Saturday, October 22, 2016

Gesu sul pavimento (NO ALLA COMUNIONE IN MANO!).mov

Atila S. Guimarães and Robert de Mattei wrote books on Vatican Council II while assuming imaginary and hypothetical cases were objectively visible

atila sinke guimaraesImage result for Roberto dei Mattei  PhotoAtila S. Guimarães and Robert de Mattei wrote their books on Vatican Council II while assuming imaginary and hypothetical cases were objectively visible and that these objectively visible cases, were mentioned in Vatican Council II and they were objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted in the 16th century.
So they both rejected Vatican Council II as being a break with Tradition after using this irrational premise and conclusion of which they were not aware of  and nor were corrected by the contemporary magisterium.
For both of them Lumen Gentium 16( saved in invincible ignorance) referred to someone known who was saved without the baptism of water in the present times, and so was an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
For both of them Lumen Gentium 8 refers to not invisiible but actually known cases of people saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. Otherwise why would Lumen Gentium 8 be an exception to the dogma on salvation ? So this is an exception to the old ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.So since there was known salvation outside the Church and ecumenism of return has exceptions.With this theology they are liberals.
For both of them Unitatitis Redintigratio 3 refers to an objectively visible case, may be of a Protestant, Anglican or Lutheran, who is/was saved outside the visible limits of the Church.So outside the Church there is objecively known salvation for them.They both use the false premise to reach a non traditional and heretical conclusion.This is the new theology.It is being applied to Vatican Council II by them.
For me Vatican Council II is not a break with the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St.Francis Xavier, the three Church Councils which defined it and the many popes were affirmed it.I do not reject the baptism of desire etc. I just assume that they are invisiblle and hypothetical cases. If they happened they would only be known to God.
So I am affirming the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS along with implicit and invisible for baptism of desire.Similarly being saved in invincible ignorance with or without the baptism of water, for me, is an imaginary and hypothetical case. So it is irrelevant to Feeneyite EENS. Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objecitive mistake. An injustice was done to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.
For me Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Holy Office in 1949 were in heresy and Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center were teaching orthodoxy, in as much as the present day traditionalists and sedevacantists, like the liberals, are affirming heresy, though unknowingly.
-Lionel Andrades
 In the Murky Waters of Vatican II: Guimaraes, Atila S.
October 21, 2016
Atila S. Guimarães was ignorant of all this when he wrote his book

The usual heresy : New Confusing and Scandalous Papal Statements

New Confusing and Scandalous Papal Statements  

New Confusing and Scandalous Papal Statements: Proselytism Is “A very grave sin against ecumenism” “He, who had been she, but is he.”
New Confusing and Scandalous Papal Statements:

Proselytism Is “A very grave sin against ecumenism”

“He, who had been she,
but is he.”

