David, Could you provide me with a link to the Pope's Angelus address in question. Thanks! Safe in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary!
I don't like to see critiques of the Pope casting him in the role of politician. He's probably the worst Pope ever but I don't believe that Pope Francis is a Marxist or any kind of Communist. Secular terms like "left", "right", "liberal", "conservative", etc. have no place in the Church. All those terms could be applied to sections of Catholics who don't accept Church teaching on various issues where secular values conflict with Catholic values. The terms "left" and "right" depend on where the centre is and who makes that determination. The Church is above party politics. What matters is whether the Pope is an orthodox Catholic. Indications are that the Pope either holds heterodox views or at the very least is lenient towards those who hold such views. He reminds me sometimes of people who would never drink to excess themselves but buy drinks for alcoholics because they want to appear sympathetic to the person craving for a drink. The Bible is the inspired word of God, and the Bible tells us that St. Peter denied Christ three times after Jesus had prayed that his faith would not fail. Peter came good in the end. That's an example for us to keep on praying for Pope Francis and all our Bishops. One Pope was on his deathbed before he had a conversion. That Pope had somebody's prayers. We must trust that God will answer our prayers for Pope Francis I think it most unlikely that Pope Francis will retire while Pope Benedict is alive.
I think this pope is both heterodox in his Catholic views, and at a minimum Peronist in his polical beliefs. Unfortunately the evidence is overwhelming that his views are progressivist/socialist. A "moderate" is a liberal/progressive who in his lukewarm mind doesn't have the courage or conviction to admit that his "socialist" views are really communism hiding under a more PC badge. And I'm convinced this pope is right there. Every day I literally pray, fast and sacrifice that the Lord hears and answers his good and holy intentions, for the restoration and triumph of Holy Mother Church, and for the conversion, repentance, final perseverance and eternal salvation of this pope - and that if he refuses to repent and convert that he and those cooperating in his heterodox agenda be confounded. Our Lady of Garabandal spoke of the fulfillment of prophecies when communism has taken hold of the world once again. This pope is one of the key reasons I'm starting to seriously consider the authenticity of the Apparitions.
I think it is safe to say that all the great evils have been attractive at some level or they would not have gotten a following. Call it half truths or partial truths. Either way, it is no different than the Father of Lies, Satan himself. I look at Freemasonry, the founder of Modernism, Communism, Socialism, Feminism and all the other ism's, they all have an appeal that sucks in the followers. When I assess Pope Francis' papacy it has allot of the same attractiveness, especially if one is all about social justice, shaking hands with the poor, reeling against capitalism, global warming etc..... The world has been educated now since the Bill Clinton day's, with a lapdog media on these issues. So no comes Pope Francis, being applauded to the globalists, but with a new twist. The evils of the Church. Those nasty "rules", "doctrines", "rigidity", "Pharisees", "legalistic's", challenging not only the politically conservative, but those who hold true to the teachings of the faith. But he is attractive to most in doing so, because he knows he is preaching to the choir of the majority of globalists, Catholics and Christian denominations. The liberal press loves him for it. I am not concerned about the alleged apparitions/messages coming form various places. The approved ones said the same thing as the current. Especially Fatima and Akita as they are unfolding in our midst. They seem to validate the times to me. Especially the ones saying to "stay with the true faith", as it is clear we are getting something contrary to what has been handed on from scriptures and the magisterium of the church. We are so very close to the moment all approved and alleged prophecy has been preparing us for. Anyone who is in the state of grace and has a good prayer life knows this. The rest are clueless.
