[ActionReq]

I did not expect some members of the forum to use the opportunity to put the boot in on Pope Francis.

I find it very difficult to feel connected to the church and its leadership very often-maybe even 80% of the time.

I see it like this:
I protect my vision of the truth.
i protect my God and my Jesus.
If Francis says something that
goes with my vision of truth, I
acknowledge what Francis says.
If Francis says something that
doesn't go with my Jesus or with
my God I gently and rightly so
put the boot.
The danger of taking party and
stances is that you end up
supporting that person even when
suddenly he talks nonsense in
your vision.
That is the moment you become
a prisoner of that person, or more
so a prisoner of your own sub
assertive behvio(u)r.
And that is exactly what MY Jesus
abhors.
The problem is the other part of
the group who demands you take
a stance, and then kind of demands
you to go with the flow of the rest
of the group for the peace of that
group.
Sounds Catholic.
Yet the problem is exactly that the
other part of the group, most of
the time 99 percent, is not able
to assertively take your words and
the defense of the group is to emit
a generalized verdict that has no
good base, but the use of a
generalized common feeling. so
that is then a fallacy ad hominem.
So that fallacy is used to protect
the 99 percent who is not able to
think for themselves.
In this example we can see that
somebody says (no judgement
here) "Some people use the
opportunity to put the boot on
somebody". Well nobody wants
to put the boot on nobodies
throat, so the phrase delves in
our evocative capacity and
causes inner repulsion and in
such a way modifies our thought,
biasing an imagined existing
group and putting the members
back on a certain track.
even if nothing real was said or
any conclusion was assertively
accepted as plausible. It was just
the expression of a feeling of
a co-member that has much
capacity of persuasion on a
certain kind of people.
Call it good shepherding. and
it is. Actually for everybody
here who doesn;t understand
what I am saying here.

O if everybody were only able to
listen and consider even a brief
moment to the greatest
nonsense of his dear brother,
without ending up judging for the
sake of nothing but the fear that
they would follow the other and
go astray. I tell you, ye do not
trust your fellow brothers if you
act this way. Acting this way
will always jeopardize unity.
Resumed:

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.

[Maryh]

Really enjoyed reading your thoughts on the matter Actionreq.

I tell you, ye do not
trust your fellow brothers if you
act this way. Acting this way
will always jeopardize unity.

And i'll add to it that for me, i also need to trust the holy spirit to bring conviction & leadership because its not my job to convict.
Trust can be a tricky one too though, especially if somebody has done something to totally destroy your trust and good faith in them.
But if the trust hasn't been broken then i certainly would try to give the benefit of the doubt and that they're people of goodwill underneath whatever differences we may have.
So even if i don't have trust, i could still try at least for some tolerance and to maybe bear with them on some level as much as possible. I'm aware of where my Christianity reaches its limits or only goes so far but i do want to work for christian unity.


Got to keep trying anyway.

O if everybody were only able to
listen and consider even a brief
moment to the greatest
nonsense of his dear brother,

God is with us in our mess and when nothing is making any sense.

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

[Prodigals]

Is a pope, just by virtue of his election by the College of Cardinals, thus held above any and all criticism?

St. Paul didn't think so, and he publicly reprimanded the very first pope, the one chosen by Christ Himself.

"And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong." [about a gospel teaching]

Paul criticized Peter for the simple reason that he was just plain wrong.

A pope, despite his elevation to the chair of Peter, is still a man and can make mistakes. And many popes in the history of the Chruch, duly elected though they were, certainly have. Consider Pope Honorius I (625-638). He wasn't just accused of making controversial statements. The Third Council of Constantinople condemned him for outright heresy. Imagine if they did not have the courage to criticize.

bluecross says that it is shameful to 'attack' the Holy Father. Notice he uses the negatively charged word 'attack' rather than the more accurate word 'criticize'. But Aquinas taught that that those who are lower and subject to a pope that "they [the underlings] fear not to correct their prelates". Good enough for Aquinas - I think good enough for us.

An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed.

To be fair, we must submit to every legitimate exercise of a pope's authority, showing obedience in all areas where obedience is due.

But does that mean we are required to turn off our minds, to blind our eyes, or to dull our senses?

I'll go with St. Peter's judgement on this one.

[Maryh]

But maybe it is a different kind of scenario if there was the opportunity to oppose the person's views to their face...
then there is more space for understanding and resolution is there not?
When St. Paul publicly opposed him, that pope had in turn the opportunity to put forward his position.
There was a two way communication.

