Close Advisor of Pope Speaks about Pope’s Methods of Changing the Church

Catholicism.org ^ | June 18, 2015 | Dr. Maike Hickson

[metmom]

Yeah, well, the Calvinists have their own ideas.

[metmom]

Would YOU be happy with a one world religion?

Are you happy with the CCC stating that the muslims worship the same God as you all?

Are you happy with the compromising with muslims the pope have been doing? With his comments on the environment? His socialist agenda?

All those things have an impact on those outside the church. With the church adding it’s weight to those agendas, it just increases the momentum of the one world government, socialist, eco whacko crowd and that makes it harder to fight. I do not want them to run my life.

All that is contributing to the destruction of our country and the freedoms we have enjoyed in the past.

I don’t understand why someone who not understand why all the the above would be a problem for me.

What the church does within itself, that affects only itself, is not the issue. It’s what the RCC is doing that affects those outside it that bothers me.

[metmom]

The Catholic Church hasn’t changed.

Seems to me that the EO have a different opinion about that.

Both the Roman rite and the EO think they are the OTC, the original Catholic church that Christ Himself established, and that the other is in schism and are the separated brethren.

But haven’t you changed churches?

Yes, I have a couple times since leaving the Catholic church, and it's primarily been because of moving. And it has included changing denominational affiliation but not changing my decision to follow Christ. That commitment has not wavered since I made it 38 years ago.

[ebb tide]

...and it's primarily been because of moving.

Of course. Can't be inconvenienced, can we?

[markomalley]

Would YOU be happy with a one world religion?

IN THEORY, I would be thrilled to death if everybody converted to orthodox Christianity.

IN PRACTICE, that's not going to happen.

Are you happy with the CCC stating that the muslims worship the same God as you all?

Actually, the CCC says that they profess to worship the God of Abraham (not that they objectively do so).

But, without splitting hairs, I actually prefer traditional Catholic teaching displaying the attitude of, for example, the Council of Vienne (1311), that stated:

It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to christian princes where Saracens live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place, in the hearing of both Christians and Saracens and there make public declarations in his honour. There is a place, moreover, where once was buried a certain Saracen whom other Saracens venerate as a saint. A great number of Saracens flock there quite openly from far and near. This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated any further without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council's approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in christian lands. We enjoin on catholic princes, one and all, who hold sovereignty over the said Saracens and in whose territory these practices occur, and we lay on them a pressing obligation under the divine judgment that, as true Catholics and zealous for the christian faith, they give consideration to the disgrace heaped on both them and other Christians. They are to remove this offence altogether from their territories and take care that their subjects remove it, so that they may thereby attain the reward of eternal happiness. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet. They shall also forbid anyone in their dominions to attempt in future the said pilgrimage or in any way give countenance to it. Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.

Or in more generic terms, the words of Gregory XVI:

13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism"[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him,"[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate."[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me."[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?"[20]

Are you happy with the compromising with muslims the pope have been doing?

See above.

With his comments on the environment?

In truth, the Church has traditionally taught that we have a responsibility to properly steward God's creation.

But that is distinctly different than the new-age pantheism that is spewed out by Bergoglio (so far as I have read).

His socialist agenda?

Actually I prefer Catholic teaching than the teaching of Bergoglio (or the US bishops, for that matter) on most any subject.

All those things have an impact on those outside the church. With the church adding it’s weight to those agendas, it just increases the momentum of the one world government, socialist, eco whacko crowd and that makes it harder to fight. I do not want them to run my life.

But this life is only 70 or 80 years...what is that compared to eternity?

All that is contributing to the destruction of our country and the freedoms we have enjoyed in the past.

Is it really?

I would actually submit that this garbage has been going on for at least 150 years if not longer. For example, Pope Leo XIII warned the US bishops about compromising on the faith in order to "get along." And there have been warnings about compromising on the Faith long before then.

But truly, though, the people who cause the majority of the damage are those who are influenced by Oprah more than they are influenced by Bergoglio. It is highly unlikely that he is going to change anybody's mind about any of these subjects. He is just going to increase the radicalization.

I don’t understand why someone who not understand why all the the above would be a problem for me.

Looking at this with the most apocalyptic point of view, this just precedes the return of Christ. And I can't understand how any Christian could have a problem with that.

If you look at it in a less apocalyptic manner, then the cognitive dissonance he displays just provides you an opportunity to save more souls. (I'm saying this from what I'd understand to be your POV...any person you can rescue from the Catholic Church would count as a victory, right?)

