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.
Serious answer, I wasn't talking about the "MSM" and their views of the new Pope. Just responding to the comment posted by Ebb Tide, who said:
Let me give you a little advice. Pay no attention to any Popes after Pope Pius XII. Pay no attention to the Second Vatican council. The former were/are modernists; the latter a purely pastoral council. If you can do those two things, you and even Catholics will never be confused about the true Catholic Faith.
Dont expect me to defend one jota of VC II or any pope since Pius XII. Im sure there are Catholics on this forum who will gladly do so, however, and that will just confuse you more.
Are you ever going to address this statement or is it more fun to attack non-Catholic Christians?
Even when the church is wrong it is right. No matter how bad or wrong the policy, it is correct, even if it totally contradicts what they believed last year which was also correct.
Starting to sound Orwellian.
I'll have to bookmark this for the next time we are told the Catholic Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Is it too hard to decide what the deal is and stick to it???
Sounds like some of them need a “come to Jesus” moment!
He ain’t Luther. He’s ALL yours!
Lumen Gentium from Vatican II was part of what was called the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. Now it's just a "pastoral council" and has NO weight on the faith and morals of the Catholic Church? I wonder what other Catholics think about that? Can you guys just take it or leave it when Popes put out a Dogmatic Constitution of the Church? Funny how "Protestants" are pilloried here for daring to reject Roman Cathlic dogma.
No, which is why that verse is not properly being used when it comes to papal infallibility.
The whole context of the passage in in dealing with a person who has done wrong and church discipline, not an absolute authority given to one man to dictate to God what happens on earth and in heaven.
Matthew 18:15-20 If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.
The matter is church disciple, which comes into play after an attempt at reconciliation or correction at the individual, personal level. It involves more than one party and is not blanket power given to one man for establishing doctrine.
Context is everything and trying to establish the infallibility of one man by taking a verse out of context and applying it to a situation for which is is not intended is disingenuous on the part of the RCC.
It's deceit, plain and simple, to justify the power grab the early church leaders made in the name of Christ.
Advice is not an attack. Is it an attack when a parent tells a child to eat their vegetables so they get big and strong?
Starting???
Party ownership of the print media
made it easy to manipulate public opinion,
and the film and radio carried the process further.
....... The Ministry of Truth, Winston's place of work, contained, it was said, three thousand rooms above ground level, and corresponding ramifications below. The Ministry of Truth concerned itself with Lies. Party ownership of the print media made it easy to manipulate public opinion, and the film and radio carried the process further. The primary job of the Ministry of Truth was to supply the citizens of Oceania with newspapers, films, textbooks, telescreen programmes, plays, novels - with every conceivable kind of information, instruction, or entertainment, from a statue to a slogan, from a lyric poem to a biological treatise, and from a child's spelling-book to a Newspeak dictionary. Winston worked in the RECORDS DEPARTMENT (a single branch of the Ministry of Truth) editing and writing for The Times. He dictated into a machine called a speakwrite. Winston would receive articles or news-items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, in Newspeak, rectify. If, for example, the Ministry of Plenty forecast a surplus, and in reality the result was grossly less, Winston's job was to change previous versions so the old version would agree with the new one. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs - to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. When his day's work started, Winston pulled the speakwrite towards him, blew the dust from its mouthpiece, and put on his spectacles. He dialed 'back numbers' on the telescreen and called for the appropriate issues of The Times, which slid out of the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes' delay. The messages he had received referred to articles or news-items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to rectify. In the walls of the cubicle there were three orifices. To the right of the speakwrite, a small pneumatic tube for written messages; to the left, a larger one for newspapers; and on the side wall, within easy reach of Winston's arm, a large oblong slit protected by a wire grating. This last was for the disposal of waste paper. Similar slits existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building. As soon as Winston had dealt with each of the messages, he clipped his speakwritten corrections to the appropriate copy of The Times and pushed them into the pneumatic tube. Then, with a movement which was as nearly as possible unconscious, he crumpled up the original message and any notes that he himself had made, and dropped them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames. What happened in the unseen labyrinth to which the tubes led, he did not know in detail, but he did know in general terms. As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of The Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in its stead. In the cubicle next to him the little woman with sandy hair toiled day in day out, simply at tracking down and deleting from the Press the names of people who had been vaporized and were therefore considered never to have existed. And this hall, with its fifty workers or thereabouts, was only one-sub-section, a single cell, as it were, in the huge complexity of the Records Department. Beyond, above, below, were other swarms of workers engaged in an unimaginable multitude of jobs. There were huge printing-shops and their sub editors, their typography experts, and their elaborately equipped studios for the faking of photographs. There was the tele-programmes section with its engineers, its producers and its teams of actors specially chosen for their skill in imitating voices; clerks whose job was simply to draw up lists of books and periodicals which were due for recall; vast repositories where the corrected documents were stored; and the hidden furnaces where the original copies were destroyed. And somewhere or other, quite anonymous, there were the directing brains who co-ordinated the whole effort and laid down the lines of policy which made it necessary that this fragment of the past should be preserved, that one falsified, and the other rubbed out of existence. |
!
You’re the one attacking Catholics. I’m just defending my religion.
Is it an attack when the Church is told that material that got William Tyndale KILLED is being linked to??
http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-books/william-tyndales-translation/
And in addition to that we have a couple of other considerations in regards to that statement. It also says For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.
Also consider that Peter himself tells us this: And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts as recorded in Acts 15:8-9.
Attacking Catholicism. Big difference. You're the ones attacking anyone BUT Roman Catholics. I'm defending my faith as taught in Holy Scripture against those who insist that their religion can contradict Scripture.
So the pope, seeing Vatican II, has decided not to object to it.
Is his silence also infallable?
I see, so, in RC world everything y'all say is "advice" and everything the Non-Caths say is "attacks"? That's what you are saying? What a strange, convoluted world that is!
Tell me, when posters here say things like "Vatican II is just a pastoral council" and not binding upon all Catholics, who gets to decide that it should be ignored? How are Catholics, who have a take it or leave it attitude on things that come out of a "Dogmatic Constitution of the Church", any different that the Non-Catholic Christians here that are condemned if they determine to believe only those doctrines that can be proved by Holy Scripture? It hasn't escaped my notice that the one who posted this thread is getting little criticism from fellow Catholics. Why is that?
I would say no pope has ever spoken infallibly at any time.
Since a Pope decided he was infallible, and was in error to do so, no Pope is ever infallible.
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.