“How can we respond to those who say that it is of no use going to Mass, even on Sunday, because the important thing is to live well, to love our neighbour? It is true that the quality of Christian life is measured by the capacity to love, as Jesus said: “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:35); but how can we practice the Gospel without drawing the energy necessary to do so, one Sunday after another, from the inexhaustible source of the Eucharist? We do not go to Mass in order to give something to God, but to receive what we truly need from him. We are reminded of this by the Church’s prayer, which is addressed to God in this way: “although you have no need of our praise, yet our thanksgiving is itself your gift, since our praises add nothing to your greatness but profit us for salvation” (Roman Missal, Common Preface iv).”

(scroll down for answer)



Pope Francis

General Audience, Dec 13th 2017

Liked this post? Take a second to support Where Peter Is on Patreon!

Pedro Gabriel, MD, is a Catholic layman and physician, born and residing in Portugal. He is a medical oncologist, currently employed in a Portuguese public hospital. A published writer of Catholic novels with a Tolkienite flavor, he is also a parish reader and a former catechist. He seeks to better understand the relationship of God and Man by putting the lens on the frailty of the human condition, be it physical and spiritual. He also wishes to provide a fresh perspective of current Church and World affairs from the point of view of a small western European country, highly secularized but also highly Catholic by tradition.

Which Pope said this?

38 Responses

  1. jude says:

    “we don’t go to mass to give something to God?”
    i am just dumb struck.

    • Christopher Lake says:


      Why are you “just dumb struck” by the Pope’s words? He is right.

      Primarily, we *don’t* go to Mass to give something to God. Even our worship of God, as right and infinitely-deserved and important as it is for us to give to God, adds absolutely nothing to Him. *He* doesn’t need our worship. *We* need to worship *Him*.

      The primary reason that we go to Mass, that we *need* to go to Mass, is to receive what *He* has to give to *us*– Himself, in our receiving of His body and blood in the Eucharist, and Himself, through God the Holy Spirit, communicating to us, through the reading of Scripture and the priest’s homily.

      The idea that we are going to Mass, primarily, to *give* something to God, underestimates our true spiritual poverty before Him and our desperate need of Him. We need to receive Him, directly in the Eucharist, or we have no life in us, as Christ teaches, and we need to experience His ministry through the Spirit, in the hearing and preaching of His word in Scripture at Mass. These are the overarching reasons to go to Mass, which should inform everything else *at* Mass, including our thinking about why we even *go to Mass.

      • Jude says:

        It does not take a great deal of contemplation to see that God does not need anything from us, or that we have nothing that we can give to Him that is not already His or not His due, yet to say that we don’t go to mass to give something to God is astounding, even in a casual way when one considers that we go to mass to offer to God the only thing worthy of Him, the body and blood of Christ, we then go to offer to him what he will not take from us, our devotion, our love, our crosses and failures, our whole lives.

        Even when we consider that this might be our larger motivation, what we get out of it, it shouldn’t be. The first end of the mass, the official public worship of the church on earth is to give honor and glory to God as is His due . next to give Thanksgiving, next to atone for our sins and those of the rest of mankind, and lastly to ask for our wants and needs.

        To overlook or down play the idea that we owe God this weekly public, communal and perfect worship, which He gave us, that we owe it to Him and perhaps to think of mass primarily as a weekly (or less) stop at the spiritual gym… is to not acknowledge our poverty, that we are not just spiritually poor, but poor in everything. is not to acknowledge that we are the creature and God is the creator, that he does not owe us existence.

        I think therefore that to think of the mass as anything less than the least we can do, as anything other than first and foremost an act of worship, to move to the background, the sacrifice of Calvary represented is not wise. I can appreciate that this is one quote from the pope and that there are likely more that are more precise, but to see it so strongly defended, and to read “It was chosen” makes me wonder just how bad it is out there. That it is not being defended as one way of looking at it, or part of a larger body of quotes focusing only on one part of the question today, but that it is fine on its own.