Our Lord Jesus Christ founded a single Church, the one true Church. The Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church is the sole Church of Christ, built on the rock of Peter; and he who refuses to enter it will perish forever.[1]
The Savior commanded the Church to teach all peoples, transmitting her doctrine of salvation and baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (cf. Mark 16:15; Matt. 28:19).
Therefore, out of fidelity to her Divine Founder, the Church has the obligation to do apostolate and earnestly strive for the conversion and sanctification of men, bringing them into the fold of Christ.
Thus, to stop seeking the conversion of those in the darkness of paganism, heresy or schism is tantamount to abandoning the salvific mission that Christ entrusted to the Apostles and their successors.
A Sin Against Ecumenism?
For this reason, Pope Francis’ answer to a seminarian during his recent trip to Georgia on whether he should do apostolate with his Orthodox friends perplexes many of the faithful. Francis said:
“And now one final thing…the problem of ecumenism. Never fight! Let the theologians study the abstract realities of theology. But what should I do with a friend, neighbor, an Orthodox person? Be open, be a friend. ‘But should I make efforts to convert him or her?’ There is a very grave sin against ecumenism: proselytism. We should never proselytize the Orthodox! They are our brothers and sisters, disciples of Jesus Christ.”[2]
Some days later, on October 13, speaking to German Protestants and Catholics that went to Rome in an ecumenical pilgrimage, Pope Francis was more precise about proselytism. Said he:
“It’s not right to convince someone of your faith.” “Proselytism is the strongest venom against the path of ecumenism.”[3]
Leaving one’s friends in the grip of heresy and schism is not true friendship, but cruelty. True friendship, the fruit of charity, is not to abandon friends to schism and heresy but to do everything—with due respect and prudence—to lead them to the true doctrine and union with the Church of Jesus Christ. In other words, it is to do apostolate.
When calling proselytism a “very grave sin against ecumenism” Pope Francis does not make clear whether he is talking about “sin” in its proper theological sense (an offense against God) or in a merely metaphorical sense. But, when he declares, “It’s not right to convince someone of your faith,” he puts the issue in moral terms of right and wrong, which gives a theological meaning to the affirmation that to proselytise is a sin. Now, to qualify as a sin converting someone to the Catholic Church goes directly against the command of Our Lord Jesus Christ to do apostolate, “Going therefore, teach ye all nations.” (cf. Mark 16:15; Matt. 28:19).
Prophecies of Our Lady of Good Success About Our Times
It is also unclear if he is presenting ecumenism as a new rule of faith and morals in which an act of virtue, such as doing apostolate, would become a sinful act. Conversely, using the same logic, one could argue that a vicious act would become virtuous. Would that be the key to understand the Pope’s confusing statements on homosexuality and “transgenderism”?
Schismatics: Disciples of Christ?
It could be argued that the Supreme Pontiff does not condemn the apostolate but rather “proselytism,” which ecumenists see as a coercive way to induce someone to change his faith. The fact is that the seminarian asked if he should “make efforts to convert” a schismatic friend, not to coerce him. And the reason the Pope gave to condemn these efforts was not of the manner in which they were done, but of a theological nature: For Francis, the “orthodox” already “are our brothers and sisters, disciples of Jesus Christ.”
His words suggest that “orthodox” (who are not only schismatic but also heretics because they deny Catholic dogma[4]) are part of a “Church of Christ” that encompasses different churches, an error specifically condemned by the Popes as shown below.
“Christ Did Not Institute a Church to Embrace Several Communities”
In his Encyclical Satis Cognitum, on the oneness and unity of the Church, Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) teaches:
“It is so evident from the clear and frequent testimonies of Holy Writ that the true Church of Jesus Christ is one, that no Christian can dare to deny it….

[W]hen we consider what was actually done we find that Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: ‘I believe in one Church’.”[5]
And further on:
“Another head like to Christ must be invented − that is, another Christ − if besides the one Church, which is His body, men wish to set up another.…