Dear Brothers and Sisters Good morning, This Sunday, the Gospel presents to us the miracle of the multiplication of loaves and fish (Mt 14:13-21). Jesus performed it along the Lake of Galilee, in a deserted place where he had withdrawn with his disciples after learning of the death of John the Baptist. But many people followed them and joined them there; and upon seeing them, Jesus felt compassion and healed their sick until the evening. And seeing the late hour, the disciples became concerned and suggested that Jesus send the crowd away so they could go into the villages and buy food to eat. But Jesus calmly replied: “You give them something to eat” (Mt 14:16); and he asked them to bring five loaves and two fish, blessed them, began to break them and give them to the disciples, who distributed them to the people. They all ate and were satisfied, and there were even leftovers! We can understand three messages from this event. The first is compassion. In facing the crowd who follows him and — so to speak — “won’t leave him alone”, Jesus does not react with irritation; he does not say: “These people are bothering me”. No, no. He reacts with a feeling of compassion, because he knows they are not seeking him out of curiosity but out of need. But attention: compassion — which Jesus feels — is not simply feeling pity; it’s more! It means to suffer with, in other words to empathize with the suffering of another, to the point of taking it upon oneself. Jesus is like this: he suffers together with us, he suffers with us, he suffers for us. And the sign of this compassion is the healing of countless people he performed. Jesus teaches us to place the needs of the poor before our own. Our needs, even if legitimate, are not as urgent as those of the poor, who lack the basic necessities of life. We often speak of the poor. But when we speak of the poor, do we sense that this man or that woman or those children lack the bare necessities of life? That they have no food, they have no clothing, they cannot afford medicine.... Also that the children do not have the means to attend school. Whereas our needs, although legitimate, are not as urgent as those of the poor who lack life’s basic necessities. The second message is sharing. The first is compassion, which Jesus felt, and the second is sharing. It’s helpful to compare the reaction of the disciples with regard to the tired and hungry people, with that of Jesus. They are different. The disciples think it would be better to send them away so they can go and buy food. Jesus instead says: “you give them something to eat”. Two different reactions, which reflect two contrasting outlooks: the disciples reason with worldly logic, by which each person must think of himself; they reason as if to say: “Sort it out for yourselves”. Jesus reasons with God’s logic, which is that of sharing. How many times we turn away so as not to see our brothers in need! And this looking away is a polite way to say, with white gloves, “Sort it out for yourselves”. And this is not Jesus’ way: this is selfishness. Had he sent away the crowds, many people would have been left with nothing to eat. Instead those few loaves and fish, shared and blessed by God, were enough for everyone. And pay heed! It isn’t magic, it’s a “sign”: a sign that calls for faith in God, provident Father, who does not let us go without “our daily bread”, if we know how to share it as brothers. Compassion, sharing. And the third message: the miracle of the loaves foreshadows the Eucharist. It is seen in the gesture of Jesus who, before breaking and distributing the loaves, “blessed” them (Mt 14:19). It is the same gesture that Jesus was to make at the Last Supper, when he established the perpetual memorial of his Redeeming Sacrifice. In the Eucharist Jesus does not give just any bread, but the bread of eternal life, he gives Himself, offering Himself to the Father out of love for us. But we must go to the Eucharist with those sentiments of Jesus, which are compassion and the will to share. One who goes to the Eucharist without having compassion for the needy and without sharing, is not at ease with Jesus. Compassion, sharing, Eucharist. This is the path that Jesus points out to us in this Gospel. A path which brings us to face the needs of this world with fraternity, but which leads us beyond this world, because it comes from God the Father and returns to Him. May the Virgin Mary, Mother of Divine Providence, accompany us on this journey. http://w2.vatican.va/content/france...ocuments/papa-francesco_angelus_20140803.html