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        Yes, the fact that this quote is not considered fine on its own just goes to show how bad things are out there… but not on the Pope side

    • Pedro Gabriel says:

      I hope this comment is being ironic, otherwise your view of the faith is seriously compromised

      There is nothing we can give God. Nothing. There is nothing that God needs from us. Nothing

      Whatever God requires of us, it is not done for His sake, but for our own. If we don’t go to Mass, God stays just the same. It is we who suffer. It is our salvation that suffers. We, not God

      God gives us commandments and duties because He wants us to be saved, not because He is asking us to do something for Him

      • carn says:

        You can give someone who does not need it.

        We give to God not what God needs us to give to Him, but we give to him what we need to give to him.


        I think this is just one of the usual cases in which Pope Francis tries to say something sensible/right/true, but his choice of words is not as close to optimal as one would wish for.

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        And I think this is just one of the usual cases where people are going to be nitpicky for no other reason besides validating their narrative of Pope Francis as an “unclear” teacher

        There is nothing, nothing, nothing wrong or unorthodox with this quote. In fact, it was chosen precisely because of this.

        That people found fault with it should not shock me or surprise me, but it still does. Guess that’s my fault though

        Yes, we can give to someone that which that someone does not need. We can give God things He does not need when we go to Mass. Is that the reason why we go to Mass? No. God does not need us to go to Mass, *we* need to go to Mass.

      • carn says:

        “There is nothing, nothing, nothing wrong”

        With the intent behind the words there is nothing wrong.

        Just the words as chosen are untrue:

        “We do not go to Mass in order to give something to God, but to receive what we truly need from him.”

        We do go to Mass in order to give to God what we truly need to give him for our sake AND to receive what we truly need from him.

        Accordingly, saying that we do not go to mass to give something to God is untrue.

        “God does not need us to go to Mass”

        And it bewilders me after i have written verbatim that to give to God is a need of us and not of God, that you still act as if i had suggested that we give to God what God needs.

        We go – among other things – to mass to give to God what we need to give him for our own sake.

        I guess the Pope would not object that.

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        And it bewilders me that you say that I act as if you suggested we give to God what God needs. I was explaining the quote again, not imputing motives to you. But then, that’s what happens when one selectively quotes a comment and leaves out the rest

        Just like you did with the Pope, forgetting the he clarified what he means in the following sentence, where he even quotes an official document. So if the sentence is read according to its proper context, there is nothing wrong with it. Nothing. Everyone knows what the Pope was saying and where he was getting at.

        There is just no end for the amount of equivocation, and there is no time to engage in these endless exercises. It just goes to show that the Pope will never be considered orthodox or clear for a certain crowd, but through no fault of his own. I gave you an orthodox quote from the Pope, saying that it is not simply enough for a person to be “good” but that he needs to go to Mass. You should’ve been glad. But you were not. Because you don’t want the Pope to be orthodox. You want him to be unclear, so as to cling to your narrative. Fine. Keep your narrative then. See where that will lead you

      • carn says:

        @Pedro Gabriel:

        My first assessment was “choice of words is not as close to optimal as one would wish for”; reason is that there is within the quote a sentence which is untrue. Ideally, a text consists of sentences of which none is untrue; cause otherwise one will read from one dot to the next and will be irritated why there is something untrue said.

        I just suggested here, that the Pope is not good at that thing, namely texts in which each sentence is on itself not untrue.

        You understand that it is not dissent to suggest that Pope Francis is not very good at wording things?

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        It is indeed dissent if people are nitpicking on every word he says in order to validate a narrative (“the Pope is unclear”) that is used to forestall the application of a Magisterial document according to the Pope’s manifest mind and will

        But let us resume a point from other debate that I left hanging because I thought there were too many comments there already, and that you sidestepped at the time…

        Let me make you some dubia. Since you claim that dubia is a good thing and that every question must be answered, then I think you will have no trouble answering. Also, remember that I’m doing this in dubia form, so I want an unequivocal yes or no. I think you would have no trouble with this

        So, here’s my dubia:

        When Jesus Christ said: “Why are you calling me good? No one is good but God”

        1. Was he being ambiguous in His wording or not?

        2. If He was being ambiguous, was He a bad teacher or not?

        3. Can a person be led into error by this wording, by denying the fundamental dogma of the divine nature of Christ?

      • carn says:

        We look at translations there; so we cannot know for sure, whether maybe only the translator is to blame.

        “1. Was he being ambiguous in His wording or not?”

        Because there is not much ambiguity there, as far as i can tell. Or do you consider there is something untrue in the quoted statement?