The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord − leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition.”[6]
Also clear are the words of his predecessor, Pius IX (1846-1878) condemning indifferentism:
“Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff…”[7]
Homosexuality and “Transgenderism”
On his return flight, the Pope gave his customary interview to journalists dealing, among others, with two topics that became headlines: homosexuality and “transgenderism.”
On the first issue, he said that in his priestly life he accompanied people with homosexual tendencies and also others with homosexual activity. And he made another confusing statement that was highlighted by the media: “When a person who has this condition comes before Jesus, Jesus certainly does not say: ‘Go away because you are homosexual.’” In his statement it is not clear if he refers only to those who have that disordered tendency but remain chaste or whether it also covers those with “homosexual activity,” as the media readily interpreted.
An example of the advantage the liberal media drew from the Pope’s words is the title of this release from Reuters, a major international news agency: “Pope says Jesus won’t kick gays out of heaven.”[8]
“He, Who Had Been She, but Is He”
Further on, Francis dealt with “transgenderism” or “transsexualism.” Obviously, one cannot change his sex but only the appearances. A sex change is a biological impossibility, as sexual identity “is written on every cell of the body and can be determined through DNA testing. It cannot be changed.”[9]
While criticizing “gender theory” as “ideological colonization,” the Pope accepts people who mutilate their bodies to take on the appearance of the opposite sex. He goes so far as to tell the story of two women he received at the Vatican, calling one of them (who had a “sex change”) “he” and using the term “marriage” to refer to the union between the two. He fails to make the slightest allusion to the sin of revolt against God’s designs regarding one’s own sex and the impossibility for two people of the same sex to marry. Here is what he said:
“He was born a female, a girl, and he suffered greatly because he felt that he was a boy but physically was a girl. He told his mother, when he was in his twenties, at 22, that he wanted to have an operation and so forth. His mother asked him not to do so as long as she was alive. She was elderly, and died soon after. He had the operation. He is a municipal employee in a town in Spain. He went to the bishop. The bishop helped him a great deal, he is a good bishop and he “wasted” time to accompany this man. Then he got married. He changed his civil identity, he got married and he wrote me a letter saying that it would bring comfort to him to come see and me with his bride: he, who had been she, but is he. I received them.”[10]
Statements That Do Not Contribute to Salvation
What more could be said about Pope Francis’ astonishing (but regrettably usual) statements? Do they contribute to the sanctification and salvation of the faithful entrusted to his pastoral care? Who could claim that? Clearly, these continuous and, at the least, ambiguous papal statements only increase the doctrinal confusion and the mass exodus of Catholics to Pentecostal churches or theoretical and practical atheism. Such is the result of efforts to mold the Church according to a concept of mercy that favors sin.
But we must not be discouraged because, as Saint Paul teaches, God never sends trials greater than our strength, aided by grace:
“And God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13.)
Let us have earnest recourse to Mary Most Holy, Seat of Wisdom, to enlighten us and obtain for us the grace of being faithful in this terrible trial and resisting and fighting distortions of Catholic doctrine and practice.

Friday, October 21, 2016

Atila S. Guimarães was ignorant of all this when he wrote his book

In the Murky Waters of Vatican II: Guimaraes, Atila S.I read the book In the Murky Waters if Vatican Council II by Atila S. Guimarães  a long time back. I was impressed.
Now though I realize that Guimarães had been wrong all long.
He did not know of the  irrationality in the new theology.He used it to interpret Vatican Council II.He did not know the source of the error.So he was unaware of how he was using the same irrational theology to interpret Vatican Council II.It was the same theology used by the liberal theologians whom he criticizes in the book.
He did he know that could avoid the irrationality.Then  he would have to revert to the old theology to interpret the Council.The conclusion, of course,  would be traditional.
It is the same Council text before him and me .I am aware of the mistake of the magisterium in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and how the Masons and the ecclesiastics consolidated that mistake in Vatican Council II.This was amid confusion in the Church with the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney still not lifted.
Unlike Atila S. Guimarães I do not assume hypothetical cases are physically visible exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS and if they are not physically seen and known then where are the exceptions? There are none.
 So for me, Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 and 16, when they mention being saved in invincible ignorance or the catechumen with the desire for the baptism of water, refer to a hypothetical case. So they are not exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on no salvation outside the Church.
I do not mix up what is invisible as being visible.Atila S. Guimarães  does just this.
I do not consider what is subjective and implict as being objective.It is with this error that Atila S. Guimarães,the author, looks at Lumen Gentium 16 etc.
So with an irrational premise ( visible cases of the baptism of desire) the interpretation of Vatican Council II will produce an irrational conclusion( Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition, it is a break with the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
This is false.
The Council is not a  rupture with Tradition.It is the theology and the irrational philosophical reasoning, which makes the Council a rupture with Tradition.
For me Vatican Council II presents no exceptions to the old ecclesiology.The Council II  is traditional.
Though there is a mistake in Vatican Council II. Lumen Gentium 14 suggests only those 'who know' need to enter the Church and not all people. This error comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The Letter assumes that there are known cases of people saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water.So being saved in invincible ignorance was an exception to the dogma EENS for some of the Council Fathers.So they mentioned it.
It was an exception for Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston, who had placed restrictions on Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.He was active at Vatican Council II with the U.S Jesuits.
Inspite of this error( mentioning being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire with reference to all needing faith and baptism for salvation) Lumen Gentium 14 still refers to a hypothetical case. So it is not a rupture with Feeneyite EENS or the Syllabus of Errors.
Atila S. Guimarães was ignorant of all this when he wrote his book.Of course he was correct, Vatican Council II interpreted with the Cushingite irrationality is a rupture with Tradition and this version of Vatican Council II has to be rejected.
-Lionel Andrades

