Readers will recall such memorable examples of homespun exegesis as the claim that the sinless and immaculate Mary “perhaps” felt tricked by God when she saw Her son on the Cross (“Lies! I was cheated!”), thatChrist merely pretended to be angrywith this disciples (“Jesus does not become angry, but pretends to”), and that Matthew clung to his money when Christ called him (“No, not me! No, this money is mine!”), rather than immediately heeding Our Lord’s call as the Gospel records (Matt. 9:9-13)­.

There was also this astonishing prayer intention in a sermon on the life of Jesus: “Lord grant us Christian identity,which You had.” To say that Jesus had a “Christian identity,” rather than that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” as the first Pope recognized (cf. Matthew 16:16), is to suggest that he was not divine but merely a superlative man whose supreme Christian example we should emulate.

Indeed, in the same off-the-cuff sermon Francis opined: “The authority of Jesus­—and the authority of the Christian—comes from this ability to understand the things of the Spirit, to speak the language of the Spirit. It is from this anointing of the Holy Spirit…”­ The implication is that any Christian can be anointed in the unique manner that Jesus was (cf. Acts 10:38), or that Jesus had no authority by virtue of His own divinity but only that of any “anointed” Christian.

However inadvertent it may be, what emerges from such improvisations is an implicit reduction of the God-Man to a Messiah who is merely an exalted creature whose sublime teaching and moral example lead men to God the Father. This is the Enlightenment-bred view of Christ held by the Unitarians and John Locke, who studiously evaded any affirmation of the existence of the triune God or that Christ is the divine second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Francis’s latest improvisation in this regard only heightens the difficulty. Sermonizing on the Finding in the Temple, Francis had this to say:

Instead of returning home with his family, he stayed in Jerusalem, in the Temple, causing great distress to Mary and Joseph who were unable to find him. For this little “escapade”, Jesus probably had to beg forgiveness of his parents. The Gospel doesn’t say this, but I believe that we can presume it.

Any well-catechized child knows that Jesus, far from begging forgiveness, rebuked his parents in a manner that constituted an early revelation of His divinity: “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know, that I must be about my father’s business?” (Luke 2:49) Francis, however, blithely reduces this signal event to a childish escapade for which Jesus had to beg forgiveness. On this view, the very statement “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know, that I must be about my father’s business?” would be the worst sort of insolence and lack of respect for parental authority.

Now, one does not beg forgiveness from another unless one has wrongly offended the other, whereas Jesus, being divine, was incapable of committing a wrong against anyone, much less his own parents. Worse, to say that Jesus had to beg forgiveness for his behavior is to suggest that he had sinned against Mary and Joseph and was thus obliged to ask their pardon.

The question presents itself: Is Francis confused about the divinity of Christ? Does he see Christ as the God-Man whose sacrifice of Himself to the Father, being of infinite value, atoned for all the sins ever committed or to be committed? Or does he hold some lower conception of the Messiah, perhaps without even realizing that he does? I leave it to the commenters to suggest a reasonable explanation of this sermon that is consistent with Christ’s divinity and an orthodox reading of the Gospel.

Source : The Remnant

My Comment : I can not remain silent before this Papal heresy, The Pope who guess for his escapade, Jesus had to apologize to his parents, what is this mess ? this is completly heretic, an open door to hell, I am really worried, how God can apologize ? but where are Cardinals to denounce this heresy, where are you ? woe to you surrenders band ! 

What message is being transmitted in this video? I think it is very evident and requires little explanation: we are all children of God, and therefore all religions are simply “different” expressions through which children communicate with the Father; each with its form and manner, but all equally valid. The alleged fact that the Father hears us all, regardless of religion, should be a common point of union between all mankind to obtain peace and universal love, sidestepping what separates us. In practice, the message concludes, all religions, as such, become valid means to reach God; point which is staged using the images of the baby Jesus along with Buddha and the like.

one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion (Pius XI)

Is this new? No, we have been putting up with this syncretic-indifference discourse since Vatican II, and it has been expressed in multiple documents and public events (Assisi), but at least from what I can remember, the doctrine underlying all of this has not been laid out as expressively as in this video. Is this Catholic? Let us say it without euphemisms: Absolutely NOT. Surely many will be surprised by this statement, because knowledge of the catechism and Catholic doctrine have fallen to abysmal levels. Here are some reminders:

Let us start with the fact that divine filiation is not achieved except by Baptism [1]; no one comes to the Father but through Jesus Christ and His one Church, the Catholic Church.

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn 14:6).

“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Mt 12:30).

“He said to them, ‘Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned’” (Mk 16:15-16).

“Whoever hates me also hates my Father” (Jn 15:23).

“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but as it is they have no excuse for their sin” (Jn 15:22).

“You [the Jews] belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him” (Jn 8:44).

“Whoever belongs to God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not listen, because you do not belong to God”

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Mt 7:21).

Does anyone still have any doubts?

In Mortalium Animos [2], Pope Pius XI seems to have seen the sad video and warned us in advance about those who

“hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found; they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings, and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission” (n. 2).

The Holy Father Pius XI continues saying:

Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule.” (n. 2).

I wonder, could anyone with half a brain and who has not completely given up reasoning think that what is expressed in this video is not EXACTLY what Pius XI considered “can nowise be approved by Catholics?” It is not my view, nor my own personal consideration; it is the Church herself which has condemned in advance what is here being done and said.

But it does not end here; let us allow Pius XI to continue (emphasis added):

Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.” (n. 2).

We are not facing a trivial issue; we are — let us say it without hesitation — facing clear heresy and apostasy. It is absolutely scandalous how the video equates the Child Jesus in the manger with Buddha and other idolatrous fetishes. Pure blasphemy.

Honestly, it seems that we are going downhill without brakes. I sincerely hope that some will decide once and for all to speak very clearly about it. This is very serious and we cannot continue to allow in any way compromise, diplomacy, or fear. We are either with Christ or against Him; there is no in between.

I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:15-16).

Source : http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/en/articles/item/2264-scandalous-video-child-jesus-and-his-church-humiliated

My Comment : So is this Catholic ? Absolutely not, in fact there is nothing Catholic in this video, on the contrary, probably another step towards the apostasy announced by Our Lady in her Fatima‘s third secret.

Aviso