        “2. If He was being ambiguous, was He a bad teacher or not?”

        Answer not possible due to answer to 1.

        In any case, he knew the man’s heart. And he knows my heart.

        Neither you nor Pope Francis has that ability.

        Presuming that one sees ambiguity there, this in itself would not mean bad teacher, cause ambiguity can sometimes be a good tool for teaching.

        “3. Can a person be led into error by this wording, by denying the fundamental dogma of the divine nature of Christ?”


        If one means with “led into error” that a person can read and think about the sentence and then think that it confirms some error. Luther did that a lot.

        “So, here’s my dubia:”

        Number two does not fit nicely a yes/no answer.

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        Your reply to no. 1 is disingenuous and flies in the face of obvious reality.

        Of course Jesus was ambiguous in that statement.

        And since “ambiguous” does not mean “untrue”, your rebuttal has absolutely no bearing on the matter

        Be honest and admit that Jesus was ambiguous. Everyone can see it. You simply cannot bear to answer this truthfully because otherwise your whole argumentative arsenal regarding Pope Francis would crumble down.

        PS: but now we can see what you really mean when you say that Francis is “ambiguous”. It’s not that you consider him really “ambiguous”, it’s that you consider him in error, because for you those are synonyms. Glad we established that, that’s what I have been saying about dissenters since day 1

      • carn says:

        @Pedro Gabriel

        If the statement is ambiguous, there must be several possible contradicting interpretations of which none can easily be dismissed.

        You could name at least two.

        “Be honest and admit that Jesus was ambiguous. Everyone can see it. You simply cannot bear to answer this truthfully because otherwise your whole argumentative arsenal regarding Pope Francis would crumble down.”

        For sake of argument, i’ll answer the first question Yes:

        1. Yes.

        2. No.

        Cause whatever ambiguity is there, it is resolved completely by other statements from Jesus.

        3. Yes.

        What does that change now?

        “PS: but now we can see what you really mean when you say that Francis is “ambiguous”.”

        I have always meant and will probably always mean the same, namely that there are several possible contradicting interpretations or no possible interpretation or only one untrue possible interpretation of a statement and there is no straightforward way to exclude sufficient to get down to only non-contradicting not untrue statements.

        “it’s that you consider him in error, because for you those are synonyms.”

        If i am down to one interpretation, the ambiguity remains, if the statement would be untrue. That way untrue enters the interpretation.

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        “If the statement is ambiguous, there must be several possible contradicting interpretations of which none can easily be dismissed.

        You could name at least two.”

        Easy peasy
        1. Jesus is good because He is God
        2. Jesus is not good because He is not God

        Both are legitimate interpretations from a literal reading of the plain text. In fact, interpretation no. 2 would be the default interpretation for a monotheistic Jew in the first century

        “Cause whatever ambiguity is there, it is resolved completely by other statements from Jesus.”

        And whatever ambiguity is there in this papal sentence is resolved completely in the following sentence of the quote, so that you know what the Pope was getting at

        In fact, if we assume there is ambiguity in this quote (a point I do not grant), Pope Francis clarifies it more swiftly and clearly than Jesus ever clarifies His divine nature in Scripture

      • carn says:

        “And whatever ambiguity is there in this papal sentence is resolved completely in the following sentence of the quote, so that you know what the Pope was getting at”

        As the first time “ambig” appears on this page is in a post of yours and as i can only see that i criticized the discussed statement of Pope Francis as not optimal due to containing an untrue statement, i am not sure what you hope to gain by arguing that it is not ambiguous.

        It is in itself false, but by the context one sees what the Pope actually wanted to express.

        The quote from Jesus is not itself false.

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        And neither is the Pope’s statement untrue, if you take it as it was meant to be taken

        It is not ambiguous because everyone who read this quote understood its meaning, except people who subscribe to the “Pope Francis is ambiguous” narrative. Quite a coincidence

        This discussion is closed and serves as a lesson for me to not feed futile discussions so much. For some people, Francis will always be ambiguous and erroneous or whatnot even when he is not. This cannot be changed by arguments, but only by a change of attitude. But this comes not from debate, neither can I force people to let go of this hermeneutic of suspicion and nitpicking. By all means, proceed with your current course and see if it helps you resolve your situation with the Vicar of Christ

    • Marie says:

      Christopher/Pedro- Excellent explanations. I think however, if you were to even google ‘why go to Mass’, you will see the absence of your vital explanations. I see duty, obligation, worship, and a small blurb on the Eucharist, without much depth. Some of us have battled this for years, complicated no doubt by other conflicting messages we have received and/or witnessed, despite our love of the Church.

