Card. Napier corrects part-time papal spokesperson – UPDATE


1726 GMT: I just saw Card. Napier live on EWTN who had come directly from the Synod Hall.

He made a bit of a correction to his own correction/addition of Fr Rosica.  Be sure to pay attention to this.


ORIGINAL Published on: Oct 9, 2015 @ 09:42

‘Bout time.

This comes from LifeSite.

Wilfrid Card. Napier, Archbishop of Durban in South Africa spoke up in defense of Jesus today.  Rather, he spoke up in the defense of the rest of Jesus’ message of mercy and compassion.  When the Lord encountered sinners, rather, when sinners encountered the Lord during His earthly life, the Lord tried to take them out of their sin and to God through conversion: “Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.”  That last part is necessary.  Leave it out and you distort every other aspect of Christ’s saving mission.

Card. Napier used the tweetosphere to make a point.  My emphases and comments.

Leading African cardinal critiques Vatican spokesman Fr. Rosica

ROME, October 9, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – South African Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, a leading cardinal on the organizing committee for the Synod on the Family, issued a pointed critique on Twitter of a controversial report on the Synod by the Vatican’s English-language spokesman, Fr. Thomas Rosica, in which the priest emphasized that the Church should “embrace reality” in dealing with sinful situations.

Rosica’s summary of Synod fathers’ addresses at Tuesday’s press briefing was widely criticized for its emphasis on liberal proposals and the strong language he used to describe them. [Could it be that he has a personal agenda?]The remarks fueled ongoing concerns from last year’s Synod about the manipulation of the message by the Vatican press office and the Synod’s organizing body. [There must be 50 ways to rig a Synod.  Use of the presser is one of them.]

After the press conference, Salt and Light TV, Rosica’s Toronto-based media organization, tweeted out a link to an article about Rosica’s remarks, saying, “Fr. Rosica Speaks on Synod Delegates, The Need to Embrace People Where They Are.”

In reply, Napier tweeted: “‘Meet people where they are’ sounds nice, but is that what Jesus did? Didn’t he rather call them away from where they were?” [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]


At Tuesday’s press conference, Rosica had said, “There must be an end to exclusionary language and a strong emphasis on embracing reality as it is. We should not be afraid of new and complex situations. [?] … The language of inclusion must be our language, always considering pastoral and canonical possibilities and solutions.”

Napier has been among the more outspoken tradition-minded Synod fathers. His criticism of last year’s controversial interim report at the Synod, given at a Vatican press conference, made international headlines. “The message has gone out and it’s not a true message,” he said. “Whatever we say hereafter is going to be as if we’re doing some damage control.” [And that has been proven true.]

“The message has gone out that this is what the Synod is saying, this is what the Catholic Church is saying, and it’s not what we are saying at all,” he said. “No matter how we try correcting that … there’s no way of retrieving it.”

Toronto Cardinal Thomas Collins spoke on a similar theme as Napier’s tweet during his intervention at the Synod this year, emphasizing the need to promote repentance and conversion while the Church accompanies people. He described his three-minute speech to Catholic News Service on Thursday. [Remember: the rules of the Synod have been rigged in such a way that we have to get what Synod members said through circuitous routes.]

The truest compassionate mercy is a compassion that challenges,” explained the cardinal. [Right on.] He said meeting people “where they are” comes first, “but that is only the first thing. The second thing is to help them become what God wants them to be.” [And that does not include committing sodomy.  That does not include reception of Communion in the state of sin.]

“Just to have accompaniment as people are moving in the direction away from the Lord is not enough. We need to be with them in order to help people to follow our Lord,” he added.


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Fr. Z KUDOS, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Synod and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. chantgirl says:

    Jesus Himself used pretty exclusionary speech when He spoke about separating the goats and sheep, or when He said that the weeds and wheat would grow together until the threshing time when the weeds would be burned, or when He said that many would attempt to pass through the narrow gate and would fail. Perhaps that exclusionary language is necessary for human beings to give up tightly-held sins that would keep them from everlasting life in paradise. Perhaps meeting them where they are without encouraging personal conversion is not effective, or really loving.

    I have pondered just how close the gates of Hell could come to triumphing over the Church without actually winning. A pope bluntly stating or advocating heresy would not be the worst case scenario. A pope who affirmed Christ’s teaching in word, but who allowed those teachings to be gutted in practice would be the worst outcome. It would scandalize the faithful, keep many potential converts from converting (they’re looking for Truth!), and confirm many sinners in their sin. I can’t fathom a worse outcome- it would truly be a case of wolf discipline cloaked in sheep doctrine. I need to pray more.