If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.

Matthew 18:15

As it stands, none of us are on a level pegging to call Pope Francis out on his style of doing things.
Even bishops of Rome don't seem to have clear lines of communication when encountering difficulties or confusion.
So when we compile a record of Pope Francis 'wrongs', it can seem more like an 'attack' in some ways because it can seem like we're stock piling ammunition. Just on the face of it.
I mean its hard to 'correct' a prelate who is so far above you, you'd need to get past their bodyguard first.

A line I've heard being used by other christian denominations is how "God is not a respecter of persons" in that he has no hierarchy/favourites. He judges each of us as
to what's in our hearts.
I don't really hear this in the Catholic faith much though.

I can't submit to any authority that i think may be corrupt or double dealing in any way. I'd rather fly by the seat of my pants at this stage. Too risky and dangerous is my conclusion based on personal experience.
So, i can't think Pope Francis is totally wrong in very important ways, and still listen to everything he says.
It would create division within myself, let alone in the church.

An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed.

Love this! Really agree with it.
I suppose its to promote the truth instead of bashing who or what we hate or don't agree with.
So promote the truth, within our limited scope of influence, whatever that may be.
It's not always easy to disagree and still have love in our hearts. Well, speaking for myself that's the case.

And on another note, when it comes to trusting and submitting to church authority, it was always assumed that this leadership was
directed by God himself, but this was not always the case. Not everyone who came saying they were coming 'in the name of the Lord', were the genuine article, It has to be said, that more than one were predatory wolves underneath it all.
not every priest proved to be a 'personi christi' when the chips were down. So this is the difficulty if you have trust issues.
In order to trust the church authority, we must firstly trust those bishops who elected the pope, that they were all in good standing and in a state of grace to begin with. That it wasn't some kind of sinister plot, that insider politic's or favouritism was involved, etc.
Like i said, i don't know the first thing about any of them to be honest. Sounds bad i know, but I am working on trusting in God
to direct my steps and instruct the true path.

[stunnedbyit]

Is a pope, just by virtue of his election by the College of Cardinals, thus held above any and all criticism?

St. Paul didn't think so, and he publicly reprimanded the very first pope, the one chosen by Christ Himself.

"And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong." [about a gospel teaching]

Paul criticized Peter for the simple reason that he was just plain wrong.

A pope, despite his elevation to the chair of Peter, is still a man and can make mistakes. And many popes in the history of the Chruch, duly elected though they were, certainly have. Consider Pope Honorius I (625-638). He wasn't just accused of making controversial statements. The Third Council of Constantinople condemned him for outright heresy. Imagine if they did not have the courage to criticize.

bluecross says that it is shameful to 'attack' the Holy Father. Notice he uses the negatively charged word 'attack' rather than the more accurate word 'criticize'. But Aquinas taught that that those who are lower and subject to a pope that "they [the underlings] fear not to correct their prelates". Good enough for Aquinas - I think good enough for us.

An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed.

To be fair, we must submit to every legitimate exercise of a pope's authority, showing obedience in all areas where obedience is due.

But does that mean we are required to turn off our minds, to blind our eyes, or to dull our senses?

I'll go with St. Peter's judgement on this one.

Prodigals, you have eloquently put into words what I was thinking but not able to adequately put into words. The whole issue of Papal Infallibility has been on my mind since I was accused of being guided by the devil.
For example, when Pope JP2 kissed the Koran, I believe that Catholics were free to like OR dislike this gesture. Not all Popes would have chosen this action and this event was shaped more by the personal feelings of Pope JP2 rather than well defined Church Doctrine/moral teachings.

[johntt]

How very sad to see here on the Medjugorje forum the old, old, excuses as to why it is ok to criticize the Pope.

