francis does not seem to understand what St. Francis did understand – that man has a dual nature of both a body and a soul. Yes, all human beings are members of the same family in the sense we are the descendants of a common ancestor. Even DNA testing shows this. Now, this pertains to the physical nature of man. We all have the same parents somewhere way back in time. In theological terms those parents were Adam and Eve.
So, yes, in one way, it is true to say that all men are brothers. But what about the spiritual nature of man? Are all men brothers in the spirit? No. The reason is because due to the sin of our first parents we come into this world with souls that are dead in the sense that the impurity of original sin has made it impossible for our souls to be with God (who is perfect) UNLESS we are born again by being baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This act takes away all sin and enables us to live as member of the family of the Church and thus become a part of the spiritual body of Christ. We are raised from the dead, just as Christ was resurrected, to have a new and eternal life, through Him, with Him and in Him. We become brothers (and sisters) through Christ.
In light of this teaching of the Catholic Church, I cannot say the Pope is lying when he says all men are brothers BUT on the other hand I cannot say that he is actually telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I don’t know what Francis is trying to accomplish by remaining silent about the entire truth but I look forward to reading the full text of his encyclical to find some clues. However, as with his attempt to separate the hands of the altar boy, he seems to be trying to separate the physical nature of man from the spiritual nature of man’s soul and to lessen the importance of Christ in the lives of men – which is not what a Pope should be trying to do.
No Muzzies Here says
Just as the violent destruction of property, accompanied by assaults and killings, is called “peaceful protest,” this terrorist is called an example of “peace” and “fraternity.”
My conclusion is that this pope is using his occupancy of the Chair of Peter to promote Marxism. Perhaps this pope should read Divini Redemptoris.
Patricia Koenig says
I agree. And worse yet, Francis is promoting the apostate One World Religion, which he will lead…. to perdition!