Insight

You know if people have only been reding what I have written because they thought is was nice but are horrifed because they judge what I write to be awful, they have never understood anything I have written rather nice or awful. Its not a matter of being nice or awful when you come down to it. Its all about the Teachings of the Church and the Gospel and the ten commandments. These cna be pretty hard an awful. But it is for man to adapt himself to God.

It is for man to adapt himself to God.

 

Personally I think we can see that the Pope is acting like God did for the Prodigal Son, bending over backwards to attract back the lost sheep as it were, even to the degree of being unjust to the good son.

This Pope is not for us, I'd say, he is reaching out to an unfaithful world with an attractive agenda and personality towards them. Of course we look upon it as potentially compromising proper teachings by bending them to accomodate a corrupt world but hopefully it will attract some back who will in time accept the true, full, teachings.

And anyway this era won't last for ever, the period of mercy will give way to the period of justice, but we should hope that maybe some people will be attracted back in these last few months of the year of mercy that are left.

In the meantime what is the proper stance on legitimate criticism of the Pope? Well recently rorate-caeli asked a bishop about this, the degree to which a Catholic can legitimately question a Pope:

"What is the proper attitude a Catholic should have towards the pope in these troubled times? Are Catholics obliged to make their views known and “resist” as Cardinal Burke said in an interview last year with us, even when their views are critical of the pope?"

And His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider answered:

Also I certainly appreciate that souls at a higher level of peace/prayer really dislike criticism of the Pope, as do those who feel defensive towards him in the light of so many attacks on him that even question his legitimacy, but maybe we all should accept that in a discussion forum, as this is, people should be let have their say and not leave because of disagreements on this?

I don't agree with Padraig on this, but its obvious that he represents quite a few Catholics who are finding some of the things coming from the Vatican to be beyond the Pale so maybe people should argue back, as it were, rather than leave?

 

This is how YOU read it Malachi, but it is not what I mean.

If I may add what I hope will be my last contribution on this thread....

Padraig, I feel your Spiritual Director did you a disservice all those years ago when he told you... "to take Jesus as my Director because he said he could not think of a priest he could trust to direct me. In fact looking back down the years he was correct." One of the most damaging thing a Spiritual Director can say is to imply that the person he is directing is "special." Because it opens one up to what is detrimental to humility. I feel you yourself confirm this Padraig by your last statement.. "In fact looking back down the years he was correct."

Please give yourself the gift of another Spiritual Director... or I won't bring you with me to Lough Derg anymore

 

Yes that is indeed the narrative, we are saying, yes, for we are all about mercy and compassion.

The bad guys always say no and always talk about Justice and are basically a nasty lot.

But there really is such a thing a sin, the ten commandments, final judgement et all.

Reading scripture can often be like getting wacked up the face with a baseball bat, rather than a feather duster. I rather like this.

Please don't assume because you disagree with me , that there must be something wrong with me and I will do the same for you.

 

I recently watched Sr Stan being interviewed by Gay Byrne on RTE. She doesent believe in hell and she is delighted with the gay marriage being accepted in Ireland. She is held in high regard by the church in Ireland and there wasent a word from a bishop about her views. I discussed how shocked I was with a nun in my parish and her response was 'sure God is love'. I said well no wonder the church is in such a state if the people who should be defending the teachings dont even believe in them. I know a very orthodox priest who preaches on the commandments, he now has no parish and is effectively silenced because people didnt like what he has to say and complained to the bishop. Thats the church in Ireland now, definitely 'The church of nice'.
I spent yesterday crying over all of this. I am heartbroken but unfortunately what Padraig is saying is most unpalatable but unfortunately true. Folks look around and see whats happening in the church. We are in the times.
I think if Padraig said he had a spiritual director who was aware that he was going to say these things, the spiritual director would be fingered by the bishop and would suffer the same fate as my priest friend. The only one who can say these things is a maverick who nobody has control over. I do expect padraig will be getting a call up to visit a representative of the church hierarchy soon. Our lady picked a tough nut to deliver the unpalatable truth. That said I am going to continue to pray for our Pope to open his eyes and for all our priests. These are such sad times.

 

Exactly. The one's who are preaching mercy as a way of selling out to the World are the very ones who most lack mercy to the people who raise questions. You don't want to cross them. Or you'll regret it.

 

There are a large number of Irish priests who are heretics and apostates who do not hold the Catholic faith. They are visible and audible belonging to the association of Catholic priests (who have man and not God at the centre of their faith).

http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/

They are no longer on the periphery but have taken centre stage and are loved by the media especially the liberal press.

