u/jvplascencialeal

Me quedé pensando en algo: ¿qué tan interesante sería que algunos de los principales destinos de playa del país tuvieran clubes consolidados en Primera División?

Pienso en Cancún, Acapulco, Puerto Vallarta y Los Cabos, por ejemplo. No necesariamente a base de mudar franquicias de otras ciudades, sino de proyectos que realmente nazcan o desarrollen identidad local y, de preferencia, se ganen el ascenso en la cancha, ¿Cuál de esas ciudades creen que tendría más posibilidades de sostener un club de Primera?

Porque antecedentes sí tenemos:

Yo me acuerdo perfectamente de la época del Acuapotro en Cancún. De hecho, para mí ése fue probablemente el prime del Atlante en el siglo XXI: campeón del Apertura 2007, después campeón de Concacaf y terminando en un Mundial de Clubes.
Ahora, siempre me ha dado curiosidad saber cómo vivieron aquella etapa los atlantistas de cepa de la Ciudad de México, porque una cosa es que futbolísticamente haya sido una época bastante exitosa y otra que un club tan ligado históricamente a la capital terminara jugando a más de 1,500 km de su gente, Porque futbolísticamente fue bastante cabrona, pero entiendo perfectamente que para la afición histórica de CDMX la mudanza pudiera sentirse muy diferente.

Y Cancún no desapareció como plaza futbolera cuando se fue Atlante. Cancún FC ha construido su propia identidad, ya fue campeón de Liga de Expansión y sigue siendo uno de los clubes involucrados directamente en la discusión por recuperar el ascenso.

Acapulco es quizá el caso más curioso de todos. El puerto lleva décadas intentando consolidar un club profesional: desde Las Brisas en los sesenta, pasando por Deportivo Acapulco, Inter y Delfines en los setenta; los queridos Guerreros de los ochenta y noventa; los Jaguares de Acapulco de Grupo Pegaso en Primera A, donde jugaron Federico Vilar, Luis Gabriel Rey y Fabián Estay; además de Mantarrayas, una segunda etapa de Guerreros, el regreso del Inter, Real Acapulco, Cuatetes y hasta el efímero Acapulco FC de la LBM. Hubo incluso épocas en las que coexistieron varios equipos del puerto. El problema de Acapulco nunca parece haber sido la falta de intentos, sino conseguir un proyecto estable que sobreviva a propietarios, cambios de franquicia y categorías.

Más abajo en la pirámide actualmente están Tritones Vallarta MFC, representando a la zona de Puerto Vallarta/Bahía de Banderas, y Los Cabos United, que juega en Cabo San Lucas. Ambos compiten en Liga Premier.

Y claro, está el elefante morado en la habitación: Mazatlán FC. Podremos amarlo, odiarlo o considerarlo uno de los ejemplos más nefastos y artificiales de cómo apareció una franquicia en una nueva ciudad, pero durante seis años demostró cómo se veía tener un club de Liga MX en uno de los principales destinos turísticos del Pacífico. Su historia terminó este año con la salida de la franquicia de Mazatlán.

A mí, en concepto, una Liga MX con presencia en Cancún, Vallarta, Los Cabos o Acapulco me parecería muy interesante: le daría mayor diversidad geográfica al fútbol mexicano y son ciudades que además podrían aprovechar muchísimo el turismo.
Pero ahí está la pregunta importante: ¿realmente generarían afición local y arraigo, o terminarían siendo plazas bonitas para televisión con estadios medio vacíos?

Será esta ya la penitencia por haber ofendido el orden natural del fútbol mexicano ?

As a Mexican rossonero, this one hurts. I’m sad to see Santi leave a Milan side that went through so much instability during his time here, especially knowing this was the club he had supported since childhood.
It didn’t work out as well as any of us hoped. He had some genuinely promising moments, but injuries, tactical changes and his own struggles prevented him from ever finding real continuity. Still, I’m glad he got to wear this shirt, and I’m especially glad his next step appears to keep him in Europe, something Mexican football desperately needs more of.
I also hated seeing parts of the Mexican media turn every bad stretch into an excuse to tear him apart, with old domestic rivalries making the discourse even worse.
I wish him nothing but the best. Hopefully Porto is where he finds himself again, and hopefully, for Milan too, this decision proves to be the right one, And maybe one day, if he finds himself again at Porto, I hope he gets another chance to return to the club he loved since he was a kid, not out of sentimentality, but as the striker we all hoped he could become. Forza Milan, Buona fortuna e che Dio sia con te caro Santi. 🇲🇽❤️🖤

We had the honor to be visited by then-Prince Harald of Norway in the 1968 Summer Olympic Games where His Majesty competed in Sailing in the 5.5 Metre Class.