  2. benedictgal says:

    What part of “Go and sin no more” does Fr. Rosica not understand? He is one of the reasons that I have all but stopped listening to the Catholic Channel on Sirius 129. He seems to be the go-to-guy for Lino Rulli and company.

  3. Adaquano says:

    Why is this so difficult for some priests and bishops to understand. Christ calls all of us to put down all nets and follow him. The apostles, for which all of these can trace their lineage back to were the greatest example of this. Peter leaves drops his nets, tells Christ that he has the Living Word and finally turns back around to Rome to die for Christ. He did not do this to meet the Romans where they were, he did this to bring the words of Eternal Life to all ears.

    [Priests understand this, believe me. But sometimes, through false (but not malicious) compassion they convince themselves to forget it until that forgetting is habitual, or else they have an even stronger motivation… which I’d rather not get into.]

  4. Clemens Romanus says:

    I love hearing good orthodox Bishops speak!

  5. benedictgal says:

    I just checked Fr. Rosica’s Twitter Feed and something interesting popped up (the aforementioned Tweet is no longer there):

    Catholic News Svc ?@CatholicNewsSvc · Oct 6 ? Vatican City
    Fr Rosica: On cohabiting couples, one bp said, “God loves you where you are, but he doesn’t want you to be there.” Help them grow.

    This is what he “retweeted.”

  6. Cradle Catholic says:

    Chantgirl says ” A pope bluntly stating or advocating heresy would not be the worst case scenario. A pope who affirmed Christ’s teaching in word, but who allowed those teachings to be gutted in practice would be the worst outcome. ”

    Absolutely! That is why I am so worried as we are being assured that doctrine will not change, only praxis. And I think we have much cause to be worried, extremely worried.

    Cardinal Marx who once said “We are not just a subsidiary of Rome,” …Each episcopal conference is responsible for the pastoral care in their culture and has to proclaim the Gospel in its own unique way. We cannot wait until a synod states something, as we have to carry out marriage and family ministry here.” …
    now says
    ” “We must try to remain together,” he said. “The Church is the only institution in the world that can reach unanimous agreement. Thank God we have the pope. We bishops do not have to decide. Church unity is not in danger. And once the pope has decided, we will abide by his decision.”

    Read about it at

  7. oldconvert says:

    I have the oddest feeling that there are people at that Synod who genuinely don’t realise that the Church’s teaching has endured for two thousand years, through all sorts of “new and complex situations” and all sorts of twists and turns of popular “morality”. Some of them speak as if only now have clerics and theologians come along who have the 20/20 vision to correct the failures of the past Church. And indeed of Our Lord’s teaching, although they would deny that.

    I remember from my youth, in the 1960s the Church of England came up with something it called “The New Morality”. What that boiled down to, was that promiscuous fornication was perfectly OK, provided you told yourself each time that you were “in love”. The RCC of the time sensibly ignored such tomfoolery but, as is so often the case with the RCC, some of its seniors have belatedly become aware of the teaching and adopted it as a fresh, new approach.

  8. majuscule says:

    I have been following Cardinal Napier on Twitter for a while. I admire that fact that he (or a spokesperson) takes the time and has the courage to tweet.

  9. Praynfast says:

    I have a true anecdote of a priest following the idea of (what I believe to be anti-Gospel) “accompaniment” vs. a priest who followed the Gospel teachings of “Go, and sin no more” combined with the necessity of being “awake” and “ready” (in a state of grace) for one does not know “when the time will come” or what night one’s soul will be required of them. Believe it or not, the Gospel-following priest (who was against “accompaniment”) was visiting America from Africa, and the lax priest who followed the Gospel of accompaniment was American.

    I will try to keep it short. A 20-something single man had (by the grace of God) successfully been free of pornography and the other action that goes with it for 3 years, after the addiction had lasted over 9 years. He made it to that point through weekly (and sometimes more often) confession, Daily Mass, daily holy hours, 15 decades of the rosary daily, and offering up the sleepless nights of saying “no” to the temptations for his future wife. He also decided to exercise in his apartment with a crucifix in plain sight instead of exercising at a co-ed exercise facility because the scantily clad/mostly naked women at those facilities were an obvious temptation for him.

    Three years into the successful freedom from pornography, the 20-something male got the thought, “it’s been three years, you are stronger now. You can handle the exercise facility now, just don’t look at the women!” So, this male followed that thought, and started going to a public exercise facility in a location where there were many attractive and scantily clad women.