'It isn’t magic, it’s a “sign”: a sign that calls for faith in God, provident Father, who does not let us go without “our daily bread”, if we know how to share it as brothers.' Bultmanism, the death of the mystical/ supernatural substituting this with a false , 'Rationalism'; http://unsettledchristianity.com/da...izing-the-miracles-the-bread-loaves-and-myth/ The demythologization of Scripture , the rejection of the supernatural , or miracles in which Pope Francis takes part in his interpretation of the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes is simply another facet of Modernism repatedly condemned by the Church. Dei Verbum (V, l9) reminds the faithful that: 'Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation.... The sacred authors ... told us the honest truth about Jesus.' Pope Francis's view on this matter is at radical odds with the teachings of his predecessor and the entire tradition of the Church. http://blog.adw.org/2010/12/the-pop...l-critical-method-of-biblical-interpretation/ The Pope’s View of the Historical-Critical Method of Biblical Interpretation I must that I was never all that enamored by the historical critical method of interpreting Scripture. I’ll say more of why in a moment. But some of you may be wondering what the historical critical method is. (If you want to skip my little lesson and some personal reflections of mine and go right to the Pope (instead of mere Msgr. Pope), the quote is at the bottom of the Page in bold italics). The historical-critical method investigates the origins of a text and compares them to other texts written at the same time, before, or recently after the text in question. Did other ancient texts, whether biblical or non-biblical, adopt similar forms, use similar ingredients, story-lines, allegories, metaphors and the like. The Historical Critical method focuses on the sources of a document to determine who wrote it, when it was written, and where. What do we know of the author and his times? How was he influenced by them? What was his personal story? What other texts did he write and how do they compare what is before us? How does the writing we are studying compare to similar documents of the time? For example, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all very similar in terms of their basic content of what Jesus said and did. However they also have significant differences. How do we understand and explain the differences? Is one of the three “synoptic” (called this because of their similarity to each other) Gospels more historically reliable than the others as to detail? Why is the Gospel of John so different in tone and content that the other three and what are we to make of this? And so forth. As such though, the historical critical method focuses primarily, almost exclusively, on the human origins of a text. Of itself this is not wrong, but it is incomplete. The Scriptures are a document of faith, more specifically of the believing community of the Church. They are inspired texts, with God the Holy Spirit as their ultimate author. Further, the role faith in the communities from which the biblical texts emerged is also a significant factor. Hence the biblical text is not merely understood as an historical utterance, but one that was understood and interpreted by those who believed and who also influenced the process of collecting the sacred writings and discerning what was of God. But this process was guided by the Holy Spirit. The human dimension in all these things is important and essential and the historical critical method is right to explore this dimension, for God the Holy Spirit did not choose to act independently of the human personalities involved or of the believing community of the early Church. But neither was God wholly bound by these things or limited by them. Thus the historical critical method can only be one dimension of proper biblical understanding. Regarding Sacred Scripture’s human dimension the Catechism has this to say: In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression. (CCC # 110) My own struggle – As I have already admitted, I have struggled to be enthusiastic about the historical-critical method. This begins for personal reasons. When I was in Seminary the method was insisted on by some, (not all), of my professors as the only real and valid method of Scripture study. They were zealots of a sort and any suggestion of a world outside this method was dismissed by them. They also isolated themselves historically, since this method is rather a new one. Hence, just about anything written on scripture prior to 1900 was not considered very tenable by them. I remember once turning in a paper wherein I quoted a scriptural commentary from the 1870s. The Teacher simply circled the date in red and had nothing further to say of the point. I was also troubled by the strong tendency of the historical-critical method to doubt the existence of the miracles recorded in scripture. Not all scholars do this, but the more usual explanation of the miracles were that they were either literary devices, or just epic legends that were common of ancient near eastern and middle eastern texts. Further, claims that Jesus made of his divinity were somehow to be understood as later additions, not something Jesus actually said. Many adherents of the historical critical method were also dismissive of John’s Gospel and tended to sniff at most details there. They considered what they called “the fourth Gospel” to be more theological reflection than actual history, hence it had little offer that they were not quite skeptical of. It did little good to quote John’s Gospel to some of my professors. De-mystified – Generally speaking then, my experience of the historical-critical method was