One is not obliged--it seems to me--to bring in great numbers of people who are bent on destroying belief in Christ. The West Has for centuries resisted this to the point of shedding blood. But now in our "enlightened" times when belief has grown cold we say hohum and are told we must admit everyone. We are not obliged to destroy ourselves. We are obliged to help people yes but not to the point of forfeiting our right to practice our faith or diluting our culture. Or so it seems to me.
Bishop Gracida posted a video interview he had on his blog Abyssum.org with CM a while back that is very pertinent to our present crisis.
The following article has linked in another article which Brian posted yesterday about the Pope's latest Exhortation, In ‘Gaudete et Exsultate,’ Pope answers ‘Amoris’ critics: Don’t ‘reduce, constrict’ Gospel In Vatican Inés San Martín Apr 9, 2018 VATICAN CORRESPONDENT https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/04...ris-critics-dont-reduce-constrict-the-gospel/ Pope Francis leaves St. Peter's Square at the Vatican after a Mass on the Sunday of Divine Mercy, Sunday, April 8, 2018. (Credit: AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia.) In a new document on holiness, Pope Francis makes clear he both believes in the Devil, the "Prince of Hell," and that he regards critics of his merciful line in "Amoris Laetitia" and elsewhere of seeing the Church as "the possession of a select few." Although a new document from Pope Francis on holiness reflects permanent themes in his thinking and in Catholic spirituality, in context, it also offers indirect commentary on two recent burning questions: First, what does the pope really believe about Hell, the afterlife, and the spiritual realm? Second, how would he answer critics such as the several hundred who gathered in Rome on Saturday to contest his 2016 document Amoris Laetitia? With the release of his new apostolic exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate on Monday, and almost without trying, the pontiff addressed both points. While Francis doesn’t deal with Hell, he makes clear he obviously believes in a Devil and takes his malign influence seriously, saying the Devil is not “a myth, a representation, a symbol, a figure of speech or an idea.” Francis is also well aware of his critics over the merciful line expressed in Amoris, in a moment in which the document just marked the second anniversary of its release on Sunday, and he takes a dim view of what’s driving them. “Contrary to the promptings of the Spirit, the life of the Church can become a museum piece or the possession of a select few,” the pope writes. “This can occur when some groups of Christians give excessive importance to certain rules, customs or ways of acting. The Gospel then tends to be reduced and constricted, deprived of its simplicity, allure and savor.” “This may well be a subtle form of Pelagianism, for it appears to subject the life of grace to certain human structures,” Francis said. “It can affect groups, movements and communities, and it explains why so often they begin with an intense life in the Spirit, only to end up fossilized… or corrupt.” In the course of the document, Francis also delivers a full frontal critique of a form of Catholic pro-life activism that becomes focused on the abortion issue at the exclusion of other matters, such as immigration. RELATED: ‘Amoris’ critics at Rome summit beg pope, bishops, ‘Confirm us in the faith!’ Francis’s attitude on Hell became a hot topic after an alleged “interview” with 93-year-old Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari briefly created a frenzy that came to be known as “Hellgate.” While the new document doesn’t shed any light on that front, it does confirm that for this pope, the Devil, anyway, is decidedly real. The final chapter of the new document, “Spiritual combat, vigilance and discernment,” is a call to be both alert against the temptation of the Devil, who the pope says is “more than a myth,” but also to trust in the “powerful weapons that the Lord has given us” to face this “spiritual combat”: Faith-filled prayer, meditation on the word of God, the celebration of Mass, Eucharistic adoration, sacramental Reconciliation, works of charity, community life, missionary outreach. RELATED: Vatican says interview in which Pope doubts Hell not a ‘faithful transcript’ Subtitled “On the call to holiness in the contemporary world,” the text of Gaudete et Exsultate is presented by the pope as an attempt to “re-propose the call to holiness in a practical way for our own time, with all its risks, challenges and opportunities.” Compared to Francis’s last apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, dedicated to exploring the “Christian proclamation on the family,” Gaudete et exsultate is a short document. The 2016 text had 256 pages, almost five times the 44 pages in the document released Monday. In effect, the exhortation is an attack against two modern day heresies - Gnosticism and Pelagianism, and two related ideologies. In the course of describing them, Francis offers some critical words about what he sees as certain distortions of the pro-life cause. “[A] harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist,” Francis wrote. Those who fall under this category, he said, at times reduce this social engagement to “one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend.” To exemplify, he speaks about the defense of the unborn, which “needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person.” Yet, he argues, the lives of those yet to be born cannot be the only ones defended: “Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection.” An ideal of holiness that ignores justice amidst a world in which some live only “for the latest consumer goods,” while others live their entire lives in abject poverty “cannot be upheld.” In a move that is bound to enrage some of the pope’s most conservative critics, he doubled down on this issue, saying that the situation of immigrants is often presented as a lesser issue, with some Catholics considering it “a secondary issue compared to the ‘grave’ bioethical questions.” Quoting Matthew’s passage, Francis argued: “Can we not realize that this is exactly what Jesus demands of us, when he tells us that in welcoming the stranger we welcome him?” continued...