      • Christopher Lake says:


        It is unfortunate– tragic, even– that the view many Catholics have of why we go to Mass is far removed from what Pope Francis articulates in his above quote. I wasn’t raised as a Catholic, but I know, from hearing their accounts, that many cradle Catholics were raised with a heavy, wearying, non-joyful sense of dutiful obligation about going to Mass– as in, “He demands it of us, so we, as His servants, dutifully do it for Him.”

        That perspective contains a bit of truth mixed in with many distortions and inaccuracies. To be sure, Sunday Mass attendance *is* an obligation for Catholics, but it’s an obligation because *we* need what God has to *give* us at Mass so very much. It is our “duty” to worship Him, but looking at it primarily in that way can so easily go in an unhelpful direction.

        The deeper truth is that in our worship of Him, there are sustenance and joy and strength to be found for our daily challenges. In the Eucharist, God Himself, there is life for us. For why we go to Mass, unfortunately, Google will only be partially helpful. The Catechism is much, much better! 🙂

      • jong says:

        Yes, Catechism explain it clearer but in a mystical way. Read CCC1000, the Holy Eucharist is vital to every soul if we want to go staight to Heaven because of God Holy Decree “nothing defiled shall enter Heaven”(Rev21:27). The stain of original sin cannot be cleanse without partaking the flesh & blood of Christ that will transform our corrupted bodies into a glorified body. Thats why Jesus did not care it even if all the Apostles will also leave Him because without the Holy Eucharist we remain in our corrupted nature. Incorruptible saints is the wonder of the Holy Eucharist defying natural law as Eucharistic life elevates ones life to supernatural realm.
        “O my Jesus by your most precious blood wash away the stains of our soul.”

      • Marie says:

        Christopher- Didn’t mean to scare you about Google, lol! I was trying to point out that we are all not completely there yet as far as our depth in understanding of all things, but yes, absolutely the Catechism is the source! Pope Francis speaks to us all, helping us along the way with everything he says. He is incredible. You guys are doing an amazing job in clarifying stuff in a way I completely understand, I’m so grateful!

  2. Marie says:

    I don’t find it odd in the context of the question posed: How do you respond to someone who is saying they show their love for God in their love of their neighbour, so the answer would therefore be, specifically how does going to Mass change that? If they are already in their private lives honouring him, and do not understand what the point of going is, receiving nourishment through the Eucharist to have the strength to do better seems a wise answer to a person doubting its purpose. It appears to me a calling, and welcoming to those of us not quite there yet, and our Holy Father is letting us know we should go for our own benefit as well, as honouring the Lord is surely not only in our attendance at Mass. It’s not about those who get it, it’s about those of us who don’t. Been there, done that. I appreciate his appeal to all who struggle.

  3. Anne Lastman says:

    Unless you eat of the flesh of the son of man and drink of his blood you cannot have life in you Jn 6:53 (different versions).
    On the first day of the week when we were assembled to break bread” Acts 20:7
    They recognised him in the breaking of the bread” Lk.24:35

  4. Peter Aiello says:

    Does the energy to practice the gospel come from the Eucharist, or does it come from the Holy Spirit prior to participation in the Eucharist?

    • Pedro Gabriel says:

      From both, but in a special (because sacramental) way through the Eucharist

    • jong says:

