According to Brian Stiller, Global Ambassador of the World Evangelical Alliance, Pope Francis told him directly:
“I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism. I want people to find Jesus in their own community. There are so many doctrines we will never agree on. Let’s not spend our time on those. Rather, let’s be about showing the love of Jesus.”
Fr. Federico Lombardi, Director of the Holy See’s Press Office, has confirmed the veracity of Stiller’s report, by his deafening silence.
He also managed to confirm the twisted priorities of the current regime.
Consider the swiftness with which Fr. Lombardi went about clarifying (if you can call it that) the latest Eugenio Scalfari interview of Pope Francis. The topics that demanded such an immediate response concerned the number of pedophiles in the clergy and the Bishop of Rome’s attitude toward celibacy.
OK, I agree, these are pretty important matters for Catholics the world over, but I ask you:
What is more important than the mission that Jesus gave to His Church; a mission that absolutely concerns an interest in converting heretics to the Catholic faith?
Brian Stiller’s quote of Pope Francis has been lingering for five days now and it remains unaddressed.
The answer is simple: Pope Francis has no interest in converting Evangelicals, or anyone else for that matter, to Catholicism.
At the time of writing, Bergoglio’s Wikipedia page includes the following comment (under “Protestantism”):
Gregory Venables, Anglican Bishop of Argentina, said that Cardinal Bergoglio had told him very clearly that the Personal Ordinariate(s) (the branch of the Catholic Church set up for defecting Anglicans) was “quite unnecessary”, and that the Catholic Church needed Anglicans as Anglicans. A spokesman for the Ordinariate said the words were those of Venables, not the Pope.
They may be Venables’ words but I do not know why they should lack credibility.
Also deafening silence over at National Catholic Register. Nothing from Jimmy Akin. Is he on vacation? Pope who? This is getting embarrassing. 🙁
There was a time when the words of Popes so closely matched the teachings of the Church, that misquotes and media distortions could easily be detected and battled by the Faithful; and declarations from the Vatican were less necessary except for those perceived as most damaging if actually believed.
But today, the Pope’s purported words too often express a rebellion against select Church teachings of the Church, (such as that of her Divinely instituted Supreme status, with the 4 accompanying Marks)- which are so closely matched by his known and very public actions and words, that no declarations from the Vatican seem able to defend them or him.
We live in interesting times.
I don’t like the idea of the Pope granting media interviews or being persuaded to participate in media interviews.
I can only conclude that this Pope is granting media interviews such as these ones of his own volition.
If the content of this most recent interview is accurate, then I despair even more.
If the content of this most recent interview is inaccurate, then the interview should be immediately, and publicly, disowned by the Pope.
We live in very interesting times.
Vatican Press Office, amplifying problems since 3/13/2013, confusing souls one day at a time, copying from the USCCD. God have mercy
This is why we are instructed to hope only in God, Whose promises never fail or disappoint, leaving us with no cause to ever despair..
Psalm 145 “Put not your trust in princes…”
USCCB excuse my error
Akin is busy writing his article “Did the Pope really say evangelicals don’t need to convert?” Therein, he attempts to convince readers of what the Pope REALLY said.
Hey Joe, maybe not so much of an error.
The B is supposed to stand for Bishops,
but some of them seem to work more like the D…. 🙂
Anyone wonder why Bergoglio LOVES to grant interviews to atheist Eugenio Scalfari (the latest one being on July 10)? That way he doesn’t have to take ANY responsibility for anything that was actually mentioned by him in the interview, and the Vatican press office can simply claim he was “misquoted” or that he “actually didn’t say that”. In other words – Bergoglio can PRETEND nothing offensive was ever said and the neocons will continue believing we have a great pope!! You see heresy – now you don’t! Magic! Bergoglio is a GENIUS we have to admit in duping the hapless masses.
And in this case (regarding the lack of interest of Francis in converting evangelicals) the Vatican has not even denied that such a thing was ever mentioned!!
I guess with each new interview the trial baloons are getting bolder and bolder.
Louie’s use of the word “regime” to describe the tenure of the current occupant of the Chair of Peter was not lost on me. This is as much of a papacy as Obama’s is a presidency.
