Fratelli Tutti- I interview Pedro Gabriel of WherePeterIs.com in response to recent criticism of the Encyclical

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

By comparing PFs words to Jesus' use of parables, you are suggesting that PF is also deliberately trying to conceal the truth of his meaning and cause confusion so that some will not understand.  

If you admit this, then why do you and others try to explain to those who do not understand? You are at cross purposes with the Pope! You are undoing his work!

 

I don't know how you arrived at the conclusions you have!  I was adding a comment to what Anastasia had stated and I quoted what she had said about the Pharisees, some of them.  I said nothing about Pope Francis.  Nor would I ever suggest such a thing.  

 

Quote

Lilllabett: If you admit this, then why do you and others try to explain to those who do not understand? You are at cross purposes with the Pope! You are undoing his work!

I most certainly do not admit to what you refer, therefore what follows is cancelled out in reference to me.   

I have no idea at all from where you have drawn your conclusions; alternatively, where you are coming from.

I am bemused.

 

6 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

But, you explained PFs behavior by pointing out that Jesus Himself did not always clarify, rather he spoke in parables, which, he says explicitly, he did for the reason that some of his listeners would be confused. You mean to say PF does the same no? Or otherwise, if PF does not intend to confuse, why make this analogy?

Your life is less busy now than before but perhaps you are the type of Christian PF intends to understand his teaching. Whereas we busy ones he intends to leave confused?

I said what I did re legalism because you agreed with HaP that perhaps PFs goal is addressing the oppressive legalism entrapping the Church, this being one of the big, urgent, priority problems we are currently facing. My experience is that people rather try to make the demands of the Gospel out to be some kind of law they must follow. Then they blame the Gospel for being rigid and legalistic - but they themselves are the architects of legalism. 

I am sorry, but I can only laugh.  How on earth do you arrive at the conclusions you do!

[Guest]

I am not going to make a sweeping generalization anyway I hope.  Previous post should read: "some of the conclusions you do"

[HumilityAndPatience]

17 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I very much agree.  Thank you for wording your thoughts as you have.

Thanks for the kind words @BarbaraTherese . 

 

17 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Hang on a minute, I have The Mass and The Sacraments, The Church and Scripture, to support me in my journey, while the homosexual person does not.  That just MIGHT mean that my offence against the law is more serious than I realise and, in the eyes of God, PERHAPS more serious than the active homosexual person and the free knowledge and free consent involved.

Amen! We will all be judged according to our capacity- this is a teaching which I think needs a resurgence these days.

 

17 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

“Jesus invited a little child to stand among them. 3“Truly I tell you, He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of God “

THis is so important. The imitation of Christ covers this excellently too- the more you know, the less you should think of yourself.

 

14 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

You can hold that opinion, but I think it is based on a backwards understanding of what the Church is. The Church when she teaches, does not propose laws. Jesus did not establish a Church to make laws but to preach the Gospel and protect its saving knowledge from corruption. The Gospel is the good news, the saving knowledge of the Truth of who God Is - Jesus Christ. What the Church teaches is revelation of the truth in light of who we know and believe God is. 

Let us take the example @BarbaraTherese mentioned. Gay sex. The Church's teaching on gay sex is NOT A LAW. the characterization of this teaching as "law" is indicative of a profound misunderstanding. The Church's teaching is revelation of the meaning of marriage, divine love, the cosmic significance of sex and God's identity as creator, among other things. It is the Gospel, preached to us as the truth and proposed for our belief. 

Christianity is NOT a law based religion. It is a Credo. What makes a Christian is not adherence to a law but belief in the Gospel. Whether one engages in gay sex? much less important than if one believes the Gospel re: gay sex.

I mean, hopefully, if one accepts the Gospel, their attitude towards engaging in gay sex is necessarily impacted, even if they are not entirely succesful in making their actions align with their beliefs. This one, then,  is a Christian.  But one who never engages in gay sex? never even opens one's mouth to speak against the Gospel teaching? in fact speaks and writes in its favor? and yet in their heart is sure and peaceful in rejecting it - this one is not a Christian. 

Because of what the Church is, what she does - proposing the Gospel for our belief, that we might be saved - ambiguity about what she is teaching is totally upside down of her identity.

