Preparing the way ... to accept the Anti-Christ.

New Martyrs of Solovki

A message from the Russian Orthodox Church.

Churches that have deemed homosexuality morally acceptable have rejected Christianity and are preparing their followers to accept the Anti-Christ, according to one of the leading figures in the Russian Orthodox Church. 

His statement came as the Russian Orthodox Church announced that it is ending "formal contacts" with the United Protestant Church of France and the Church of Scotland over those churches' abandonment of traditional Christian sexual morality. In its statement, the church said ecumenical dialogue was pointless after France's United Protestant Church last month voted to allow pastors to officiate at same-sex "marriages" and the Church of Scotland approved ordaining clergy who are in same-sex civil unions. 

"The Russian Orthodox Church holds the firm position based on Holy Scriptures and has repeatedly declared that [homosexual 'marriage' is] inadmissible for moral teaching," the statement reads. Churches that offer to "marry" homosexuals "trample upon the principles of traditional Christian morality." 

The statement explains that over a period of years, the Orthodox Church has shared her concerns with these Christian bodies and warned of ecumenical consequences if they adopt same-sex "marriage." 

"Regrettably, the words of warning have not been heard," Orthodox officials concluded. 

Following the decision, the Very Rev. Fr. Dimitry Smirnov – the chair of the Russian Orthodox Church Commission for Family, Protection of Motherhood and Childhood – told one of the leading Russian television stations the new moral teachings place these liberal denominations beyond the pale of Christianity. 

"We separated ourselves from them as from the plague, as it's contagious,” he said. “The Russian Orthodox Church cannot support with its authority something that is just an iniquity from the Biblical point of view.” 

“These are not Christian communities anymore. This is another community with its own distinct name of 'LGBT.' Its future is simple and clear – the 'fire of Gehenna' – this is just what the Holy Scripture says,” Fr. Smirnov said. 

By rejecting the Christian faith's immemorial teaching on sexual morality, “the former Christian peoples are preparing themselves for the solemn reception of the Anti-Christ." - Finish reading here.

The contagion of the world's slow stain...

I'm becoming more and more convinced of this, as popular culture grows more decadent, politicians more candid in their anti-Christian views and calling for a change in religious attitudes, and so on.  Gender ideology is the outgrowth of rad-feminism and LGBTQ-ism.  Sounds crazy right?  Especially when all someone wants to do is be themselves?  How is that bad?

When men attempt to change and control their destiny, to manipulate existence, to re-order creation - that's the essence of witchcraft - it is paganism, idolatry.  We make ourselves God - that is what the New Age promotes.

Therefore God can be a she.  When God is called mother - when liturgical prayers are addressed to God as mother - that is anti-Christ.  It is regressive - leading back to Magna Mater - Great Mother, Goddess worship.  Jesus revealed the Father - he called God Father.  To go against that is anti-Christ.

To go against nature - to redefine gender, sexuality, and marriage - and ultimately God - is anti-Christ.

"Who fails to drink little or much from the golden chalice of the Babylonian woman of the Apocalypse [Rev. 17:4]?" - John of the Cross


We have seen it happen to other denominations.  Today it is infecting the Anglican church.  With the acceptance of women bishops, the new bishops seek to change liturgical prayers to address God as mother.  Thus corrupting worship, making God into their own likeness.

These are the things the Russian Orthodox are warning against.  These New Age 'theologies' - very much rooted in Theosophy, and not unlike the Conscious Evolution spirituality the LCWR and other Catholic groups have embraced, seem to me to be a final preparation "for the solemn reception of the Anti-Christ."


Just a thought...

Mother of God, Stand for Christ with the Martyr's Cross

+

In the end, promiscuous behavior and infidelity become so habituated, that it may seem to be an addiction. Never give up hope, nor compromise with the spirit of the age.  Pray to Our Lady for courage and the grace to do penance.  Repentance followed by frequent confession, with prayer and the Eucharist are the steps one must take in order to amend one's life and begin to repair the damage done to family and friends.

H/T Daniel Cassidy

Another interesting article on the 'cultural revolution' here.

Did the Apostles actually witness Our Lady go up to Heaven?

I don't think so.

However, the Church defined the sacred mystery of the Assumption as a divinely revealed dogma of faith.

