The Catholic Church is no doubt the butt of many jokes, now more than ever. After all, the so called ‘Vicar of Christ’ who is supposed to fully represent Christ on earth, has openly worshipped a pagan idol, and says that all religions are willed by God. +
Pope Francis: Catholics shouldn’t be afraid to change everything about the Church https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...-afraid-to-change-everything-about-the-church Everything, he says! +
I'm no warrior. I'm terrified of what Pope Francis is visiting on the Church. This is the false church of Ann Catherine Emmerich's visions. Fr. Rohr babbling about where he is on the enneagram and his mindfulness or whatever he calls the spirituality he peddles is something I wouldn't touch in a million years. But others will touch it because it makes them feel good - like gods. And this will be taught to children from the earliest age. Taught to Catholic children whose parents are the worst catechised in the history of the Church. Parents who themselves are the victims of what is transpiring to have been a deliberate strategy to prepare the ground for the demonic. A waste ground to be filled by a religion where the pachamama and the gaia are just as divine as Jesus. We have had a taste of this "everything we thought we knew was wrong" in our parish from a visiting priest. One of my siblings who wouldn't entertain any criticism of Pope Francis was visibly shaken by what she heard from him at Sunday Mass. And everyone just sat there placidly listening to heresy without a murmer of dissent. How can faithful priests resist this if it is being promoted through seminars and retreats for priests, bishops and laity? God help them. This is a gazillion times worse than Marxism. It's the stuff of anti-Christ. I knew that Pope Francis and his cronies were bad. I didn't realise how bad until I watched those videos from Fr. Rohr. I won't be watching any more of his talks because he gives me the creeps and I won't be posting any more of them on the forum. I need a break from this. Just watching that slick snake oil salesman leaves me wanting to bathe in bleach.
Quote: Furthermore, within his own establishment they are seeking to give him a hand by even “rewriting” the Bible. In recent days the Pontifical Biblical Commission has published a volume called “What Is Man?” According to the Catholic website The Daily Compass, this text “maintains that Sodom was destroyed not because of the homosexual acts of its inhabitants but because of their lack of hospitality. The immigrationist obsession becomes the exegetical criteria of the sacred text.” Unquote. While I think Socci's analysis is knowledgeable, broadly-based and devastating to a high degree, I wish to contest this conclusion. I interpret Socci as saying that Pope Francis is attempting to change the Bible in order to support his 'immigrationist obsession'. On the other hand, I see his obsession with immigration merely as a ruse to justify his changing of the Bible text on homosexuality. Immigration is only a secondary Bergoglionist issue. Many of his statements and actions indicate that homosexuality is a much more primal one...and with much more potential to work appalling damage upon the doctrine of the Church and the faith of Catholics. If Bergoglio is intent, for whatever reasons, to damage or destroy Catholicism, from which policy is he most likely to gain advantage, a new homosexualist church or from a mass-movement of peoples? I suggest the former. His intent in pretending Sodom and Gomorrah were all about xenophobia, rather than the sin to which Sodom has lent its name for millenia, is really mainly an umbrella to legitimise sodomy rather than to promote migration.
There are surely many in the Church who do not know the Faith, because they have never been taught it, but would keep to it if they had been. It is the ones who know it, but choose not only to not keep to it, but to change and dismantle it, who are the real sons of perdition and most of them seem to reside in the Vatican.
As I see it, the Antichrist and False Prophet could not have come about after the reign of Pope Benedict. It would be like the frog in boiling water who would have jumped immediately out having noticed the difference in temperature. See, Pope Francis is the tempered water that fells good to most. He doesn't judge anything, but his own Catholic Church for rigidity and bad past practices. He is making the 'new church' more palatable for even the pagan religions, let alone the lukewarm and liberal Christians. When the Antichrist and False Prophet soon come on the scene, after war, major natural disasters followed by a global economic collapse, he will find a most willing bunch of wayward Christians and worldings bending at the will of his one world government. The 'false church' could not have been so easily built had Pope Benedict been at the helm. It needed a "leader" who could compromise the truth and that is where we are at. For our part, we must pray for PF in or daily rosary, knowing what he is doing is bending at the will of the one world government and its agenda's, which will eventually win the day, if it has not already. Prophecy spells out the rest for us..... until the era of peace.