Atila S. Guimarães made a mistake in the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus : with the same irrational reasoning Vatican Council II emerges as a break with Tradition for him 

Atila S. Guimarães made a mistake in the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus : with the same irrational reasoning Vatican Council II emerges as a break with Tradition for him

  I believe that this exchange says it as well as anything concerning Baptism of blood and baptism of desire. Both of them( bob ad bod ) MUST accompanied by the will of those to be baptized with water if at all possible whereas in fact that is not possible while the person is alive as death itself prevents the water by baptism which all are expected to receive while they are alive
O.K but is BOD and BOB without the baptism of water physically visible or not in 2016. Since if it was not objectively seen then it could not be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
You may speculate as much as you want on BOD and BOB but I assume you are mentioning it with reference to Feeeyite EENS.

 Rev. Fr. J.F.C.,
 I thank you for your consideration in sending, for the second time, your question/objection to TIA, requesting texts from the Magisterium that prove baptism of blood is common Catholic doctrine.

It is accepted Catholic doctrine due to a campaign to make it such however the issue is : does it refer to a physically visible case in the present tme?

1. On baptism of blood it seems to me that the description of Fr. Alban Butler posted by TIA on our website is in perfect agreement with the Catechism of St. Pius X. In Part IV on the Sacraments, Chapter II on Baptism (§ 4), it states:

Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire (Original online here).
Fine theoretically.However irrelevant to the dogma EENS?

2. It appears that the baptism of blood is an extreme case of the baptism of desire. Indeed, that person who is offering his life actually is doing so because he has the desire to enter the Catholic Church. Thus, I believe that you may be interested also in knowing the doctrine of the Magisterium on baptism of desire, which applies as well to the baptism of blood. In this supposition, I transcribe some texts for your perusal.
O.K Speculation. It is not an issue relative to EENS as it was interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.

About the baptism of desire accepted as an exception to the rule that everyone should be baptized with water, please read the Encyclical Quanto conficiamur. In it Pius IX states that those outside of the Church may be exceptionally saved through baptism of desire. In case you do not have an easy access to this encyclical, I am transcribing the excerpt that pertains to the topic:
Yes in a theoretical sense. These documents do not refer to an explicit for us BOD or BOB.

Here too, our beloved sons and Venerable Brethren, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error that is unfortunately entrapping some Catholics who profess that it is possible for men to arrive at eternal salvation although they live in error and are alienated from the true Faith and Catholic unity. Such opinion is absolutely opposed to Catholic teaching.
This passage supports Feeneyite EENS.

We know and you know that there are those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy Religion. Uprightly observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches, and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, His supreme goodness and clemency do not permit those who are not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishment.
O.K in general this is what he believes.
He is still referring to a hypothetical case, an imaginary case.If it existed it would be known only to God.

Also well known is the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who with contumacy oppose the authority and definitions of the same Church, as well as with contumacy oppose her unity and the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom ‘the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior’ (Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon)’ (Recueil des allocutions, nn. 7-8, pp. 480-481).
He is supporting the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS here.

3. As for more ancient teachings on the same topic, a letter of Pope Innocent II to the Bishop of Cremona (1140) reads:

We answer to your question: The presbyter who died without the water of baptism, since he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, we affirm without any doubt that he became free of the original sin and reached the joy of eternal life” (Denzinger n. 388).
Again this is speculation.There was no way he could know this for sure.It is irrelevant to the dogma EENS. Also a case in the past cannot be cited as an exception to all needing to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation in 2016.