Dale Señor el descanso eterno y luzca para él la Luz Perpetua, que tu hijo Harald V de Noruega Descanse en Paz, así sea.

Blessed by His Excellency Monsignor Rogelio Cabrera, Archbishop of Monterrey it is used the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Confession to communities with limited access to priests and the sacraments, specially in the Monterrey Metropolitan Area and some rural areas in the rest of the ecclesiastical province, it is intended as a stopgap as the Archdiocese navigates the current challenges.

Image: Heriberto Pérez.

Honestly a FAR better option than any gambling site

French Catholic illustration from 1935 showing a mother and child sheltering beneath the cross from communism, fascism and nazism.

The illustration was published in the 29 September 1935 issue of the Catholic magazine Le Pèlerin, which published dozens of illustrations through the 1930s condemning the three ideologies. The caption to this illustration reads:

'GESTURES – The sign of the Cross, a gesture the mother teaches her child, will remain - amid gestures that divide, a gesture of unity and peace.'

(Posted for educational purposes)

(Sorry for the blurriness, those two are tornadoes of love)

I’m also targeting: Corinthians 2012, Guangzhou Evergrande 2015, Liverpool 2005, Saprissa 2005, Al Ahly 2021 and I PRAY for Tigres to go once more to the competition.

Tigres’ has Gignac’s number on it and was a gift from my parents on my birthday, I took it to a Copa America game to see Messi.

Sounders’ has Jordan Morris’ number and was sold to me via eBay by a fella claiming he worked for the team.

LFC’s my most recent addition, and was sent to me by a couple of friends living in the most beautiful city in Merseyside; she has Mo Salah’s name.

¿Tigres tenía la culpa de que Fidel Kuri fuera un corrupto pendejo y hubiera convertido al Veracruz en un desastre? No.

Para empezar, se había acordado UN MINUTO de protesta, no tres. Después de ese minuto el partido tenía que continuar. Si los jugadores seguían sin mover el balón, existía el riesgo de consecuencias para LOS DOS CLUBES (que seguramente habría sido el sueño cumplido de varios en este sub.

¿Gignac pudo haberse excedido celebrando o buscando más goles? Tal vez, él mismo expresó arrepentimiento. Pero de ahí a rasgarse las vestiduras y convertir a Tigres en el chivo expiatorio de todas las pendejadas de Fidel Kuri hay un mundo. Haciendo eso, irónicamente, terminan hasta lavándole la cara a Kuri.

Y tampoco pretendamos que aquel Veracruz era el mítico Tiburón de los 90s y 2000s que daba pelea, entraba a liguillas y tuvo figuras como el Chaco Giménez. Ese Veracruz daba asco. Era un pseudoequipo de relleno, administrado de manera miserable y ocupando una franquicia que originalmente se había ganado La Piedad en la cancha, todo por los tanates de un casinero corrupto.

Amigos y compañeros míos originarios del Puerto me decían desde entonces que habían dejado de ir al estadio porque se había convertido en un nido de violencia y vandalismo. Y ese partido terminó demostrando precisamente hasta dónde había llegado la podredumbre. El gran “pecado” de Tigres fue volver a golear al Veracruz. ¿Y qué hicieron algunos de esos salvajes de mierda en la tribuna? Atacar a aficionados de Tigres, incluyendo mujeres y niños, con picahielos y tubos, y lanzar una botella de vidrio contra Jesús Dueñas, que le abrió la muñeca y tuvo que recibir varias puntadas.

¿Y qué esperaban conseguir con eso? ¿Que después de apuñalar, golpear y herir gente saliera el comisionado de la Liga a anunciar: “Bueno, Veracruz gana 3-0 en la mesa” ?

SPOILER: LA VIOLENCIA EN LA TRIBUNA JAMÁS VA A CAMBIAR UN RESULTADO.