Fr John Hardon SJ has written a very good paragraph on this problem which, of course, is not new. I copy it here:

• Obedience to the Bishop of Rome
  
  Fifth feature of Ignatian spirituality and bedrock to the Spiritual Exercises: Believing and acting on one’s faith that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Truth in the world. It is no wonder that St. Ignatius, when he founded the Society of Jesus, told his professed members to take a fourth vow besides the standard vows of consecrated chastity, poverty and obedience, a vow of obedience to the Bishop of Rome. Only God knows, only He, the price I’ve paid over the years of my Jesuit life, for striving with God’s grace to remain faithful to the Vicar of Christ. Last night I read, and by the way, in a Detroit publication, a long article by Andrew Greeley, not just criticizing, but blasting Mother Angelica. Don’t you know, he told her that we’ve got a conscience, we’ve got a conscience, and that conscience is our highest norm of morality? Who do you think you are, said Greeley to Mother Angelica, appealing to the Bishop of Rome? It’s our conscience we are to follow. Well, as Catholics, let’s be clear. Of course we are to follow our conscience, but our conscience must be enlightened, must, I repeat the imperative verb, must be enlightened by the Vicar of Christ. No wonder Andrew Greeley sometime ago published a thick book – I will never forget the title of one of his chapters. The chapter was on Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humane Vitae. And the title of this chapter in Greeley’s book was “That g--d---- Encyclical.” It is not just at the heart of Ignatian spirituality, it is the heart of our faith as Catholics to recognize that when God became man, and identified Himself by saying “I am the Truth,” that when He appointed Peter as His visible ambassador on earth and the successors of Peter as the Bishops of Rome, they are the Vicars of Truth! Oh, how many Catholics need to re-examine their consciences and ask themselves how faithful are they to the recognizing of the Bishop of Rome as Christ’s divinely-ordained ambassador for the truth.
  
  http://www.therealpresence.org/archives ... es_002.htm

For those who are convinced they have things right and the Pope has it wrong, then keep it to yourself or discuss it with your priest. Please don't fall into the devil's trap of "just asking questions" and start publishing those questions on public forums. Those questions are in reality public criticisms of the Pope.

[bluecross]

Jesus had his ‘critics’. Still does.

[bluecross]

And what do the Medjugorje visionaries have to say about criticism of priests?

Here’s part of a report available on Spirit Daily

Mirjana and Jakov, gifted with daily apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary for 18 months and a little over 18 years respectively, thereby seek to counteract the modern trend of seeing the priests as nothing but ordinary men. This attitude is harmful and therefore should be changed, they agreed.

“The priests do not need our criticism and judgment, but our love and our prayers. If we lose respect for the priests, we will end up losing our respect for the Church and for God,” said Mirjana.

“I was surprised to see the way the priests are looked at in America. It was very different from what I am used to. If a priest enters a house here, everybody will stand up for the priest. Nobody will start talking before the priest talks. We know that through this priest, Jesus Christ is in our home. It is very important not to criticize your priests,” Mirjana added.

“The priests represent Jesus Christ on earth,” Jakov added for his part.

[ActionReq]

Yep.
All these obedience things are
necessary things that need be
implemented to maintain order
and peace in the church.
And these laws are in place,not
because God wants them there,
but because we tend to act like
fools who get scandalized by
what others say. And exactly
that is dangerous for the church
because it confuses the faithful
and leads them astray.
So implementation of these laws
is basically a good thing, because
without these laws, the church
would be broke a long time ago.
I just want you to understand
that in the heavens things are
not like that, and it is good for
you to start contemplating
about where you say you want
to go after your earthly life,
and start getting used to
listening to things that nay
scandalize you.

[bluecross]

Reminds me of the time a priest was scandalised when Our Lady said that the holiest person in Medjugorje that time was a Muslim.

Even today there is still a belief among some Catholics that heaven is reserved for Catholics only.

[stunnedbyit]

From what I can gather from this thread, it seems that asking questions of the Pope is impermissible.
For example, there are lots of people (including Cardinals) who simply seek clarification on what the Church now teaches about the divorced and remarried status.
Are we really saying that wanting that clarification is from the devil?
If it's true that this teaching has been changed or amended, it makes no sense to leave people guessing.
The Pope has admitted to having a dislike for the mindset which seeks black and white answers, but he also must admit that a change/amendment of Church teachings is not a trivial matter.

[bluecross]

SBI, as you well know –– you use the method yourself –– there is a motive behind asking the question.

On the surface the question may seem innocent enough, but in reality it is formulated to try and trap or cause controversy.

Jesus faced this type of approach when confronted by the Pharisees who considered themselves upholders of the law. They would approach him with questions, hoping he would contradict himself and the law.

Why would cardinals seek to ask questions of Pope Francis through the media, if not to make life uncomfortable for him? The Pharisees would put their questions to Jesus in front of the crowds for the same reason.

