Here's part of the talk as it was reported by Radio Vatican:
Open your heart, do not take refuge in the rigidity of the Commandments
Why then did God create the world? “Simply to share His fullness,” Francis said. “To have someone to whom [to give] and with whom to share His fullness.” In the re-creation, God sends His Son to “set things right” – to make “the ugly one handsome, of the mistake a true [cast], of the villain a good guy”:
“When Jesus says: ‘The Father is always at work: I, too, am always at work,’ the teachers of the law were scandalized and wanted to kill him for this. Why? Because they could not receive the things of God as a gift! Only as Justice: ‘These are the Commandments: but they are few, let’s make more. And instead of opening their heart to the gift, they hid, have sought refuge in the rigidity of the Commandments, which they had multiplied up to 500 or more ... They did not know how to receive the gift – and the gift is only received with freedom – and these rigid characters were afraid of the freedom that God gives us: they were afraid of love.”
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/02/06/pope_francis_at_mass_be_open,_receptive_to_gods_gifts/1290724
AMDG
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/02/06/pope_francis_at_mass_be_open,_receptive_to_gods_gifts/1290724
AMDG
36 comments:
God did not need someone with whom to share. He is Trinity, Love itself, complete in Himself. This is so bad.
There is a new movement comprised of Jews teaching a universal "message of redemption" for Gentiles.Its similar to Noahide but with new subliminal language.
Amy Dean is one of the people pishing this new "religion".
The article sounds like this movement.I can't remember the exact name but its similar to "Ta-Kunt".
Tikkun Olam is the correct spelling,not ta-kunt.I just did a Google search because I wanted you all to know the correct title.Its like a forerunner of Antichrist one world religion.
Well, looks like he's going in that direction!
Jesus said, "If you love me you will keep my Commandments" and also, "If you do not take up your Cross and follow me, you are not worthy of me", in the 12th Chapter of the Apocalyse it states, "The children of the Woman are those who keep the Commandments of Christ". Bergoglio is teaching a different Gospel which makes him an Anti-Christ or thee actual Anti-Christ who has misled many. It is my opinion that the sign of the beast is the Modernist heresy without which one is noting in the Church for Bergoglio.
He's Chauncey Gardner dressed up as the Pope. He makes the most asinine and heretical statements and all the lap dogs say "isn't he smart, what a profound thinker ". Disgusting.
As to the Jewish angle, I truly believe they are actually living out the parable of the vineyard. They want to usurp the rule of Christ the King. Insanely, they think they are meant to be in charge of everything and the world be damned
Hoodoo voodoo doodoo.
This guy Bergoglio must be sick in the head, physically and mentally. Maybe he really does have that brain tumor that was rumored a year or so ago...remember?
I can't believe any true Catholic Pope saying or doing these things....in addition to what was done to the Knights of Malta, etc.
He is trying to create a new religion and a new Church.
He should be stopped. Faithful Catholics should pressure the good Cardinals and bishops left to confront Bergoglio and force him to resign.
Damian Malliapalli
Pope francis is not sick he is possessed....
Maybe the Pope was referring to last Sunday Breviary's Office of Readings (Second Reading), not Origen but St. Augustine:
SECOND READING
From an explanation of Paul’s letter to the Galatians by Saint Augustine, bishop
(Praefatio, PL 35, 2105-2107)
Let us understand the workings of God’s grace
Paul writes to the Galatians to make them understand that by God’s grace they are no longer under the law. When the Gospel was preached to them, there were some among them of Jewish origin known as circumcisers—though they called themselves Christians—who did not grasp the gift they had received. They still wanted to be under the burden of the law. Now God had imposed that burden on those who were slaves to sin and not on servants of justice. That is to say, God had given a just law to unjust men in order to show them their sin, not to take it away. For sin is taken away only by the gift of faith that works through love. The Galatians had already received this gift, but the circumcisers claimed that the Gospel would not save them unless they underwent circumcision and were willing to observe also the other traditional Jewish rites.