The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory [Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus 44].

So anyway.

Last night I was wondering why Our Lady permits people to be misled by dubious apparitions many people claim to have.  Why does God allow it?  Why doesn't Our Lady intervene and clear things up, telling us: "That apparition is false.  I never said that."?

There are many reasons, I think.  Chief among them is because it is up to the Church to discern, to approve or disapprove, or reveal there is or is not evidence of the supernatural taking place.  The Church takes Her time, but indicates gradually - in some famous cases - that events may not be supernatural in origin.  The fact simple believers have responded in such a way that they remain faithful, or grow in fidelity to Catholic doctrine and practice, the Church may proceed more cautiously, considering it might do more harm to 'pull up the tares' and risk pulling up the wheat along with them.  That said, even at that point - no fruits have been harvested - good or bad.

A supernatural intervention or sign, clarifying the events or messages are normally commensurate with the phenomena.  That is what happened at Lourdes - instantaneous cures; and at Fatima - the solar miracle and specific prophesies fulfilled.  Perhaps in some cases - the lack of a supernatural clarification as I suggested above, is unnecessary because the Church has the authority, the power on earth to bind and to loose.  Nevertheless, it is faith that God requires, faith is a theological virtue:  Faith in God and what he has revealed in his Son, Jesus Christ, as defined and taught by the Church.

The authority of the Church. 

It always goes back to the Church.  Not this cardinal or that bishop, (except of course, the local ordinary of the place in question) or this priest or that spiritual director of a lone locutionist.  It is the Church:  The Pope and the bishops in communion with him, the Holy See or Magisterium of the Church, or the local Ordinary, has the authority to determine whether or not an apparition or private revelation is worthy of belief.  For clearer information on these matters, read the section below and follow the link at the end of the excerpt:

Responsibility of the Faithful. Today there are a myriad of alleged private revelations and apparitions vying for the attention of the faithful. None have been definitively judged by the Holy See, some have been approved by local authority (e.g. Akita, Cuapa, Betania), others have been found lacking in supernaturality (e.g. Medjugorje, Garabandal), some few have been condemned (e.g. Necedah, Bayside) and finally, the vast majority have received no attention from Church authorities whatsoever.

The first responsibility of the faithful is to remain firmly established in the faith, in the sacraments and in communion with the Pope and bishops. Any Catholic who gives their primary attention to alleged private revelation at the expense of Sacred Scripture, the teaching of the Church (especially the Catechism), sacramental practice, prayer and fidelity to Church authority is off course. The running after spiritual phenomena, such as alleged revelations, is condemned by St. John of the Cross as spiritual avarice. This means that pious souls who would be repulsed by crude materialistic greed think nothing of being greedy to know revelations and prophecies. An exclusive, or even a predominant attention to these matters (especially apocalyptic ones), cannot help but produce an unbalanced spirituality. Should the Church condemn some favorite alleged revelation such a person may find themselves believing more in it than in the supernatural authority of the Church. The devil will have succeeded in what he had set out to do. - Read more here.

I hope I've learned my lesson.  Even holy individuals can be deceived.  I often recall how St. Therese and her community were deceived by Leo Taxil, how St. John Paul II was deceived regarding Fr. Maciel, and how many - even priests - were deceived by Fr. Gino, a false mystic.  Stay clear of websites and news portals which indiscriminately publish promotional material for false visionaries and mystics.

From the same article above, some important points to consider:

• Authority: The Teaching Authority (Magisterium) of the Church alone, therefore, determines what Catholics must believe by this divine and Catholic faith. Everything else in life rests on human faith in the credibility of assertions of truth of one kind or another, such as whether John Wilkes Booth actually shot Abraham Lincoln or whether the Blessed Virgin appeared to a certain person.
• Just because one has a spiritual director:  The witness of prudent priests, especially the spiritual director of the person, is a key element in determining credibility. However, even here care must be taken. The spiritual director himself must be competent in mystical theology, credible as a person and in good standing with the Church. False mystics have been known to "shop" for gullible, extremely aged or incompetent directors. Ideally, a bishop upon hearing of an alleged mystic would assign a competent director, thus insuring the authenticity of the evaluation. 
• If the bishop says no - it means no: With respect to any disciplinary precepts the bishop makes concerning the apparition and its site, they should be followed faithfully (e.g. what sacraments, if any, may be celebrated there). No Catholic should ever violate the practical norms laid down by the local bishop with respect to an alleged apparition, even if intellectually they disagree with his conclusion regarding the alleged apparition. Such disobedience would be sinful, and if it characterized the attitude of the followers of the alleged apparition it would be a sign of its inauthenticity, i.e. by producing bad fruit.