that it de-mystified the scriptures and saw them only in human terms. The over-arching role of the Holy Spirit as the true and primary author was set aside and, thus, Mark’s gospel was favored over say, John’s and so forth. Since some of my professors were zealots for the method. Asking questions, even in good faith, was considered a veiled rejection of the method and was not usually received well. And yet I also knew the human dimensions and historical context of the Scripture were important. But getting past the odious qualities of zealots, and the over-emphasis they placed on the human, made it harder for me to learn from them or the method they proposed. I write all this to introduce the Pope’s reflections on the historical critical method. At heart he is a professor and is thus very careful to distinguish and to realize that the truth is often found in dialogue with various disciplines. He is able therefore to take what is good in the method and describe what is lacking or in need of balance and correction. He does this gently yet clearly. I find his distinctions helpful, especially due to my personal history. I trust the Pope and need someone I trust to say to me, “There is something good here and worthy of acceptance, and there are also some tendencies to avoid.” This excerpt is from the Pope’s recent book Light of the World. It begins with a question by Peter Seewald which articulates many of the concerns I just expressed and then there is the Pope’s answer. SEEWALD: The historical-critical method had its merits, but it also led fatefully to an erroneous development. Its attempt to “demythologize” the Bible produced a terrible superficiality and a blindness toward the deeper layers and profound message of Scripture. What is more, looking back, we realize that the alleged facts cited for the last two hundred years by the skeptics intent on relativizing pretty much every statement of the Bible were in many cases nothing more than mere hypotheses. Shouldn’t we be much clearer than we have been that the exegetes have to some extent been practicing a pseudo-science whose operative principle is not Christian, but an antiChristian animus, and that it has led millions of people astray? POPE BENEDICT: I wouldn’t subscribe to so harsh a judgment. The application of the historical method to the Bible as a historical text was a path that had to be taken. If we believe that Christ is real history, and not myth, then the testimony concerning him has to be historically accessible as well. In this sense, the historical method has also given us many gifts. It has brought us back closer to the text and its originality, it has shown us more precisely how it grew, and much more besides. The historical-critical method will always remain one dimension of interpretation. Vatican II made this clear. On the one hand, it presents the essential elements of the historical method as a necessary part of access to the Bible.
Apart from Dolours' assessment of Francis as the worst pope ever (he's certainly one of the best), I really have to welcome her words of wisdom above. So much of the criticism of the church and Francis is nothing more than disagreement on politics. God will not be asking us whether we were left or right wing when we face judgement.
Satan is the counterfeiter. . . . He has a false gospel (Galatians 1:6-9), preached by false ministers (2 Corinthians 11:13-12), producing false Christians (2 Corinthians 11:26). . . . Satan plants his counterfeits wherever God plants true believers (Matthew 13:38). You know when people listen to false teachings, a False Gospel from False Teachers both within and from without the Church it means one of two things, either you are not listening properly or that while listening to the Holy Spirit the voice of your conscience from within, a sure sign that you are not a person of prayer. Both are equally scary since both culpable ignorance and lack of prayer will lead to hell. What scartes me more than anything though is those who actually embrace and applaud these false teachings and proclaim them as their own. These people are not simply walking the road to hell but running along it. Listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit within. Reject these false Gospels. Pray, embrace the Light. Reject these false teachers, listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit within. (Acts 20:28-30), Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.
Changing the doctrines of the faith is not "politics" to anyone who takes the faith seriously and who understands that doctrines can never change, not even by a pope. God will be asking whether we upheld his unchanging truths or whether we went along with the feel-good crowd. The social justice crowd who go to church will bank on their feel-good theology, as if the commandments were of lesser importance.
Yes. It's not about politics. It's not about being a , 'Conservative', or a 'Liberal'. It's about being true to the Faith handed on to us by our parents. It's about Orthodoxy and Heresy. It's about truth and lies. Truth is Eternal ; its not some kind of Cultural Fashion Statement. Truth is not Relative.