    In his conscience, this male felt like he should avoid the near occasion of sin – and the exercise facility was clearly the near occasion of sin. “But,” he thought, “I can get so much stronger with all of those machines! Plus, I just will not look at all the attractive women that are temptations. And who knows…maybe I will meet my future wife here at the exercise facility!”

    This male continued the weekly confessions, and this is where he met the two different priests – the “accompaniment” priest, and the African priest who was very serious about the situation (basically anti-accompaniment). Each time he went to confession, the 20-something male would confess what his conscience “dread[ed]” – that he was sinning by not avoiding the near occasion of pornographically-clad women at the gym. The American priest would always say, “you will get stronger over time! After all, you gotta get exercise! You can’t stay sheltered! Going to the exercise facility is no big deal, just allow some time to pass! Do your best!”

    On other occasions, the 20-something male would have the African priest in confession; this priest got very angry with the 20-something male and said, “you must avoid the near occasion of sin! Sin starts in the heart, and then becomes ‘physical’. You will fall if you do not stop going to that exercise facility right now. Stop right now. Stop right now!”

    Time passed, and the 20-something male decided to ignore the African priest and follow the American priest’s Gospel of accompaniment. Of course, it turned out that the African priest was correct, and the 20-something male fell back into the grave sin of the action that goes along with pornography.

    This caused the 20-something male serious trauma. After about 6 months of grave sin, the 20-something male realized that the African priest was right. He dropped his exercise-facility membership, moved locations, and has avoided the near occasion since that time period. He exercises in private with a crucifix in his sight at all times, still continuing the spiritual exercises. Five years later, the male has remained free from the grave sin of pornography and the other action that goes with it. Freedom! All thanks to the African priest who got ticked off at the male in the confessional and refused to suggest the easy “Gospel of accompaniment.”

    This is only an anecdote, but I suspect that it has happened more than just once. The gospel of accompaniment really seems to be a false Gospel.

  10. anilwang says:

    Whenever someone says “embrace reality”, I say I fully agree. God is the ultimate reality, and he has revealed to us about the eternal reality that doesn’t change from age to age. To deny this fact is to be unrealistic and to live in a fantasy land.

    Thank goodness that there are still bold bishops that truly embrace reality and are willing to speak out.

  11. Chris Garton-Zavesky says:

    Meeting people where they are. What does this mean? If someone is in a burning building, should we leave this person where he is? At a natural level — i.e., temporarily ignoring the supernatural — the people we leave where they are are those who are healthy and safe.

    I suppose the case could be made that, so as not to worry people, doctors don’t, sometimes, tell them how dire their situation is….. but that is where the problem gets thorny. If there’s no hope of penetrating the deformed conscience, as I understand, priests sometimes leave them in their ignorance within the sacrament of confession, but can’t teach this from the pulpit. Please, could a priest set me straight on this point if I’ve misconstrued it in any way?

  12. benedictgal says:

    Mea culpa. I checked the Salt and Light twitter feed and found the tweets in question. Salt + Light is supposed to be the Canadian answer to EWTN, from what I understand, but, Fr. Rosica is tied in with them. The waters are getting muddier and muddier.

  13. Cradle Catholic says:

    Regarding Fr. Rosica and his press conferences on the Synod, (Fr. Rosica is in charge of the English part), Michael Voris relates how a priest had his journalistic credentials removed when he (the priest) remonstrated with Archbishop Durocher about the less than orthodox comments that the archbishop made -yet a pro gay, non-journalist was given journalistic credentials and allowed to ask questions. Ironically, Fr. Lombardi (who I gather, doesn’t speak English), tells us we have to “trust the process”.

    p.S. While Michael Voris refuses to implicate the Pope in what’s going on, in spite of the Pope’s intervention when Cardinal Erdo gave an orthodox opening speech, (I disagree with Mr. Voris on this), I do think his exposition on Fr. Rosica and the skewed English press conferences given by Rosica is important to see and hear – here:

  14. Cantor says:

    Priests are spiritual paramedics. When they arrive at the accident scene, they do meet people where they are. But then they must do whatever it takes to stabilize those people, extract them from their situation, and start to repair whatever damage has been done. Sometimes they even have to say “This may hurt a bit…” but it’s all for the patient’s welfare.

    What they can’t do is sit there and watch the victim die because he really wanted to drive into that tree.

  15. aviva meriam says:

    Prayers for both Cardinals Napier and Pell.