There is no relation between clear teaching and legalism.  On the question of embryo adoption the Church did not hesitate to be crystal clear there was no definitive Gospel teaching. This gave me, and many others,  the freedom to discern myself, as best I could, what aligns with the Gospel. (If the Church ever says embryo adoption is not acceptable in light of who God is, then I will be forced to choose what I believe - the Gospel or my personal discernment. )  I am not sitting here clamoring for the Church to give the teaching or complaining about her statement that she has none. Because she did not leave me twisting in the wind, wondering what I must believe to be saved. 

 

I will try a different question here as I think we are reaching a bit of an impasse- does the fact that many find PF's teachings ambiguous mean that they are so?

I for one, do not find them ambiguous, for example. In fact, I think he is helping to shed the scales of a Church crippled by legalism. And when I say legalism, I speak not of doctrine in and of itself (a necessary thing, obviously), but of the ordering of priority Catholics have placed on doctrine, practice etc. He is teaching us mercy again. Simplicity. 

13 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

The problem is that lack of docility towards legitimate authority in The Church.

3 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

It must be very unpleasant to be Catholic and have all these rules you must follow. If you can accept the Church's preaching as the Gospel, the "rules" will not feel burdensome to you but following them will be naturally motivated from your belief. Internal motivation of belief in the Gospel vs external motivation, following a "law" imposed from outside. 

I think your are misunderstanding the point here. It is not being proposed that the law should be redundant. Simply that it has been elevated too high in the economy of salvation. This was the error of the Pharisees. They were experts on the law. But they forgot their hearts...

1 hour ago, BarbaraTherese said:

There are internal positive reasons for my obedience to The Church, The Mystical Body of Christ on earth.

Thanks for this post @BarbaraTherese , it was inspiration to hear of your journey. I too have thought of looking for an SD etc. but I am too far off that I think. I struggle to say my daily prayers as it is, unfortunately. Acedia is a terrible affliction of mine...

[HumilityAndPatience]

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

I said what I did re legalism because you agreed with HaP that perhaps PFs goal is addressing the oppressive legalism entrapping the Church, this being one of the big, urgent, priority problems we are currently facing. My experience is that people rather try to make the demands of the Gospel out to be some kind of law they must follow. Then they blame the Gospel for being rigid and legalistic - but they themselves are the architects of legalism. 

I'm not too sure re what you are saying here @Lilllabettt. Who is it that makes the demands of the Gospel out to be some kind of law? The Gospel and the magisterium/laws which spring forth (speaking in an administrative sense rather than the perennial moral truths) are separate (though related) entities. And what is being posited is that the law (again- though it is of course important) has exceeded  deeper Gospel messages.  

Edited November 23, 2020 by HumilityAndPatience

[Guest]

Thank you for your Posts, @HumilityAndPatience.  You have a clarity of expression that I truly lack, but jump in anyway and with both feet    I am so happy to see you in this thread and your User Name is well chosen I think.  My major struggle would be with humility -  and oh my goodness, patience can be totally elusive until after the event.

50 minutes ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

I too have thought of looking for an SD etc. but I am too far off that I think. I struggle to say my daily prayers as it is, unfortunately. Acedia is a terrible affliction of mine.

Oh I can struggle with daily prayer but the struggle has not been the same as my recent struggle.  Different in intensity. I would start the Office and a few lines in be filled with such repugnance, that I had to stop.  I have never had that experience before, never.  I can pray mentally no problems at all, with or without words - but with formal prayer and I use Universalis (Morning & Evening, Night Prayers), I can have a real struggle to get to prayer.  It can be difficult for some out here in the world with formal type prayer times.  In religious life, one goes to prayer because that is where everyone is going i.e. the community is a support (it can also be a real trial, even suffering)

In my now rather quite long journey, it is spiritual direction that has helped me deal with problems and also if I am stuck, spiritual direction can help me, facilitate me, forward.  It can gently or even firmly point out problems of which I might have not been aware.  That sort of openness will usually come with regular appointments.

What one can do is seek out a spiritual director and state that one has no idea where to start.  The director will then take up his or her cue and lead.  But as I said in another post, St Teresa of Avila advises that if one cannot find a suitable director, or whatever, to confidently put oneself in the Hands of Jesus and continue to pray for a sound director (wise, holy, educated).