Except that it basically allows one side to dissent whenever the other side is in charge. I remember plenty of people described Bush’s presidency as a “regime” as well. In fact, I think that’s where we are heading. Whatever doesn’t agree with our preconceived beliefs will just be dismissed as illegitimate.
@Indignus, I didn’t mean to use the word despair (as in losing all hope).
Of course, hope always springs eternal.
I should have used a more accurate word to describe my disbelief at the Pope alleged comments in the media (and I really do hope that the reporting is inaccurate for all our sakes and for the Pope’s sake too).
The fact that you seem to see inherent in the papacy the property of a “side” speaks to your root misunderstandings of it, and the Church as a whole.
There is an Episcopalian (American Anglican, of course) acquaintance of mine I have evangelized as I’m able off & on for nearly a decade. Now, he can tell me the pope is on his side.
Diabolical disorientation makes Catholic apologetics so much more complex.
Bergoglio can’t convert anyone to Catholicism until he himself converts!
There is nothing to wonder about. He is continuing in the same indifferentist, relativist manner as he did before becoming Pope. As for people being duped, if they learn the Faith, and exercise reason, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, through the graces of the sacraments, etc., they won’t be duped. Dupe me once, hey, ten times, shame on you; dupe me hundreds of times, shame on me.
The Deposit of Faith does not change, nor the true Magisterium whose responsibility it is to preserve it. An individual pope can uphold the Deposit of Faith in what he says or does, or can fail to uphold it, oppose it.
Dear In Hoc. Originally Bergoglio used an interview because it allowed him to side step the official Vatican channels which would never have approved the messages he wanted to send out to the public. Now it has become an addiction.
+ + +
I have another (conspiracy) theory about this latest interview on mafioso/pedophilic sins of the Church. I think it is a huge smoke screen. I think he is attempting to divert attention. From what you ask? Glad you asked. (In no particular order.)
1. From the disastrous results of his blasphemous “prayer for peace initiative”. Ask the people in Gaza about how much “impact” that has had on their lives. Yeah, thanks for nothing Jorge. Why doesn’t he intervene now with his high-level friends in Israel? All talk? Thought so.
2. From the adverse publicity to his “private” meetings with evangelicals which has gone public and is blowing up in his face.
3. From the upcoming October synod on the family which has raised opposition to his plans of destroying Christ’s own teaching on marriage. And which exposes him as a total “mercy” phony. Merciful Jorge? No, merciless Jorge!
4. From his own problems in Argentina with handling the priest sexual abuse scandal. And I think this is the big one. No one did more to coverup sexual (and by this I mean mostly homosexual) abuse in Argentina than Mr. Jorge Bergoglio himself. This is the one that really has him running scared (IMO). Read all about it here. (It ain’t pretty):
Maybe some of those Cardinals have been doing some digging in Argentina and finding out the dirt on Bergoglio and are letting him no (old-school style) that it’s time for him to either clean up his act or face the wrath of faithful Catholics when they find out their happy pappy has been very naughty. Come to think of it this makes perfect sense, because:
1. Bergoglio made a point of saying that there are Cardinals that are pedophiles — a pre-emptive strike. (A desperate one if you ask me.)
2. He tied it in with the mafia so he can also accuse those who say bad things about him to be tied to the mafia — and claim that this is all in retaliation for him getting tough with the bad guys. (Of course he’s not one of the bad guys. Nope, he’s the pope.) If I’ve got this right then he is already stonewalling and saying “I’m not a crook” and the allegations have not even gone public yet. Sheesh. He makes Nixon look like an amateur.
3. I forgot what 3 is… I’ll post it later when I remember. It’s hard to keep up with this guy. 🙂
Yup, blowing smoke out his… well you know. One big smoke screen to keep the public and the media diverted from where the real action is. This is another one of his tactics that he pulled out of the manual for psychological warfare. And make no mistake, he has been conducting a PSY-OP warfare campaign since he became pope. Don’t underestimate him and don’t underestimate the people that pull his strings.