      Peter Aiello
      Remember man has a fallen nature, the concupiscence will not be cleanse by merely reading the bible, even if you memorize the whole gospel it won’t cleanse the stain of original sin. Look how St.Paul humbly admitted his weakness of the flesh even though he was especially anointed by God he is still struggles miserably and complain to God to remove the thorn in his flesh. How did St.Paul overcome the concupiscence of the flesh? Is it by reading the bible or memorizing passages in the scriptures? Definitely NO!
      That’s the Wisdom of John6:53-60 which a lot of Protestant and bible alone believer keep ignoring and voluntary embracing ignorance even though they can exegesis a lot of passages but on some fundamental TRUTH which Jesus Himself don’t want to compromise they choice to be blinded by pride.
      Jesus mission is for man to become a new creation by taking own His real flesh & blood, soul & divinity so that our corrupted nature will be transform into a glorified body. Read Catechism CCC1000.
      Did St.Paul overcome his concupiscence? YES! how? St.Paul preach the Holy Eucharist and he live a Eucharistic Life that completely removes the stain in his soul. And St.Paul overcoming his weakness boldly exclaimed “It is no longer I who lives but Jesus”…
      Now, tell us did St.Paul teach that a good christian will overcome concupiscence by mere reading and memorizing verses in the bible?
      No way!…the Holy Eucharist is the secret why all the Saints who perfectly crucified their flesh was incorruptible. CCC999 & CCC1000
      Look at this link for a complete answer why Jesus doesn’t care about even if the Apostles leave Him if they will not accept His teaching on the Eucharist. Those who left Jesus belong to 666 group. Read John6:66

      • Peter Aiello says:

        What is the fundamental truth of how we get the energy to practice the gospel? It’s not by reading the Bible every day; although the Bible does answer the question. Inner peace and strength are found in the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). How do we get and grow in the fruit of the Spirit?
        The sacraments associated with receiving the Holy Spirit are Baptism and Confirmation; then we walk in the Spirit. Jesus, in John 6:63, says that the Spirit gives life; and that the flesh profits nothing. Jesus explained that He could not have been talking literally because in verse 62 He asks how it would be possible to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood after His ascension. Jesus was testing as to who would remain faithful to Him.
        The sacraments presuppose faith (V2-Sacrosanctum Concilium 59). Grace comes from humility toward God (1Peter 5:5-7). I see nothing in Scripture which points to the Eucharist for getting the energy to practice the gospel. Paul doesn’t point to the Eucharist for overcoming his concupiscence; but he also doesn’t point to reading and memorizing verses in the Bible. The temperance to deal with concupiscence is in the fruit of the Spirit.

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        The sacraments are seven: baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, reconciliation, anointing of the sick, order and matrimony

        That’s what the Church, who also compiled the Bible, says. Period

        But now I’m curious: Since you are so fond of Scripture, what do you make of Jo 6?

      • Peter Aiello says:

        When you read the discourse, and then read Christ’s explanation of it, you get a better understanding of what Christ was saying at the synagogue. In verses 62 and 63 of John 6, He explains what He was really saying.

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        Please clarify. What is your interpretation?

      • Peter Aiello says:

        I believe that Jesus was alluding to Pentecost rather than the Eucharist.

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        Yeah, that’s not on the scripture that has been quoted. It’s your interpretation

    • Christopher Lake says:


      To your mind, what does Jesus mean, in Scripture, when He tells His followers that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood, or they will have no life within them? Those are his literal words. Do *you* believe that you must take the Eucharist,
      or you will have no life within you, as Jesus teaches? Note that many of His followers left Him over this serious teaching.

      Any Catholic who takes the Eucharist should be in a state of grace (without deliberate, conscious, mortal sin) when doing so. This means that the Holy Spirit is already at work within this person. The Holy Spirit and the Eucharist are not in competition, when it comes to giving us the energy to practice the Gospel. They work together. Logically, God cannot be competition with Himself. With all of this said, Catholics receive the Eucharist at Mass, and Jesus specifically tells us that we need to partake of the Eucharist to have life within us, so His words give us a very important reason to go to Mass.

      • Peter Aiello says:

        The Holy Spirit and the Eucharist are not in competition. They each have their purpose and function. Read verse 63 of John 6 to find out what gives us life. I see no competition there.

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        Of course they are not in competition. You were the one who asked whether one gets the Holy Spirit from the Eucharist or prior to the Eucharist. I said both were important

      • Peter Aiello says:

        Both are important and there for a reason.