The Galatians, therefore, began to question Paul’s preaching of the Gospel because he did not require Gentiles to follow Jewish observances as other apostles had done. Even Peter had yielded to the scandalized protests of the circumcisers. He pretended to believe that the Gospel would not save the Gentiles unless they fulfilled the burden of the law. But Paul recalled him from such dissimulation, as is shown in this very same letter. A similar issue arises in Paul’s letter to the Romans, but with an evident difference. Through his letter to them Paul was able to resolve the strife and controversy that had developed between the Jewish and Gentile converts.
In the present letter Paul is writing to persons who were profoundly influenced and disturbed by the circumcisers. The Galatians had begun to believe them and to think that Paul had not preached rightly, since he had not ordered them to be circumcised. And so the Apostle begins by saying: I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting him who called you to the glory of Christ, and turning to another gospel.
After this there comes a brief introduction to the point at issue. But remember in the very opening of the letter Paul had said that he was an apostle not from men nor by any man, a statement that does not appear in any other letter of his. He is making it quite clear that the circumcisers, for their part, are not from God but from men, and that his authority in preaching the Gospel must be considered equal to that of the other apostles. For he was called to be an apostle not from men nor by any man, but through God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ.
http://www.ibreviary.com/m2/breviario.php?s=ufficio_delle_letture
It seems he is an apostate,nothing more or less.He is not sophisticated enough to be the Antichrist.His errors will be condemned by a future Pope one day.There will come a Pope who will get rid of all this ultramodernism.This has been prophesized by saints and blessed...
You are very charitable, Marie. 'Maybe' so.
However, how many countless times must the sermons and exhortations of Francis be qualified with 'Maybe he meant'...(fill in the blank)?
I wonder if he has a year 1 and year 2 cycle of Marxist blather like the daily Mass lectionary?
"Let your speech be Yeah Yeah No No"
- Jesus Christ
Unless a miracle occurs,the same men who elected him will vote to replace him.
I've yet to see one Cardinal with Jurisdiction from the Church to outright CONDEMN Vatican 2 or the Pius XII changes that contradict the Council of Trent.
I attend a chapel with supplied jurisdiction.
Believe me when I tell you people like me want a Roman Catholic Pope & for the crisis outside(yes outside)the church to end.
We aren't gloating and want a man like Pope Urban II just as much as you all.
Please don't take this as sarcasm.
I recall when, shortly after his accepting the papacy, he sent a message to charismatic groups,sayig, " I am one of you.".....I recall wondering if he had had a mystical or charismatic experience. If so, that could explain some of his thinking and freedom of expression that goes off the wall instead of towing the line of Church teaching. In any case , a Baptist told me yday, he knew early on that he was preaching Marxism.
There is a great statement from roratecaeli blog on how they view the SSPX signing the agreement with Rome.
Opinion: Despite all problems, the SSPX still should reach an agreement with the Vatican
Many of us will agree with that article. The SSPX cannot be pushed around. Not anymore than they already have. They have been treated badly in the past, so if treated badly again, they can weather the storm as usual.
Liam Ronan,
I was the presenter at our parish's RCIA on the subject of "Grace and the Beatitudes," and I, too, was surprised at St. Augustine's essay on Galatians and the Pope's Sunday exhortation.
I thought Our Lord has said that not a letter (iota Unum) of the Old Law has been abolished? And that He came not to abolish it but to fulfill it?
I'm still thinking about this. Please help me out.
Well, yes! A pope in the mold of Blessed Urban II is what we need today.
Urban called the Muslims the "vile race" that they were (still are) instead of referring to them as "our brothers." He was the defender of the Eastern Churches that were being oppressed by Muslims. He launched the First Crusade.
A man's man, that Blessed Urban II. Wish we have someone like him.
Heck, I'll settle for a Pope Suburban instead of a Bergoglio.