There is a “Detailed Summary of Case of Rev. Julio César Grassi” here:
If the allegations are correct then Bergoglio was directly involved in covering up sexual abuse.
Your lack of knowledge of Catholic history is really astounding. Do me a favor. Go to Google Books and select the free books that are mostly from the 18th and 19th centuries. Read about the sides that formed in the various conclaves. Report back what you find out.
I’ll help you start your history lesson with the following link:
Glad to hear that. It can be pretty depressing for those who are not battle-scarred, to learn what’s going on right now at the top, so we’re always on the look-out, to keep things balanced–for our own sakes as well. God Bless. 🙂
The missing Point 3 above as to why this makes sense is the following:
3. He recently met with victims of priest sexual abuse. While I hate to think that Bergoglio would stoop so low as to use these victims who have already suffered so much as a way to divert attention from his own sins, I definitely would not put it past him. Anyone who uses the Mother of God — as Bergoglio does — to push his anti-Catholic agenda is capable of this and more. May God have mercy on our souls.
@Paul Morphy “we live in interesting times”
reminds me of an old Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times”
Christ didn’t say “Go forth and dialogue”
(Matthew 28:19 Douay Rheims Bible)
“Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
He also said:
(John6;51-52 Douay Rheims Bible)
“I am the living bread that has come down from heaven. If anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever and the bread that I will give you is my flesh for the life of the world”
So if our Pope does not teach and convert, he is putting non-believers (non-Cathoics) in peril of not knowing the whole Truth and living forever. He does them no favors but it is a lack of charity to not teach the WHOLE Truth.
Christ established ONE Church, not many churches. To convert others to the Catholic Church is not for the sake of gaining numbers but for the sake of Christ .
“And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also, I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be ONE fold and One shepherd”
Also Ecumenism is condemned as a heresy in the Syllabus of Errors #10 by Pope Bl. Pius IX.
Dear Michael Leon,
As concerned parents and having been involved in researching some of the sexual abuse cases in our own diocese, we have a question regarding the case you cited here. P,lease bear in mind we in no way condone cover-ups.
From what we read, it seems Bergoglio conducted a thorough investigation, using qualified professionals, assuming innocence of the priest until proven guilty; which resulted in serious questions about the victims credibility He then tried to influence the court with that information, still believing the accused priest was innocent.
Unless he knew that the opposite was true, it seems he was trying to prevent a grave injustice to the priest.
We have to admit that the number of other accusations against the priest would make it seem likely he was guilty. Is that your basis for thinking he acted improperly?
right on MY2CENT S. This buffoon is a real problem for the church, he needs a man with a broom, shovel and wagon to follow him to clean up after him.
All this boils down to one issue…Hell. Does this Pope believe that these protestants he met with will go to Hell unless they convert to Catholicism? Do the combox opponents of the Pope REALLY believe our first divorced and remarried president, the protestant Ronald Reagan is right now burning in Hell destined to remain there for all eternity? What about their own fallen away children, parents, siblings, etc? I’d like to hook up a bunch of people to a lie detector test and find out what people really believe versus what they’re willing to write in a combox.
Dear Indignus. The bigger point is that under Bergoglio’s watch there were almost no priests found to engage in sexual abuse. The implication is that there was a systematic coverup. I was careful to say above “if the allegations are correct”. The way I read the story is that he had an investigation done not in order to get to the truth but as a way to alter the judges decision with regard to sentencing. And as I recall this included aggressively claiming that the accusers were lying. I’m inclined to believe that the whole of public opinion would have been in favor of this particular priest and for him to be convicted in a court of law in Argentina at that time is indicative that there must have been a very strong case against him. Since this priest was very close to Bergoglio the further implication is that the archbishop was involved in the coverup. I’m sure we will hear more about this story in the near future.I am presenting the story because it certainly has relevance when one considers the recent statements by Bergoglio regarding sexual abuse by priests. He certainly didn’t exhibit a “zero tolerance” policy in Argentina as archbishop and as a national leader among the bishops.
He’s too busy trying to convert everyone to socialism and world government, to worry about his job-description or what anyone thinks about him personally.
