Posted on 12/15/2018 5:13:18 PM PST by ebb tide
Despite his penchant for theological innovation, Pope Francis seems to hold some fairly traditional beliefs about the devil. Heres an example from Gaudete et Exsultate:
It is precisely the conviction that this malign power is present in our midst that enables us to understand how evil can at times have so much destructive force Hence, we should not think of the devil as a myth, a representation, a symbol, a figure of speech or an idea. This mistake would lead us to let down our guard, to grow careless and end up more vulnerable. (160, 161)
It has been said that one of the devils greatest achievements is to convince people he doesnt exist. Pope Francis hasnt fallen for that deception. He realizes that the devil is no myth. When we let down our guard, says Francis, he takes advantage of it to destroy our lives, our families and our communities.
But when it comes to the question of how the devil is most likely to take advantage of us, Pope Francis seems to deviate from the path of tradition. Indeed, he seems to think that the devil does much of his work by making use of traditional pieties. Thus, the pope has frequently rebuked conservative critics of his silence over the sex-abuse scandals with being in league with Satan, the Great Accuser. On different occasions he has implied that they are a pack of wild dogs, scandal-mongers, and even collaborators in crucifixion.
So, in the Popes estimation, traditional Catholicsi.e., those who are more likely to be shocked and outraged by drug-fueled sex orgies in the Vatican and the likeare doing the devils work by exposing and criticizing such things. If they were good Christians, he seems to say, they would keep quiet and not add fuel to the scandals.
Who is most guilty of sowing division in the Church? Pope Francis seems to suggest that the greater blame lies not with the worldly bishop who takes the sixth commandment as a suggestion, but rather with the conscientious Catholic who takes it seriously and wants the hierarchy to take it seriously as well.
One can see a similar pattern in Pope Franciss response to the migration invasion of Europe and the resulting crime wave. He extends every consideration to those who are directly responsible for the troublenamely, criminal migrants and their European enablerswhile excoriating those Europeans who oppose the migration. For example, he once observed that those who fail to welcome migrants are sowing violence, racial discrimination, and xenophobia.
Thus, as in the sex-abuse cover-ups, we see the Pope circling the wagons to protect those most to blame for the crisis, while taking aim at those who are trying to call attention to the crisis. Its a classic case of shooting the messenger.
The Great Accuser and the Great Migration
We dont know what role the Great Accuser is playing in the matter of Muslim migration, but its worth speculating on the question because Pope Francis has most probably already speculated, and he has quite possibly reached the wrong conclusion.
If he thinks that the devils strategy in regard to the sex-abuse scandal is to stir up fundamentalist Catholics into a frenzy of overreaction, what role does he assign the devil concerning the spread of Islam? Does Francis assume that Satan seeks to disrupt the harmony that would otherwise exist between Christians and the followers of Muhammad by hardening the hearts of fundamentalist Christians and other types of fundamentalists such as nationalists and xenophobes?
We know from his various statements over the years that Francis does worry about the activities of Satan. Indeed, the whole final section of Gaudete et Exsultate is concerned with Spiritual Combat, Vigilance and Discernment. He speaks of the constant battle against the temptations of the devil and the wiles of the devil, and he speaks also of the need for discernment so that we can know if something comes from the Holy Spirit or if it stems from the spirit of the world or the spirit of the devil.
But just how good is Francis (and his key advisors) when it comes to discernment? The record suggests that they are not particularly gifted in this respect. The trouble is, its quite easy to confuse the Holy Spirit with the spirit of the times, and therefore one can be forgiven for thinking that the Pope and his inner circle regularly fall into this trap. The spirit of the times declares that climate change should be our most urgent priority, and Francis and company second the motion. The spirit of the times requests that we take a more relaxed view of sex between consenting adults, and key Vatican advisors seem to be of the same mind. The spirit of the times tells us that the transgender agenda is as normal as apple pie, and leading bishops find themselves in accord. A few years ago, the spirit of the times dictated that the Iranians could be trusted 100 percent not to violate the nuclear deal, and lo-and-behold, that also became the opinion of the Vatican.
So when Pope Francis tells us that the Holy Spirit is prompting us to welcome millions of migrants from Islamic lands, Catholics are justified in wondering whether he hasnt once again confused the Holy Spirit with the spirit of the times. The fact that the Churchs stance on Muslim immigration coincides so closely with that of so many secular leaders is cause for suspicion. So is the fact that both European leaders and Vatican leaders are agreedcontrary to a mountain of evidencethat Islam is a religion of peace. It sometimes seems that the Vaticans discernment meter is broken, for it always points in the direction of the prevailing winds.
To his credit, Francis tries to discern the devils machinationsthe wiles of the devilbut on the debit side he seems to assume that the devil tends to strike from the rightby manipulating fundamentalists and rigid traditionalists. The idea that the devil might strike from the left by manipulating liberals like Francis himself seems not to have occurred to him. Yet that is what seems to be happening. The policies Francis pursues in regard to Islam and immigrationpolicies that assume a benign interpretation of Islam and its aimswould seem to mesh nicely with the devils own plans.
