Nice straw-man argument put up there!
Pope Francis expected to ask Bishop Strickland to retire
55,178 Views |
391 Replies |
Last: 18 days ago by Severian the Torturer
He's been relatively quiet for a while, so it's good to hear him with this message.
https://t.co/1VDK7mG2DI
— Bishop J. Strickland (@BishStrickland) April 24, 2024
Almost six years ago I spoke at the USCCB meeting, I wasn’t strong enough.
In the years since that November day we have seen our beautiful Catholic faith and the truth Our Lord Jesus Christ suffered, died and rose to reveal to us go undefended, mocked…
From the body of the above tweet.
Quote:
The litany of the gospel of wolves that has flowed out of the Vatican and gone unchecked over these 5+ years, has left many souls to wander in darkness and succumb to lies that destroy faith.
To name a few…who demanded a real accounting of the McCarrick scandal and discipline for those who allowed his attacks on the faith? Who spoke up when the pachamama idol was paraded in St Peter's basilica? Who resisted when fear of a disease allowed churches to be closed and the sacraments to be denied? Who demanded that our God given free will must be respected when mandates were issued by too many leaders? Who protested a synod on synodality that promoted an openness to blessing sin? Who has said no to the ongoing attack on the liturgy? Who has protested when faithful priests, bold enough to speak the truth, bold enough to care more about the salvation of souls than keeping their position, have been cancelled or silenced?
More damning than who the pope has forced out is who he hasnt. Dudes accused of molestation, rape, one was even running a convent as a sex cult. Theyre all still in Rome. Apparently the pope finds all these things less objectionable than protecting the deposit of faith.
A good point, or just being overly nit picky?
How dare he not speak of Our Lord Jesus as he stands in prayer for our nation, Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ, He is the one true Lord for all of us, to fail to invoke Him is to fail to know the power of His Name! Pray for our nation! https://t.co/RMseOtsuQm
— Bishop J. Strickland (@BishStrickland) January 21, 2025
...but in the month dedicated to the Holy Name of Jesus. I'm told the same critique can be directed to the Catholic priest that prayed later in the ceremony.RAB91 said:
A good point, or just being overly nit picky?How dare he not speak of Our Lord Jesus as he stands in prayer for our nation, Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ, He is the one true Lord for all of us, to fail to invoke Him is to fail to know the power of His Name! Pray for our nation! https://t.co/RMseOtsuQm
— Bishop J. Strickland (@BishStrickland) January 21, 2025
8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.
+++
Hit the post button too soon.
I don't think it is wrong to emphasize the triune God of Abraham that is our Lord Jesus in certain situations. If you have ever had to give an invocation where people of various religions are to be attending- standing on common ground is a good start, in my opinion.
9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.
+++
Hit the post button too soon.
I don't think it is wrong to emphasize the triune God of Abraham that is our Lord Jesus in certain situations. If you have ever had to give an invocation where people of various religions are to be attending- standing on common ground is a good start, in my opinion.
Agree with Bishop Strickland. Cardinal Dolan should have definitely invoked the name "JESUS". Very disappointing to this Catholic; however, I was not surprised by the missed opportunity to proclaim Our Savior.
Gig'em, Ole Army Class of '70
I liked the African American preacher.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Mr. Thunderclap McGirthy
Joined:
Dec 2, 1999
Posts:
13,019
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I knew him as a young Priest. He was and is a true blessing to the Church.
In Hoc Signo Vinces
Hmmmmm......
Dear @realDonaldTrump,
— Dr Taylor Marshall™️ (@TaylorRMarshall) February 7, 2025
Why not appoint and reward @BishStrickland as head of the White House Faith Office? He is respected by all and a true shepherd of the faithful. He is respected by Catholics and Protestants alike: pic.twitter.com/pTU2H3OEwJ
Reward? Reminds me of a scripture passage.
PabloSerna said:
Reward? Reminds me of a scripture passage.