But Jesus recognised the source of their testing questions. He faced the devil in the desert who also attempted to disguise his motives, even quoting Holy Scripture.

The Holy Father is a big promoter of Holy Scripture. He reads and mediates on Scripture daily, just as Our Lady of Medjugorje invites all her children to do. So he is well versed in the way of those who choose to play the pharisee and he recognises the source of their questions.

The devil is not slow to capitalise on the weaknesses we all have, but the ways of the serpent are also very subtle.

He asks, “Did God really say that you were not to eat of any of the trees in the garden?” He is a sower of doubt and not a sower of the Word. So when we decide to doubt the wisdom and words of Pope Francis we should be careful as to who has sown the seeds of doubt? Is it the Holy Spirit, or is it Satan. There is a third source, and that’s our own pride, and we should remember that it was pride in the first place that made angels fall from heaven.

Lucifer, once an angel of light, became an angel of darkness. But he is still more than capable of adopting his former role as an angel of light, prompting others to seek ‘enlightenment’ and clarification.

For those who oppose Pope Francis, he will never be able to provide answers to satisfy them. They have a list of questions to keep on challenging him, just as the Pharisees had for Jesus. They were not satisfied until they crucified him.

This all reminds me of the Medjugorje phenomenon controversy – those for and those against. Thirty six years on and still the same old arguments and fake stories, and criticisms are circulated and regurgitated, all in an effort to discredit, persecute and close down Medjugorje. And even after Medjugorje is given Pontifical status there will still be some who will continue to condemn the place and all that happens there.

Again I post this question for reflection:
Why was the College of Cardinals guided (or even misguided) by the Holy Spirit to elect Cardinal Bergoglio as Pope?

[johntt]

I had just written the following when bluecross' post appeared. I think I'm saying what he has said in a slightly briefer form

From what I can gather from this thread, it seems that asking questions of the Pope is impermissible.

No, st...it, as you know from his in-flight interviews, Pope Francis is very ready to answer questions, often difficult questions. No Pope has done this before.

But you should reflect on your own questions about Pope Francis. Are you sure they are not rhetorical questions? Are you sure you are looking for an answer rather than making a critical point?

I have little doubt that Pope Francis has not and will not answer the dubia Cardinals because he knows full well they are not looking for answers but are making a point of criticizing the AL encyclical.

[maryannlucy]

I agree it is important not to criticize priests. I was trying not to comment in this thread, but the artwork of pope francis and the rumors of his questions to Cardinal Mueller prompted me to post. My mistake is not trusting Our LORD to work out the problems according to His Will. He will do so at His own time and discretion. I trust in Him. However, when someone sanctimoniously scolds other forum members, but has made threads with the title "Another bombardment from Mostar against Medjugorje" critical of the Bishop of Mostar, that person needs to heed his own advice.

[Prodigals]

Mirjana and Jakov . .

So you are putting up the spiritual advice of Mirjana Soldo against that of Saints Paul and Aquinas? Mirjana, about whom you told us recently that you "have several doubts about the authenticity of the messages to Mirjana"? You throw her under the bus and attack her trustworthiness, but then turn around and offer her testimony to us to support your position?

History is full of terrible episodes spawned by people who would not criticize their leaders. The horrors of the Third Reich come to mind. No one spoke out - everyone just blindly followed the orders of those leading. And for this, they are complicit in the errors of those they silently followed.

Even in our Church, if the faithful had not spoken out in criticism, the Vatican would have never finally admitted to the horrid child abuse scandal. Or in your blindness will you deny this? John Paul II and Benedict, although wonderful popes, were the recipients of my criticism for their failure to effectively deal with the crisis.

A pope is only an imperfect ordained human man, elected by other imperfect ordained human men. And this man, at appropriate times (ex-cathedra), and guided by the Holy Spirit leads us infallibly in matters of Church doctrine. And in this regard, he is the Vicar of Christ, to which we offer only faithful obedience. However, this special grace the pontiff has does not extend into the area of his personal opinions on any topic he chooses to speak about. In these areas, we are left to listen and use our own God-given intelligence to discern. And where appropriate to stand up and respectfully say "The Holy Spirit has guided me and I don't agree with your comment".