What the church does within itself, that affects only itself, is not the issue. It’s what the RCC is doing that affects those outside it that bothers me.

I appreciate that, but it seems so temporal.

[piusv]

Pope on 5/23/15: "I feel like saying something that may sound controversial……….or even heretical, I don’t know."

Actually the literal translation of the Spanish (rather than the Vatican's translation):

“Y me viene a la mente decir algo que puede ser una insensatez, o quizás una herejía, no sé.”

in English is:

“And it comes to my mind to say something that may be foolish or perhaps a heresy, I don't know.”

I happen to think that the latter translation sounds worse.

[piusv]

I agree with most of what you have said, but you have misquoted the JPII Catechism. The full description from the JPII Catechism regarding the Muslims states:

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

This comes from Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, a Dogmatic Constitution which flies in the face of pre-Vatican II teaching such as the other quotes you have provided.

[metmom]

Would you drive three hours to go to church when there’s one closer?

[metmom]

Of course things are going to get worse before the return of Christ but that doesn’t mean we have to like it.

[Springfield Reformer]

Convenience is a rational factor. The early believers attended where they could get to in an era dominated by travelling on foot. Why is that now wrong?

But I think what’s really happening here is that Evangelicals just don’t see most denominational differences as walls dividing true Christians from false, but more as artifacts of culture and history that can never ultimately divide true believers from each other, because we are all family by the powerful working of the Holy Spirit.

That’s the meaning of what metmom said earlier. We self-identify as Christians first of all. The body of Christ is a creation of Christ, and may be found wherever two or three are gathered in His name.

Peace,

SR

[markomalley]

Would you drive three hours to go to church when there’s one closer?

I can't speak for ebb tide, obviously, but I drive 45 minutes per direction each Sunday to get to a parish that doesn't relentlessly preach modernism (and there are at least 20 parishes that would give me a far shorter trip).

Three hours per direction would admittedly be a challenge. But I think back to when I was stationed in Turkey...

Closer to home, though...

My wife's family lives in Jackson, TN. There is exactly one Catholic parish in that fair city. The times we have attended Mass in that parish, we found it to be extremely liberal and utterly unacceptable (to the point of questioning the validity of the Mass). Don't know how it is now, it has been literally 10 years since I darkened the doors of that parish, so they may have gotten new clergy that have straightened things out since I was last there. The nearest traditional parish was just outside of Memphis. The bottom line is that when we are visiting her mom and happen to be there on a Sunday, we take the time and go to the traditional parish.

The question I would have is are the different denominations where you've worshiped the same on basic, fundamental principles, such as soteriology. I cannot imagine being a heart-felt Arminian and then having to worship with a Calvinist (or vice versa). I could not picture being a believing member of a church that practiced infant baptism (such as the Presbyterians or Lutherans) and having no alternative than to worship at a church that practiced "believers baptism" (or vice versa).

Not that the people in either church wouldn't be fine, upstanding people...this is not an attempt to slam anybody (I'll save that for other threads :) ). I can't picture either having to endure preaching and practice that was utterly opposed to foundational matters of Faith, on one hand, or needing to be so elastic in my beliefs that I could "evolve" between two mutually exclusive doctrines / practices at will.

[metmom]

See SR’s post 30.

More later.

Big outdoor cleaning day at the mm household while the weather is nice on the weekend. (for a change)

[markomalley]

Of course things are going to get worse before the return of Christ but that doesn’t mean we have to like it.

What concerns me is being getting wobbly and being lulled to sleep.

And if you're honest with yourself and look at the broad landscape, you will see that happening over the last century (and that applies both to Protestantism and Catholicism). Sardis, anybody?

[markomalley]

Big outdoor cleaning day at the mm household while the weather is nice on the weekend. (for a change)

Enjoy it.

[Resettozero]

I drive 45 minutes per direction each Sunday to get to a parish that doesn't relentlessly preach modernism (and there are at least 20 parishes that would give me a far shorter trip).

Are you saying you pick and choose among Roman Catholic congregations as you deem suitable? One acceptable parish for you out of at least twenty non-acceptable parishes?

I too, as you do, avoid gatherings that relentlessly preach modernism (or politics) and not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Springfield Reformer]

Again, I ask not out of disrespect...I genuinely am confused why this would be a problem to any Protestant, particularly a reformed Protestant.

Fair enough as questions go, but it seems to suggest a very different view of the Reformation than what is generally held by the modern descendants of that movement. Then as now, the interest among the reformers was not division for it's own sake, or change for change's sake, but an attempt to worship God and teach the Gospel according to the light of Scripture.  In other words, the transformation sought was reform in the true sense, a purge of false teaching and incremental idolatry that had been tolerated for so long that a crisis of conflict with Scriptural belief was inevitable.