Where is the outrage over this? You can be a liberal and believe anything yet anyone who is orthodox in their faith is labelled a fundamentalist.

Baltimore Catechism
A Catholic can best safeguard his faith by making frequent acts of faith, by praying for a strong faith, by studying his religion very earnestly, by living a good life, by good reading, by refusing to associate with the enemies of the Church, and by not reading books and papers opposed to the Church and her teaching.
I know that after my departure fierce wolves will get in among you, and will not spare the flock. And from among your own selves men will rise speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. (Acts 20:29-30)

 

Actually, I think people are concerned that Padraig may be being mislead in prayer, and therefore making this thread very dangerous. It is titled "insight" and is in the mystical and paranormal section of the forum and starts off with what he was shown in prayer. I and others are just trying to get a better understanding of this since I think he was shown something in prayer to give him the idea that something big happening after the AL was published and nothing happened. So I think we are just wondering how much these spirits were tested. We need to really test, test, and test and be on our guard. Padraig would be a primary target for the evil one as he is probably leading more people to the faith than many priests!

 

Whatever about there being a schism in the church, this thread has all the ingredients of one here.

I admire all the work you have done over the years on this forum Padraig, there is a wealth of info on stuff I would never have known about otherwise. I also admire your strength of spirit and sticking to your guns rightly or wrongly come rain or shine.

I have considered leaving but think I will hang around a little while more if only to keep you in my mind and in my prayers, and perhaps be a thorn in your side every so often...

I don't agree with you on this latest insight but that doesn't really matter, you have your thoughts and I have mine. Time will tell. What does matter is that we keep the faith, and show love and respect to one another and that goes for everybody.
God bless
BC

 

I like watching/listening to these old Fulton Sheen broadcasts as he was a great & learned orator-n-showman. It also reminds me of watching him with my parents so long ago. In the beginning of the above, 1954, broadcast he starts out with funny stories of four year olds ... that was the year I was four . Younger people here will be amazed to learn that Sheen was broadcast weekly on National, secular, TV and was one of the most popular shows of the day vying with comedian Milton Berle ... called Fulti-n-Milti weekly duo. Anyway .... back to 2016 ... and matters of import like preparations to survive The Storm and, a lot, less worry/angst about ......... the Jamming, Chaff -n-Chatter I see here!!

GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!

 

More fog and fudge. Im done here. We each have to make up our own minds.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351332?eng=y&refresh_ce

 

My bullshit detector went from zero to a thousand in less than second on reading this.

 

Padraig, you mentioned something about lack of speak of hell and what not. Out of curiosity I wanted to search on what Pope John Paul II spoke on about hell. I came across this and am a bit perplexed and was wondering if others could shed some light on this. It seems that John Paul II does not believe hell to be an actual place but a state of being cut off by God. Am I reading this correctly and if so doesn't this go against the teachings of the church and many great saints who saw hell as a place and those suffering in it. The confusion is getting much greater for me. It is hard to know what is truth. If the greats like Pope John Paul were teaching false doctrine then what is a lowly spiritual babe like myself to do. Whom can we trust? Yes we can trust in the Lord but how do we know we are trusting in the Lord? It seems that not only Francis makes confusing statements that can be interpreted in many ways but other Popes can as well even the great Popes. If Francis would have said the below would this be yet another off the cuff comment that would bring about such an uproar on the forum? I have bolded some comments that are confusing to me. John Paul mentions part of the catechism to back up this idea that hell is not a literal place but a separation from God but the next part of the catechism clearly states it is a place??

1034 Jesus often speaks of "fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.612 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil throw them into the fire,"613 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"614

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."615 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999.html

JOHN PAUL II
GENERAL AUDIENCE

Wednesday 28 July 1999


Dear Brothers and Sisters,

1. God is the infinitely good and merciful Father. But man, called to respond to him freely, can unfortunately choose to reject his love and forgiveness once and for all, thus separating himself for ever from joyful communion with him. It is precisely this tragic situation that Christian doctrine explains when it speaks of eternal damnation or hell. It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life. The very dimension of unhappiness which this obscure condition brings can in a certain way be sensed in the light of some of the terrible experiences we have suffered which, as is commonly said, make life “hell”.

In a theological sense however, hell is something else: it is the ultimate consequence of sin itself, which turns against the person who committed it. It is the state of those who definitively reject the Father’s mercy, even at the last moment of their life.