Pax Tecum---neither the Society of St. Pius X nor any of us has faced before the malice, diabolical determination, and ruthlessness of Pope Bergoglio. Do not be presumptive: Bergoglio can (and intends to, I am sure) do what others before him could not do to the SSPX: first the creation of internal strife within its rank; then a pastoral-seeming "intervention"; finally a direct and ruthless action that will either eradicate it or leave it totally unrecognizable. Can anyone doubt at this late date and after all the clear evidence that the intention of this malevolent pope is the total transformation of the Catholic Faith or dream that he would offer a sincere, conciliatory hand to the one world-wide order that has upheld the Faith? The SSPX is playing with fire---infernal fire, which is what Bergoglio is---and I can already hear on this very web site, despite not being a prophet, the laments in years to come when the one truly Catholic order not obliged to white-wash Vatican Council II and all its horrors lies in devastation. All who, with golden and pure intentions I am sure, want the regularization should pray for fortitude at a time when that is the most needed virtue in this fight and realize you may be aiding the destruction of what remains, on a world-wide scale, of true Catholicism. Knights of Malta, Franciscans of the Immaculata, Bishop Livieres of Ciudad del Este, Bishop Arguelles of the Philipines, Cardinal Burke, the Bishop of Alba-Longa, the cloistered orders's new non-admissions? Enough? The list of crass tyrannical persecution can go on and with the passing of time will go on. Do you wish to see the Society of St. Pius X added to this list? Naivete at a time of war is cowardice diguised or perhaps even a sin: "Be ye wise as serpents." Bergoglio only wishes our destruction and not one of us who adhere to Tradition can make a deal with the Devil or his minions---wake up!
Anonymous, I agree. But at times in war we must take risks. The SSPX has been taking risks for a long time and have always come out the winners because they are not battling a human cause but a Divine one. Lets not forget that St. John Paul ll from the first day of his Papacy wanted to lift the unjust suspension on Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Pope Benedict XVl worked hard on giving the SSPX a special status, but as you know Cardinal Levada and his Modernists threw a wrench into all the negotiations. The SSPX just may be the answer to the prayers of all those who have been persecuted by the Modernists since after V2 and for 4 years the anti-Pope Bergoglio. I see the SSPX as the Trojan Horse of the Traditionalists. Once let in, they will make their attack against Modernism. They're doing it already and are still being offered a Prelature (may be a trick but a stupid one in my opinion). It is estimated there are 1 million adherents of the SSPX, I believe there are more. Just imagine 1 million faithful Catholics coming down on the Modernist heresy. Modernism will be struck a fatal blow. If Bergoglio has evil plans against the SSPX, I'm confident in Christ and Our Lady the destroyer of heresies.
I pray that you are right---and you may be. I tend to be more cynical but do have ultimate confidence in the impeccable Will of Almighty God. By the way, "St." John Paul II not only did not lift the unjust suspension of the Archbishop but went further and signed an unjust and scandalous excommunication that was the great Archbishop's badge of honor. John Paul was a Modernist---a kisser of the evil Koran, a consummate ecumenist and host of the irenicist and blasphemous Assisi gatherings, a no-action pope when it came to the misdeeds of scores of Modernist heretics, and the promoter of infernal bishops like Mahoney of LA and Bergoglio of Buenos Aires. He is no saint to me.
Bishop Fellay is handing the SSPX over to this man.