But Francis and liberation theology do not represent a resurgence of Biblical theology.  Quite the opposite.  Marxism is the codified idolatry of man as god, Marx's ideal man as the primary object of worship, leveraging any attribute of Christian theology that can be twisted into to serving that idol.  

So no, we do not rejoice in the corruption of the remaining good within Catholicism.  Reformers generally believe in common grace, the idea that God can and does prevent people and institutions from becoming as bad as they could be.  We see it as a demonstration of God working graciously for the benefit of His people, that He forestalls the advance of evil in the world, even when He uses institutions that are burdened with serious error to do so.

So when we see Francis come along and replace the old idols with new ones, and seemingly hell-bent to destroy the good that remains, why would that cause us to rejoice?  The new idols in their way are far more dangerous.  They can sweep entire nations into a cultural religion that is utterly hostile to the practice of true Christianity.  This is an apocalypticly bad change, and no, we are not happy about it.

Peace,

SR

[markomalley]

Are you saying you pick and choose among Roman Catholic congregations as you deem suitable?

Well, there is a bit of a story behind that. Without going into the details, which would encompass a book, a member of the clergy assigned to the parish announced during a homily that it was not the place of the laity to criticize how the liturgy was celebrated and not the place of the laity to criticize squishy homilies. It was the place of the laity to shut up. When I asked the pastor if he supported that point of view given during that homily he was considerably more diplomatic about it, but he refused to disavow it. So I, at that point in time, decided that my type was no longer welcome in that parish and I moved on.

One acceptable parish for you out of at least twenty non-acceptable parishes?

From what I've seen in the Archdiocese of Washington, most suburban parishes are very squishy. I'm not saying "all" and parishes change over time, so it may well be that some are better at times and some are worse at times...a lot of that is dependent upon the pastor, the parochial vicars, and the staff that are hired to support the liturgies.

The other point to bring up is that, at least in this Archdiocese, priests who are more traditional minded sometimes have to tread pretty lightly. I know of more than one occasion when a priest has actually gotten on a roll, where some more liberal parishioners have gone to the chancery and threatened to withhold donations if the priest in question wasn't reigned in from talking about touchy subjects like homosexuality, contraception, and abortion so often.

Your profile says that you live in Upstate SC. I actually am somewhat envious of you...you're fortunate enough to have at least two really, really good parishes in the Greenville area that I am personally familiar with: St Mary's (downtown) and Prince of Peace in Taylors. So congrats for that.

[wardaddy]

Is he a fundamental transformer too

How do genuine Catholics deal with this flakiness by someone they would and should otherwise venerate ?

[CynicalBear]

>>Of course things are going to get worse before the return of Christ but that doesn’t mean we have to like it.<<

No one is going to change what prophecy has told us is going to happen. Like it or not it's what is going to be. The decision is not whether we like it or not but which side we are going to choose. The Catholic Church is lining up on the side of the adversary with it's approach to one world religion and governance.

[Resettozero]

I actually am somewhat envious of you...you're fortunate enough to have at least two really, really good parishes in the Greenville area that I am personally familiar with: St Mary's (downtown) and Prince of Peace in Taylors. So congrats for that.

Perhaps you should consider a move here. Were I born and raised a Roman Catholic, I likely would choose one of the eight Spartanburg-area RC churches nearer me to attend.

If Roman Catholics constitute the one true church as claimed by several FR posters, how can there remain such significant differences between these many different gatherings of Catholics, so much so that an RC such as you would be forced to make discriminating choices regarding which Catholic building to worship God? And why this current hateful disconnect of some FRoman Catholic posters from the earthly head of the RCC and from those men in RCC leadership positions who put Francis in authority?

And yes, discrimination where to worship may be a necessary process for Christians to make. Our family chose to worship with like-minded Bible-based believers in salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone, rather than in any religious man-maintained hierarchy or personality.

Similarly, we chose to send our children to the best school we could afford: we homeschooled them in the respect of and the admonition of The Lord Jesus Christ from first grade through high school. We knew what was going on in the local parochial and private schools even back then, and certainly the public school system.

Each family member has gravitated toward Free Republic at one time or another although we've never placed faith in this site or in the posters here. It seemed a natural thing to do while still here in the USA on planet Earth as we remain vigilant and anticipate the appearing again of the Savior, Sanctifier, Healer, and the coming King of all believers...Lord Jesus Christ...Jesus of Nazareth.