Ann, I remember a very good article about this. http://www.lepantoinstitute.org/faith-and-life/fatima-noah-and-same-sex-marriage/ DeGaulle, I also remember someone posting the following tweet from Father James Martin recently about this which includes a link to the article below. Book explores what Bible says about being human A recently released book explores what the Bible says about being human. "What Is Man? An Itinerary of Biblical Anthropology," is the result of five years of study by scripture scholars and theologians on the Pontifical Biblical Commission. (CNS photo/Paul Haring) Dec. 18, 2019 Cindy Wooden Catholic News Service | https://catholic-sf.org/news/book-explores-what-bible-says-about-being-human VATICAN CITY -- The Catholic Church believes the full meaning of human life, human relationships and human history is impossible to grasp without reference to God, but what else does the Bible say about being human? The 20 scripture scholars and theologians on the Pontifical Biblical Commission spent years studying the question and came up with what the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith described as the first attempt to systematically read the entire Bible and draw out what it means to be human. The result is a 336-page book, published in Italian, "What is Man? An Itinerary of Biblical Anthropology." It is designed as a launching pad for further biblical, theological and philosophical study. The basic vision of the document is informed by the opening chapters of Genesis -- the creation stories -- which the scholars said emphasize that human beings are special creatures called into relationships, first with God, then with each other as spouses, as parents and as brothers and sisters, including in the largest, global sense. Far from picking and choosing individual passages to support an argument, the commission members note many places where biblical passages contradict each other and where the Bible seems to speak approvingly of behavior that does not match what Christians and Jews today would recognize as God's plan for humanity, particularly regarding human dignity and equality. Cardinal Luis Ladaria, prefect of the doctrinal congregation and president of the commission, said that in a time of questions and of changing beliefs and customs, the Catholic Church wants to promote "authentic progress according to God's plan." But the questions and contradictions that arise within the Bible or from a certain way of translating or interpreting it "invite us to assume a humble and constant work of research, reflection and transmission" of Christian teaching, the cardinal said. In humanity's search to answer the questions "What is man?" and "What is the purpose of life?" millions and millions of people have looked to the Bible, a book "composed by a plurality of authors, although attributed to the same source of inspiration," the Holy Spirit, the commission said. The book insists that the Catholic approach to seeking answers in the Bible must be "obedience to the word of God," but also to "the totality of Scripture," rather than picking and choosing verses. From that kind of study, the scholars wrote, the Bible does not give "a definition of the essence of man, but rather an articulated consideration of his being a subject of multiple relationships." So, they said, you can understand the human person only by examining his or her relationships. For believers, the first is the relationship with God, the creator, who made man out of dust and breathed life into him -- two actions that situate the human person as being less than God, but having an intimate, life-giving relationship with him. But things get more complicated very quickly when the Bible recounts in Genesis 1:27, "God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them," and in Genesis 2:22 when God casts a deep sleep over the man, removes a "rib" and makes a woman. The biblical commission members, insisting the verses "do not intend to be accounts of what materially occurred," noted that many interpretations of those verses have been used to subjugate women. And, in fact, they said, the word "adam" in the Hebrew text sometimes is used as a proper name and sometimes refers simply to a human being. A careful reading, they said, shows "it is not the solitude of the male, but of the human being that is rescued through the creation of man and woman." In God's plan, they said, love is the impulse and command at the basis of all human relationships -- in marriage, between parents and children, brothers and sisters -- and of the solidarity and service that should exist among members of the human family. "Even where there is postulated a certain equality between subjects -- like in the relationship between husband and wife, as well as in relations between members of a civil or religious community -- the Bible notes there is always a component of difference -- or 'inequality' -- that can give rise to envy, rivalry, oppression," they wrote. And love is what transforms those differences or inequalities into "an element of cohesion" and an occasion for giving of oneself and one's time, they said. On the question of marriage, the scholars said that "the anthropological perspective that the Bible promotes is that which recognizes in the loving relations between a man and a woman the realization of the plan the Creator wanted for the human being." But the Bible itself is filled with all sorts of "problematic aspects," including male-female relationships that people today would call exploitative, such as culturally influenced practices like polygamy and concubinage, arranged marriages, mistreatment of women and an acceptance of divorce. The scholars also looked at the treatment of homosexuality in the Scriptures, noting that "the Bible does not speak of the erotic inclination toward a person of the same sex, but only of homosexual acts. And those are treated only in a few texts, which are different from one another in literary genre and importance." The book dedicated several pages to the account in Genesis 19 of what happened in Sodom and the account in Judges 19 of what happened in Gibeah. In both cases, it said, what is condemned is not "a sexual transgression," but pride and aggression toward a stranger or strangers needing assistance. In the Old Testament, "only in the Book of Leviticus do we find a precise list of prohibitions regarding immoral sexual acts and among these is listed homosexual relations between males," the book said. The point of the list, it continued, is to "safeguard and promote an exercise of sexuality open to procreation." The scholars cautioned, though, that Christians must preserve "the values the sacred text intends to promote, avoiding the literal repetition of that which bears traces of the culture of the time." The contribution of science and the reflection of moral theologians will be necessary to take the investigation of homosexuality further, they said. "In addition, pastoral attention will be required, especially with individual persons, to carry out that service of good that the church must assume in its mission on behalf of men and women."
I was able to talk to the only seer of our lady in Brazil who entered the convent and lives an isolated and silent life. Our Lady appeared to him but the apparitions are over. He told me that Francis is just a precursor. There will be worse popes inside the church. In fact, it looks like they will invent a collegiate to replace the Pope. the Pope will decide together with the collegiate, and there will be a democratic church. The world will applaud. There will no longer be that "authoritarian and retrograde" church.