The first appointment with a director is about what one expects from him or her.  The director will then come to a conclusion at some point whether he or she can be a good director for the person.  It is a sort of contract between director and directed.  Basically what that means is directed: "These are my expectations" Director: "I think I might be able to meet your expectations"...something like that.

Cheers and blessings to you and all.

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by BarbaraTherese

[Lilllabettt]

1 hour ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I don't know how you arrived at the conclusions you have!  I was adding a comment to what Anastasia had stated and I quoted what she had said about the Pharisees, some of them.  I said nothing about Pope Francis.  Nor would I ever suggest such a thing.  

 

I most certainly do not admit to what you refer, therefore what follows is cancelled out in reference to me.   

I have no idea at all from where you have drawn your conclusions; alternatively, where you are coming from.

I am bemused.

 

I am sorry, but I can only laugh.  How on earth do you arrive at the conclusions you do!

It is very common, when people complain that PF refuses to explain or clarify what he says or writes, for them to be answered with a reference to the fact that Jesus Himself did not always explain or clarify when people are confused. 

The awkward part of them doing this, is that Jesus acted that way because we wanted to confuse some people.  If PFs behavior is to be justified this way, it seems to admit that confusing people is his deliberate choice. Hence, why he feels no need to answer questions, clarify or explain anything. 

Sorry if I misunderstood your reasons for bringing this up... 

28 minutes ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

 

I will try a different question here as I think we are reaching a bit of an impasse- does the fact that many find PF's teachings ambiguous mean that they are so?

I for one, do not find them ambiguous, for example. In fact, I think he is helping to shed the scales of a Church crippled by legalism. 

Let's see. I am a teacher. Or rather, I was. Communicating knowledge clearly and effectively was my goal.

After a lesson was completed, I would give an exam to test understanding. If the test showed students answering in wildly different ways, I knew somewhere that understanding had broken down and I'd failed in my goal. Especially if MANY students failed to grasp my lesson, I knew that something in my manner of delivery was broken and unclear.

Sure, there may be some who did not pay attention and others who did not do their homework and others who refused to try on the test.  But if MANY find the lesson confusing, the fault is mine. It is my responsibility, as teacher, to go back and clarify the confusing bits. 

If I sit back and say "my lessons aren't confusing. It's my job to teach and their job to learn, I did my part" then I am simply a BAD TEACHER. 

I could refuse to clarify and instead call my "many" confused students names, suggest they are only pretending to be confused, suggest they are in fact refusing to understand, that they just want to make my job difficult or that they are too dumb to get it. Once again, this does not mean anything about my students, but it does mean I am a BAD teacher and the way I teach is confusing. 

 

[HumilityAndPatience]

29 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Thank you for your Posts, @HumilityAndPatience.  You have a clarity of expression that I truly lack, but jump in anyway and with both feet    I am so happy to see you in this thread and your User Name is well chosen I think.  My major struggle would be with humility -  and oh my goodness, patience can be totally elusive until after the event.

Thank you v much @BarbaraTherese (:  your posts have been immensely helpful to me too. 

 

32 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Cheers and blessings to you and all.

Thanks again for your advice on SD. I will discern this carefully. An acquaintance of mine did mention SD's in the past- it stuck with me but I never did quite pursue it...

 

25 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Let's see. I am a teacher. Or rather, I was. Communicating knowledge clearly and effectively was my goal.

Thanks for this example @Lilllabettt it is every helpful. May I ask some questions in response:

• do you agree that ambiguity is a subjective judgement, in the context of Church teaching?
  • NB: I do not deny that objective ambiguity can exist.
• are you proposing the majority of Catholics globally share in your opinion of this ambiguity?
  • NB: I agree- in the West (particularly in America), there is confusion abound particularly amongst Traditionals
• taking forward your logic in any case, does the fact that some students do not understand the teacher mean that the teaching is incorrect?

[Guest]

 

21 minutes ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

Thank you v much @BarbaraTherese (:  your posts have been immensely helpful to me too. 

Thank you.

I like to think that maybe something I have said might lead another to give a fuller explanation or even that something I said might lead another in a new direction.