 

2. To describe this reality Sacred Scripture uses a symbolical language which will gradually be explained. In the Old Testament the condition of the dead had not yet been fully disclosed by Revelation. Moreover it was thought that the dead were amassed in Sheol, a land of darkness (cf. Ez 28:8; 31:14; Jb 10:21f.; 38:17; Ps 30:10; 88:7, 13), a pit from which one cannot reascend (cf. Jb 7:9), a place in which it is impossible to praise God (cf. Is 38:18; Ps 6:6).

The New Testament sheds new light on the condition of the dead, proclaiming above all that Christ by his Resurrection conquered death and extended his liberating power to the kingdom of the dead.

Redemption nevertheless remains an offer of salvation which it is up to people to accept freely. This is why they will all be judged “by what they [have done]” (Rv 20:13). By using images, the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will “weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 13:42; cf. 25:30, 41), or like Gehenna with its “unquenchable fire” (Mk 9:43). All this is narrated in the parable of the rich man, which explains that hell is a place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain (cf. Lk 16:19-31).

The Book of Revelation also figuratively portrays in a “pool of fire” those who exclude themselves from the book of life, thus meeting with a “second death” (Rv 20:13f.). Whoever continues to be closed to the Gospel is therefore preparing for “eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (2 Thes 1:9).

3. The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’” (n. 1033).

“Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgment ratifies this state.

4. Christian faith teaches that in taking the risk of saying “yes” or “no”, which marks the human creature’s freedom, some have already said no. They are the spiritual creatures that rebelled against God’s love and are called demons (cf. Fourth Lateran Council, DS 800-801). What happened to them is a warning to us: it is a continuous call to avoid the tragedy which leads to sin and to conform our life to that of Jesus who lived his life with a “yes” to God.

Damnation remains a real possibility, but it is not granted to us, without special divine revelation, to know which human beings are effectively involved in it. The thought of hell — and even less the improper use of biblical images — must not create anxiety or despair, but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom within the proclamation that the risen Jesus has conquered Satan, giving us the Spirit of God who makes us cry “Abba, Father!” (Rm 8:15; Gal 4:6).

This prospect, rich in hope, prevails in Christian proclamation. It is effectively reflected in the liturgical tradition of the Church, as the words of the Roman Canon attest: “Father, accept this offering from your whole family ... save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen”.

To the English-speaking pilgrims and visitors, the Holy Father said:

I am pleased to greet the English-speaking pilgrims and visitors present at today’s audience, especially those from England, Scotland, Nigeria, Hong Kong and the United States of America. I wish you a pleasant visit to Christian Rome and I invoke upon you the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Maryrose, I hope you will hang on in there with us. I am in hope and prayer that Padraig will come to see why Jesus told Saint John who the traitor was at the last Supper, and not Peter and the rest of the Apostles.

Padraig reminds me of St Peter, and you can bet your bottom dollar Saint Peter would have knocked seven bells our of Judas if he knew Judas was on his way to betray the Master.

Saint John on the other hand was able to keep watch and pray, trusting in Jesus to make the right decision.

Blessed Mother won't let Padraig get too far off track. And he can expect to be put on Blessed Mothers naughty chair; or worse, get his legs slapped by one of the Angels before they ever give up on him. Same goes for the Holy Father, and all of us. You know we love you Padraig.

 

Padraig, On a lighter note, I have just had a brain wave. How about a special heading called 'Naughty Chair.'

So you can transfer posts that you don't like the tone of. Those meriting the naughty chair could be sent there for a time out so to speak.

 

The father bent over backwards for the prodigal son AFTER he repented and was on his way back home, not before.

 

Instead of Insight, this thread should have been called Incite.

No matter how capable or inept he might be, no good will come to the sheep who attack their shepherd.

 

Well I have to say I am going to have to bail on this site. It leaves me with great sorrow that it has turned into such chaos.

 

I am sorry kat but the confusion begins with Pope Francis. As Fr Malachi Martin said 20 year ago:

“The greatest single act of malfeasance in high ecclesiastical and ecclesial office has been the tolerance and propagation of confusion about key beliefs among the Catholic rank and file, this tolerated confusion being a direct result of a tolerated dissidence by Catholic theologians and bishops concerning those same key beliefs. For to tolerate confusion is to propagate confusion.

A primary and fundamental duty of every ecclesiastical office … (is) the clear, unmistakable teaching and enforcement of the basic rules and fundamental beliefs the Church holds and declares to be necessary for eternal salvation. There can be no compromise on both points: teaching and enforcement. If Roman Catholics have any rights in the Church, they have a primary right to receive such unequivocal teaching and to be the subjects of such forthright and unhesitating enforcement.”