[Servant of the Cross]

It was only a matter of time. The liberals were the ones who completely misrepresented Pope Francis (Time magazine man of the year) with the full intent of making him into what they wanted him to be and hoping against hope that either he or others in the Curia would assist them in that process.

Pope Francis is very different in style and words than either the philosopher Saint Pope John Paul II the Great or the theologian Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI ... only because he believes his papacy to be the evangelizer to the world to grow the body of Christ in the authentic Catholic faith, of which he is every bit the "son of the Church" that his predecessors in the Chair of Peter were.

We first needed the foundation of the philosopher and the theologian in order for the fruits of the evangelizer to be bountiful as possible.

[Bigg Red]

Well said.

[Patriotic1]

So very true. Late last year I was reading a book in which the author stated that we needed the spirituality of both Benedict and Francis. I nodded in agreement then realized before turning the page that this was an older book.

It made me appreciate the meaning behind the name choices of the last 2 popes and ties in exactly to what you just posted. But talk about an eerie feeling..

[Mrs. Don-o]

Ac excellent insight.

[piusv]

It was only a matter of time. The liberals were the ones who completely misrepresented Pope Francis (Time magazine man of the year) with the full intent of making him into what they wanted him to be and hoping against hope that either he or others in the Curia would assist them in that process.

So does this mean that I'll no longer see posts saying that the MSM has taken Francis out of context, misquoted, etc?

[Salvation]

And people don’t understand this. Good post.