60% of RC's are pro-abortion, dogma change coming?

Yes---and that is an abomination. The fact that Francis refuses to confront him is an abomination.

What do you want from me on this? I am not defending this. you are absolutely right. Point conceded.

I am not a cheerleader for Pope Francis and never have been. I never claimed he was a great pope.
But you follow him, you claim he is Peter's successor.
 
I get what you are saying. I hoped that if it came down to it he wouldn't do something like that.

We live in a very sick world, that has little regard for life before birth and after birth. Neither option should have crossed the man's mind to begin with. His chosen option is in reality..... murder. But it goes to show that his social reputation and money is of more value to him than his daughter or the life of the grandchild.

Back before 2010, I had read of the statistics of the time, that the majority of abortions occurred mostly because of parental pressure. Particularly if the daughter was starting college. In second place, was pressure from boyfriends.
 
Yes---and that is an abomination. The fact that Francis refuses to confront him is an abomination.

What do you want from me on this? I am not defending this. you are absolutely right. Point conceded.

I am not a cheerleader for Pope Francis and never have been. I never claimed he was a great pope.
Is it not contrary to RC doctrine, to give communion to sinners who are known to be unrepentant?
 
Well male sinners seem to be able to cover up their sins. Whereas women who became pregnant whilst single had a harder time and were refused.
I suppose it's difficult to cover up having a child; in fact, wasn't there a pope who was found out when SHE had a child (she'd been pretending to be male)?
 
I suppose it's difficult to cover up having a child; in fact, wasn't there a pope who was found out when SHE had a child (she'd been pretending to be male)?


I'd have doubts about this story. I don't think the RCC would elect someone who they knew so little about to a position of infallibility.

Just doesn't seem to make sense. All the popes I've ever heard about were people with long histories in the RCC, hiding their sex for that long just doesn't seem that likely.
 
I suppose it's difficult to cover up having a child; in fact, wasn't there a pope who was found out when SHE had a child (she'd been pretending to be male)?
I don't about that story. Yes it is, but when the father is a priest he still gets to celebrate mass and partake of communion. The hypocrisy of how women have been treated throughout the RCC history has been noted. I mean even Hitler was never officially ex communicated and his sins were difficult to cover up.
 
I'd have doubts about this story. I don't think the RCC would elect someone who they knew so little about to a position of infallibility.

Just doesn't seem to make sense. All the popes I've ever heard about were people with long histories in the RCC, hiding their sex for that long just doesn't seem that likely.
Yes, but the position could be brought by relatives. Sexually immoral men were put in that position, and their behaviour would have been known before election.
 
I'd have doubts about this story. I don't think the RCC would elect someone who they knew so little about to a position of infallibility.

Just doesn't seem to make sense. All the popes I've ever heard about were people with long histories in the RCC, hiding their sex for that long just doesn't seem that likely.
They elected Francis, and he's an absolute disaster; that doesn't make sense either.

It's possible that "Pope Joan" was a legend, but it was certainly believed for a long time, by Catholics as well.
 
Is it not contrary to RC doctrine, to give communion to sinners who are known to be unrepentant?
It is against the Scriptures.

Christ gave communion to Judas who was unrepentant.

You accuse Jesus Christ...God...of sinning and violating His own Word.

That is one hallmark of Catholic apologetics: Catholics never think it through.
 
Christ gave communion to Judas who was unrepentant.

You accuse Jesus Christ...God...of sinning and violating His own Word.

That is one hallmark of Catholic apologetics: Catholics never think it through.
It is your assertion that Christ gave that command to Judas?

1) I wasn't referring to that. Surely you knew this? I was referring to First Corinthians 11: 27-32.

2) Let's suppose that the command was to Judas, and let's suppose there is no First Corinthians 11: 27-32. It would then be your assertion that we do not have to worry about worthiness vs. unworthiness when eating and drinking the Body and Blood of Christ? So in your Church when you have your version of Communion, Pastor Bob could say "We are having communion now. If you, last evening, cheated on your spouse, don't worry about it. Not a problem for Communion. Come one come all."
 
Christ gave communion to Judas who was unrepentant.

You accuse Jesus Christ...God...of sinning and violating His own Word.

That is one hallmark of Catholic apologetics: Catholics never think it through.
It is your assertion that Christ gave that command to Judas?

1) I wasn't referring to that. Surely you knew this?

You said it is against the Word of God to give communion to sinners who are known to be unrepentant.

If you wish to retract that, you can. Just don't blame others for taking you seriously. It is always interesting how Catholics object when someone believes what they say.
 
Christ gave communion to Judas who was unrepentant.

You accuse Jesus Christ...God...of sinning and violating His own Word.

That is one hallmark of Catholic apologetics: Catholics never think it through.
I'm not sure that Jesus giving the sop to Judas Iscariot was the same thing. I'll have to think about it.
 
I'm not sure that Jesus giving the sop to Judas Iscariot was the same thing. I'll have to think about it.
Paul is clear about receiving communion.

1 Cor 11

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
 
Last edited:
Christ gave communion to Judas who was unrepentant.

You accuse Jesus Christ...God...of sinning and violating His own Word.

That is one hallmark of Catholic apologetics: Catholics never think it through.
I'm not sure that Jesus giving the sop to Judas Iscariot was the same thing.

I'm not talking about the sop.

Luke's account is explicit that Judas was at the Table for the bread and wine before he left.
 
I'm not talking about the sop.

Luke's account is explicit that Judas was at the Table for the bread and wine before he left.
In that case, you're right. The responsibility lies with the one who takes the communion bread and wine; and, if he eats and drinks unworthily, he eats and drinks damnation to himself.
 
Back
Top