The AC hasn't come yet. Pope Francis hasn't yet shown himself to be the False Prophet. He's a type, probably the forerunner, and most certainly paving the way for the real thing. Were a good Pope to precede the False Prophet of Revelation, a Pope who teaches and defends the Faith in season and out, it wouldn't be so easy to deceive the vast majority of believers. Could Pope Francis yet prove himself to be the actual False Prophet of Revelation? Until now I would have said No even after he presided over the idolatrous ceremony in the Vatican Gardens and participated the second idolatrous ceremony in St. Peter's Basilica. Now, having watched Fr. Rohr's videos, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that he will hail someone as the Holy Spirit incarnate. Plenty of Catholics have been softened up for such an event by the papolators spinning every word out of the mouth of Francis as the Holy Spirit speaking through and in him. It's disgraceful and it isn't Catholic. Decades in the planning, the coup was more effective than even Cardinal Martini could have hoped for. And the new religion is being introduced in bits and pieces across the world. The pachamama in Latin America; the religious sister (it was hard to tell whether she was a sister or brother) at the Teilhard event in the US sniggering at the notion of a real Adam and Eve; the Head of the Jesuits claiming that Satan is not a real being. Cardinal Cocopalmiero saying that the Gospels are unreliable because the apostles didn't have tape recorders. Fr. James Martin saying that Church teaching on homosexual acts can be changed because homosexuals don't accept it (I can't remember his exact words - he may have said "haven't received it"). The Scalfari interview as well as the photo shoot with Emma Bonino (Italy's Margaret Sanger) were the signal to all the judases that the coup is a done deal. I have my doubts about Pope Benedict. He was an integral part of the modernist infiltration of Vatican 11. I suppose that he did try to undo some of the damage during his papacy, but 7 a.m. TLMs in a hard to get to church in a few dioceses are not much of a legacy. Why has he been silent about what's going on? He was quick enough to defend his papacy, but what about the Church and the Deposit of Faith he took an oath to defend? He couldn't even get his resignation right. Sure, he's an old man, but so is Bishop Gracida and he manages to get the message out that the wolves are in control. I'm sick of the lot of them. It looks like SgC was right and that what we're seeing is the implementation of the Alta Vendida with Pope Francis the chief strategist. But not to worry. People like Joe Crozier are probably twisting themselves inside out justifying the Pope's concern that honouring the Blessed Mother will offend Protestants as if that would please Mary's Father, Son and Spouse. And the atheists, lapsed Catholics, Catholic Spring types as well as the Susans from the Parish Council over on Catholic Answers Forums will continue to attack LifeSite News, Church Militant, Taylor Marshall, and even Raymond Arroyo. You know there's something seriously amiss when they turn their vitriol on EWTN. Huge fans of Fr. James Martin over there. I expect they love Fr. Rohr as well. God help us all.
It's Teilhard's pantheism. We're all evolving into Gods so what we do doesn't matter as long as we feel the luuuvvve for our brothers and sisters no matter how we put it into practice.
Sackcloth and ashes. Penitential Rosaries. I believe Sister Sasagawa saw the angel. I believe what she said about feeling "the time is near." Our Lady said "all that will be left to you is the Rosary and the Sign left by my Son." We are seeing a kind of fire fall from the sky--a fire of destruction of our beautiful Catholic faith. Thanks be to God that Our Lady assured us that when all seems lost then all will be saved. "He who perseveres to the end..." That is my prayer now. For final perseverence and a Holy death. I yearn for and pray for conversions but I surrender all of them to the Two Hearts.
Rohr is a hot mess, IMO. He seems to be very dangerous, very new age. He has been banned from speaking in the Phoenix diocese although he speaks at private places here and at the Franciscan Renewal Center which falls outside of the diocese. He is scary but I steer really clear of new age things. So many people lap this stuff up. It's all so nicey nice and easy to swallow. It's so scary to watch people just line up to fall off the cliff. It's like they do not see the cliff of hell in front of them and they walk straight off it thinking they are "good" and "holy" and virtuous. The more I pray and the more I go through life , the more I realize what a sinner I am and how I can't even do the easy stuff right. And I hear people all around me saying "I'm a good person" and " God saves everyone who wants to be saved". To persevere to the end is a difficult task and without the grace of God I won't be able to do it. Scary, scary times we live in and every message from the Vatican is scarier than the previous one. But why I do worry and over think the things I hear, I also have a calm about me. It bothers me but it doesn't on the same hand.
If James Martin asserts that the doctrine on homosexuality can be changed because homosexuals don't 'receive' it, what logical objection can there be to the same claim by child-abusers?
"God will save 'everyone who wants to be saved', but the desire has to be accompanied (they've tainted that word even when deployed in its appropriate context) by a demonstration of an intention to justify oneself. Even Lucifer didn't ask to be kicked out of Heaven-he wanted to remain there and run the show his way. If anyone wants to achieve even the slightest objective, it is accepted that one must make an effort to do so, why is it assumed to be different for the highest one? I can only put it down to diabolical disorientation, God help them.