With spiritual direction - on that first appointment, sound him or her out as you also need to make a decision whether you think the director can assist.  Best of luck and God's blessings on your decision re spiritual director and on any journey to unfold.

58 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Sorry if I misunderstood your reasons for bringing this up

 Thank you.  

@HumilityAndPatienceOn the subject of The Imitation of Christ, it was given to me when I was in religious life in my teens.  It scared the wits out of me! I have never picked it up since.

[Anastasia]

4 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

It is very common, when people complain that PF refuses to explain or clarify what he says or writes, for them to be answered with a reference to the fact that Jesus Himself did not always explain or clarify when people are confused. 

It is a typical example of an argument which works only if an opponent forgets the concrete situation which is being referred to. Meaning “Jesus did not explain” works only if a person is content with this empty general phrase and does not wish to know to whom and why He did not explain.

Jesus spoke parables to the crowds. Some people understood, some not. Yet, later on Jesus would always explain his parables to His disciples. 

Christians, the members of the Church are the decuples of Christ so, logically speaking, Christ would explain His parables to us. PF does not. From here follows that either PF is not behaving like Christ or that PF does not see Christians as the disciples and this is why he does not explain his words. My point is that the defenders of PF’s blur must chose one or another; their general empty statement “PF behaves like Christ” is simply not true.

(Another example of how the defense of PF’s silence creates an empty shell and distorts the reality: it is common to say that those who question and criticize PF are Pharisees and PF is, obviously, Christ-like. This analogy is only possible if one obliterates the reality: It is not the critics of PF who spin the blur, it is PF who spins the blur and his critics only want clarity.)

Returning to “Jesus did not explain”. Jesus was silent when those before him willfully resisted seeing the Truth, Him. The most obvious example is Pilate with his “what is truth?” while the Truth was standing before him. There was no point to shout “look at Me, I am the Truth!” if the Pilate denied the truth already.

And here comes a very fine point: the defenders of PF seem to forget that PF is not Jesus Christ, he is not the Truth incarnated that speaks herself – PF is a mere servant whose task is lead the Church as a ship following Christ. That means all he has to be concerned about is to speak of Christ with the clarity and conviction which should tend to the clarity of the Lord. And this does not happen. It is fine to play little games of silence and blur if you try to make an impression about yourself but not if you, so to say, walk with the Monstrance in your hands. If you do that little games then you forgot Whom you serve. And this is all to it. In Byzantium people would argue about the Christological dogmas in the market place. Now people argue about PF, not what Christ meant and Who He about what PF meant and who he is.

Edited November 24, 2020 by Anastasia

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Anastasia said:

It is a typical example of an argument which works only if an opponent forgets the concrete situation which is being referred to. Meaning “Jesus did not explain” works only if a person is content with this empty general phrase and does not wish to know to whom and why He did not explain.

When I quoted that The Gospel states that Jesus did not always explain, I was referring to a post stating that "Jesus always explained".

2 hours ago, Anastasia said:

Christians, the members of the Church are the decuples of Christ so, logically speaking, Christ would explain His parables to us. PF does not. From here follows that either PF is not behaving like Christ or that PF does not see Christians as the disciples and this is why he does not explain his words. My point is that the defenders of PF’s blur must chose one or another; their general empty statement “PF behaves like Christ” is simply not true.

 

Where is it stated in this thread  “PF behaves like Christ” ?" 

There is an undertow, or at times a very obvious, lack of charity in this thread at times.  Of not respecting what the other member might state and a valuing of the member on a personal level.  The language used can be insulting.  Charity is what we are all ideally about, that for which we strive and that includes respecting and valuing.

I read somewhere or other: "It is not what you state so much, it is the way you are stating it."

2 hours ago, Anastasia said:

And here comes a very fine point: the defenders of PF seem to forget that PF is not Jesus Christ, he is not the Truth incarnated that speaks herself – PF is a mere servant whose task is lead the Church as a ship following Christ. That means all he has to be concerned about is to speak of Christ with the clarity and conviction which should tend to the clarity of the Lord. And this does not happen. It is fine to play little games of silence and blur if you try to make an impression about yourself but not if you, so to say, walk with the Monstrance in your hands. If you do that little games then you forgot Whom you serve. And this is all to it. In Byzantium people would argue about the Christological dogmas in the market place. Now people argue about PF, not what Christ meant and Who He about what PF meant and who he is.

