Skip to comments.Fairytale Fever
Posted on 10/04/2013 2:37:31 PM PDT by ebb tide
In the aftermath of yesterdays blog post, it has become evident that Fairytale Fever has reached near epidemic proportions among the Catholic population.
With the well-deserved criticism of Interviewgate 2 making its rounds, in particular as it relates to the popes insistence that proselytism is solemn nonsense, the papal apologizers set out on an archaeological dig in search of evidence that Francis remarks are the stuff of papal precedent.
Well, they didnt have to dig very deep. They couldnt, for the simple reason that the Holy Roman Catholic Churchs distaste for her God-given mission is a post-conciliar phenomenon.
Sure, they unearthed quotes from John Paul II and Benedict XVI rejecting proselytism, but whos kidding who? The Assisi popes are the poster boys of false ecumenism, which is all about dialogue that eventually leads to you guessed, more dialogue.
In any case, missing from both their reading of Francis, and their defense of the same, is any semblance of context.
In the case of the alleged precedent-setter-popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, one will find in most cases that their negative commentary concerning proselytism is ordered toward addressing coercion, or forced conversions gained via unethical behavior. For example, the oldest quote Ive found dates all the way back to 1995, wherein John Paul II said during a visit to Sri Lanka, [the Church] firmly rejects proselytism and the use of unethical means to gain conversions.
Why conflate proselytism with unethical means in the first place? Who knows, perhaps this is just another example of that favored modernist pastime, redefining words. In any case, some definitions are in order, but first, lets revisit the interview to contextualize Pope Francis commentary.
My friends think it is you want to convert me. He smiles again and replies: Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense The translation isnt exact. The original Italian text has been published on the Holy Sees website, which in addition to undermining the argument that the pope has no intention of revealing his papal agenda via a newspaper interview, it can be a valuable resource.
The operative part reads, Anche i miei amici pensano che sia Lei a volermi convertire.
My Italian isnt terrific by any means, but I know enough to understand that Scalfari is more properly telling the pope that his friends think that the pope wants me to convert.
At this point, I shouldnt have to point out that were looking at apples and oranges, but I will.
To the (apparently) ludicrous notion that the Vicar of Christ may (get this) want an atheist with whom he has developed a cordial relationship to convert to the one true faith, the pope promptly replied, Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense.
Are you paying attention? The pope is saying that the very idea that he may harbor a desire to see Scalfari convert to the Catholic faith is nonsense! Thats the context, like it or not.
Now on to some definitions.
First, lets revisit the mission of the Church as given by Christ.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever that I have commanded you. (Matthew 20:19-20)
As for proselytism, this is nothing more insidious than actively seeking proselytes; i.e., converts.
Thats it, and the Church has, until very recently, been doing exactly this by means of teaching, preaching and exhorting from day one. (See St. Peter the Proselytizer in action in Acts 2 if you dont believe me.)
Part of the redefinition effort concerns setting up a false dichotomy relative to the mission of the Church, pitting the passive luring of converts by way of godly example and genuine kindness, against active calls to conversion through preaching and teaching.
Heaven is full of saints who did all of these things to the exclusion of none, as each constitutes a necessary component of authentic love of neighbor.
Then there is the more sophomoric notion that proselytism refers exclusively to an effort to create converts solely by means of condemnation and conquest. This is wholesale fantasy that just barely qualifies for refutation.
There isnt one credible voice among the critics of Pope Francis who espouse anything like this. In any case, this make believe scenario couldnt be further away from the context with which Francis offered his own regrettable comments.
In short, the post-conciliar modernists can labor to convince themselves and others that proselytism is a war crime all they want, but the fact remains, it is nothing more than the very mission of the Church.
I’m sure the Vatican will be out with an explanation of what Francis “really meant” any day now.
I just don’t see the great benefit to the Kingdom of Catholics seeking to convery Presybterians, trying to convert Methodists, trying to convert Baptists. It too quickly breaks down into nitpicking on which translation you use to justify what traditional practice, among people with no knowledge of Old Testament Greek.
Convert pagans, atheists, and muslims all you want, and even Mormons.
The Catholic Church teaches, “Outside the Church, there is no salvation”. There is no nitpicking about it.
But Jesus was not baptized by a Catholic.
God does not need to be baptized.
So there is salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.
So there is salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.
Was Mary baptized?
Only "sprinkled" as a baby.
Sprinkle it to be so now, for thus for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he
suffered "sprinkled" him. (?)
What the little baby Jesus was doing talking so clearly as a babe I don't know. Perhaps he was a bit precocious.
The Blessed Mother was born without original sin. Strike two for you.
Here’s a question for you, “Was Moses baptized?
How long have you been drinking today?
So, Mary didn’t need the Catholic Church....
Jesus and Mary both had some form of salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Gosh, we are well on the way to Pelagius.
My understanding is that water flowed across his forhead as he was drawn from the Nile at the command of the daughter of Pharoh.