SAINT PIUS X (1903-1914) warned us: The Dream of Re-Shaping Society will Bring Socialism
“But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, ‘the reign of love and justice’ … What are they going to produce? .
A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people.”
What’s you’re point? Whether famous people or people we know intimately appear outwardly to be on their way to hell, it’s always tragic, and the subject of our daily prayers and works. It doesn’t seem to us that most folks using the combox here are hypocrites, as you seem to be suggesting, but there is a sinful judgment described by Our Lord when we take it upon ourselves to judge the state of another’s soul in a way reserved exclusively to Him.
As usual, gross misunderstandings and distortions of Traditionalist positions.
No one is declaring anyone damned here – the Church does not judge internals. However, we can certainly point out what the Church declares to be grave matter, and thus mortally sinful if committed with knowledge & consent.
You’ve already declared that you believe that [infallible] Church teaching can change. You’ve done more than declare it: you’ve adamantly in favor of it. In all honestly, I do not see how such a position is compatible with orthodoxy by any stretch.
Catholics have ALWAYS pointed out that willfully engaging in mortally sinful behavior puts one’s soul at risk. In fact, to FAIL to do this puts one in danger of the sin of participating in another’s sin, via silence. THAT’S what the Church teaches, and what the saints have always echoed. One of the spiritual works of mercy is to admonish the sinner. However, this is a concept anathematized by the liberal.
I’m entirely familiar with what you’re referring to. You are quite correct that evil has always existed. However, it has nothing at all to do with papacy properly understood.
I guess I just wonder. If you know a sibling, parent, etc. is doing something that will ultimately end up in his gruesome death wouldn’t you do EVERYTHING in your power to stop it? It just seems like people don’t really, really believe that same person is going to go to Hell which is obviously much worse than anything we can imagine on earth.
It’s true that it’s easy to be negative, and that being caught up in “bitter zeal” can be a real danger for the traditionalist. That’s why I like to keep in mind, along with the 1900-year witness of the saints, some wise words of Bishop Fellay:
“The attitude of the faithful
First of all, they must keep the faith. This is the primary message, we can say, of Saint Paul; it was also the message for the times of persecution: be firm, state [in Latin], hold on, remain standing, stand firm in the faith. Keeping the faith cannot be merely theoretical. There is such a thing as what I would call “theoretical” faith: the faith of someone who is capable of reciting the Creed, he has learned his catechism, he knows it, he is capable of repeating it, and of course this sort of faith is the beginning; you have to have it, or else you do not have the faith. But this faith does not yet lead to heaven. This is what you have to understand. The faith that Scripture speaks about is the faith that is—to use the technical expression—informed by charity. Saint Paul was speaking about this relation between Faith and Charity when he said to the Corinthians: “If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains,” (which is no small thing, since a faith that can move mountains is not something you see every day!) “and have not charity, I am nothing…. I am only a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal….”
**It is not enough to make great professions of faith**; it is not enough to attack or condemn errors; many think that they have fulfilled their duty as Christians when they have done this, but that is an error. I am not saying that you should not do it; it is one part, but the faith that Saint Paul and Sacred Scripture speak about is informed faith, in other words, faith imbued with charity. Charity is what gives form to faith. Charity is the love of God and consequently the love of neighbor. Therefore it is about a faith that turns toward this neighbor who is certainly in error and reminds him of the truth, but in such a manner that, thanks to these reminders, the Christian will be able to sow the faith, reestablish someone in the truth, lead this soul toward the truth. Therefore it is not a bitter zeal; on the contrary it is a faith made warm by charity.”
Error and falsehood require a negative response: this is the duty of a Catholic. Allow me to quote another giant of the faith, Dr. von Hildebrand, on the topic of the “positivity” of modern society, from “The Devastated Vineyard”:
“**Indignation over something evil is just as much a pure value response as enthusiasm for something good**. Because both of these responses are fitting and appropriate with respect to their objects, and are indeed required by them, and because furthermore they both belong together, they both have a value, they are both something positive.” (pp 167)
And: “And so we have to emphasize again: the rejection of evil and of sin is a response which is purely positive and morally called-for, and it possesses a high moral value. One cannot true love God without hating the devil. One cannot really love the truth without hating error. One cannot find the truth and grasp it clearly as such without seeing through errors. Knowledge of truth is inseparably linked with knowledge of error, with the unmasking of error. All talk about the superiority of ‘yes’ over ‘no’, about the ‘negativity’ of rejecting that which should be rejected is so much idle chatter.”
