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.
No such thing as purgatory as suffering or burning does not cleanse anyone from the least sin. Sin is only dealt with by the shedding of blood- death.
I am saved NOW and as righteous IN Christ as I could ever be and need to be.
I am cleansed by the shed blood of Jesus. His righteousness is credited to my account through faith in Him. I die and go straight to heaven.
“And yet, here a Catholic says the exact same thing and all I hear is *crickets*.”
And that’s all you will hear as your reference will be blandly passed by with some silly comment.
Just look at the comments on the definition of “proselytism”.
See Post 63.
I grew up being taught that salvation was only through the Catholic church and those outside are lost.
Your post 63 IS what I was taught.
Nevertheless, that has not stopped other FRoman Catholics for shredding me on it, castigating me for it, and ranting on and on about how *poorly catechized* I was (am).
Your view is not universally held by others who consider themselves faithful, conservative Catholics.
Certainly the Pope has erred on the matters of faith and morals of the Priests and Bishops.
Generally the prayer is to ask for divine help for the family members who are left behind, and thanks for the life of the person lost.
My view was universally held by all Catholics until 1962 - 1965. Those Catholics today, who hold otherwise, are modernists.
Does Lucifer send you email?
You said you were raised otherwise, regarding No Salvation outside the Catholic Church. What has changed your mind/faith?
No, nor does the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or the Great Pumpkin.
The protestant sect that passes around snakes has the good sense to refrigerate them overnight before hand.
Or heretics, since the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, has assented to the modern view...
I accepted Christ, had a born again experience a few years after I quit attending the Catholic church, but it ws not through another church.
I believe that salvation is found in Christ alone, irregardless of denominational affiliation. There are saved and unsaved in ALL churches.
It's not the denomination that saves; it's Jesus.
The church one attends for worship and fellowship is a matter of personal preference or the Lord's leading and has no bearing on one's eternal destiny.
Don’t expect me to defend one jota of VC II or any pope since Pius XII. I’m sure there are Catholics on this forum who will gladly do so, however, and that will just confuse you more.
Indeed they have. And i do agree that the Trent to preV2 Rome seems far more consistent with itself. But not Scripture, to their own damnation, while RCs consider you to be a schismatic .
No, Their destiny is locked at that point. No mercy on their soul is needed at that point. It’s settled the moment the soul leaves the body. Either they trusted Jesus alone for their salvation or they didn’t.
>>see ya, hope you make it!<<
The hoping part is over at their death. Either they did or they didn’t.
“or do you just say...see ya, hope you make it!!”
If they’re infidels, pretty much.
Mat_8:22 Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
Christians don’t need to be concerned about that, since Christ’s work on the cross is sufficient.
“comes right after Sola Scriptura....”
2 Ti 3:16-17 is the end of that particular chapter. There’s nothing after that about purgatory.
I’ve seen several of the Catholics on this site expressing doubts about this pope. I’m thinking they haven’t seen half of what is to come from the popes yet that will stun them. Hopefully they will be stunned enough to “come out of her”.
Serious question: Why are you giving more credence to liberal media opinions about papal speeches than you would to say ones on Reagan? You know that the MSM cherry picks to support their homosexual liberal agenda. I strongly urge reading the actual words not what some liberal reporter says the Pope says.
verga:Serious question: Why are you giving more credence to liberal media opinions about papal speeches than you would to say ones on Reagan? You know that the MSM cherry picks to support their homosexual liberal agenda. I strongly urge reading the actual words not what some liberal reporter says the Pope says.
How is that an answer to bb's comment?
Why change the topic like that?
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.