I really don’t give a darn about what you understand.
"We"? Speak for yourself.
How about Elijah?
Guess you are not into proseletizing.
Have a wonderful evening!
Elijah spent quite some time in Purgatory. Adam and Eve spent even more time there.
As far as proselytizing: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.
Think long and hard about that. I’ll be praying for you.
Catholic Comic Book Alert!
You just can’t make up anything as far fetched as catholic doctrine.
that's what they thought of those gathered at Pentecost, marveling that is was only the third hour of the day.
Those men were not drunken, and neither am I.
Do you not know the scripture, even this snippet ";suffer it to be so now for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness"?
Ask yourself --- why would some one say that? Ask yourself "was it something I said"?
From the Papist point of view, it is wholly logical to say that there is no salvation outside of the RCC, since they only have the “true” faith and proper doctrine, which Paul declares that anyone who teaches otherwise is ‘accursed.’
Of course, their position cannot stand up to the scripture, since they are, as you say, quite Pelagian, as they depend on their works to merit a conditional salvation. Not only that, but not even all of the ancients shared their views, especially on salvation. Even those who did not take Augustine’s position, at the very least gave it all to faith and not to works; however, there is no salvation outside of CHRISTIANITY, neither for those who are born where the Gospel is not preached, nor for those born outside of God’s covenant people in Old Testament times, since all are declared by Paul to be “without excuse,” “under sin,” and, since they are not born randomly, but rather God willed that they should be born and never hear the Gospel, it is part of His divine right to “show mercy on whom I will show mercy, and harden whom I will harden”.
Therefore we affirm that salvation is through Christ only, and not accessible by any one who does not believe. That said, Catholics can also be saved, but only when they are apostates to their own religion and accidentally, or, rather, by the grace of God, despair of themselves and trust in Christ only and not their obedience or submission to sacraments.
Jesus did need to be baptized to *fulfill all righteousness*. (His words when John objected to baptizing Him)
You know that how?
That's not an answer to a yes or no question.
Because Adam and Eve died long before Elijah. And nobody went to Heaven until Jesus Christ opened the gates of Hell.
And where does it say anywhere that it was purgatory?
I figure Catholics can be saved when they look at the Sacraments as tools to teach them of Christ.
I think it was Hemmingway that asserted that Spain was a Catholic, but not a Christian country. Discerning man.
I think one Martin Luther had a Latin phrase or two also.
So how would anyone know about Elijah in Pergatory? Does he send emails?
It is a small irony that the cresent moon and star were the symbols of Contantinopole. Richard I (Lionheart) wore them on his crusade as an ally of the Roman empire.
The Cresent moon references Diana/Artemis, whose priest warned the people of an earthquake, and due to his clamor, they who went to see him were safely out of doors.
The star refers to the Virgin Mary.
When Contantinopole was conquered, the Ottoman sultan took the symbol over.
Seriously they do NOT read scripture! They make so many comments that show total ignorance of what scripture says.
Hemingway blew his brains out. Crazy people do such things.
Where is the word *purgatory* found in Scripture?
Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Suffering does not b3ring forgiveness, neither does fire. The only means of forgiveness is the shedding of blood.
Therefore purgatory CANNOT result in purification of sin.
So do you think Jesus opened the Gates of Hell for the eternally damned? If so, nobody’s in Hell, right?
You are operating from a disadvantage - The Roman concept of Hell is not true - Look to the Hebrew concept.
Nope, I'm operating from the only Church that Jesus Christ founded. Who founded yours?
Jesus “founded” the Christian faith. All who come together to worship him are part of it.
That is it.
Nope. If Yeshua had founded it, you would not be looking to Rome's paganism to figure out hell, and inventing purgatory because you don't understand.
Why Yeshua went to 'hell' was to open the gates of Abraham's Bosom... Paradise, where the faithful had been residing until the sufficiency of the Messiah's sacrifice (the blood of rams and bulls is insufficient). These folks are the first fruits offering that Yeshua brought to YHWH that first Sunday. That is why Mirriam the magdalene could not touch Him - He was still consecrated and doing His job as High Priest (the only High Priest of the order of Melchizedek).
Really, this stuff would make a whole lot more sense if you discarded the rediculous assertions of your church, which doesn't know diddley.
He had survived cancer. Opinions are mixed as to why he committed suicide, whether because he suspected a recurrence of cancer or a crazy belief that he was being tracked by the CIA.
He did use one of his favorite guns.
Certainly cooking dishes are not purified with blood.
Kosher practice purifies them with high temperature.
Oy vey... what an intrigue, this man said this, that man said that.
Why is there so much less intrigue in evangelical Christendom? Maybe because they want to see for themselves in the bible rather than from an ipse dixit that might or might not be authoritative depending on circumstance?
Those were add-ons not prescribed in scripture.
Read the references. No mention of Purgatory.
Have you read Scientology?
I don’t do man made philosophy.