ACT, first let me say that I have been HELPED by your interaction with me. You have caused me to rethink some things and I now tend to believe your interpretation of V2 and the post-conciliar magisterium is worthy of serious consideration as it concerns whether or not V2 and the post-conciliar popes intended to BIND their teachings. I still believe that a Pope cannot teach error in an approved catechism or an encyclical and I’m still not sure where you stand on that.
Second, you misinterpret my belief about what can and cannot change. I don’t believe a Pope could teach that Our Lady wasn’t assumed in to Heaven body and soul. That is a historical fact not subject to later revision due to changing circumstances. Having said that, there are things that can change. The teaching on usury can change because of changing economic circumstances. And while I don’t believe the Kaspar proposal on divorce and remarriage could be consistent with previous Catholic teaching, I do believe the Pope could, for instance, decide that marriages are no longer to have presumed validity due to the changing social circumstances where some couples believe they can go into a marriage with the firm decision to never have children.
As always, in order to keep my faith that the Catholic Church is what she claims to be, I believe the Holy Ghost protects the Pope from teaching error officially. If a change is made, I MUST believe that God wants that change due to some change in circumstances. If a change was made in an area that was not able to be reconciled in my mind with changing circumstances, I would have to reconsider my position that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of God. So far, nothing has been done that has caused me to do that.
Finally, I stand by my position that combox warriors don’t really seem to think that people are really, really going to Hell. People can get themselves worked up into righteous indignation when Cardinal Dolan says something stupid about Michael Sam but where are the marches against no-fault divorce? Why aren’t people demanding legislation to ban pornography and strip clubs? It is easy to be against sins that you have no chance of ever being tempted by.
Yes you would do everything in your power to stop it, if you are motivated by love as we all should be. But that “everything” is limited by your particular circumstances, as well as those of the potentially damned, and by the gift we all have from God, of free will, which even God allows to limit his actions.
Were he to force us to do good, in order to save our souls from hell, we would essentially be robots. So He gives us all we need, both naturally and by Grace, to come to know and do right. The fact that He allows evil to go on in this world, is another example of the importance He places on the gift of free will.
You are very right to view Hell as a horrifying, eternal destiny. That is what should motivate every one of us, to pray, suffer willingly for others, making sacrifices, offering our daily duties, exhorting where possible. etc.
But sometimes that person is better able to be helped by another, and knowing when to let go and allow that, takes some discernment.
___When the person doing the harm is an authority, like the Pope, we owe the same love to him, as to anyone else, plus we have an added duty of praying for our anointed leaders, for their protection from the Devil. And when he harms the faithful in our protection, we have another duty to speak out and proclaim the truth, denouncing the evil. . It all has to be balanced, and the law of love of God first and neighbor as self, helps us to do that properly..
Rebellion is so true. What is most sad is that ‘good’ Catholics are turning themselves into ‘non-serviam’ rebels against God in their attempt to stay ‘on side’ with these rebels.
“What is more important than the mission that Jesus gave to His Church; a mission that absolutely concerns an interest in converting heretics to the Catholic faith?” In the VIIcounterchurch, anything and everything is more important than this precisely because its counterchurch.
Headline from the EF blog: “Vocations Boom Via Old Mass in Paraguay — Pope Francis Orders Visitation”
Link here: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/07/vocations-boom-via-old-mass-in-paragua.html
A real life eternal struggle between St Michael Archangel and the evil one, right before our very eyes.
WWF, eat your heart out 😉
PS Pray for Faithful in Portugal and Malta, so that they can regain the patrimony stolen from them by the modernists.
