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.
Who gets to decide when the church has made a "mistake"?
Quite eerie, ain’t it??!!
No that is not what I am saying at all. Rather than make you angry I am taking a step back.
Yeah, you "say" a lot of stuff that's not true.
Sounds like some of them need a “come to Jesus” moment!
What has a pope said that could be independently verified later, that was not known at that time?
Say a specific digit of Pi that was not known at that time, but could be checked as greater knowlege was gained?
Most of what the Pope says is merely meaningless, except for that which is false.
Pi has nothing to do with faith and morals.
Next stupid question?
Pi that is in error is immoral. Having faith in a value of Pi that has errors too large for the task is immoral.
Asserting infallability falsely is immoral.
God has, as the Lord taught believers to ask God directly for forgiveness, (Mt. 6:12), and as 1 Jn. 1:9 promises, and nowhere do we see believers going to the apostles or pastors regularly going to confession in order to obtain forgiveness. Instead, even Simon was told to repent and pray to God for forgiveness.
"Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee." (Acts 8:22)
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)
However, "who has forgiven your sins?" is a good question for you, since the ones present when the Lord spoke this were not only the apostles but included other disciples. (Lk., 24:13ff) and excluded Thomas. (Jn. 20:24) Likewise binding and loosing is not restricted to clergy, though its primary application befits that office.
And as Scripture interprets Scripture we see that this primarily refers to church discipline, such as when Paul in conjunction with the whole church, not independent of it, binds an impenitent gross sinner over to the devil for remedial chastisement. (1Cor. 5:4,5)
Similarly, God can act in response to the intercession of others to remove chastisement for sin, as in Lk. 5:18-24 and James 5:14-17. But in both we see the intersession extends to other believers besides clergy. "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (James 5:16).
And while Rome invokes this for support of her clerical powers, yet in Scripture this calling of the elder for the sickwas was a precursor healing, yet in Romanism it is a normally precursor of death.
We Catholics are so fortunate to have the Sacrament of Confession available to us.
However, "we Catholics" refers to a church in schism, most of which are following a false pope,who do not confess they are, the majority of which are liberal and are counted as members in life and in death. And in contrast to us, from whom TRCs (traditional RC) cannot separate from except by being in schism. That alone is reason to avoid Rome, besides her deadness and falsities.
This is without a doubt one of the stupid things I have ever read.
May you drive over a bridge, depending on the morals and calulations of the engineer who built the bridge.
Between us is a great chasm fixed.
What??
You say that on YOUR side it’s called Purgatory?
On my side it is just fine.
Don’t know with what you have to deal.
Agreed! But not atypical from this bloke.
Now you can judge when I am "angry"? I guess any excuse will work for avoiding answering my question (for the third time). This will be the last time on this thread since I don't want to be accuse of hounding someone who won't answer a question. But it is certainly curious WHY they won't. Once again:
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'd say your threshold for calling something an "attack" is set WAY too low.
Pi has nothing to do with faith and morals. Next stupid question?
I'd say that was nowhere near suggesting some need a "come to Jesus moment".
So true!
NONE of us really know the life experiences of those we are attempting to communicate with on FR.
So many times these threads descend into a modern day version of the blind men inspecting an elephant.
It's a Catholic thang. You wouldn't unnerstan.
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.