That Pope also quotes St. Augustine and St. Ambrose teaching the same.

4. Pope Innocent III in his letter Debitum pastoralis of 1206 states:

You have communicated to us that a certain Jew, at the edge of dying as he was only among Jews, immersed himself in water saying: ‘I baptize myself in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. Amen.’

We answer saying that the baptizer and the one who receives baptism must be different persons, as we infer from the words of the Lord when, speaking to His Apostles, He said: ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name etc (Matt 28:19). Therefore, the mentioned Jew must be baptized again by another person to show that one is the baptizer and another is the one who receives the baptism. … Nonetheless, if he would have died immediately, he would have flown instantly to the celestial homeland for his faith in the Sacrament rather than for the Sacrament of the Faith (Denzinger n. 413).
Speculation with hope and goodwill. He is still referring to a hypothetical case which must not be projected as being explicitly known to human beings.

5. A brief but important mention to the baptism of desire is also made by Pope Paul III along with the Council of Trent. As a matter of fact, in the official Decree on Justification of that Council, chapter IV, it is affirmed:

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is given, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation, however, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (Denzinger, n. 796).
The laver of regeneration refers to the baptism of water. So this is support for the Feeneyite position of EENS. There are no known cases of the baptism of desire which are an exception.
The desire thereof refers to a theoretical case.For us humans it cannot be explicit.

6. You may find further documentation of the official Magisterium of the Church in Denzinger-Schonmetzer (nn. 3866-3973), in which is transcribed a Decree of the Holy Office (August 8, 1949) specifically analyzing the errors of those who make a strict interpretation of the dogma Extra Ecclesia nulla salus without admitting any exception.
This is a reference to the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in which it was assumed hypothetical cases were objectively known and visible and they were de facto exceptions to the traditional Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.From this error the new theology of Ratzinger-Rahner was born, even Archbishop Lefebvre affirmed the false premse and the new theology.It is the norm among the FSSP priests and sedevacantists.

7. Not of the official Magisterium of the Church but with the greatest authority below it, St. Thomas Aquinas also teaches the same regarding the possibility of salvation outside of the Church in exceptional cases:
A possibility is a possibility.It is not an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of EENS according to St Thomas Aquinas, St. Augsutine, St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis Xavier.

It falls to Divine Providence to provide all men with the means necessary for salvation, so long as they do not place obstacles in the way. In effect, if someone raised in the wilds or among savage animals is led by natural reason to follow the appetite for good and to flee evil, it should be considered most certain that God will reveal to him by internal inspiration the things necessary to believe, or that He would command some preacher of the Faith to go to him, as he sent St. Peter to Cornelius (Act 10) (De veritate, q. 14, a. 11, ad 1).
Yes God would send a preacher of the faith. Everyone who is in Heaven is there with faith and baptism. There are only Catholics in Heaven.

These are some documents I have at hand without having the leisure of time for a more precise research. I hope they will help you to clarify your doubts.
He is interpreting these documents with the Cushingite error. He assumes invisible cases are visible and then infers that they are known exceptions to the dogma EENS. This is the new theology.
It can be avoided and the conclusion is then traditional.

 Since TIA has about 3,000 e-mails of our readers asking us serious questions and they are previous to yours, I had to open an exception to answer you now. In eventual e-mails, I hope you will not take it as a lack of courtesy or good will that neither I nor TIA can respond to you with the speed that you and we would like to have.