And this from Father Z: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/07/traditional-young-catholics-groups-are-spreading-quickly/
Dear Michael Leon
You make a good argument in that statistically it seems impossible for there to have been zero cases, and that the priest was found guilty despite that climate. Also, the easiest place for one of them to operate freely is in a home for orphans or street children.
Given the Pope’s track record for preferring mercy over justice, it’s not hard to believe he would instinctively defend someone he was close to, and maybe even believe him that he was being set-up. But when more than one victim surfaced, it’s very hard to understand how any adult, much less someone who claims to have so much love for the poor, could act to keep such a sick person free to roam the streets and victimize other children–where is his sense of mercy for them? We’ve seen it again and again with various bishops, around the country, and most of them claimed to be uninformed as to the nature of the Beast they were dealing with, thinking it could be cured with counselling, etc.
You’re right, when this gets known, his credibility with the general public may take a decided nose-dive. God’s will be done, and truth be known.
you wrote: “but where are the marches against no-fault divorce? Why aren’t people demanding legislation to ban pornography and strip clubs? It is easy to be against sins that you have no chance of ever being tempted by”.
First, what makes you think that there have not been numerous protestations of these things, and by the very people you are accusing? Second. Have you, yourself tried writing letters and making phone calls on these issues? If you had, you would not likely be asking those questions, because you’d know how ineffective those means have proven to be in the past in changing those particular laws, which the Supreme Court has upheld in the name of free speech etc, and that by and large, folks have resorted to campaigning for better representatives and Presidents, and working to educate people to effect changes in the government.
But the real bottom line in our society has been the problem with the Church-either staying silent or supporting the wrong things, both in public and from the pulpits and in the confessionals.
It seems from your writing that you’re smart enough to know all those things, so we’re left with the impression you just want to point fingers at others, which just makes you seem rather petty. We hope you’ll consider that, and reassess your accusations.
“If a change was made in an area that was not able to be reconciled in my mind with changing circumstances, I would have to reconsider my position that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of God.”
You tread under incredibly dangerous ground if you pin your faith down to the proposition that no change will be made that could be reconciled in your mind to changing circumstances.
First off, Kasper’s proposal, as far as I am aware, has nothing to do with the validity of the marriage. It is merely about couples realising that their marriage didn’t work out, getting a civil divorce, and after a period of penance or whatnot, being remarried and basically allowing them to commit the sacrilege of receiving holy communion under the state of mortal sin. So, Kasper’s proposal is independent of the fact that Bergoglio allegedly believes around half of all marriages are invalid. That is merely a smoke screen issue to distract the hapless duped masses from the veritable abomination they want to implement. According to the proposal, allowing you to receive communion under the state of mortal sin is independent of whether you were in one of these allegedly fake marriages.
So, basically, Kasper’s proposal (presumably) already meets the criteria of something that would cause you to reconsider your faith.
Secondly, if Kasper’s proposal (which has Bergoglio’s approval) doesn’t meet your criteria of “this is a red line” probably nothing else would. Contraception could also be hypothetically approved “due to changing circumstances” such as “overpopulation” and “depletion of the world’s resources”.
Remember: if you pin your faith down to the thought that “I WILL BELIEVE AS LONG AS THIS DOESN’T HAPPEN…” you are putting yourself in the position where likely future events could shake your faith to their very foundations. It leads me to believe that your faith is not nearly as strong as you allow yourself to believe. What kind of faith is it that is CONDITIONAL on some event not happening? A true Catholic would UNCONDITIONALLY cling to the Mystical Body of Christ during Her mystical passion, much like Our Lady and St John stood at the foot of the cross during Christ’s bitter passion.
In some respects, you remind me of our old friend Peter, who doubted much due to the tribulations the Church is undergoing. With the only difference that while he CLEARLY saw with his eyes what is happening all around us, you decide to stick your head in the sand.
But if one morning you wake up, and you find that the blindness has been finally lifted from your eyes, will you still cling to the faith?
“You tread under incredibly dangerous ground if you pin your faith down to the proposition that no change will be made that could NOT be reconciled in your mind to changing circumstances.”
@B.Attitudes : I agree with the points which you make here. Nonetheless looking at the signs of our age – and we are commanded to look at the signs of our age – we live in very interesting times right now.
