Leo XIV Relativizes Miracle: Christ Invited Deaf-Mute to "Choose" to Speak Again
Pope Leo XIV spoke at yesterday’s general audience about the man in Mark 7 who cannot speak or hear: "Just as it can sometimes happen to us, perhaps this man chose not to speak anymore because he did not feel understood; he chose to shut off every voice because he had been disappointed and wounded by what he had heard," Leo XIV said.
He sounded literally like Francis: "Before anything else, Jesus offers him silent closeness, through gestures that speak of a profound encounter: He touches this man’s ears and tongue."
Jesus "invited" the man who had stopped listening and speaking: "It is as if Jesus were saying to him: 'Be opened to this world that frightens you! Be opened to the relationships that have disappointed you! Be opened to the life you have given up facing!'."
After the encounter with Jesus, that person not only begins to speak again and does so plainly.
Disgusting! Jesus DOES NOT say "be open to the world". Jesus says: the world hates you as it hated me before. Jesus stands against the world and the prince of this world. Jesus has overcome the world. Sneaky Leo!
Pope Leo XIII Illicitude of interpreting Holy Scripture contrary to the true sense which the Church has always held The Synod of the Vatican adopted the teaching of the Fathers, when, as it renewed the decree of Trent on the interpretation of the divine Word, it declared this to be its mind, that in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which Mother Church has held and holds, whose prerogative it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Scripture; and, therefore, it is permitted to no one to interpret the Holy Scripture against this sense, or even against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers. (Denzinger-Hünermann 3281. Leo XIII, Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, November 18, 1893)
Interpretations which oppose the teaching of the Church are senseless and false Wherefore, it is clear that that interpretation must be rejected as senseless and false, which either makes inspired authors in some manner quarrel among themselves, or opposes the teaching of the Church. . . . (Denzinger-Hünermann 3283. Leo XIII, Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, November 18, 1893)
Pío X Los que traspasan los límites puestos por los Padres y la Iglesia en la interpretación de la Sagrada Escritura caen en gravísimos errores Son lamentables los resultados con que los tiempos actuales, refractarios a toda mesura, van tras las novedades que la investigación de las supremas razones de las cosas ofrece, y caen en gravísimos errores al mismo tiempo que desprecian lo que es la herencia del género humano. Estos errores son mucho más graves cuando se trata de la ciencia sagrada, o de la interpretación de la Sagrada Escritura, o de los más importantes misterios de la fe. Es muy doloroso encontrar incluso no pocos escritores católicos que traspasan los limites puestos por los Santos Padres y por la Iglesia misma, y se dedican a desarrollar los dogmas de una manera que en realidad no es más que deformarlos; y esto con el pretexto de ofrecer una más profunda comprensión de los mismos y en nombre de la crítica histórica. (Pío X. Decreto Lamentabili sane exitu, 3 de julio de 1907)
When the Serpent denied God's command, he resorted to seduction. If Prevost had delivered the message to give advice to young people who are isolated by the bombardment of social media without relativizing Jesus' miracle, it would have been acceptable. The problem is that he relativized Jesus' miracle and gave it a humanistic explanation. The Church has condemned rationalism and humanism.
Saint Augustin, de Haer: [The error of the heretics about Christ is limited to three areas: They err either about his divinity, or his humanity, or the two together.]
Let us remember that the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit consisted of attributing Jesus' miracles to the devil. Since the miracles demonstrate Christ's divinity, by cleverly reinterpreting them, they are denying his miracles, and thus denying Christ's divinity. St. Ambrose: "Even heretics appear to possess Christ, for none of them denies the name of Christ. Still, anyone who does not confess everything that pertains to Christ does in fact deny Christ." 2 Peter 2:2 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. It is no coincidence that we see gay activist James Martin maliciously reinterpreting Scripture to blasphemously engage in gay activism. In the face of this blatant blasphemy, Monsignor Vigano called James Martin a “propagandist of vice” and denounced “his Luciferian pride.” Since the Temptation of Adam and Eve and Satan's temptation of Christ in the desert, the devil has always sought to twist the Word of God to seek disobedience to God's law. If we examine the German apostate Walter Kasper, we see that this schismatic heretical sect follows the same line. Kasper denies that Christ is God and claims that He was a product of a previously accepted mythical mentality. In other words, they are so swollen with pride that they consider themselves above the Word of God, which, according to them, must be reinterpreted. For this reason, they consider miracles to be part of a system of oppression that must be disproved. They deny the infallibility of the Church, meaning that these pseudo-enlightened believe they are above Scripture and the Church. Kasper Denies Miracles He calls them "legends" and non-historical "narratives." He even says that the miracles of the Gospels "can also be interpreted as works of the devil. In themselves, therefore, they are not so clear and are not necessarily proof of Jesus' divinity." (p. 141) (p. 129) “We must classify many miracle stories contained in the Gospels as legendary. We must look less for their historical content in these legends than for their theological projection” (p. 130). “Such miracles could not be truly verified except if we truly knew all the laws of nature and if we could have perfect knowledge of each particular case” (p. 132).