Ok then appoint. Forget the reward part
Bishop Kelly installed today . Kids school got to line up and cheer on for the procession. Beautiful mass and prayer vigil.
I continue to be embarrassed by the American bishops. Who knows, maybe Pope Leo can make things right by assigning Bishop Strickland to run a diocese.
Bishop Strickland is a martyr in our time, a lone voice crying in the wilderness. What a sad state of affairs for the Vatican and the U.S. Catholic Church. Their silence and apathy toward his message makes me embarrassed to be Catholic.👇🏻
— Shane Schaetzel †☧ (@ShaneSchaetzel) November 13, 2025
pic.twitter.com/FnrSn5HgKp
That they sat in silence and no one acknowledged this courageous Bishop. I truly believe that Bishop Joseph Strickland is a "White Martyr" for the Catholic Faith. Oh that there were some more brave and courageous bishops that would stand in "Solidarity" with him; but no, their silence will lead many souls to H*ll. We pray for Bishop Strickland along with many brave Priests and Cardinals. They are small in number, but large in our Lord's Will!
Gig'em, Ole Army Class of '70
Everytime I see Marshall I think about the vision of engorged milkers haha. I see the trad cats are not happy right now.RAB91 said:
Hmmmmm......Dear @realDonaldTrump,
— Dr Taylor Marshall™️ (@TaylorRMarshall) February 7, 2025
Why not appoint and reward @BishStrickland as head of the White House Faith Office? He is respected by all and a true shepherd of the faithful. He is respected by Catholics and Protestants alike: pic.twitter.com/pTU2H3OEwJ
Well said. I am frequently embarrassed by what comes out of the USCCB.
The devil always gives himself away with an F-bomb.
No, more like sodomy.PabloSerna said:
The devil always gives himself away with an F-bomb.
Leo is going to be far worse than Francis. He's already showing his true rainbow colors.
PabloSerna said:
The devil always gives himself away with an F-bomb.
Would you prefer we use the f-word preferred by the late Pope Francis (Rest in Peace)? Frociaggine? I believe it may be applicable to the abomination that was promoted by Fr James Martin.
I was referring to the pod host closing his comments on Taylor Marshall with an F-bomb that completely discredited any point he was trying to make.
He was a little too eager to demean Marshall for a dream he was trying to explain about "mother church" and his confession. Actually Marshall made more sense.
I don't agree that Fr. Martin "promotes" as you say- you should listen to his follow up to the Synod on Synodality. I don't see it the same way you do.
He was a little too eager to demean Marshall for a dream he was trying to explain about "mother church" and his confession. Actually Marshall made more sense.
I don't agree that Fr. Martin "promotes" as you say- you should listen to his follow up to the Synod on Synodality. I don't see it the same way you do.
PabloSerna said:
I was referring to the pod host closing his comments on Taylor Marshall with an F-bomb that completely discredited any point he was trying to make.
He was a little too eager to demean Marshall for a dream he was trying to explain about "mother church" and his confession. Actually Marshall made more sense.
I don't agree that Fr. Martin "promotes" as you say- you should listen to his follow up to the Synod on Synodality. I don't see it the same way you do.
Martin has literally written an article about how Catholics should celebrate pride month
He has said and written a lot- read all of it before judging.
PabloSerna said:
He has said and written a lot- read all of it before judging.
Is marriage possible between two men, Pablo?
To my knowledge, and I read him often, he has never challenged the Church's teaching on SACRAMENTAL marriage. Show me otherwise. That post is lacking a lot of context- but you should know better.
ETA: if you want to go down this path, there is a distinction between civil marriage (legal) and holy matrimony. Just know which is which when you do the search. Not talking about opinions either- you said "promote" and that means teach.
ETA: if you want to go down this path, there is a distinction between civil marriage (legal) and holy matrimony. Just know which is which when you do the search. Not talking about opinions either- you said "promote" and that means teach.
