Posted on 10/07/2013 5:36:12 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
Meet "Kosher Frank"
This story needs no commentary because it speaks for itself. Jorge Bergoglio is not a Catholic nor a Pope - but an apostate. What we are seeing here are the next steps in the amalgamation of all religions into one, the prelude to the Antichrist.
[Taken from Vatican Insider, 9/29/13. Coloring added for emphasis.] [But no coloring on FR]
"Pope Francis and Rabbi Skorka make history in the Vatican" by Gerard O'Connell, Rome
... “We hold to different traditions, but we are creating a dialogue that has not existed for centuries. Both of us believe that God has something to do with our friendship and with what we are doing. There are too many coincidences for it all to be mere chance”, said Skorka, 63, who is Rector of the Latin American Rabbinic Seminary. “We come together without burying our identities. I spoke to him about evangelization, and he stated emphatically that the Catholic Church cannot engage in proselytism”, he said.
“We are not looking for a photo opportunity, but we want what we are doing to trigger a re-thinking about things. Ours is not a relation of ‘tea and sympathy’; that is not my way, and it is not Bergoglio’s way. We want to move ahead by actions, we must advance by building bridges, through a living dialogue; not a dialogue of words, but a dialogue of actions that reflect our commitment”, he stated.
Proselyte is a transliteration from the word which appears twice in the New Testament and strictly means a person previously converted to Judaism, now converted to Christianity. That Christians didn’t have to pass through a ritual of proselytism to Judaism was settled in the Council of Jerusalem. So, Francis is correct that to proselyte doesn’t make any sense, if he’s thinking biblically.
I have no idea what he is really thinking.
There's absolutely nothing new about Catholicism not being a proselytary religion. None of the ancient churches engage in proselytism. Their whole mindset is that the world converted seventeen hundred years ago, so now chrstians just reproduce sexually. I suppose it has something to do with being an ethnic religion, which the ancient churches are.
In addition to that, Catholicism today considers proselytism to be a Protestant concept. Like creationism, the Catholic Church sort of defines itself against proselytism. And they scream as loud as any anti-missionary Jew when they find a tract under their windshield wiper. (The whole "we don't steal other churches' sheep" is just another form of this anti-proselytary mindset.)
“The bigger question is why some anti-Protestant Catholics are so wretchedly haughty that they think the Pope can redefine words to fit his own view of the faith and the rest of Christendom MUST go along with it?”
No words were redefined. Here’s how an Eastern Orthodox writer put it more than a decade ago:
“”Proselytism” has as many appealing connotations as “root canal.” It’s not just “evangelism,” sharing the Gospel with any and everyone. Proselytism implies dynamiting an existing faith to clear ground for a new one.”
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/MathewesGreenProselytize.php
So, we see that Protestant anti-Catholics are unfamiliar with a word’s definition but haughtily assume it was redefined by the pope when in fact the definition is understood by educated people.
And go ask the Russians about it too: http://wwrn.org/articles/615/?&place=russia§ion=catholic
The very much non-Orthodox “Rabbi” Skorka operates under the auspices of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.
Can't be said better than that. The Word is like the seed that is scattered.
"Listen! A farmer went out to plant some seeds. 4 As he scattered them across his field, some seeds fell on a footpath, and the birds came and ate them. 5 Other seeds fell on shallow soil with underlying rock. The seeds sprouted quickly because the soil was shallow. 6 But the plants soon wilted under the hot sun, and since they didn’t have deep roots, they died. 7 Other seeds fell among thorns that grew up and choked out the tender plants. 8 Still other seeds fell on fertile soil, and they produced a crop that was thirty, sixty, and even a hundred times as much as had been planted! 9 Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand.”
Anyone who has ears to hear can choose their ground.
I don't see how any other interpretation can be true. Jesus IS the Messiah as foretold all throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. That he would be rejected of his own people was one of those prophecies. It doesn't excuse the Jews from having to believe in Him anymore than it does all the rest of humanity. Just as Peter said:
"He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:11,12)
It’s the Roman Catholic Church as it was BEFORE Vatican II, if he’s being specific. Are you, ebb tide?
For the record, GPH asked another poster the question, "So you’re okay with Jews going to hell since they do not believe in Jesus Christ?". It is dishonest to only quote a part of someone's sentence. But, since you asked me, YES, not only Jews, but Muslims, Hindus, atheists, humanists and every other ism or ist that rejects Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord will be in hell for eternity, separated from God because of unbelief. At one time, I believe, this was even the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, was it not? Just for clarification, are you not in sync with your own church now?
What you say is true, HOWEVER, God got pretty angry with those he made the Covenant with...God even became disgusted with the animal sacrifices that were part of the ritual for atonement...
God told the Jews he would send them a Messiah...They looked forward to the Messiah but the Messiah wasn't what they had envisioned...So they rejected him...
Jesus put the blinders on the Jews for that transgression so that they can not get with the church program...Romans 11...
Reading Romans 11 coupled with numerous OT scriptures and some in Revelation it is clear that God is not done with the Jews...