Don't listen to me however - listen to the Church.

Mass Chat: I got nothing...

Except shame.

Today's reading is one of my favorites, if I can say such a thing, because the entire Letter to the  Hebrews is very important to me - especially when Paul urges that we go to him (Christ), outside the gates of popular opinion and culture, sharing his shame (bearing the insult he bore).  So what does that mean?  "Sharing his shame"?  Especially since in today's reading he says Christ "despised the shame of the cross".  Another translation says, "for the joy that lay before him, he endured the cross, heedless of its shame."  That works better.  It fits the Gospel, I think.

Shame is good.

Pope Francis mentions shame rather frequently.  Shame is a bad word in contemporary culture, but Francis is saying it.  On the occasion of the feast of St. Ignatius, he spoke to the Jesuits, praying for the 'grace' of shame: “We ask for the grace of shame, the shame that comes from a continuous conversation of mercy with him, the shame that makes us blush before Jesus Christ,” he said.

Pope Francis prayed [...] that he and his fellow Jesuits would receive “the grace of shame” for their failures and the humility to recognise that whatever good they accomplish is really done by the Lord.

In his homily Pope Francis prayed that Mary would “help us experience shame for our inadequacy before the treasure that has been entrusted to us, so that we would live with humility before God”. - Source

In another instance, the Holy Father said:

... shame is a true Christian virtue, and even human ... the ability to be ashamed: I do not know if there is a similar saying in Italian, but in our country to those who are never ashamed are called “sin vergüenza’: this means ‘the unashamed ', because they are people who do not have the ability to be ashamed and to be ashamed is a virtue of the humble, of the man and the woman who are humble. "
Pope Francis continued: “ we must have trust, because when we sin we have an advocate with the Father, "Jesus Christ the righteous." And He "supports us before the Father" and defends us in front of our weaknesses. But you need to stand in front of the Lord "with our truth of sinners", "with confidence, even with joy, without masquerading... We must never masquerade before God." And shame is a virtue: "blessed shame." "This is the virtue that Jesus asks of us: humility and meekness". - Vatican Radio

We feel shame for actual sin, for failures to love and do good.  We blush over our inappropriateness, our lack of accomplishment.  We can cry out in prayer, "Lord how can I atone for all that I have done?"  And we are ashamed because we cannot make enough amends, enough reparation - even if we went to those we somehow cheated, maligned, lied to, disparaged, and apologized and kissed their feet and tried to make amends - perhaps they would still despise us.  Yet even then, if we prayed and did penance as long and as hard as life, we could never undo the offense against charity and truth.  What have we that we can exchange? 

Shame.

"Humility and meekness are like the frame of a Christian life. A Christian must always be so, humble and meek. And Jesus waits for us to forgive us. We can ask Him a question: Is going to confession like to a torture session? No! It is going to praise God, because I, a sinner , have been saved by Him. And is He waiting for me to beat me? No, with tenderness to forgive me. And if tomorrow I do the same? Go again, and go and go and go .... He always waits for us. This tenderness of the Lord, this humility, this meekness .... "This confidence, concluded Pope Francis "gives us room to breathe." "The Lord give us this grace, the courage to always go to Him with the truth, because the truth is light and not the darkness of half-truths or lies before God. It give us this grace! So be it. " - ibid

I think this is what saves us from morbid shame, 'that sorrow which leads to death'.  The Blood of Jesus is our atonement.  Like the leprous Naaman, we bathe in it seven times - seven times seventy times as Jesus told Peter.  When we begin to think we are something, that shame - united to the shame of the Cross and of the Blood, reminds us that we are totally dependent upon God's grace and merciful love which exceeds all we ever knew, which can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine.