http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2017/02/who-was-todays-daily-talmudic-jewish.html?m=1
Anonymous, When it come to St. John Paul ll there are two Popes, the misunderstood one and the correctly understood one. From the first day of his Papacy he already began the reform of the reforms. The SSPX was one of his major priorities. The restoration of the TLM was another one. I followed his Papacy closely. In the first week as Pope he ordered all priests back to wearing the Cassock and all Nuns to return to a clearly identifiable Habit. Through out his Papacy he made it clear, "There is no new Church. This is the same Church before, during and after the Council". He condemned repeatedly the ideology of "the spirit of Vatican ll". In 1980 he sent a letter to all the Bishops of the world asking if there were faithful who still desired the old Mass. In October of 1984 he granted the first Indult. The Bishops of the world were furious and accused him of violating Collegiality. St. John Paul fired back publicly and told the Bishops about the letter he sent them in the beginning of 1980 saying "Most of you did not answer me and those who did said there was no such desire. yet I receive thousands of letters weekly from the faithful from your prospective Dioceses asking for the Ancient Mass". That ended the bickering of the Modernist Bishops. St. John Paul ll did not excommunicate Lefebvre, he only confirmed the exommunication brought about Latae Sententiae. Lefebvre knew he brought it upon himself but he believed the Consecration of the 4 Bishops was a necessity. Today we see Lefebvre was absolutely right. I'm sure St. John Paul ll at this time rejoices in heaven that this is so. The work of St. John Paul was enormous, such that at his funeral hundreds of thousands cried out "Santo Subito". I wish a writer would write down all the attacks St. John Paul ll made against the Modernist heresy. Just like Jesus Christ who said and did many things that scandalized many so it was with St. John Paul ll, many did not understand what he was doing but history will tell.
So, Pax Tecum, the sacrilige of Assisi and John Paul's many irenicist gestures and policies that were necessary for the present apostasy do not count according to your well-intentioned but flawed hagiography. John Paul did excommunicate Lefebvre unjustly and invalidly: to confirm an excommunication by a pope is different from the act of excommunication? You are splitting hairs to defend a man most responsible for the destruction of Catholicism world-wide. What of his many disastrous appointments to episcopal sees around the world and his constant refusal to punish or at least correct heretics in positions of authority? Personnel is policy---and that policy made Bergoglio possible. I respect your sincerity and desire to think well of John Paul; I cannot, I lament, respect your delusionally selective depiction of a man who did more than most (even than Bergoglio, given the brevity of his pontificate so far) to destroy the Faith he was solemnly commissioned to defend and propagate. Let us love the Faith more than we do the persons of popes---the former is called Catholicism; the latter adolescent and dangerous papolatry.
Anonymous, When explaining Assisi many are like the Jehovahs Witnesses. It does not matter how much one explains what Assisi was about, it is in vain to try to explain. As for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre he knew that the Old and New Code Code of Canon law was crystal clear. Any Bishop who consecrates another without Papal approval receives the penalty of Excommunication Latae Sententiae (Automatic self excommunication). Lefebvre knew this only too well but went with the Code of Canon Law that states that a Bishop can lawfully consecrate another in the case of necessity. Lefebvre was confident that it was necessary and I agree 100%. If a Modernist would have done this Lefebvre would have condemned him, and rightfully so. St. John Paul ll was severely wounded with what happened and only confirmed that the excommunication was Latae Sententiae, that was his responsibility. Our Saint afterword instructed, "The rights of those who are attached to the Ancient Latin Discipline, must always and everywhere be respected". The bad Episcopal Consecrations was the fault of those who the Holy Father trusted. Many faked Orthodoxy and when Consecrated their true ugly face came out. Bergoglio was one of them. He faked Orthodoxy to the point he was accused of being a Traditionalist, that's how he got to be a Bishop then a cardinal. Mahony was another who faked Orthodoxy. There are many examples of St. JP2 taking Canonical action against many heretics. As for Papolatry, its gotten a bad rap because of Bergoglio. The Church continues to teach that when a Pope speaks officially on matters of Faith and Morals he cannot err. Bergoglio is an anti-Pope and an anti-Christ so this infallible teaching does not apply to him. I have thousands of examples of St. John Paul ll that would make any Traditionalist exult with joy at his cleverness, sanctity and a true Vicar of Christ.
