DANIEL S. writes:
Pope Francis has chosen as his first official papal visit the Italian-ruled island of Lampedusa, which is a transit point for refugees from Tunisia, Libya, Sudan, Eritrea, and other African countries. This visit has earned the pope high praise from various “human rights” organizations, as well as Muslim leaders in Italy. While on the trip Pope Francis hailed the Muslim immigrants:
”To the dear, Muslim immigrants who today, this evening, are beginning the fast of Ramadan, with wishes for abundant spiritual fruit. The Church is close to you in the search for a more dignified life for you and your families.”
Several aspects of this visit are troubling. The pope chose to visit Muslims on his first papal visit rather than Christian refugees from Syria or Egypt, who are victims of vicious Muslim violence. Furthermore, Francis believes more should be done to provide a “dignified life” for these mostly Muslim refugees, but does not explain. Does the Holy Father really believe it wise to accept even more Muslims in a de-Christianized Europe?
Finally, Pope Francis gives validity to Ramadan. This Muslim holy month celebrates the “revelation” of the Koran to Mohamed. This same Koran declares that Jesus is not the Son of God, didn’t suffer Crucifixion, and the Resurrection didn’t occur. St. Paul said that if Christ did not rise from the dead then our faith is in vain, yet Francis is providing legitimacy to a hostile, alien religion that openly declares that the Christian faith is not only vain, but blasphemous and sinful.
Laura writes:
The full text of the pope’s remarks can be read here. The pope chides Europe, which has taken in millions of Muslims and sends billions of dollars in aid to Africa every year, for its indifference.
More shockingly, the pope’s “wishes for abundant spiritual fruit” are essentially a Ramadan greeting. He suggests that it is the material, not the spiritual, conditions of the immigrants that stand in the way of a “more dignified life.” The fact that refugees have died without a saving faith in the Church is not his concern. Pope Francis, as we have seen before, is a shallow materialist.
— Comments —-
A Concerned Catholic Mother writes:
I heard on the radio this morning about Pope Francis visiting Lampedusa and the Muslim refugees. The report was brief, but I knew it had to be not good news. I knew if I went to your web site I would get the details and sure enough I did. I am becoming more and more disturbed at the leaders of the Catholic Church presenting a positive view of the Muslim religion. I was very bothered by Cardinal Dolan’s visit to a mosque in New York, and now, Pope Francis saying what he did about Ramadan and the Muslim refugees.
Several thoughts have come to mind in reaction to the Pope’s comments about the Muslim refugees. The Pope lost a great opportunity to preach the truth to the Muslim refugees. He could have taught them about Christ and His Church. Like Daniel S. mentioned, what about the persecution of Christians by Muslims? Why didn’t Pope Francis condemn that persecution? The beheading of the priest by Muslims, the beheading of the British soldier by a Muslim? When will people wake up and realize the truth of the Muslim religion…especially the leaders in the Catholic Church? I think it only confuses Catholics who don’t know about the Muslim religion. Christ said to love our enemies. He didn’t say make friends with our enemies, or appease or give in to our enemies. Loving our enemies means teaching them the truth and wanting the salvation of their souls. I would think that Pope Francis would understand this, but somehow his “passion for the poor” has come across as more of a concern than for their souls.
Another thought that has been on my mind after hearing about Cardinal Dolan’s comments about how Muslims and Catholics share the same values. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t seen or heard of any Muslims denouncing what happened to the Christians in Africa or the priest in Syria. I haven’t heard or seen of any Muslims picketing outside abortion clinics or fighting to protect marriage in this country.
Thank you for letting me share with you my thoughts on this matter.
Laura writes:
Though I read about it, I did not carry the story about Cardinal Dolan’s visit to the mosque in New York, where he groveled and pandered in his obscenely Dolan-esque way, praising Muslims for their love of religious freedom and stating, ”You love God, we love God and he is the same God.” It would not have been surprising if Dolan had announced his conversion on the spot.
There is a word for the actions of Dolan and Pope Francis. It’s called dhimmitude.
John E. writes:
For a different perspective one might read this report, which tells of Pope Francis recently consecrating the Vatican city-state to the protection of St. Michael the Archangel, a peculiarly Catholic gesture, and not those one would expect of a “shallow materialist.”
My thoughts are that Pope Francis is a complex and varied person, subject to the same difficulties and next-to impossible moral dilemmas as anyone else in our disintegrated societies (more disintegrated than the society which Pope Pius XII or X or V faced – who knows how they would handle our times?) It appears much too soon to decide whether “revolutionary” is an appropriate term to describe Pope Francis’ person, if we ever are able to decide such a thing with our limited and often unreliable view of things, no matter how much we may wish to see clearly. If he is a revolutionary pope, is he revolting against the Catholic Faith? His primary responsibility as Pope is to uphold that Faith, and it is very possible that he is doing a poor job of upholding it (it is possible for the Pope to be a bad or incompetent man, though we understand by the same Faith he is bound to uphold, that he will not use his office to teach contrary to the Faith), but how does one decide that he is revolting–a very active term–against it with such conflicting reports, some suggesting that he isn’t, some suggesting that he might be?
Laura writes:
To say Pope Francis is revolutionary is not to rule out his adherence to the faith in many areas. He doesn’t need to be completely and uncompromisingly revolutionary to be considered radical in the light of tradition. No one, for that matter, is completely anything. I base that label on his actions and his words. However, I would say that description is justified by his words in Lampedusa alone.
Debra C. writes:
I would call him a heretical Pope. (That is not to imply that Evangelical leaders of various stripe do not merit the same charge.)
“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me.” John 14:6.
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Matthew 28:19-20.
“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12.
Any Pope or Church leader who asserts that all “religious” roads lead to heaven is sure to suffer the sentence set forth in Matthew 18:6, following:
”But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6.
And the greatest sin is the sin of unbelief: in denying that Jesus is God and that Jesus alone is the atoning sacrifice for our sins.
Essentially, the Pope is insinuating — as did President George W. Bush who said so explicitly in a video-taped interview with Charles Gibson — that Islam’s Allah is the same “God” that Christians worship.
May the Pope, the theologically liberal Evangelical “leaders,” and all other heretics of the true Church be brought to their knees in repentance and contrition for their blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; Lord have mercy on them.
Daniel S. writes:
While Cardinal Dolan was strutting around a New York mosque, his fellow bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento, California was using his office to cancel a speaking appearance by Islam expert Robert Spencer. According to the American bishops acknowledging the truth about Islam, what Islamic scholars themselves acknowledge about their own religion, is not allowed. Their purpose is no longer to serve as shepherds of Christ’s flock, but as apologists for a hostile, alien religion that murders their coreligionists in the Middle East.
In today’s Catholic Church the Doctors and Fathers of the Church would be shunned and silenced. St. John of Damascus, whoclassified Islam as a cult and heresy, would be denied a chance to speak on any premise owned by the Church, as would St. Thomas Aquinas, who denounced Mohammed as a lying, false prophet and a lust-driven tyrant. The Eastern Orthodox theologian St. Gregory of Palamas, himself a onetime prisoner of the Turks, accused Mohammed of being a bloodthirsty warlord inspired by the Devil. None of these Christian saints would have ever dreamed of going to a mosque for “interfaith dialogue” or sought to silence a fellow Christian that criticized Islam for its obviously violent creed. Indeed, all of these saints would have been barred from speaking in the modern Church of Dolan and Soto.
No comments:
Post a Comment