Jesus will again reveal himself to the Jews and they will accept him this time...
When Jesus comes and sits and rules from the throne of David, that old Covenant will come back into play, for about a thousand years...
"We" see nothing of the kind! LOL. Do yourself a favor and search the word "proselyte" or "proselytize". When you do you'll see:
Middle English proselite, from Anglo-French prosilite, from Late Latin proselytus proselyte, alien resident, from Greek prosÄ“lytos, from pros near + -Ä“lytos (akin to Ä“lythe he went) — more at pros-, elastic First Known Use: 14th century
Synonyms: neophyte, convert
Related Words: regenerate; newcomer, novice, novitiate, recruit; catechumen
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proselyte)
Should we be scared of a word because some people dislike how it sounds? Both the Old Testament and the New Testament use the word (see Exodus 12:49; Matt. 23:15; Acts 2;10; Acts 6:5). Maybe you can explain why your new Pope shied away from using it when speaking of evangelizing or sharing the gospel with the unsaved?
That’s a lie. I have criticized the Pope and VC II, but I have rejected neither.
You wrote:
“”We” see nothing of the kind! LOL. Do yourself a favor and search the word “proselyte” or “proselytize”. When you do you’ll see:”
I already know what I’ll see. And what you fail to comprehend is that the language is a living thing that can have more than one meaning. Here’s an example for 6 years before Francis became pope (again, having to do with the Orthodox):
“Today’s Christian missionaries often contrast “proselytism” with “evangelism”; the former is what they accuse rival denominations of doing, while the latter is what they claim to do themselves. Surprisingly, there is no rigorous distinction between the two terms in canon law or in theological dictionaries—or for that matter in legal dictionaries. The Greek Constitution, for example, has outlawed “proselytism” since 1911 without ever defining it. The term is sometimes used to denounce Christian “sheep stealers” who seek converts among those who are already members of some other Christian confession, as distinct from missionaries who appeal to those who have never been baptized—but no Church council or other authoritative religious organ has ever formalized that usage.”
and:
“Consider the following examples. In 1961 the World Council of Churches pronounced “proselytism” to be “a corruption of Christian witness” that uses “cajolery, bribery, undue pressure, or intimidation, subtly or openly, to bring about seeming conversion.” In a footnote to the documents of Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church defined proselytism as “a corruption of the Christian witness by appeal to hidden forms of coercion or by a style of propaganda unworthy of the Gospel. It is not the use but the abuse of the right to religious freedom.””
This, the word has been used that way BY PROTESTANTS for at least 52 years. And yet you’re blaming the pope? How smart is that????http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/donrsquot-call-it-proselytism-16
Some people don’t like the use of the term (and example from 1999) - “The use of the term proselytism in a pejorative way to criticize the outreach activities of faith communities was rejected by all participants.” http://www.irla.org/226
But none of that changes the fact that the term is used that way whether you like it or not.
So, the Greeks (all of them Orthodox) banned the practice of it in their constitution in 1911. Protestants have used the word the same way since 1961 at least. Looks like Pope Francis was the last one to use it. And yet you accuse him of changing the definition when Protestants have been using it that way for 5 or more decades? Have you no shame at all?
We have very similar beliefs. It would be interesting to sit down and talk theology with you one on one.
You’re ignoring the following dialogue:
Atheist editor to the Pope: “It’s a joke, I tell him. My friends think it is you want to convert me.”
Pope’s response: He smiles again and replies: “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense”.
It’s Pope Francis, not I, who immediately equates conversion to proselytism. In other words, Pope Francis “evangelization” has no intent to convert anyone to the One, True Faith. Ask the Argentine rabbi who’s been bunking with him in Casa Santa Marta, ask the muslims at Lampedusa.
The pope says, “The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the Good.” Only a Universalist or an atheist would make such a statement.
That’s a lie. I have criticized the Pope and VC II, but I have rejected neither. \
Then i sincerely apologize for my conclusion. You had said "Pay no attention to any Popes after Pope Pius XII. Pay no attention to the Second Vatican council,..Don’t expect me to defend one jota of VC II or any pope since Pius XII."
And you affirmed the more historical pre V2 view on EENS, rejecting Lumen Gentium as (commonly understood) the work of modernists.
And you affirmed that RCs consider you to be a schismatic, and that that you would pick up the Cross the pope dropped.
How you can tell us to ignore any Popes after Pope Pius XII and the Second Vatican council and yet not reject them i know not, but i will let you interpret yourself.
I think most people who have been following this convoluted story, have grasped the significance of that.
Your argument depends heavily on context which, for all you know, may have been clipped away by the bagful by the atheist interviewer.
It would be futile to spend any further time on this.
Nonetheless, I think we have beaten this horse to death. I have headed off toward the kitchen. I wish I could offer you some of this nice German Potato Soup.
Nice try, but no cigar. The final article was reviewed and approved by the Pope and has been posted on the Vatican's website. If you question the interview's veracity, blame the Pope and his leper curial court (as he fondly addresses it), don't blame me.
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.