continued from above... A call for ordinary saints The “Universal call to Sainthood” was outlined by a document from the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, and Francis picks up on it, saying that it’s not only a call for bishops, priests and consecrated people, nor only for those who live a life dedicated exclusively to prayer. Real history, he writes, is made up by the witness to Christ offered by the “humblest members” of the people of God. Though there are some testimonies that may prove inspiring, Christians shouldn’t “grow discouraged before examples of holiness that appear unattainable,” recognizing instead that there are many ways of bearing witness. Here, the pope dedicates a graph to the “genius of woman,” seen in “feminine styles of holiness,” an essential means of reflecting “God’s holiness in this world.” “I think too of all those unknown or forgotten women who, each in her own way, sustained and transformed families and communities by the power of their witness,” he wrote. He expands on the twin dangers of Gnosticism and Pelagianism. Those who yield to the latter mindset, the pontiff wrote, may speak warmly of God’s grace, but ultimately trust in their own powers and feel superior because they “remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style.” When they tell “the weak that all things can be accomplished with God’s grace,” Francis wrote, they project that all is attainable by mere human will. “They fail to realize that ‘not everyone can do everything,’ and that in this life human weaknesses are not healed completely and once and for all by grace,” he wrote, quoting St. Bonaventure. This leads to a “self-centered and elitist complacency, bereft of true love,” translated into a variety of ways of thinking and acting, which include obsessing over the law, being absorbed with social and political advantages, being “punctilious” over the Church’s “liturgy, doctrine and prestige,” and an excessive concern with self-help programs. What’s holiness about? According to Francis, “nothing is more enlightening than turning to Jesus’ words and seeing his way of teaching the truth.” Here, he writes about the Beatitudes, found in the Books of Matthew and Luke, calling them a “Christian identity card,” meaning the response to the question “What must one do to be a good Christian?” Francis lists the eight Beatitudes, which always begin with “Blessed are those who,” and include those who are poor in spirit, are meek, are capable of mourning, have hunger and thirst for righteousness, are merciful, are pure of heart, are peacemakers and are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. Following these principles, Francis writes after detailing each, “is holiness,” and warns that Jesus himself acknowledged following him means “going against the flow.” “Persecutions are not a reality of the past, for today too we experience them, whether by the shedding of blood, as is the case with so many contemporary martyrs, or by more subtle means, by slander and lies,” Francis writes. Holiness, Francis writes, is not about “swooning in mystic rapture,” but about following the Beatitudes and Matthew 25, which is a call to recognize Jesus in the poor and the suffering: “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” Jesus’ demands, the pope adds, are “uncompromising,” and as such, he sees it as his duty to ask Christians to accept them in a spirit of “genuine openness,” without any “ifs or buts.” As if expecting that this point might be contested by some within his own fold, Francis says that “This is not a notion invented by some Pope, or a momentary fad,” quoting from the Book of Exodus, in the Old Testament, to further make his point: “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you yourselves were strangers in the land of Egypt.” Neither worship and prayer alone, nor following certain ethical norms, are enough to give glory to God, the pontiff wrote, because even though “the primacy belongs to our relationship with God,” we cannot forget “that the ultimate criterion on which our lives will be judged is what we have done for others.”
On this sensitive subject of immigration, ultimately it isn't up to us as individuals to make these decisions of who and how many to allow into our countries and obviously it is the responsibility for our leaders to protect their citizens. Given this, the whole open border debate is ridiculous in my opinion. Do you leave the doors of your house open and allow anyone to just come in and take up residence in your home? Of course not. You may help others out but you work out some sort of arrangement. Those you offer shelter to in your own home have onerous responsibilities too, just as DeGaulle pointed out St. Aquinas stated for immigrants. I know many of us do so much more than what our station in life requires by way of volunteering and helping our neighbors but I do feel that simply being a lawful citizen is underestimated. My point is, that those of us who are paying taxes, supporting our families, not breaking the law, etc. we are already doing quite a lot. I just don't feel that it is necessary for good law abiding citizens to be made to feel guilty for not supporting open borders in their country. That does not mean that we do not support legal immigration, these are two entirely different things.
It is our Christian duty to help those in need. There are Muslims in the Middle East that are truly suffering right now and very much need our help. If we are able to help them I think we should. I would like to ask this though: Since when did helping someone mean that we were obliged to let those persons move into our countries and take them over? Because let's not kid ourselves, that is exactly what is happening. This is a "soft" form of invasion. The statistics show that, due to the birth rate difference between Muslims and native Europeans, by 2050 Europe will be more than 50 percent Muslim and they will be able to vote in Sharia law or whatever else they want. If I see a man in the street starving and in need I am obliged to bring him some bread and maybe help him find a shelter. I am not obliged to bring him into my house, much less give my house to him. There is a warping here of what it is our duty to do. We should send aid and medical supplies etc. to places like Syria. There is no need to let the whole population of that country move into Europe.
Yes; but it's difficult though this, it appears to put people with a truly Gospel centered approach on the back foot as maybe being nasty selfish hypocrites, as indeed the Holy Father has suggested and continues frequently to suggest. This is exactly what critics of Mother Teresa claim.