Se puede discutir perfectamente si Tigres debió manejar aquellos minutos con más tacto. Se puede criticar a Gignac. Pero utilizar aquel partido para presentar al Veracruz como una pobre víctima y a Tigres como el villano es reescribir completamente lo que estaba pasando. El verdadero responsable de que aquel club estuviera convertido en semejante cagadero tenía nombre y apellido: Fidel Kuri.

https://youtu.be/IF1Lsv9gf1w?si=3p2nMa0JCnAs8fPh

I am a Roman Catholic, and I am posting this in good faith. I do not expect Presbyterians or other Protestants simply to accept the claims of Vatican I by assertion. I am asking only that the Catholic position be judged by the same cumulative and systematic method by which Christians establish doctrines such as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the biblical canon, and even sola Scriptura itself.
My principal problem with this video is that it imposes an artificial burden of proof: unless a single biblical passage explicitly states Petrine supremacy, a distinct line of successors, and the identity of those successors as the bishops of Rome, then the papacy supposedly has no biblical foundation.
But no serious Catholic claims that every theological and historical element of the papacy appears as a fully developed canonical definition in one verse. The Catholic case is cumulative:
Christ gives Peter a unique office and commission.
Scripture establishes that apostolic offices and ministries can be transmitted.
History identifies the Roman Church as the place in which Peter completed his ministry and in which his succession was preserved.
Those are related questions, but they are not identical questions.

1. Peter really IS the rock in Matthew 16

Jesus Christ says:
“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.”
The most natural reading is that the newly named Peter is the rock. The sentence is an intentional wordplay: “You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build.”
The familiar distinction between Petros as a small stone and petra as a massive rock does not work. Jesus gave Simon the Aramaic name Kepha, recorded as Cephas in John 1:42 and repeatedly used by Paul. In Aramaic, the statement would use the same word: “You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.” Greek changes the grammatical ending because petra is feminine and would be an unnatural masculine personal name.
Nor must we choose between Peter, Peter’s confession, and Christ as though only one could be called a rock in any sense.
Christ is the ultimate foundation, yet Ephesians 2:20 says that the Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Revelation 21:14 depicts the names of the twelve apostles on the foundations of the heavenly city. Christ is the supreme Shepherd, yet he appoints human shepherds. Christ is the light of the world, yet he tells his disciples that they are the light of the world.
Therefore, Christ being the ultimate Rock does not prevent him from making Peter a subordinate and ministerial rock. Peter is the rock precisely because of the faith revealed to him by the Father and the commission subsequently given to him by Christ.
Even Catholic tradition can recognize several complementary senses in this passage. Peter, his confession, and Christ are not rival foundations. Christ is the source; Peter’s confession is the revealed faith; Peter is the commissioned apostolic foundation who confesses it.

2. The keys are not decorative symbolism:

The decisive element of Matthew 16 is not merely the word “rock.” Christ says to Peter individually:
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”
The pronouns are singular. Matthew 18 later gives the apostles collectively the authority to bind and loose, but only Peter receives the keys.
This distinction matters. Catholicism does not teach that the other apostles possessed no authority. It teaches Petrine primacy within the apostolic college. Shared authority does not imply the absence of order or primacy.
The background is Isaiah 22:15–22. Shebna is removed from his position “over the household,” and Eliakim receives his robe, sash, authority, and the key of the house of David:
“He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”
This is not merely a resemblance involving the generic image of a key. Isaiah describes an identifiable royal office: the chief steward governing the Davidic household under the king. One officeholder is removed and another receives the insignia and authority of the office.
Christ is the Davidic King. Peter confesses him as the Messiah, and Christ gives Peter the keys of the kingdom. The connection is not forced.
The objection that Revelation 3:7 applies Isaiah 22 to Christ does not refute the Catholic interpretation. Of course Christ possesses the key of David absolutely. Catholicism does not claim that Peter replaces Christ or possesses authority independently of him. The argument is that the King who possesses the key by nature delegates the keys ministerially to his steward.
Christ remains the supreme Shepherd while authorizing Peter to shepherd. Christ remains the foundation while making the apostles foundations. Christ remains the sole source of authority while permitting apostles to bind and loose with heavenly ratification. Likewise, Christ remains the ultimate holder of the Davidic key while giving the keys of his kingdom to Peter.
Delegated authority does not compete with the authority from which it comes.

3. Matthew 18 does not erase Matthew 16:

It is often argued that because all the apostles receive the authority to bind and loose in Matthew 18:18, Peter cannot possess a unique authority.
But that conclusion does not follow.
All the apostles receive binding and loosing authority. Peter alone receives:
A divinely revealed confession singled out by Christ.
The new name Rock.
The promise connected to the building of the Church.
The keys of the kingdom.
Catholic ecclesiology includes both realities: the authority of the episcopal college and the primacy of Peter. The pope is not a solitary apostle replacing the other bishops. Nor are the bishops merely his employees. Primacy and collegiality coexist, just as Peter and the Twelve coexist in the New Testament.