A Devils-eye View
Granted that this business of discerning the devils motives is a tricky one, lets nevertheless try to look at the matter from the devils point of view.
To begin with, lets suppose that his main goal is to destroy Christs Church. If that is so, then a migration-invasion of Europe would suit his purposes very well. Since Islam has been a perennial enemy of Christianity, its implantation in Europeonce the heart of Christendomwould be a great victory for him. Islam has already had considerable success in exterminating Christianity in the Middle East and North Africa. The subjugation of Europe would do much to strengthen the claim that the religion of Allah is the true religion. And it would set the stage for the collapse of Christianity in other parts of the world.
Yet, Franciss policies seem to play into the devils hands. Against all the best interests of the Faith he is supposed to protect, Francis has energetically promoted the migration of Muslims and, thus, of the Islamic faith into Europe. The only scenario in which this would make sense would be if Europe were a vibrantly Christian continent capable of assimilating masses of Muslims and even converting them. But that is not the case. Christianity has been dying in Europe for decades, and it has been further weakened and discredited by the recent sex-abuse scandals. If anyone is to be converted, it seems likely that it will be the few remaining Christians in Europe (along with a great many secularists).
Naturally, the devils plan of action would have to be somewhat subtle since a direct invasion by Islamic armies would be unlikely to succeed. A gradual, slowly-boiled-frog approach would have a much better chance of success. It would encounter little resistance and it would appeal to the sense of self-satisfaction that European elites take in displays of tolerance. On the other hand, its difficult to see why Satan would want to stir up the xenophobic alarmists and thus take the risk of Europeans being prematurely alerted to the dangers. Continued complacency would better serve his purposes.
From a Satanic point of view, it would also help immensely if the campaign for the Islamization of Europe could be painted in a noble light. If the devil could somehow prompt European elites to promise that immigration would be beneficial in solving both the labor shortage problem and the welfare shortage problem, people would be more willing to adjust themselves to the new situation. If, on top of that, the Pope could be induced to give his imprimatur to the project, so much the better. Of course, in ordinary times the devil wouldnt set his hopes so high, butmirabile dictuthis is exactly what Pope Francis has, in effect, done.
In Gaudete et Exsultate, Pope Francis says we must keep attentive and be mindful of Scriptural cautions to keep our lamps lit and keep awake. He also reminds us that even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. All very good advice. But is the Pope following it?
There is, of course, no way of knowing for certain if Satan has taken a hand in the spread of Islam into Europe. But if he has, he has been very successful in disguising it as an angel of light project. In fact, most of the work of sanctifying the migration has been done for him by numerous clerics both Catholic and Protestant. Pope Francis, in particular, has drawn a halo around the immigration projectnot only suggesting that migrants will enrich European society, but also that the welcomers would be acting in a Christ-like way. More than angels of light, the Pope has consistently portrayed migrants as representatives of Christ Himself.
The devil, as Francis points out, is a master of disguise. He can appear as an angel of light. He can quote Scripture. And he is certainly not above taking advantage of a Christians best instinctsparticularly the impulse to charity. But, as I have noted elsewhere:
One has to wonder about charitable impulses that facilitate the takeover of Europe by a decidedly anti-Christian religious ideology. How charitable is it to consign Europeans, their children, and their grandchildren to a life of bloodshed and civil war, or else to a life of subservient dhimmitude such as Christians now experience in many parts of the Muslim world?
It would be a great triumph for Satan if he could convince Christians that they are doing the will of God when, in fact, they are carrying out his own agenda.
The Holy Spirit or the Spirit of the Devil?
In speaking against opponents of mass migration, Pope Francis said, the Holy Spirit will help us to keep an attitude of trusting openness that will allow us to overcome every barrier and scale every wall. It seems, however, that Francis should give consideration to the possibility that it is not the Holy Spirit who wants to open the floodgates of migration into Europe, but the spirit of the devil. After all, the way that the immigration issue is currently being framed by Catholic leaders is exactly how one would expect a supremely intelligent but malign power to frame it. He would present the welcoming response as a good and noble act of Christian charity, he would quote the words of Christ, and he would label opponents of immigration as unchristian. As I wrote previously:
The Churchs welcoming response to Islam and Islamic migration can be looked upon as a shining example of Christian charity, or it can be looked upon as an example of stubborn foolishness and presumption in the face of a fast-spreading evil. Its a devilishly complicated situation. And that should make us wonder if the devil himself isnt intimately involved in it.
Rather than let down our guard, Pope Francis suggests that we need to practice discernment:
We must remember that prayerful discernment must be born of a readiness to listen: to the Lord and to others, and to reality itself, which always challenges us in new ways. (Gaudete et Exsultate, 172)
This, too, is good advice, but once again we need to ask if Francis is following it. Does he manifest a readiness to listen? Its becoming obvious that Francis does not listen to his critics. He ignores them, fails to respond to their sincere concerns, demotes them, and, in some cases, criticizes them harshly. Does he listen to reality itself? Well, thats a matter of judgment. But as I and others have argued, he does seem to be ignoring the reality of the worsening situation in Europe. Just as important, Francis seems to be engaging in wishful thinking about the history and nature of Islam. His declaration that authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence is about as far removed from reality as one can get. Instead of allowing himself to be challenged by realities, he seems content to be guided by pleasant but unexamined narratives.