  16. murtheol says:

    Jesus most certainly forgave the person caught in adultery; at the same time he demanded a change in behavior.

  17. robtbrown says:

    I agree that exclusionary language should not be used. That’s why men and/or women should be replaced by homines.

  18. ChrisRawlings says:

    The irony is that the Catholic Church, at least in the United States, is exquisitely adept at “meeting people where they’re at,” in the best possible sense. The outreaches and ministries to the sick and destitute are legendary, and even today it is Catholic organizations and religious who dedicate themselves to the service of the least among us with the kind of apostolic fervor that changes hearts and communities in ways that no government program ever could.

    What’s more, how anyone could find the Catholic Church exclusionary mystifies me. Homeless drunkards high on marijuana line up every morning at our local cathedral for free breakfast. I have noticed that even (or especially) daily Masses at even suburban parishes draw an astonishly diverse group of people, all of whom are at varying levels of spiritual growth, economic background, and race. The Church truly is “here comes everybody,” again in the best possible way, despite the absurd and ignorant rants about Catholic holier-than-thou mentalities. How many Episcopalians visit abortion clinics not to condemn but simply to pray and love especially the women participating in fetacide?

    The Church exists to bring people out of the darkness of sin and through Christ into the light of divine life, which is the only real joy that exists. It is a contradiction of grace and plain logic to ask for the light of Christ while remaining resolutely in the darkness of sin. Worse than that, it is a lie that mocks the efficacy of the liberation from sin won on the Cross. Either Jesus Christ is enough or else he is nothing. Either the Cross is for all of us or it is for none. That is what we are debating here.

  19. NBW says:

    Question- will the laity ever get to hear to what was actually said in this Synod? Or are we going to get muddied interpretations of what was actually said?

  20. The Masked Chicken says:

    I just spent 40 minutes explaining what the term, “Jesus welcomes sinners,” really means, but it vanished before I could post it. Something is up…

    I can’t spend the time to re-write everything, but the notion that Jesus welcomes sinners comes from Luke 15: 2, just before the parable of the Lost Sheep. The word used is prosdechomai, which means receiving, accepting, or admitting, like a package or a person into an audience. It does not mean fellowship or friendship. This sense of welcoming is a more modern sense or, rather, the Scriptural use of prosdechomai is not the modern sense of welcoming. This, of course, makes sense, since Jesus can receive a sinner into His presence, but not their sin. He receives them as sinner, not friend, since Jesus’s friends keep His commandments. He receives them in an audience with the King of Kings, but they only become His friend when they abandon their sins. They must leave them in the confessional.

    Jesus eats with sinners not to accept their sins, but to offer, in His presence and by His grace what the tax collectors and sinners understood by the words, receive, accept, and admit – a second chance. Even in the modern understanding of the word, the bishops have got to know that even if Jesus welcomes sinners into His presence, He, certainly, does not welcome their sins. Let the word go forth from this place that we have a King who will dine with us, but let be understood that we had better plan to wash up before the meal. What an inconsiderate guest we should be to receive such an invitation and not respond with the thank you asked for on the invitation card: a humble and contrite heart, resolved to accept the second chance to sin no more.

    My first version was better, sigh.

    The Chicken

  21. TimG says:

    God Bless Card Napier!

    Thank you Fr Z. While some may accuse you of fear mongering or worse, [Who would do that?!?] the fact of the matter is that we the laity hear what’s in the MSM and we need the Truth (and we need to know that at least some shepherds are standing up for it.)

  22. blena says:

    Meeting the sinner where they are is best understood , in my opinion, that sin, gender, race, class, behavior, prejudices, infirmaries or possession would not prevent Christ from fellowship, action, teaching, instructing or admonishing. He did not “understand” their behavior or circumstance by considering their cultural, socioeconomic, familial structure, sexual orientation, poverty,wealth, health, status, or education. He called them to conversion and life. The above considerations would be for modern theologians and pastors who possess a deeper understanding of humanity than Christ to set things aright.

  23. Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick says:

    Bishops’ conferences should be abolished.

    Our bishops’ conference, for instance, take public policy positions on approximately 105 issues. Three or four are issues on which the teaching of the Catholic Church specifies what policy position a Catholic is obligated to take. (E.g., abortion should be illegal.)