4. Luke 22 gives Peter a unique responsibility

Jesus Christ says:
“Simon, Simon, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”
The English word “you” obscures the grammatical change.
Satan demands to sift you all, the plural refers to the apostles. Christ then tells Peter, in the singular, that he has prayed specifically for him and commands him to strengthen his brothers.
Reducing this to ordinary mutual encouragement fails to explain the asymmetry. All are threatened, Christ prays particularly for Peter, and Peter is commissioned to confirm the others.
This verse alone does not contain every later theological distinction concerning papal infallibility. It does, however, provide a biblical foundation for a special Petrine ministry of strengthening the faith of the brethren.
Peter’s coming denial does not disprove the commission. Christ explicitly anticipates Peter’s fall: “when you have turned again.” Catholicism has never taught that popes are impeccable, incapable of cowardice, incapable of bad decisions, or incapable of sin. The promise concerns the preservation and confirmation of faith in the exercise of the office, not the personal moral perfection of its holder.

5. John 21 cannot be reduced to a generic pastoral command:

After the Resurrection, Christ addresses Peter three times:

“Feed my lambs.”
“Tend my sheep.”
“Feed my sheep.”

Certainly, other apostles and bishops are also pastors. That is not in dispute. The existence of subordinate shepherds does not eliminate the possibility of a chief shepherd under Christ.
The question is why the risen Christ singles out Peter and entrusts his flock to him in this comprehensive, threefold commission. Saying that other ministers also shepherd the Church does not explain away the text; it merely restates Catholic collegiality.
The threefold command certainly restores Peter after his threefold denial, but restoration does not exhaust its meaning. Christ does not merely say, “I forgive you.” He entrusts his lambs and sheep to Peter and commands him to feed and govern them.
Christ’s sheep remain Christ’s sheep. Peter does not become their owner. He becomes their commissioned shepherd.

6. Acts depicts primacy without portraying Peter as an autocrat:

The Acts of the Apostles repeatedly depicts Peter acting in a leading capacity:
Peter initiates the replacement of Judas.
Peter delivers the foundational sermon at Pentecost.
Peter speaks publicly for the apostolic body.
Peter pronounces judgment in the case of Ananias and Sapphira.
Peter receives the revelation opening the Church fully to the Gentiles.
Peter explains and defends that revelation before the Church.
At the Council of Jerusalem, Peter gives the decisive doctrinal testimony concerning Gentile salvation.
Acts 15 does not refute Petrine primacy simply because James also plays an important role.
After “much debate,” Peter rises and declares that God chose that the Gentiles should hear the Gospel through his mouth. He rejects the imposition of the Mosaic* *yoke and declares:
“We believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
The assembly then falls silent. Paul and Barnabas report the signs God performed among the Gentiles. James subsequently interprets the evidence through Scripture and proposes the practical disciplinary measures to be communicated to the churches.
That is perfectly compatible with Catholic ecclesiology. Peter settles the central doctrinal principle; James, the local leader of Jerusalem, formulates its pastoral application. The final letter is issued not in James’s private name, but in the name of the apostles and elders, with the declaration:
“It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”
Primacy does not mean that Peter must personally deliver every speech, draft every decree, govern every local church, or prevent every other apostle from exercising genuine authority.

7. Galatians 2 does not disprove the papacy:

Paul’s public correction of Peter is frequently treated as though it destroyed the Catholic doctrine.
It does not.
Paul rebukes Peter for hypocritical conduct: Peter’s behavior toward Gentile Christians became inconsistent with the truth he already knew and had previously defended. Peter had received the Gentiles in Acts 10 and had defended their inclusion in Acts 11 and Acts 15.
Paul does not accuse Peter of formally defining false doctrine for the universal Church. He accuses him of failing morally and pastorally to live according to the Gospel.
Papal infallibility is not papal impeccability. A pope can sin, behave cowardly, exercise terrible judgment, scandalize the faithful, and deserve correction. None of that means that every official teaching of the pope is false or that Christ never instituted the Petrine ministry.
Nathan corrected David without abolishing the Davidic monarchy. Paul correcting Peter does not abolish the Petrine office.