Your reference to the Jehovah's Witnesses is a great example of a non sequitur that should be used in college rhetoric classes to show what not to do in an argument. It explains nothing and seems to aim to smear objectors to this grave injury to the Catholic Faith at Assisi by John Paul, against long-standing magisterial teaching that the members of the True Church cannot partake in the services of infidels, heretics, schismatics and unbelievers. JPII taught scandal by his example and violated church teaching about indifferentism. A Catholic pope, or any Catholic for that matter, does not kiss the Koran that blasphemes Our Savior by denouncing the Trinity. Never in the long, and at times troubled history of the papacy, have we seen such treachery and gesture of apostasy. Never. Papolatry has not gotten any bad rap because of Bergoglio, as you say, because papolatry has never been taught by the Church (as it an idea worthy of cults and sects, not of Christ's Church) and has never been Catholic doctrine but rather a perversion of it; you are woefully confusing papal infallibility, in all its great limitatios, with a fanatical and oracular understanding of the Petrine office that does not do it honor but rather dishonor. As far as correcting heretics, you, forgive me, could not have "thousands of examples" because they simply do not exist (except by way of rare exceptions)---JPII refused to govern the Church (some say due to being traumatized in his youth by Communist authoritarianism), made repeatedly bad, even scandalous appointments that cannot be blamed on any national conference of bishops as the responsibility of governance was utltimately his (except in the final years when he was disabled---not a large part of his pontificate). You can twist everything into a pretzel in your hero worship of this enigmatic, strange man who did more harm to the Church than perhaps even Bergoglio (which is a tall order) and who smeared Her Honor with absurd "apologies" for Catholic "misdeeds" of centuries ago---one does not give the enemy fodder to attach your mother, which is what the Church is for true Catholics, even supposing the "crimes" were as the Masonic/Protestant propaganda represents them (which they are not). A good son does not smear his mother or gives her proven enemies the tools with which to stain her honor. Instead, he should have stressed, to the consternation of liberals like him, the fact that the world has never known a civilizing force---in almost all areas of the arts and the sciences, yes even including the Galileo case---like the Catholic Church. Such are the words of the great, blessed Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, Martyr of Croatia and true son of the Church. We should love the Church and the Faith rather than engage in the cult of very flawed men who have occupied the Throne of Peter as we are not the fanatical sect that lying Protestants have always caricatured her as. Your unjust defense of "your" saint fits perfectly that oracular caricature. The Papacy deserves better.
Well said my friend!!
I repeat, explaining facts about Truth to a Jehovahs Witness is always in vain.
And discussing the truth with an infantile, cult follower who has no argument but only infantile cheerleading at his disposal is even more futile. Talk about Jehovas's Witnesses---you share their blindness, pertinaciousness, and ignorance. It is quite useless trying to discuss with you as you have neither the intellectual honesty or the manliness to defend Holy Church but only a jejeune obsession with a wretched bad pope who did much to injure her.
Anonymous, You only want to convince me that St. John Paul ll is some demonic being. Your wasting your time and mine. The People are demanding that Our Holy Saint be given the title "The Great" and it is only fitting. What gratitude you show to the Pope who made the Tridentine Mass available again. The Pope that condemned with excellent explanation all the Modernist heresies. Who started the reform of the reforms, restoring Feast days that had been abolished (Feast of the Most Holy Name of Jesus and Feast of the Most holy Name of Mary), restoring meatless Fridays, restoring the Holy days of Obligation that had been abolished in the New Catechism, granting Priests and Religious the right to use the ancient Breviary in Latin again, restored many practices in the Church which had been abolished, said the TLM frequently in his own private Chapel, performed many exorcisms with great results. spoke often with St. Pius X in the Apostolic Palace, was a Third Order Carmelite of the spiritual school of St. John of the Cross, The Holy Father was a Mystic, kept close contact with Sister Lucia Dos Santos, brought down Fr. Charles Curran and other rogue iconic figures of the Modernists, crushed the heresy of the "AM Church", was a good friend of Lefebvre, did all in his power to restore the dignity of lefebvre, opened the doors to Traditionalist Seminaries of several different Orders etc...etc...etc...etc...etc...etc... What went wrong with you? How did evil deceive you? Who brainwashed you to believe the slander against a great Saint? You missed a very important boat, namely the Bark of Peter. It is sad to see someone so deluded, who can't discern for himself but has only ears itching for fables. Long live St. John Paul The Great!