PabloSerna said:
To my knowledge, and I read him often, he has never challenged the Church's teaching on SACRAMENTAL marriage. Show me otherwise. That post is lacking a lot of context- but you should know better.
ETA: if you want to go down this path, there is a distinction between civil marriage (legal) and holy matrimony. Just know which is which when you do the search. Not talking about opinions either- you said "promote" and that means teach.
A Jesuit priest posts that Pete Buttigieg is married, and you criticize me for lack of context?
Also, I just want to make sure you heard my question. Can two men get married?
I see precision is not your thing at the moment.
Since 2015, not only can two men "get married" so can two women.
Since 2015, not only can two men "get married" so can two women.
I know I'm butting in on this, but oh well. I understand you're accepting civil "marriage," but that's not really what's important. And I'm sure you'll also say that's what Fr. Martin was talking about (but it's so dumb for him to tweet that, he knows exactly what he's doing).
Do you think homosexual marriage should be permitted in the Church?
Do you think homosexual marriage should be permitted in the Church?
PabloSerna said:
I see precision is not your thing at the moment.
Since 2015, not only can two men "get married" so can two women.
You understood his question, but chose not to answer it. Interesting.... To borrow from a classic.
PabloSerna said:
I see precision is not your thing at the moment.
Since 2015, not only can two men "get married" so can two women.
I noticed you put "get married" in quotes; why?
Because there is no such thing. What you and others do not understand is the difference between the two. That's not on me that is on you.
" Do you think homosexual marriage should be permitted in the Church?"
No problem butting in. This is an old argument we have had on and off for years.
You have to separate the two terms you have placed together because of the understanding the RCC has of each word. For the RCC there is only marriage, and it is defined clearly as being between a man and a woman. It is is also a sacrament which like all others was establish by Jesus in the Bible.
Others on here, some of whom are RCC, want to put the two together to make a point, not sure what it is, but you will not find me or someone such as Fr. Martin "promoting" homosexual marriage as an expanded definition of holy matrimony. Because so-called homosexual marriage is between two persons of the same sex, hence the "homo" as the prefix in the word homosexual. You probably know that, but you never know.
What some Catholics, such as Bishop Btzing from Germany, has supported blessing of same sex unions or life long partnerships. We are not there in our understanding because of the very hangup many on here still have regarding persons that are same-sex attracted.
Hope that helps.
No problem butting in. This is an old argument we have had on and off for years.
You have to separate the two terms you have placed together because of the understanding the RCC has of each word. For the RCC there is only marriage, and it is defined clearly as being between a man and a woman. It is is also a sacrament which like all others was establish by Jesus in the Bible.
Others on here, some of whom are RCC, want to put the two together to make a point, not sure what it is, but you will not find me or someone such as Fr. Martin "promoting" homosexual marriage as an expanded definition of holy matrimony. Because so-called homosexual marriage is between two persons of the same sex, hence the "homo" as the prefix in the word homosexual. You probably know that, but you never know.
What some Catholics, such as Bishop Btzing from Germany, has supported blessing of same sex unions or life long partnerships. We are not there in our understanding because of the very hangup many on here still have regarding persons that are same-sex attracted.
Hope that helps.
Understandable. Thanks for the response.
When we see some priests and bishops bless these unions, do you think they do so with the intent to bless the individual person or the rather the union? When a priest blesses an individual person they're blessing sinners all the time, but I feel like when we see a homosexual couple together being blessed together, there's some gray area.
I know I'm not wording all this well, but in short, are the priests blessing the couple as a couple, or are they blessing the person as a person?
When we see some priests and bishops bless these unions, do you think they do so with the intent to bless the individual person or the rather the union? When a priest blesses an individual person they're blessing sinners all the time, but I feel like when we see a homosexual couple together being blessed together, there's some gray area.
I know I'm not wording all this well, but in short, are the priests blessing the couple as a couple, or are they blessing the person as a person?