8. “Fellow elder” does not mean “no primacy”:

In 1 Peter 5, Peter calls himself a “fellow elder.” This expresses humility and solidarity with other pastors. It does not function as a denial of every distinctive commission given to him elsewhere.
A person can belong to a body and also possess primacy within it. Peter is an apostle among apostles, a shepherd among shepherds, and an elder among elders. Catholicism does not claim that he ceased to be one of the apostles by becoming their leader.
Moreover, in the very same passage Peter instructs the elders of widely dispersed churches and speaks as a witness of Christ’s sufferings. His humility should not be transformed into a denial of the responsibilities Christ gave him.

9. Scripture contains the principle of succession;
The claim that Scripture knows nothing of continuing offices is difficult to reconcile with Acts 1.
Peter describes Judas’s apostolic ministry using the word episkopē*,* an office or oversight, and applies the words:
“May another take his office.”
Judas dies, but his office does not disappear. Another man is selected to occupy it. The ministry is distinguishable from the individual holder and can pass to a successor.
Elsewhere, Paul commands Timothy to transmit what he has heard to faithful men who will be able to teach others also:

Paul → Timothy → faithful men → others.
Paul and Barnabas appoint presbyters in the churches. Titus is commanded to appoint presbyters in every town. Timothy receives a ministerial gift through the laying on of hands. Scripture therefore contains both offices and the transmission of ecclesial ministry.
The papacy is not a separate sacramental order above the episcopate. The pope is a bishop, the Bishop of Rome, who succeeds to Peter’s primatial responsibility. Consequently, demanding biblical evidence for a completely separate “papal ordination” misunderstands the Catholic claim.
The argument is instead:
Peter receives a unique responsibility.
Apostolic ministries can be transmitted.
The Church continues to require visible unity and confirmation in faith.
Therefore, there is no biblical reason to presume that the Petrine ministry had to vanish at Peter’s death.

10. Why the Bishop of Rome?

This is partly a biblical question and partly a historical one.
Scripture establishes Peter’s ministry and the principle of succession. Scripture does not provide a complete inspired chronicle of every episcopal appointment after the deaths of the apostles. Nor should anyone expect it to, because the New Testament was completed while the apostolic generation was still passing away.
First Peter 5:13 sends greetings from the Church “in Babylon,” a designation widely associated with Rome in early Christianity. More importantly, the earliest post-apostolic witnesses connect Peter, Paul, and their succession with Rome.
Near the end of the first century, the Church of Rome intervened in a grave dispute in Corinth through the letter commonly known as First Clement. The letter explains that the apostles appointed ministers and made provision that other approved men should succeed them.
Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church in language he does not use for other churches, describing it as presiding in love.
Around the second century, Irenaeus appeals to the succession of the Roman Church, names its bishops from Linus onward, and identifies it as the Church with which other churches must agree because of its preeminent authority (Against Heresies 3.3.2–3).
One may debate the precise scope of Roman primacy at different stages of history. One cannot plausibly pretend that the association of Peter, succession, and Roman authority suddenly appeared in the Middle Ages.
Using historical evidence to identify Peter’s successors is not inventing a new revelation. It is using history to identify the concrete continuation of a biblically established ministry.
The Bible itself does not contain an inspired table of contents identifying all twenty-seven New Testament books. Christians necessarily use historical testimony when identifying the canon. Historical testimony does not become illegitimate merely when it points toward Rome.

11. Apostolic Tradition is itself biblical:

The video concludes that Catholics must admit that the papacy depends upon “extra-biblical tradition,” as though this were a devastating concession.
But Scripture never teaches that all apostolic revelation was transmitted exclusively in writing.
Paul commands Christians in 2 Thessalonians 2:15:
“Stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter”

He praises the Corinthians for maintaining the traditions he delivered to them in 1 Corinthians 11:2. He commands Timothy to guard the deposit entrusted to him and to transmit apostolic teaching to faithful men in 2 Timothy 1:13–14 and 2:2.
Scripture calls the Church, not Scripture considered in isolation, “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” in 1 Timothy 3:15.
Catholics do not believe in random customs that can contradict Scripture. Sacred Tradition is the apostolic faith transmitted in the life, worship, teaching, and succession of the Church. Scripture and Tradition come from the same apostolic source and cannot genuinely contradict one another.
Therefore, appealing to apostolic Tradition is not an embarrassing escape after the Bible has failed. It is obedience to the biblical description of how apostolic teaching is transmitted.
Furthermore, 2 Timothy 3:16–17 strongly affirms the inspiration and usefulness of Scripture, which Catholics wholeheartedly confess. It does not say that Scripture is the Christian’s only infallible authority, that all apostolic oral teaching would disappear, or that the Church possesses no binding interpretive authority.