I have no idea at all where most of the above is coming from, with other paragraphs as well!  It seems to be something held in the mind of the poster (a presuming about the other projected onto that other as their thoughts or words etc.) It is a disowning of one's own thinking.  It also seems to me to be that what is being addressed is the member's own presuming about the other, or 'talking' to oneself, to one's own imaginings, presuming or whatever.

Again, I am bemused.  I am hoping that @HumilityAndPatience will make comment at some point.  She has insightful understanding, with conciseness of thought and expression, which I simply do not have.  I am not putting myself down. I have other virtues, I hope.  I am simply stating fact, reality.

Mea Culpa

Cheers all - and may The Lord bless us all guiding and strengthening us all through The Holy Spirit, to the Glory of The Father. Amen.

_______________

I bet two bob that after I post this I will have another thought, but will have lost my edit facility.  It drives me nutty .

 

Just now, BarbaraTherese said:

When I quoted that The Gospel states that Jesus did not always explain, I was referring to a post stating that "Jesus always explained".

 

Where is it stated in this thread  “PF behaves like Christ” ?" 

There is an undertow, or at times a very obvious, lack of charity in this thread at times.  Of not respecting what the other member might state and a valuing of the member on a personal level.  The language used can be insulting.  Charity is what we are all ideally about, that for which we strive and that includes respecting and valuing.

I read somewhere or other: "It is not what you state so much, it is the way you are stating it."

I have no idea at all where most of the above is coming from, with other paragraphs as well!  It seems to be something held in the mind of the poster (a presuming about the other projected onto that other as their thoughts or words etc.) It is a disowning of one's own thinking.  It also seems to me to be that what is being addressed is the member's own presuming about the other, or 'talking' to oneself, to one's own imaginings, presuming or whatever.

Again, I am bemused.  I am hoping that @HumilityAndPatience will make comment at some point.  She has insightful understanding, with conciseness of thought and expression, which I simply do not have.  I am not putting myself down. I have other virtues, I hope.  I am simply stating fact, reality.

Mea Culpa

Cheers all - and may The Lord bless us all guiding and strengthening us all through The Holy Spirit, to the Glory of The Father. Amen.

_______________

I bet two bob that after I post this I will have another thought, but will have lost my edit facility.  It drives me nutty .  I understand what Jesus meant about not generally explaining a parable, but only to His disciples.  I quoted Fr. Michael (scripture scholar) and Jimmy Aiken (apologist) in a previous post.  They both state the same thing in different wording.

 

 

I am sorry, but I have no idea why my post was repeated.  I was using the edit facility.  Drives me batty!

[Guest]

  I do understand what Jesus meant about not generally explaining a parable, but only to His disciples.  I quoted Fr. Michael (scripture scholar) and Jimmy Aiken (apologist) in a previous post.  They both state the same thing in different wording.  I feel comfortable in adopting their understanding - unless of course, the inexhaustible treasury of Scripture should reveal some new understanding.

[Anastasia]

1 hour ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Where is it stated in this thread  “PF behaves like Christ” ?" 

  here for example, said by you

13 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

By comparing PFs words to Jesus' use of parables, you are suggesting that PF is also deliberately trying to conceal the truth of his meaning and cause confusion so that some will not understand.  

or here

10 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

But, you explained PFs behavior by pointing out that Jesus Himself did not always clarify, rather he spoke in parables, which, he says explicitly, he did for the reason that some of his listeners would be confused.

However, I was analyzing a well-known argument (present not just on this phorum) which backs up PF's "blur" and his refusal to clarify his words to the members of the Church. If that arguments claims "but PF behaved just like Christ" then, well it is legitimate to analyze that claim I think. It is not my idea that PF behaves like Christ; if I thought so I would not criticize PF. 