PS As for Assisi I could explain from the view of it by St. John Paul ll. But it would be useless as you have your mind set on believing falsehood. You will not believe truth anyway, no matter if an Angel of God came and told it to you. So I sure am not going to waste my time on your lost cause.
You are both delusional and absurd. In fact, in your ahistorical rants there is even the whiff of insanity. JPII was such a good "friend of Lefebvre" that he excommunicated him: you are risible. Your beloved "saint" was nothing but a Modernist who did not perform most of the restorative initiatives you mention above (a few half way and with no enforcement); you relish your own fictions and then accuse those who have eyes to see and who also love the Church of missing the "bark of Peter." While you were being indoctrinated in Novus Ordo heresy and pope worship I was working for the restoration of the traditional mass and sacraments since the mid 1970's, like countless others who were persecuted and maligned by the bishops appointed by your "saint." You should wash your mouth, and cleanse your soul, before you defame us. I am done wasting my time with an infantile, fanatical papolator like you. I hope you will one day realize that worship of the pope is repugnant to Catholicism and to true Catholics, which you are not. The papacy is much nobler and more sublime than a pagan oracle or an opportunity for a fake pop star like JPII. JPII was no mystic but rather a narcissistic, failed actor and mediocre playwright who put his ego and the adulation of the masses with his tacky stadium masses before teaching the Faith and governing the Church. Blather all you want from now on, I will not read your silly posts any more---have then the illusion of the last word, like all petulant, spoiled brats and keep believing your own falsehoods and syrupy pseudo-pious fantasies. By the way, honor the language (since you do not honor the papacy by your fanaticism) and learn the difference between "your"(possessive pronoun) and the contraction of "you are" (you're)---but, then again, clear grammar is a sign of clear thinking, which you lack.
Anonymous, You are fuming like the serpent. Like a child you rant and rave because I will not submit to your way of thinking. As for my grammar I am the first to admit that I'm not a Professor of the English language but then neither are you. Perfect grammar is not a necessary thing as much as knowing the facts and presenting them with all honesty. You reject all I said good about St. John Paul ll before doing research of whether or not its true. That is really bad reasoning at its worst, its the lowest a commentor could possibly get. You have every reason to be embarrassed with your way of reasoning, not even the JW'S do that bad! and I thought they were the worst. What I stated are facts and you attempt to debunk it all with a scream of its not true! WOW what reasoning? Better for you to keep silent. As for myself I have been defending the Church since 1977. I have battled anti-Catholics, Modernists and now I can say, with a delusional wanna be Traditionalist. Trads know their facts they don't make them up as they go along. If we were all like you the Modernists would have already won the battle. If Modernists would laugh and jeer at you because of your reasoning I couldn't defend you, I would be better off hiding and saying I don't know you. You have proven only that your a poor excuse for whatever you are.
Spoken, Pax Tecum, like the delusional and sanctimonious serpent that your are.
Anonymous, So now I'm a serpent because I hold to facts and not fiction? I thought you said you would not comment anymore on this? I knew you would. It's been both sad and fun. Sad because you hate a Saint of God, despite the fact that there were 279 miraculous cures that Science could not explain. Presented by the Bishops in whose Diocese they occurred to the congregation for the Causes of Saints. After the Beatification by Pope Benedict XVl there were hundreds more miraculous cures. St. John Paul ll was canonized with the approval and presence of Pope Benedict XVl. God granted the requests of St. John Paul ll for us as proof of his sanctity. And you demonize him? Fun, because I enjoy a debate when I am on the side of Truth.
Post a Comment