Vatican Council I (Ecumenical XX) Anathema: for anyone considers the miracles in Sacred Scripture as fables and myths [The demonstrability of revelation] If anyone shall have said that miracles are not possible, and hence that all accounts of them, even those contained in Sacred Scripture, are to be banished among the fables and myths; or, that miracles can never be known with certitude, and that the divine origin of the Christian religion cannot be correctly proved by them: let him be anathema. (Denzinger-Hünermann 3034. Vatican Council I. Dei Filius, April 24, 1870) @CarloMVigano This propagandist of vice, James Martin - like the heretic Spadaro, a member of the same Society - instead of interpreting the true meaning of the "Veni foras" (Jn 11, 43) to indicate the need to abandon sin and be reborn in Christ, blasphemously uses the words of Our Lord to legitimize LGBTQ+ sodomy and pansexualism. Heretics always behave in the same way: they interpret the Holy Scriptures according to their own deviated will, instead of conforming their behavior to the will of God. And it is this, ultimately, which reveals - jam fœtet - their Luciferian pride. Archbishop Viganò: Spadaro's blasphemous article …
James Martin is one of those fellows about whom one might say "give him enough rope and he will hang himself" except that he long ago had enough rope to do the deed. How in any truly 'apostolic Church' this fellow hasn't been given the 'heave-ho' tells me more about the state of the Church than almost any other gauge.
When Pope Benedict XVI denounced Marxist liberation (pseudo)theology, he explained that its purpose is to give new meaning to all of Christianity, for which they need to reinterpret all of Scripture, in order to "free themselves" from the Oppressor, whom they consider the Biblical God and the Church. Pope Benedict XVI stated: "Liberation theology seeks a new global interpretation of Christianity; it explains it as a praxis of liberation and aims to be a guide in this praxis..."Nothing lies outside ... political commitment. Everything has a political color." A theology that is not practical, that is not essentially political, is considered 'idealistic' and is condemned as unrealistic or as a means to keep the oppressors in power." Ultimately anyone who participates in the class struggle is a member of the "people" the "Church of the people" becomes the antagonist of the hierarchical Church. Finally the concept "history" becomes a crucial interpretative category. The view, accepted as scientifically certain and incontrovertible, that the Bible speaks exclusively in terms of salvation history (and thus, antimetaphysically), facilitates the fusing of the biblical horizon with the marxist idea of history, which progresses in a dialectical manner and is the real bringer of salvation. History is accordingly a process of progressive liberation; history is the real revelation and hence the real interpreter of the Bible. Sometimes this dialectic of progress is supported by pneumatology. In any case the latter also makes a teaching office which insists on abiding truths into an authority inimical to progress, thinking "metaphysically" and hence contradicting "history". We can say that the concept of history swallows up the concepts of God and of Revelation. The "historicality" of the Bible must justify its absolute dominance and thus legitimize the' transition to materialist-marxist philosophy, in which history has taken over the role of God. Preliminary Notes on Liberation Theology by …
Influencers welcome Prevost as a “rock star”A thousand influencers to promote their “rock star”, because according to gay activist Jorge Bergoglio, there was no need to proselytize Christ.
They try in every way to destroy the belief in miracles. Starting from the Holy House of Loreto (what date is this feast day in the conciliar church?), and ending with Francis's repeated rejections of the miracle of the multiplication of loaves and fishes. Leo continues this line, as well as other errors.
Nonetheless, this is the kind of bafflegab which sounds more profound than it actually is. He errs in the same manner as his mentor Bergoglio by dodging the Truth with obscurities.
The plain reading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ involved the healing of a genuine deaf and mute person by effecting a miracle. Here the malady is presented as a lifestyle choice that he had to be encouraged out off by encounter and closeness. That’s a different gospel. One without a miracle.
Leo has the external appearance of godliness but denies the essence, thereof. Ex. He wears the mozzetta that Francis would not wear to save his life--you will remember him being wheeled through St. Peter's dressed as an old hobo, gloating, and grinning gleefully like a naughty boy caught in the act-- yet at heart he is a modernist of the same heretical ilk as Francis. In this case: Upside: well, at least he quoted Holy Scripture and Our Blessed Lord speaks; Downside: Leo then proceeds to misinterpret what Our Lord Jesus Christ is truly saying. I just wanted to point out that Francis was more likely to mention the WEF than Holy Writ or Our Lord and Saviour as he almost never alluded to Him or His Teachings. That's all...