We have the current Pope, with his predecessor in situ.
We have the current Pope allegedly discussing the possibility that parts of traditional teaching may be changed.
Quote: “If a change was made in an area that was not able to be reconciled in my mind with changing circumstances, I would have to reconsider my position that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of God.”
An interesting point. The answer to this thought proposal usually determines where traditionalists end up, whether that be empty chair, SSPX, absolute need for water baptism, indult, fallen away, etc.
I tend to fall into the “absolute necessity of water baptism” camp, otherwise known as “Feenyism” in song and story. What is positive about this position in my mind is that it has me looking at the infallible decrees of the Church and not taking my eyes off of them, not matter what. They cannot fail.
As is the case for many others, Our Lady of Fatima is very important to me. I’m not sure where I would end up of not for the revelations and prophecies of Fatima, but I fall in line where I do because of Her.
Thanks for your feedback IHSV but I disagree. You are REQUIRED to believe the following from the infallible 1st Vatican Council:
“Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.”
Are you really saying there is nothing the Pope could do that would cause you to reject the above doctrine as not true?
Thanks for totally ignoring my argument and questions.
The infalllible statement from Vatican I does not depend upon any actions that Bergoglio may or may not do. It is like saying whether the sun will rise tomorrow or not depends on which direction the wind will blow. We know that the sun will rise tomorrow. We know not which direction the wind will blow.
Theologians and doctors of the church have given ample thought and discussion to the problem that arises when a putative successor to St Peter strays from Catholic doctrine.
For the remaining Catholics still in posession of a functioning brain, here I present to you what is probably the most anthropocentric comment by Bergoglio to date:
“The Pope thanked those present for their work and their initiatives “to restore balance to this imbalanced situation and to recover mankind, restoring him to the centre of reflection and the centre of life. He is the king of the universe!” he exclaimed. “And this is not theology, it is philosophy and human reality.” ”
Ok. I think I understand you now. Sedevacantism. Well, I’ve considered it but I don’t believe a 56 interregnum with no cardinals is compatible with the Church’s teaching on indefectibility. So, I am back to my original position…the Holy Ghost will not allow a Pope to change a teaching that is by its very nature unchangeable.
I’m sorry, but I don’t hold to the sedevacantist position. I don’t believe Fr Cekada is the magisterium of the Church to tell catholics that the new rite of episcopal ordination is invalid.
Instead of directly answering or refuting my points the best you can do is pretend you can read into another’s mind?
Sorry pal. You’ll have to shoot something better than that.
And you’re still TOTALLY eluding my comment and questions to you. Presumably you are utterly clueless on how to respond.
I’m sorry friend to wake you up from your slumber, but Card Kasper’s heretical teaching DOES change church teaching (and contradict sacred scripture too) that receiving communion in mortal sin is sacrilege and brings down God’s wrath upon us.
“I tend to fall into the “absolute necessity of water baptism” camp, otherwise known as “Feenyism” in song and story. What is positive about this position in my mind is that it has me looking at the infallible decrees of the Church and not taking my eyes off of them, not matter what. They cannot fail.”
The error of Feeneyism starts with the misunderstanding that to accept that baptism of desire means that the infallible decree that baptism is necessary has somehow been invalidated: it has not by any means.
There are general necessities and specific necessities; it is true to say that in general water baptism is necessary for the salvation of mankind, but not to say that *water* baptism is necessary for the case of every individual. God is not bound by His own laws, and – what is especially missed by Feeneyites – baptism of desire IS BAPTISM. The Church has clarified these things in authoritative documents.
It is also true that the Eucharist is generally required for the salvation of souls, but not in every specific case.
Feeneyism is an error of oversimplification, and a consequence of the intense levels of confusion and poor catechesis that exist in the Church today. (Feeneyism didn’t exist before the crisis of modernism; Catholics generally always understood that baptism of desire could be salvific. Feeneyism is an [over-] reactions to modern error of indifferentism.)
But, the Church has spoken to these questions, and loong ago as well (2nd or 3rd century).