Who's the hypocrites? Our Lord told us to love our neighbours as ourselves, not any more than that. These people think they know better than Christ. That should work out well.
DivineMercy, I want to comment on this discussion on Sg's statements regarding the validity of Pope Francis especially because I think most of this recent debate related to Sg began with her reply to an article that I posted http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edwa...al-authority-derives-from-obedience-to-Christ. This is a screenshot of Sg's reply #6547, View attachment 7673 HeavenlyHosts reply was the following, I don't think that Cardinal Burke commented on the validity of the Pope in your post above, but he did clarify that we do not have to believe anything he tells us to do which contradicts the teaching of the Church. #6608 So, I don't believe that anyone here was stating that Sg should not comment on the validity of Pope Francis but as HeavenlyHosts rightly pointed out Cardinal Burke's statements were general statements that we know already in regards to any papacy and they were not an affirmation that Pope Francis is an invalid Pope. Imho, it would be charitable for Sg to write an admission of this error to clear all of this up and we can move past this situation entirely. How about it Sg?
For what it's worth for each. Begin around the 15:50 mark of this video that includes what Mark Taylor has received about the Vatican (which he says will have repercussions for the whole Christian church, all denominations):
It sounds like he is saying that the teachings of the Catholic Church will be debunked.....I don’t think that is possible.
Pope Francis might want to have a word with Fr. Spadaro and that Presbyterian he installed as editor of Argentina's Catholic newspaper. There was nothing loving or charitable about their hit piece on Evengelicals and Catholics who didn't vote for the people they favour (the pro-abortion and pro-Lavender agenda types). Come to think of it, our Holy Father walks a fine line himself on the defamation and slander front. Might want to check out the beam in his own eye. He says the Devil is a real person (he needs to have a word with his friend Fr. Sosa about that), but has he clarified whether anyone but Catholics fond of the Latin Mass goes to Hell? To date, all I can figure out from his public pronouncements is that Hell exists for Catholics but everyone else is either saved or annihilated. According to Amoris Laetitia, nobody is condemned forever but there was no footnote saying that he didn't mean Catholics. And before anyone tells me that the Pope never said that souls are annihilated, I would remind them of this gem published in the official newspaper of the Italian Bishops' Conference: https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2...opes-supposed-hell-bombshell-mounts-in-italy/ “Talking about the conversations between Scalfari and the pope, we should focus most that the pope, through Scalfari, the pope speaks to us, and he does it like the Holy Spirit: The pope speaks, and his friend, Scalfari, understands him ‘in his own tongue,’ with his own codes”. So, there you have it folks, the Holy Spirit has told us through Scalfari (the atheist who, according to the newspaper of the Italian Bishops, is "in love" with Pope Francis). Some might wonder how the Holy Spirit is talking through Scalfari when Pope Francis takes off his Pope's hat and reverts to being plain old Jorge Mario. Are we Catholics to believe that Pope Francis is Pope some of the time but he's actually the Holy Spirit all of the time even when he is Jorge Mario the non-Pope and not Francis the Pope? Do we have a Sede Vacante situation whenever Pope Francis meets the man who is "in love" with him? If so, is the seat vacant at other times? Was it vacant when he wrote his Exhortations? Is it vacant now? Has it been filled since Pope Benedict resigned? Looking at that report by John Allen who always puts the most favourable spin possible on anything related to Pope Francis, published in a news outlet owned by the Knights of Columbus, can I ask what would have been the reaction had that Italian Bishops' website said that a woman favoured by the Pope is "in love" with him? And what if that woman had been, say, a nun? And what if a member of the Vatican's communications department had previously said that they have been given to understand that the woman is to get the kid gloves treatment no matter what she says? It's almost as though Mr. Scalfari is some kind of Pope Consort. All of a sudden, the Borgia popes don't seem to have been so terrible. I won't be reading any more of Pope Francis's meanderings, whether they be encyclicals or exhortations because I have no way of knowing whether at the time they were composed the Pope was having time out from being Pope and was just plain old Jorge Mario having an essay session with one of his non-Catholic friends. Lannigan's Ball springs to mind.
Doubt it though since he speaks to what is found effecting and shaking all denominations. Have to wonder these days if something supposedly long lost will suddenly appear to approve of what will come out of the now being created false church. But so far...Mark's "prophecies" have been pretty much right on....waiting now for the massive exposures of the deep state and the "military type tribunals" to begin. But he says to be patient because it will unfold in God's time and may go on for years since the exposure will involve the whole world's corrupt systems.
Interesting, that phrase/question "Quo Vadis" has been popping into my mind constantly over the past few days/week.
He didn’t say any new teachings from the false church would be debunked......he said theology that has come out of Rome for CENTURIES would be found to be false. That wouldn’t be new modernist stuff.
Is he a Protestant? If so, I think God would be telling him to get himself to RCIA, Confession and Communion, otherwise he has no life in him. We don't need prophets to tell us that there is corruption in Christ's Church. There has been corruption in the Church since Judas pilfered the Apostles' money for the poor. We have plenty of approved Catholic prophecies to tell us how God will deal with it when He decides enough is enough.
