Posted on 10/04/2013 2:37:31 PM PDT by ebb tide
In the aftermath of yesterday’s 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 pope’s 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 didn’t have to dig very deep. They couldn’t, for the simple reason that the Holy Roman Catholic Church’s 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 who’s 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 I’ve 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, let’s 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 isn’t exact. The original Italian text has been published on the Holy See’s 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 isn’t 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 shouldn’t have to point out that we’re 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!” That’s the context, like it or not.
Now on to some definitions.
First, let’s 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.
That’s 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 don’t 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 isn’t one credible voice among the critics of Pope Francis who espouse anything like this. In any case, this make believe scenario couldn’t 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.
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.
I don’t do Scientology either, but certainly it is as illogical as anything anyone ever came up with.
I'll take your Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and raise you a Lumen Gentium. ;o)
What’s hell got to do with purgatory?
How would someone in hell get out?
Hebrews 9:22 .....and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Suffering does not result in the forgiveness of sins. God does not forgive our sins after we're suffered enough to someone pay for them.
If that were possible, Christ died for nothing.
You lose. Lumen Gentium is not dogma; EENS is.
Why is it that FRoman Catholics can't seem to agree on something that central to their church's authority? Another Catholic just got done saying:
INFALLIBLE...read it, get used to it, realize what is truth....in matters of faith and morals the Catholic Church CANNOT err.
EENS was a papal bull, was it not? Lumen Gentium was from Vatican II, a DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH, SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
Am I correct, then, in concluding that Catholics can use their own personal interpretation to decide which dogmas they accept and which ones they can deem "not dogma"???
The Second Vatican Council was a pastoral council. It pronounced no new dogma.
Pope Paul VI declared, ““In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.”
The Catholic Church has solemnly defined three times by infallible declarations that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The most explicit and forceful of the three came from Pope Eugene IV, in the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441, who proclaimed ex cathedra: “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her... No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
The other two infallible declarations are as follows: There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved. Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).
We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Pope Boniface VIII, (Unam Sanctam, 1302).
This means, and has always meant, that salvation and unity exist only within the Catholic Church, and that members of heretical groups cannot be considered as “part” of the Church of Christ. This doctrine has been the consistent teaching of the Popes throughout the centuries.
“The church must strip itself of vanity, arrogance, and price.” Pope Francis
When the infallibility of the church is based on the infallibility of the church, you have a laughable argument.
It’s your argument that’s laughable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.