    The USCCB spent ten$ of million$ lobbying for Obamacare, leading directly to the HHS Abortion Mandate as well as all the inevitable horrors of socialized medicine. It favors a borderless country, and never acknowledges the DAILY murder of 25 Americans by illegal aliens. The USCCB never acknowledges that immigrants vote 80% pro-abortion, and thus will kill the pro-life movement. The Catholic Campaign for Human Development has to be WATCHED CONSTANTLY, because it seems to have an irresistible urge to jump into bed with pro-gay and pro-abortion organization. In 2004, the American bishops voted to give themselves the option of committing the mortal sin of giving Communion to pro-abortion politicians. (Cf. “Catholics in Political Life.”)

  24. HyacinthClare says:

    Father, your catch-the-machine code is BROKEN. I can’t email you. So I’m putting the link here.

  25. gracie says:

    Someone needs to ask Fr. Rosica what priests are supposed to do after they “embrace people where they are”. Say a man on your finance committee is having an affair with a woman in your choir. You see them having dinner at a restaurant and you get up and go over to them. First you embrace the man – I mean you lean over and give him a big hug. Then you embrace the woman – you give her a big hug too.

    Okay, now what? Are you done? Do you walk back to your own table and continue eating? Do you wave to them as they leave? Are you happy knowing that you met them in their rotten place, hugged them, and then left them there? Is that what the priesthood is all about? Meeting people where they are and then leaving them there? Because if that’s the case, then I hate to break it to you, but the priesthood is unnecessary because anyone can meet people where they are and leave them there. As a layperson, I have to question what the point of the priesthood is if you’re saying that sacraments aren’t sacred, that the Father and Son are past their sell by date and the Holy Spirit is surprising us – through you, of course – with the fact that truth is what you decide it is. If that’s the case, why is your truth any more valid than ours? I fail to understand why we should even be listening to you, Fr. Rosica. You’re cutting and pasting the teachings of Jesus Christ to suit your own agenda and are leading countless people to think that God will accept us into His Kingdom even if we choose to live a life in rebellion against Him. You’re telling us we can be our own gods, deciding for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. Well, we can do that very well without you, Father. I would have more respect for you if you became, say, a plumber and did something useful for mankind. Plumbers we can always use.

  26. I resigned my membership in the Knights of Columbus for other reasons, but reading in this month’s Columbia (which they are still sending me) that the Knights gave a whole bunch of money last year to support Rosica’s Salt + Light TV made me even less eager to rejoin.

  27. benedictgal says:

    UPDATE: I sent Fr. Rosica a tweet asking if he could post the remarks made by Cardinals Pell and Erdo so that we could read them. When I checked my twitter account, I learned that Fr. Rosica has blocked me. Evidently, he has been doing this to a lot of people. Mind you, my request was made respectfully and rather straightforward.

  28. Geoffrey says:

    I have heard Fr. Rosica many times over the years on EWTN. He never struck me as a radical progressive / liberal eager to overturn doctrine. He narrated EWTN’s coverage of the opening Mass for the synod, and he said nothing out of place. Strange fellow…

    Meanwhile, I thank God for synod fathers like Cardinals Pell and Napier!

  29. wmeyer says:

    I have read of questionable content on Salt + Light in the past. And this is not the first time I have heard criticism of Fr. Rosica, most of which I am afraid seems well founded.

    On the other hand, Cdl. Collins has always impressed me positively. I have watched some of his videos, which were all solidly based on doctrine.

    A strong contrast between them.

  30. gaudiumcumpace says:

    “The Church can survive only by cleaving to Christ: “Christ first of all,”
    “Either Christ or nothing.”
    – St. John Leonardi

  31. acardnal says:

    Chicken, I’ve learned from experience that it’s vital to “copy-all” periodically when writing a long comment.

  32. acardnal says:

    Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick wrote, “Bishops’ conferences should be abolished.”

    I agree. And in addition to the reasons you cited, I would add that God’s truth is true no matter where one lives.

  33. excalibur says:

    To me, how appropriate are today’s readings! Friday of the Twenty-seventh Week in Ordinary Time
    Lectionary: 465.

  34. chantgirl: “A pope bluntly stating or advocating heresy would not be the worst case scenario. A pope who affirmed Christ’s teaching in word, but who allowed those teachings to be gutted in practice would be the worst outcome.”

    Quote of the day!

  35. donato2 says:

    Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried threatens three sacraments: marriage, confession, and the Eucharist. Even Pope Francis recognizes, I think, the way it threatens marriage. The issue of the need for repentance seems to be increasingly coming to the attention of the Synod. I however hear very little about what I consider the gravest threat that is posed by communion for the divorced and civilly remarried: profanation of the Eucharist. I cannot wrap my mind around unrepentant adulterers receiving the body of Christ with the Church’s blessing. It is something I will never accept.

