Is it possible that - led by the Unvaxed Disaffected Swiss Guards - a coup d’état will be organized and remove the person they and so many others believe to be an unruly tyrannical dictator?

(asking for a friend)

a pregnant mother in maternity dress.

youtube.com/watch?v=SFHWl-ZyRAg

As the story goes, Imagine by the Beatles was not Don Tony’s first musical choice. He preferred a County & Western classic but the parish council convinced him that - given the Church’s recent scandals- his choice in songs would have been a poor choice.

Don Tony preferred...

And there is this...

Be forewarned. The English subtiitled translation from the German is a tad vulgar.

I am disgusted when I witness a fellow Catholic (in this case an Italian ) try to appear relevant by appealing to a modernist spirit.

Try this, Tony!

“symptomatic diverticular stenosis of the colon”

While they're in his colon maybe they'll find his head?

"And he saith to them: It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but you have made it a den of thieves." -Matthew 21:12-13

As you have demonstrated any simpleton can quote scripture out of context to try and support an unsupportable opinion to suit their own warped views. It obviously needs to be repeated: You are a foul, deeply disturbed, loathsome, afflicted with narcissistic personality disorder individual whose “I am always right attitude” knows no bounds even when it runs contrary to sacred scripture. You need professional help.

You are an immutable, non-Christian, jerkett. I've wasted too much time with you already. Have fun and continue to make 15, 20, 25 or 30 posts at one sitting trying to feed your severely impaired ego.
Meanwhile Fr. Sanchez will continue to fulfill the gospel imperative.
.

This isn't about what he's doing, it's about where he's doing it.
The gospels make no such distinction but the egomaniac does.

You are a foul, deeply disturbed, loathsome, afflicted with narcissistic personality disorder individual whose “I am always right attitude” knows no bounds even when it runs contrary to sacred scripture. You need professional help.

Try reading the very clear words of Jesus Christ for the first time even though they will likely have little meaning for a self-absorbed, non-Christian egotist.

1. Matthew 25:34-40 “Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, my Father has blessed you! Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me into your home. I needed clothes, and you gave me something to wear. I was sick, and you took care of me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’ “Then the people who have God’s approval will reply to him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you or see you thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you as a stranger and take you into our homes or see you in need of clothes and give you something to wear? When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ “The king will answer them, ‘I can guarantee this truth: Whatever you did for one of my brothers or sisters, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you did for me.’

That priest is a disgrace.
Is Father Sánchez actually feeding those who are guilty of "burning our Churches"?

You're a narrow minded, self-centered, ill-tempered individual with too much time on her hands due to a lack of a personal life (already discussed - fat & ugly). Instead of wasting as much time as you do on an internet message board -- trying to look smart, witty and all knowing rock star -- you ought to read the bible (if you have one). In contrast to what you believe, he's feeding the hungry in the manner of St. Mother Teresa without regard as to who they are or what religion they practice.

1. Matthew 25:34-40 “Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, my Father has blessed you! Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me into your home. I needed clothes, and you gave me something to wear. I was sick, and you took care of me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’ “Then the people who have God’s approval will reply to him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you or see you thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you as a stranger and take you into our homes or see you in need of clothes and give you something to wear? When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ “The king will answer them, ‘I can guarantee this truth: Whatever you did for one of my brothers or sisters, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you did for me.’

Ultraviolet
Look at this brilliance of the following comment: Both sentences have nothing to do with post-conciliar faulty beatification and canonization proceedings.

We don't need the Catholic Church when we have "one of the group of simple minded disgruntled schmucks at GTV" to guide us as to what are and what are not faulty canonizations.

Ultraviolet
Defeat Common Sense (“St. Mother Teresa is a heretic”) Is one of the group of simple minded disgruntled schmucks at GTV who (along with other non Catholic complaints) think that the mass must be said in Latin because that’s the only language God understands.

My issue with PR is that in practical terms Puerto Rico will vote just like the Ricans in the USA: overwhelmingly Democrat. The bogus they “lean Republican” stuff is just propaganda. In theory all Hispanics lean Republican because of their religion and social views (abortion, sexual perversions). However, none of that materializes when it’s time to vote against the gringos and for more free stuff promised by the Demorats.

I was vaccinated for Singles in 2012.

If you remained "single", I'd say the vaccine was effective.

The First Vatican Council exercised the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council to define papal infallibility: catholicplanet.com/TSM/infallibility-canonizations.htm

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, is, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable. But if anyone—which may God avert!—presume to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema.
(First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4.)