As for the rest. Projection is a defense mechanism triggered during an interpersonal contact, like you addressing me above for example. It is usually sudden, highly personal and lacks logical argument (an example "it is in your own mind!" instead of "you are not right here because the facts are..."). Quiet often, one who projects blames the other for what she herself is doing, at that very moment. None of those qualities are present in my critic of how PF (with whom I have no personal contact) carries his role. I provided the ground for why I think so. I said is that PF is not Christ but he is supposed to be a servant of Christ; if he felt it he would be very clear, for an obvious reason. I also said that I have zero problem if anyone in his private live plays the games of silence but I have a huge problem if that person does it while holding a Monstrance (a metaphor) i.e. while he is doing a pastor's duty of being responsible for the flock, in the presence of Christ. I stand by what I said whether you think it is charitable or not. I am afraid though you mistake charity for "being nice". 

And by the way, "being nice" always comes for a price. If I was "nice" I would have to ignore a very painful experience and the real fact, of many Roman Catholics writing desperate messages "please Holy Father, explain what you mean!" when the recent scandal happened. Not answering those Catholics was a betrayal of them so I have a reason to say what I said.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

and oh my goodness, patience can be totally elusive until after the event

What the above means that I find patience extremely difficult to at times, impossible it would only seem since Grace is always with me and all.  However, after the event in which I have lost patience, I am patient with myself about having lost patience. 

St Paul in defining Love states first "Love is patient".  And so, in my journey to grow in Charity, I have problems, big problems, with getting over the first hurdle even, as it were.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

  here for example, said by you

or here

However, I was analyzing a well-known argument (present not just on this phorum) which backs up PF's "blur" and his refusal to clarify his words to the members of the Church. If that arguments claims "but PF behaved just like Christ" then, well it is legitimate to analyze that claim I think. It is not my idea that PF behaves like Christ; if I thought so I would not criticize PF. 

As for the rest. Projection is a defense mechanism triggered during an interpersonal contact, like you addressing me above for example. It is usually sudden, highly personal and lacks logical argument (an example "it is in your own mind!" instead of "you are not right here because the facts are..."). Quiet often, one who projects blames the other for what she herself is doing, at that very moment. None of those qualities are present in my critic of how PF (with whom I have no personal contact) carries his role. I provided the ground for why I think so. I said is that PF is not Christ but he is supposed to be a servant of Christ; if he felt it he would be very clear, for an obvious reason. I also said that I have zero problem if anyone in his private live plays the games of silence but I have a huge problem if that person does it while holding a Monstrance (a metaphor) i.e. while he is doing a pastor's duty of being responsible for the flock, in the presence of Christ. I stand by what I said whether you think it is charitable or not. I am afraid though you mistake charity for "being nice". 

And by the way, "being nice" always comes for a price. If I was "nice" I would have to ignore a very painful experience and the real fact, of many Roman Catholics writing desperate messages "please Holy Father, explain what you mean!" when the recent scandal happened. Not answering those Catholics was a betrayal of them so I have a reason to say what I said.

Whatever.  I didn't say those things you are saying I did.  If it is me you were referring to of course. I checked back and it was Anastasia - your comments need to be directed to her. 

I am off to watch the TV News.  Our states are striving to allow us all to have a normal type of Christmas.  The states really are doing an outstanding job - our medical experts, the government, police, defense men and women -   and all front line workers.  All working together, as a united front.  And our fellow citizens have behaved commendably too and as instructed, and so it is a feasible hope that Australia will have a normal type of Christmas.  10/10 to all!

My rule says that 5pm is the switch off point from daily duties, other than prayer.  I am having a struggle to be where I should be and when. Nothing new just particularly a struggle at this point.

Cheers! God bless!

[Guest]

Wrote a post addressing some of the more recent statements about me, but lost the post.  My mouse too is giving me headaches.  

Having lost the post, so be it.  Whatever.   

_______________________

Thank goodness that (I think) President Trump has conceded and the handover process can begin.  What a relief.  That is of course, if I heard correctly. I will have to watch our continual news channel tonight.   I think I know what might eventually unfold, but thought, I know, can be very wrong, at times quite right.  It is all in the unfolding and an interesting mental exercise to think about what that unfolding just might reveal.  I bet our political journalists and commentators are scrambling.

Thanksgiving in order if what I heard was correct and prayer for the USA and all as they embark on a new journey with President Biden taking the reins.

 

"He who hears you, hears Me" - What is an encyclical letter?

Edited November 24, 2020 by BarbaraTherese