  36. tskrobola says:

    Not to be critical of Cd. Napier, because I’m glad he said what he said, however….
    …he seemed to complain in his clarifying remarks on the audio clip that “the media” only reported part of Fr. Rosica’s comment….perhaps that was because Salt + Light’s twitter feed deliberately titled the comments as “meet people where they are”. That is the message that Fr. Rosica wanted to get out there.

    I don’t blame Cd. Napier for trying to find the common thread between his comments and Fr. Rosica’s, and to avoid a confrontation with Fr. Rosica…the thing that is distressing is that a wise and faithful cardinal like Napier has to play nice with someone like Rosica, who really has no place in any serious discussion of the Catholic faith, marriage or morals.

  37. majuscule says:


    There was a lot of talk among Facebook friends this morning about being blocked by Fr. Rosica. Blocked after simply making a polite comment or asking a polite and valid question. So you are in good company.

  38. Kathleen10 says:

    chantgirl, that is it, the worst scenario, because if a pope condones heresy outright, it’s identified as such and addressed in some way. Gutting doctrine by watering down practice is far worse, and I do believe we have very cunning men in charge of the Synod. There have been missteps, but they are learning, ever learning, and they have a huge force behind them, activists who know how to get it done and have learned many of those lessons already.
    I haven’t watched the entire World Over segment but I will. I have avoided it a bit because frankly, I don’t want to hear happy talk right now, and I didn’t know if I would hear that. I love EWTN and don’t want to be annoyed with the network. I’m glad they are discussing the obvious, we’ve got problems here. I’m sickened that we have Christians in the Middle East being crucified for their faith, and a Synod focused on getting homosexuality approved, and how can we commit sacrilege by handing out Holy Communion like cookies, because nobody sins. Disgusting.
    If the reports are correct and we have a large majority of Cardinals who are even giving a green light to using less “negative language” about homosexuality, even that is serious trouble. What can be gotten rid of? The word “disorder”? Language is how it starts, and it’s the camel’s nose.
    This Synod process, this one and the last, have been an altogether vulgar view of how things work in the church. Frankly, it’s already ugly and can’t be made attractive. There is not enough lipstick in the world for this pig. There is no difference between what these men are doing and all the political machinations we all already see in our secular world. This is dirty politics, Chicago-style manipulations, subterfuge, deck-stacking, retribution, phony-sounding reassurances, and all the rest that goes with it.
    It will be a comfort, but perhaps not a fix, if Cardinals get fed up and go all in, jump up on podiums and start screaming about the heretics and call them out, all of them, if necessary. It would be career suicide, but hopefully some Cardinals would be willing to go that far to defend Jesus Christ and His teachings. A glorious way to end your career, anyway, and at least you’d have Cardinal Burke to hang out with. Then when we get the next pope, hopefully they’d be back in play. But even thus far it seems as if we no longer have enough Cardinals who “get it”. The reports of the discussions all sound, frankly, insipid and weak. Not encouraging.
    I’m waiting and hoping for Cardinals to start making some real noise. A well-placed tweet is good, but we need some roaring LIONS. Only roaring lions are going to make a difference, and maybe not even then, but it will be heartbreakingly pathetic if these Cardinals, many of them, don’t do that much for the sake of Jesus Christ.

  39. kiwiinamerica says:

    Yeah, coz in its 2,000 year history, the Church has never done that, has it Fr. Rosica? We just figured that out now.

    All the great saints and apostles…..they never “met people where they were at”, did they Father? No, we had to wait until 2015 for this great insight.

    Do people like Rosica think we’re stupid? Do they think we’ve never read the lives of the saints? Do they really think they can spout this shtick and we’ll swallow it?

    There’s a big difference between meeting people where they’re at and leaving them where they’re at. What Rosica and his fellow travelers really mean is the latter.

  40. tskrobola says:

    Kathleen, you are awesome

  41. Peter Stuart says:

    Majuscule and benedictgal, Fr. Rosica has taken to blocking people on Twitter who say they’ve never even had an interaction with him! We tweeple in exile are having a #RosicaBlockParty (identifying ourselves by the hashtag, that is, not blocking him — what would be the point or the charity in that?), so it’s not all grim.

  42. Pingback: Bring Back the Ordo Paenitentium - Big Pulpit

  43. midwestmom says:

    Here’s another reaching translation by Francis De Bernardo of the dissenting New Ways Ministry, whose press credentials Michael Voris rightly questioned.

Comments are closed.