Asking your prayers,

In Jesu et Maria,

Atila S. Guimarães

-Lionel Andrades
 D_001_Signers.jpg - 37495 Bytes

743 Christian Refugees Have Been the Victims of Assaults in German Asylum Centers -- Open Doors Report

743 Christian Refugees Have Been the Victims of Assaults in German Asylum Centers -- Open Doors Report

Open Doors makes refugee report.  Within 743 attacks are
reported against Christian refugees in German asylum centers.
The majority have been victims of Muslim "fellow refugees".
(Berlin) The Fund for persecuted Christians Open Doors Germany put together with other aid and human rights organizations report the refugee " Lack of protection of religious minorities in Germany " before. This religiously motivated attacks on 743 Christian refugees are documented and analyzed in German refugee centers.
The report quoted German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière with the words: "We have underestimated the importance of religion." The Minister was moved to these words in retrospect on the events of recent months.
The  consequences of these findings is reflected "especially in the German refugee centers,"  says Open Doors.  Through the concealment of these facts, has led to many "wrong conclusions" about the reasons there are many attacks directed especially against Christians, which has led to the "neglect in refugee centers" which fails in the  protection of non-Muslim religious minorities from Muslims.
Last May, various aid and human rights organizations have come together, "to draw attention to the clustering of attacks against Christians and other religious minorities in German refugee camps and to demand effective protection measures for them."  The aid and human rights organizations include the Action for Persecuted Christians and Needy (AVC), the International Society for Human Rights (IGFM), Kirche in Not , Open Doors and the Central Committee for Oriental Christians in Germany .
At a press conference on May 9 in Berlin, reports of 231 refugees were submitted reporting "of the massive discrimination,  death threats and violent attacks, which refugees in Germany suffer because of their Christian faith."
This first collection was continued by the participating organizations. The result has now been submitted to "significantly extended data base". "The documented cases demonstrate the continuing unacceptable situation of Christian refugees who are discriminated against, beaten and threatened with death in the German refugee centers as a minority, by Muslim refugees and partly Muslim employees (security guards, interpreters, assistants). Even ten refugees of the Yezidi faith participated in the survey. Their information has been evaluated separately in this report."
Among the 231 Christian refugees whose negative experiences were documented, 512 more cases were added in the months from May to September. In 743 cases there were religiously motivated attacks against Christians, in ten cases against Yazidis. All attacks were carried out in asylum facilities in the Federal Republic of Germany.
The distribution of those affected  shows Berlin with 146 assaults at the top of the negative scale, while in Saxony no assault was revealed.
Of those, there were 314 reported death threats, 44 of sexual assault, 416 of bodily injury. In addition, 615 cases of "other persecution". 83 percent of these affected indicated that "several times" there were assaults.
The Christian refugees  are  "used to being treated as second-class citizens" in majority Muslim homelands. Now they see that they too can find in Germany no effective protection and reporting the violence and death threats to the police have no consequences for the perpetrators, since the Muslim perpetrators are in the majority, and often make counter charges."
In homes and refugee centers in many cases it is not the perpetrators but the victims who are perceived and accused of being "troublemakers". "Lately we are seeing it more and more that Christian asylum seekers are concerned with house bans, because they interfere with the supposedly good coexistence in the homes."
A majority of the surveyed Christian and Yezidi refugees, therefore, are hoping for  "separate accommodation".  Several also asked for  "no Muslim security personnel".
The overall impression:  Muslims are more welcome than Christians or members of other religious minorities in the "Refugee Welcome"-- apparatus.

How St. Teresa of Avila Saw a Priest Attacked by Demons During Mass

by  - 

Public Domain, Wikipedia / ChurchPOP
St. Teresa of Avila was a 16th century Spanish mystic and is honored today as a Doctor of the Church for her incredible insight into the spiritual life. And in her prayers and meditations, she regularly came in contact with the demonic.
“An abominable form,” she writes of how the devil appeared to her, “his mouth was horrible. Out of his body there seemed to be coming a great flame, which cast no shadow.”
Most incredibly, she once saw a priest attacked by demons while he was saying Mass: “with the eyes of the soul [she saw] two devils of hideous aspect who seemed to have their horns around a priest’s throat while he celebrated Mass.
Yet, even for her, these visual manifestations were relatively rare. “I have seldom seen him in bodily shape,” she writes, “but I have often seen him without any form, as in the kind of vision I have described, in which no form is seen but the object is known to be there.”
Her weapons against these evil forces? Prayer, humility, and – interestingly enough – holy water, which she claimed from experience was a particularly effective spiritual weapon.