Chesterton was right on this, but it was apparent that he did not use a mirror while tending to his hair
“The attitude ‘It has always been done like this’ resists the Holy Spirit and kills joy” Pubblicato il 08/05/2017 DOMENICO AGASSO JR VATICAN CITY Watch out against the sin of resisting the Holy Spirit and always be open to the surprises of God. Never say the “it’s always done this way.” These are the indications that Pope Francis expressed this morning, May 8, 2017, in the homily at Casa Santa Marta. The Holy Spirit moves the Church and therefore the Christian community: on this concept - which emerges in particular from the Acts of the Apostles - the Pontiff based his preaching, as Vatican Radio reports. The Holy Spirit works miracles, and creates new things, “obviously some feared these novelties of the Church.” The Spirit is the gift of God, of this God, our Father who always surprises us. The God of surprises… Why? Because He is a living God, who dwells in us, a God who moves our hearts, a God who is in the Church and walks with us and in this journey He surprises us. It is he He who has the creativity to create the world, the creativity to create new things every day. He is the God who surprises us.” All this can create “difficulties,” like that of Peter faced when he was challenged by other the disciples because they knew that “even pagans had welcomed the Word of God”. For them, Peter had gone too far and they reprimanded him because according to them he was “a scandal” even to the point of saying, “You, Peter, the rock of the Church! Where are you leading us to?” Peter tells his vision, Francis points out “as sign of God”, that helped him “take a courageous decision.” Peter “was able to welcome God’s surprise.” Hence, faced with the many surprises of God, “the apostles came together, discussed and came to an agreement” in order “to take a step ahead that the Lord wanted.” “From the times of the prophets until now, the sin to resist the Holy Spirit had always been there: this resistance to the Spirit. This is the sin with which Stephen accuses the members of the Sanhedrin: “You and your fathers have always resisted the Holy Spirit.” No, it has always been done this way, and must be done so. They tell Peter not to bring these newness, to remain calm… take a tranquilizer and calm the nerves… be calm … this means closing oneself off from the voice of God. In the psalm, the Lord speaks to the people: “Do not harden your hearts like your fathers.” Referring to today’s Gospel centered on the Good Shepherd, the Bishop of Rome said Lord always asks us not to harden our hearts. “What the Lord wants,” he said, “is that there are others” other flocks “that do not belong to Him, but that there will be only one fold and one shepherd.” The Holy Father said that these pagans were condemned; even when they became believers they were regarded as “second-class believers - no one said it but it was a fact.” “It is has always been done like this” shuts and resists the Holy Spirit, and this kills freedom, kills joy, kills fidelity to the Holy Spirit who always acts in advance and carries the Church forward. But then the question - how can I know if it is from the Holy Spirit or from worldliness, the spirit of the world or spirit of the devil?For this, one needs to ask for the grace of discernment - the tool that the very Sprit has granted us. “How should one discern in every occasion? The answer, the Pope said, is the way the apostles did it: they came together, talked and saw the path of the Holy Spirit. Instead, those without this grace or those who did not pray for it remained closed and still.” Christians must “learn how to discern, discern one thing from another, discern newness, the new wine that comes from God and the newness that comes from the spirit of the world and the devil.” “Faith never changes. It’s always the same. But it broadens and grows into a movement.” Francis explained. Citing a monk of the early centuries, St. Vincent of Lerino, the Pontiff pointed out that “The truths of the Church forge ahead: they are strengthened with years, develop with time, become profound with age, and because they grow stronger with time and years and broaden with time and become more prominent with the age of the Church.” Finally, the Pope invoked “We ask the Lord the grace of discernment in order not to mistake the path and be trapped in immobility, rigidity and closing in of the heart...” http://www.lastampa.it/2017/05/08/v...-kills-joy-dEveyqy18ffCLdQudEBOaN/pagina.html
We have gone well beyond Left & Right! Those terms are essentially meaningless now for those that care to see. The terms we should be thinking about are Good & Evil....... Abortion vs Pro-Life, Perversion vs Family, God centered political thought vs. godless political thought, failed Socialism vs successful Capitalism. Sadly, PF's default position, words/actions, seem to be "spring loaded" to side of ..... can you figure it out yourself? ... but God Wills It ... decide if you are sheep or goat ... with the shepherd or the wolf!!! GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
This is true, God does not do complicated. May we be good little children, patient and waiting , like the maidens with their lamps well lit. The Bridegroom will come in His own good time. His time. Not ours. Marana tha. Come Lord Jesus. Come Holy Mary, Mother of the Lord.
I am glad you posted this article David as it helps to demonstrate my point. Pope Francis talks in generalities, when he speaks, for a reason. It is to presume there is no longer any absolutes, as you can tell by his choice of wording. So it is all up to every believer now to pick and choose your teachings, as long as you are not judging. Typical liberal language. Say' s allot without saying anything. The liberals are now free to speak and chose what, if any commandments from God, they want to accept or reject. How can you not see this? If the Holy Spirit is speaking, one will know it by whether it has been taught in scripture and the unchanging teachings from 2000 years of magisterial teachings. Half truths and confusing language does not come from the Holy Spirit.
2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were closed. For to this day the same veil remains at the reading of the old covenant. It has not been lifted, because only in Christ can it be removed.