      • jong says:

        Peter Aiello
        Your wisdom does not comes from the Holy Spirit as you claimed it is, why?
        There are only two spirit opposing in this world. The Spirit of Truth coming from the True Holy Spirit and the spirit of error or lies coming from Satan.
        If the Holy Spirit inspires the Apostles to hand down the teaching of Christ in the Holy Eucharist as the Church Fathers upheld it and passed down to the One,Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church(1Timothy3:15) as they all teaches the real presence of Jesus Christ body,blood,soul & divinity, how can you claimed now that the Holy Spirit also inspires you a teaching contradicting the Apostles & Church Fathers?
        If you happen to live in the era of St.Athanasius, your argument will be thrown easily as garbage, why?
        St.Athanasius will simply ask you, how many Church Fathers espoused your personal interpretation, and unfortunately the TRUTH will fall flat on your face because there is no Church Fathers who will agree on your error.
        The Protestant Founders like Luther,Zwingli, Calvin, etc. did not go against the dogmatic teaching of the Church regarding Theotokos & Perpetual Virginity because during their time they know that they need to support their argument with the Church Fathers teaching.
        But, now sadly Modern Protestanism had introduced a lot of novelty in their so many personal interpretations as if all of them had a Teaching Authority.
        Look in particular the teaching on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, look how the original Protestant Leaders did not contradicted this teaching because they simply knew their arguments carries no backing among the Church Fathers.
        Please see this link;
        “Once upon a time, almost no Christians denied that Mary the mother of Jesus was perpetually a virgin: including Protestants. Of the early leaders of that movement, virtually all fully accepted this doctrine: including Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger, Turretin, and Cranmer. Moreover, most Protestant exegetes continued to believe it for at least another 350 years or so. ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/…

        See after Reformation for 350 years it remains accepted by all Protestant until someone introduce a novelty. And now, so many modern protestant are saying that the well known Protestant Leaders are in error because they wanted to insist on their own interpretations contradicting their founders. This is the gross visible errors of so many Modern Protestant & Christians denominations because they were deceived by the fake holy spirit who sows pride & disobedience to Church Authority and inspire them to interpret the bible according to their own aspirations.
        The worst error of Modern Protestanism is they created their own jesus according to their own personal interpretations & aspirations. Servant of God Fr. John Hardon simply called this idolatry, as worshiping a created or fake jesus according to one’s interpretation is a clear idolatry and the True Holy Spirit will not inspire that erroneous teaching embraced by modern protestanism on Jesus Christ and Mary the Mother of the Church.

        As Fr.Stefano Gobbi’s blue book revealed the Truth about satan tactic’s. Satan in the 16th century used the Name of Mary to divide the Church by inspiring modern protestant & christian denominations to attack the dignity of the Theotokos thru their proud intellect insisting on their own biased interpretations not rooted in Apostolic & Church Fathers teachings. Now, the Rad Trads were also inspired by satan to used the Name of Mary to divide the Church, how? Look how the Rad Trads used the Name of Mary saying to all their viewers to pray the holy rosary but continue to attack, rebel & resist the Vicar of Christ. Is this evil attitude inspired by Mama Mary and the Holy Spirit? Definitley No!
        The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, and the Spirit of Truth resides fully,perfectly,completely and mystically in the Sorrowful & Immaculate Heart of Mary. And what did Our Lady promised at Fatima? Our Lady said,She will accompany the Holy Father until the end because he will be greatly persecuted. So, how can the Rad Trads attack the Vicar of Christ and pray the holy rosary at the same time?(James3:8-10)
        The Rad Trads are attacking the Blue Mantle of Our Lady when they continue to attack the dignity of Pope Francis.
        That’s why. Modern Protestanism that attack the dignity of the Theotokos was inspired by satan and now the Rad Trads that are inspired to attack the Vicar of Christ disguised as inspired by Our Lady received their inspiration from satan too as Fr.Gobbi revealed.

        The Holy Spirit and Theotokos are guiding and protecting the Vatican II Church to defeat the counterfeit catholic church established by Satan as prophesied by Blessed Ab. Fulton Sheen.

        As for charity ponder, Proverbs18:2 as scriptures tells us “the wisdom of a man is foolishness to God”, much more if the wisdom comes from a prideful & disobedient soul? The 2000 years Tradition clearly states & upheld that the Church united to the Vicar of Christ is guided by the Holy Spirit cannot teach error, so use the gift of PRUDENCE and don’t insist on your personal interpretation especially if it directly contradicted the Apostles, Church Fathers and Church Magisterium teachings. God bless. My Jesus mercy. S&IHMMP4us.Amen

Share via
Copy link