But despite this there are those like johntt who tell us to sit down, shut up and be good little mind-numbed Catholics. They think that simple criticism of a pontiff's non-infallible banalities is equivalent to an indictment of the genuineness of his faith.

bluecross would have you believe that those who speak a differing opinion about an utterance of a church official are modern day Pharisees, and that all questioning is fueled by the master of hell aimed solely at causing discord in the Church. That's just juvenile nonsense. It's exactly that kind of thinking - or shall I say non-thinking - that opened the door in the first place allowing satan to infect our Church with the fetid pedophilia cancer, which has recently taken down Cardinal Pell.

Until such time as the canonizations of Mirjana and Jakov are finalized, I think I'll continue to follow the good advice of the Saints. Others my choose to remain in a vapid lock-stepping stupor, but helped by the Holy Spirit I will think, I will pray and discern, and I will speak up when necessary in defense of the Catholic Church that Our Blessed Lord gave me.

[Maryh]

Well, i'm a big believer in working things out through communication that must involve being free to express doubts, concerns, ask questions, otherwise it's more like a cult where people can feel there is a heavy handed pressure to tow the line and
stay quiet no matter what. Its as though people are being cowed.
Didn't Jesus grow up listening & asking questions in the temple among the leaders of the time?

Asking questions doesn't always involve some kind of sinister motivation or pride but it can often be just to acknowledge things as they are and to try to reach understanding or to work out a problem.

Telling people to shut up and put up and remain alone with their doubts and questions certainly won't help towards christian unity.

It reminds me of the time i had a meeting with my lecturer & i asked him a question and he roared at me from the top of his lungs in my face because he didn't know the answer.
I genuinely wanted to know the reason and asked because i thought he'd know in the first place, but he took it up wrong like i was trying to 'catch' him out or something hideous like this. I left that room totally crushed and destroyed and cried my eyes out for the entire day. Such a slap in the face.
I felt deeply misunderstood and wounded for a long long time.
No trust or good will on my part after that; i avoided him like the plague.
Scary. The only way i'd be able to 'submit' or 'obey' that man's instructions thereafter was then through fear and walking on eggshells.
That's human leadership, not God's leadership in my opinion,.

I think we need to give people more room to manoeuvre and the benefit of the doubt.

[stunnedbyit]

Why would cardinals seek to ask questions of Pope Francis through the media, if not to make life uncomfortable for him? The Pharisees would put their questions to Jesus in front of the crowds for the same reason.
?[/b]

According to EWTN they went through the media after their private requests for clarification were turned down.

[bluecross]

So you are putting up the spiritual advice of Mirjana Soldo against that of Saints Paul and Aquinas?

No.

I put it up for those who purport to follow the Medjugorje messages but are seemingly deaf to Our Lady’s call not to criticise and judge priests.

But Prodigals, you speak as if the ‘spiritual advice’ of the visionaries has no value against the teachers of the Church, yet you give the impression that you are no fan of Pope Francis and his teaching?

So which is it? Follow the visionaries or follow the Pope? Are you for Paul or for Peter, Apollos or Christ?

That's just juvenile nonsense. It's exactly that kind of thinking - or shall I say non-thinking - that opened the door in the first place allowing satan to infect our Church with the fetid pedophilia cancer, which has recently taken down Cardinal Pell.

“Did Bluecross really say that? Did the Mother of God really say that we should not judge our priests”

I’m no juvenile. I have more than a life-time of experience to draw on and several in the pigsty.

And now Prodigals justifies challenging the Pope in the way he chooses because of the failing of some priests, and even attempting to link Francis to the pedophilia scandal; a less-than-subtle attempt at tarring the Pope with the same brush.

Why is it always the tongue that betrays what is in the heart?

[Maryh]

'In the Circle, we are all equal. There is no one in front of you and there's nobody behind you. No one is above you; no one is below you. The Circle is Sacred because it is designed to create Unity."
-Lakota Wisdom

The Eucharist is a circle.

I put it up for those who purport to follow the Medjugorje messages but are seemingly deaf to Our Lady’s call not to criticise and judge priests.

Bluecross, if somebody has come to you saying they were abused by a priest..what would you say?
Don't you dare say one word against them?
It's not realistic or in keeping with justice or mercy either, It's putting 'authority' above and beyond everyone and everything.

Criticising and judging for the sake of it or unjustly is another matter but you have to tell it like it is too.

[Prodigals]

Why would cardinals seek to ask questions of Pope Francis through the media, if not to make life uncomfortable for him? The Pharisees would put their questions to Jesus in front of the crowds for the same reason.
?[/b]

According to EWTN they went through the media after their private requests for clarification were turned down.