As Pope Francis says: [Christ] asks us to examine what is within us and what takes place all around usthe signs of the times. But what exactly are the signs of the times that might lead us to believe that Islam has reformed itself, and is now interested not in conquest, but only in harmonious encounter and dialogue? Every day, in Europe, Egypt, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Gaza, Pakistan, the Philippines, Iran, Turkey, the Central African Republic, and elsewhere the signs of the times are saying quite the opposite. Figuratively speaking, they are billboard-size signs lit up in neon. Yet they dont seem to figure at all into the Popes process of discernment. Instead, he studiously ignores them.
Pope Francis has not been very discerning about the men he has elevated to key positions in the Church. Why should we suppose that he has correctly discerned the promptings of the Holy Spirit in other vital matters?
Reprinted with permission from the authors website, TurningPointProject.com.
Where does the whole “For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours now and for ever” part come from? I don’t remember learning the prayer this way as a child (RC) and it’s not in the bible, so where did it come from? (If I am sounding very stupid & ignorant i apologize for that!)
Is he going to change this Bible text next?
"Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil." Matthew 4:1
It is in the Bible. The Lord’s Prayer is in both Matthew 6 and Luke 11, and while they’re not found in Luke 11, those words are found in the version in Matthew 6.
However, this famous song version of the prayer does include it:
I’m not Catholic but knew that Catholics usually didn’t say the doxology. I didn’t know, though, that it isn’t included in Catholic Bibles or that it falls into the category of deserving to be left out of Scripture according to modern, largely secular-minded scholars like those who put together the NIV. I did just look into this question a bit by reading that Catholic article and then also this one:
https://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_mt6_13.html
I can see why it was included in the KJV, and I’m certainly going to continue saying it.
“We must remember that prayerful discernment must be born of a readiness to listen: to the Lord and to others, and to reality itself, which always challenges us in new ways. (Gaudete et Exsultate, 172)”
This is where there’s a real distinct difference between Catholic and Bible-believing Christian thinking. While I can’t say for sure that it wasn’t taken out of context in this case, it does represent the sort of comments that I’ve come across many times from Catholics. According to what the Bible teaches, we should be listening to other people and reality itself in addition to listening to the Lord. Yet, also according to God’s Word, there shouldn’t be a laundry list like this of “listen to the Lord, other people and reality,” as though we can choose to listen to one sometimes, and another at another time, and the third on other occasions, and on and on — and every choice dependent upon what strikes us as being true. So while we are to listen to others and to “reality,” we’re ultimately to listen to what God says about what we’ve heard from others and on what we take to be reality, and follow His voice.
Lord's Prayer:It is not considered, however, to be part of the "Our Father", and is not recited at other times the "Our Father" is prayed, such as when praying the Rosary.Priest: Let us pray with confidence to the Father in the words our Savior gave us.
All: Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
Priest: Deliver us, Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
All: For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours, now and forever.
By the way, there are many other English translations of the Bible besides the NIV which completely omit that doxology (including the "Revised Standard Version"), and many others like the NASB include it within brackets, usually with a footnote explaining that the phrase is completely omitted in many manuscripts and in many other translations.
Yes, I do know that. I believe that somewhere it’s mentioned here in this thread or one of the the links that it’s said at masses. I’ve been to quite a few and also listened to hundreds of Catholic masses on the radio some years back. I’ve also heard many rosaries on the radio, having had a Catholic family member. And a couple of times in the past, when I’ve prayed the Lord’s prayer with Catholics, a couple were reluctant to go beyond “but deliver us from evil.” I should have clarified that I was aware that sometimes Catholics don’t say what’s called the doxology, while as far as I know and have experienced, Protestants always do.
I’m also aware that the RSV editors made many similar decisions as did those of the NIV and also the NASB. If I recall correctly, both the RSV and NASB have had some acceptance among Catholics. For awhile I read the NKJV, which I believe also makes some of the same decisions, and I spent some time looking into the claims made before deciding to go back to the KJV.
Why was St. Michaels Prayer dropped following the Novus Ordo? Any idea? What could possibly make the devil happier?
That phrase...the doxology or praise ... comes from early liturgical recitations of the Lords Prayer. Its not really part of the prayer as it is found in Scripture but was said to finish that part of the liturgy in which the prayer was recited. There were actually several different doxologies (and the Orthodox still use some of them) but this is the one that has come down to us in English.
When Vatican II put the liturgy into the vernacular, they for some reason wanted to include this doxology, which was recognized by English speakers but totally unknown to the rest of the Catholic world. However, all the vernacular masses in any language now have a translation of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.