12. The secondary symbols are not the foundation of the Catholic case:

The video also discusses Peter’s boat, the temple tax coin, and the rod of Aaron.
A Catholic need not pretend that each one independently proves the papacy.
Christ teaching from Peter’s boat in Luke 5, the miraculous catch under Peter’s leadership, and the command to Peter to strengthen the other fishermen can legitimately possess ecclesial symbolism. But the papacy does not stand or fall with the interpretation of the boat.
The single coin provided for Christ and Peter in Matthew 17:24–27 may suggest a distinctive association between them, but it is not a primary proof of papal jurisdiction.
The rod of Aaron in Numbers 17 demonstrates God’s ability to authenticate a divinely chosen office against rebellion. It may serve as an analogy concerning sacred authority, but Christ is the ultimate High Priest, and the episode by itself does not establish the papacy.
Rejecting these secondary or typological arguments does nothing to overturn the principal cumulative case from Matthew 16, Luke 22, John 21, Acts, and apostolic succession.
A strong argument should not be judged by its weakest optional illustration.

13. Bad popes do not disprove the office:

The pornocracy, corrupt Renaissance popes, political manipulation, nepotism, cowardice, and clerical crimes are genuine scandals. Catholics should not minimize them or pretend that every pope was holy.
But moral corruption does not logically disprove divine institution.
Judas did not disprove the apostolic office. Aaron’s sin did not disprove the priesthood. David’s adultery and murder did not disprove the Davidic covenant. Peter’s denial did not revoke the commission Christ later renewed.
The papacy rests upon Christ’s institution and promises, not upon the claim that every holder of the office will be personally virtuous.
Indeed, Catholicism distinguishes carefully between the holiness and indefectibility of the Church as Christ’s body and the sins of the human beings who belong to and govern her.

Conclusion:

The Catholic case is not:
“The Bible says nothing about the papacy, so Rome invented it through an unrelated tradition.”

The actual case is:

Christ renames Simon as Rock.
Christ gives Peter alone the keys of the kingdom.
Peter receives a distinctive role within the apostolic college.
Christ prays specifically for Peter and commands him to strengthen his brethren.
The risen Christ entrusts his flock to Peter.
Acts depicts Peter repeatedly exercising a foundational and representative ministry.
Scripture shows that ecclesial offices and apostolic teaching can be transmitted.
The earliest Christian evidence identifies Rome with Peter’s ministry and succession.
Scripture itself commands adherence to apostolic Tradition, both written and oral.

No single one of these statements is required to carry the entire doctrine alone. Together they constitute a coherent biblical and historical case.

Any Protestant may challenge particular inferences or dispute the later extent of papal jurisdiction. That is a legitimate theological debate. But saying that there is no biblical case to answer, or that Catholics must simply confess that the papacy is an invention without scriptural foundation, does not engage the actual Catholic argument.

The papacy is not a rival to Christ’s kingship. It is a ministry that depends entirely upon Christ. The pope is not the source of revelation, another incarnation, an impeccable oracle, or the owner of the Church. He is a bishop charged, as Peter was charged, to guard the apostolic faith, strengthen his brethren, and shepherd Christ’s flock in visible unity.

Christ remains the King. Christ remains the Rock. Christ remains the Good Shepherd. Christ remains the Head of the Church, FOR JESUS CHRIST IS GOD ONE AND TRIUNE.

And it is precisely this King, Rock, Shepherd, and Head who said:
“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

From Mexico, in the centenary year of the beginning of the Cristero struggle, and from the heart of a sinner who descends from Cristeros:

¡VIVA CRISTO REY! ¡VIVA SANTA MARÍA DE GUADALUPE! ¡SANTIAGO!

Para que se den cuenta del lado del que está este wey ojalá y si se haya muerto el plan del pelón

La liga chilena merece esa posición?

A pesar que la liga chilena es un fiasco, se ubica una posición adecuada, a la vez la liga chilena es más competitiva que la Liga MLS.

Cuándo estaba en primer semestre de la carrera, un médico me mandó comer mandarinas porque estaba al borde del escorbuto (según un análisis de sangre) oigan ojetes me gustaba pistear demasiado.