"Whoever is made to suffer as a Christian should not be ashamed but glorify God because of the name." - 1 Peter 4:16

We are what we are however.  We can not glory in our shame - that is pride.  Pride glories in shame.  It calls sin a virtue.  To exult in our sin is to glory in shame.  That isn't virtuous.   Oddly enough, so-called "gay-pride" is a form of reparative therapy promoted as an easy solution to the problem of shame.  A shame which is based in sexual identity or internalizing societal disapproval of homosexuality.

"Unfortunately many go about in a way which shows them to be an enemy of the cross of Christ... Their god is their abs and their glory is in their shame." - Philippians 3:19 

I think that to despise the shame, or rather to endure it; to bear the shame that Christ bore, is to understand the authentic meaning of shame.  Such shame is something much more fundamental.  As such, there is a sense, an echo of that 'original shame' after the fall which wounds us - which is our sin and propensity for sin.  Christ despised sin: He endured the shame, the consequence of it.  I'm not sure I'm able to articulate that very well in my reflection here.  I don't think this sense of shame is the same as the shame that kills, but rather the shame that frees us.  Christ descends into that place, He stoops down to us and lifts us - he sanctifies us and atones for us.  "Though I am afflicted and poor, yet the Lord thinks of me.  You are my help and deliverer; O my God, hold not back!" 

The shame that kills is related to what Paul said in his second letter to the Corinthians: "Indeed, the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death." - 2 Cor. 7:10

Consider how Christ endured such opposition from sinners, in order that you may not grow weary and lose heart.  In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood. - Hebrews 12: 1-4

Song for this post here.

[Ed. note: This post is the result of reading another writer who said a person should feel shame simply because of same sex attraction.  That is incorrect.]

The wedding feast.

Go out into the byroads and hedgerows and invite anyone you come upon...

For the past few nights I've been dreaming about getting married - not at this time in my life of course - but years ago.  I was going to get married - twice - but I couldn't.  I was terrified and repelled by the very idea of it, and broke off the engagement soon after each proposal.  I know all the reasons why - yet I thought marriage would 'cure' me.  That's not the right intention of course, so the marriage would have been null and void to begin with.  That said, I'm not sure why I've been dreaming about it now.  As I state in my profile on Blogger, I can't be married anyway.  And I don't want to be.

I kept thinking about the dream however, and it reminded me of Christ's teaching on celibacy - to be more accurate - on eunuchs.  Hence I re-considered the teaching on celibacy in terms of a disability.  Of course celibacy chosen for the kingdom isn't a disability in the classic sense, nevertheless, a normal human function is deliberately disabled in professing it.  Therefore, what if Christ said, "Some men are disabled from birth; some have been disable by men, and some have freely renounced sex for the sake of God's reign."  For me the key word here is disabled - some people may be sexually disabled just as some people have been physically disabled - either at birth, through some illness or accident, or deliberately so by man, and so on.  The disabled are not barred from the kingdom of God, the Church.  Even though the disability remains as a thorn in the flesh, or bars them from this or that vocation, they are called to sanctity.

Once I wrote that Christ didn't heal everyone who came to him, but a reader corrected me and said that he pretty much did - there is no account in the Gospel that he sent anyone away.  This morning I read something from Monsignor Luigi Giussani which is much closer to what I originally was attempting to say:  "Christ came for this; indeed he did not heal everybody, he did not straighten things out for everybody.  The task Christ gave to us is to proclaim his name, not to fix all heads, all the arms, to make everybody well educated..."  That's it!

That's what I meant and what I have been trying to say for a long time.  Some people are disabled, crippled for life as it were, and they aren't always cured.  In fact, it may be better if they go into eternal life this way than be led astray by versions of what I call the Prosperity Gospel mentality that insists everyone must be cured or is cursed.  The disabled exist, they have always lived amongst us, they do not simply survive - they thrive in their conformity to the rejected, wounded Christ.  They need not be identified or defined by their disability, but by their identity with Christ.  Christ invites the lame, the crippled, the lame and the blind - he wants his Church to be filled.

This is not to say he cannot or will not heal - he does: "Stand up and go your way; your faith has been your salvation."  And like Christ, you may have the wounds to prove it.

Art: Beggars and cripples, 18th century engraver