Your right, sbi, and bc has it wrong. The cardinals sent their private letter to the Pope in mid-September.
You are not quite correct in saying that he "turned them down". More precisely, he just never answered them at all.
But hey - he just saw them for what they truly are - modern day Pharisees.

[bluecross]

According to EWTN they went through the media after their private requests for clarification were turned down

Were not the four cardinals present and part of the discussions at the Synod of BIshops on the Family that took place in 2015?

Did they not have an opportunity to express their point of view or uncertainties like every other bishop and cardinal that was present?

Can you imagine the chaos if every cardinal and bishop wanted a private meeting with Pope Francis after the Synod?

And if were given preferential treatment over every other bishop and cardinal and be granted an audience, would they still be happy with the outcome? Or would they decide it was in their best interest to wash their linen in public?

The question isn’t the issue. It’s the motive behind the question. That’s why Prodigals and yourself rally behind the question because your motive is not the question, it’s personal, a dislike of Pope Francis, probably his style and his forthright witnessing. If it’s not the question raised by the four cardinals then you will seek another dispute against the Pope to pin your flag to.

My experience tells me that when people start pinning flags to causes there is usually a level of anger in the heart. We see it with political protests when all kinds of groups rally behind a particular flag or march, and then we see the damage that some of the groups inflict on society. The recent G7 summit is an example.

Birds of a feather, and all that... Anger and resentment can do serious damage to the heart, and to usually those closest.

[bluecross]

Bluecross, if somebody has come to you saying they were abused by a priest..what would you say?

What would you say if Christ came to you, MaryH, and said he had been abused not just by priests but by so many people he loves?

He would like us all to be holy, but we keep abusing him every time we sin.

[bluecross]

However, when someone sanctimoniously scolds other forum members, but has made threads with the title "Another bombardment from Mostar against Medjugorje" critical of the Bishop of Mostar, that person needs to heed his own advice.

maryannlucy, did you choose deliberately to miss the point of that particular post?

I was pointing out that when criticism against Medjugorje comes from the direction of Mostar, and a journal that promotes the interests of the Mostar diocese, then it is usually a sign that some good news is on the way for Medjugorje.

I did not link to the criticism or quote from the article, but just as there are ‘signs’ associated with Medjugorje, it is always a sign that when there is criticism against the phenomenon from the direction of Mostar I take it as a positive, as it usually implies the bishop is party to a forthcoming announcement which he is not happy with, and I’m presuming that will be related to some kind of pontifical status for Medjugorje.

But why you choose to misread, distort, twirl or spin my meaning is perhaps something you need to consider. If I am not making myself clear, say so. It’s better than sniping. Keep watching. Keep praying!

[Maryh]

What would you say if Christ came to you, MaryH, and said he had been abused not just by priests but by so many people he loves?

He would like us all to be holy, but we keep abusing him every time we sin.

Ok, I'll answer that question-but my main question was one relating to the problem of corrupt church authority not just abuse in general by people who we're not supposed to obey and submit to. That is an issue i'd love to deal with directly but anyway
----
First of all i'd presume he loves the priests and all the people he loves equally.
I would try to protect him and remove him
from being around abusive people. If the abusers were members of the church, i'd remove him from there & tell him to stay in his room & pray in secret.
I would in turn deal with the abusers directly and do all in my power to prevent further harm.
If he had some tyrant bossing him around like he was their toy to play with, i would want him to be free of them & tell him not to submit to the tyrant.
I would listen to his truth without judging him & instead try to love him instead.

I would try to meet him where he was at and you know this is the problem
We are supposed to see Jesus in one another & meet them wherever they're at, not expecting them to be perfect,
Not condemning them if they do have anger in their heart, ----Love is supposed to bear all things?
So what if your brother is angry? Maybe its righteous indignation. The root cause of anger is often hurt, fear or frustration.
Not everyone who is angry is out to destroy others.


Think there is too much one-upmanship starting to happen and jumping to awful presumptions and conclusions and not trying to understand one another's concerns.
As Actionreq. said...we're not trusting each other.
That's why we hear people say, i love and believe in Jesus, just not in 'religion' or the church.
Its because of communication problems and misunderstandings with their fellow Christians.

[Maryh]

Y'all need to get out of the pigsty and go to confessions at this stage!!!
Myself included.