I’m not trying to be obtuse IHSV. I agree that Cardinal Kasper’s “solution” to the divorce and remarriage issue is heretical which is why I don’t believe it will ever be implemented. The Holy Ghost wouldn’t allow it. Having said that, let’s say it did happen. What would you do?
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich in the early 19th century spoke about baptism of desire for the three magi who came to adore the Infant Christ.
In Hoc, nice job.
I think you will find – you are already finding – that Mr. G is difficult to pin down; he’s always shifting.
My conclusion – and I base this only on direct experience (a lot of it now) and make no assertions much less judgements as to the state of his soul – is that he’s either not sincere or not a coherent thinker. He either does not understand Church teaching regarding authority, or pretends not to. And I don’t mean just the things traditionalists emphasize: solid neo-Catholics would call (have called) his assertions about the shifty nature of doctrine nonsensical as well.
But Kasper’s “solution” IS being implemented as we speak. Just look at what is happening in Germany.
If official approval came from the Vatican I would continue to remain a Roman Catholic and practice the faith as before. My faith is not dependent on whatever heresies may or may not emanate out of the Vatican, even if they come from the TOP of the hierarchy.
And you? Would you cowardly jump ship (presumably) like our old friend Peter?
It’s getting late around my neck of the woods.
Wake me up if you decide to get around to answer my arguments.
If official approval came from the Vatican I would continue to remain a Roman Catholic and practice the faith as before. My faith is not dependent on whatever heresies may or may not emanate out of the Vatican, even if they come from the TOP of the hierarchy.
Ok but then I fail to see how you could adhere to the First Vatican Council’s teaching on the submission due to the Pope. Both you and ACT have said that I’m not making much sense so I’m going to assume that I’m the problem here. I just don’t know how to make myself much clearer but I’ll keep trying as long as Louie allows it.
I assure you that I am sincere but maybe I am not a coherent thinker as that seems to be the general consensus here.
I didn’t mean to evade your question about what I would do IF a Pope were to say define that Our Lord didn’t actually rise from the dead. Yes, I would jump ship as that would indicate to me that what the Church has always taught about Her own infallibility and indefectibility couldn’t possibly be true.
Sometimes the person in an unrepentant state of mortal sin will not listen to you, refuses aggressively to hear the truth, and so all you can do is pray, have Masses said, perhaps try getting others to teach, persuade them, etc. it’s especially difficult when many priests and bishops refuse to speak the truth. I know I am truly suffering with the worry about particular persons heading towards hell. Blessed Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle . . .
I have protested against divorce and pornography.
There is a necessary implicit qualification to this, which is so obvious that there is no need to state it explicitly – that is one must submit to the pope in matters of discipline or Church government WHERE HIS DIRECTIONS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH, THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, SACRED TRADITION AND SCRIPTURE, OR DIVINE LAW, THE NATURAL MORAL LAW, WHICH AS UNIVERSAL AND INFINITE TRUTH CANNOT CHANGE – AND UPON WHICH THE VERY AUTHORITY OF THE POPE DEPENDS ABSOLUTELY.
“The error of Feeneyism starts with the misunderstanding that to accept that baptism of desire means that the infallible decree that baptism is necessary has somehow been invalidated: it has not by any means.”
Yeah, I know, because there’s baptism of desire and it’s a real and true sacrament and it’s all authoritative and old. And if I can’t understand this I’m too simple and confused and basically stricken with “Feeneyism.”
You state that God is not bound by His own laws. Hmmm…what exactly does this mean??? I presume that since we are talking about baptism what this presumably means is that even though Jesus said “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” John 3:5, it really doesn’t apply, because if there can be one exception, there can be an infinite number of exceptions. But this is absurd.
Why try and split hairs and deduce by our great thinking when the sacrament of baptism needs true and natural water and just exactly when this doesn’t apply because God is on vacation somehow. We can by our great thinking try to save the ignorant native or the sincere protestant but what if we lose our own souls as a result of not believing and preaching the salutary dogma of baptism. We can by our great thinking stand before the great tribunal of judgement and act as lawyer for that unfortunate catechumen but how does it profit our own souls if we ourselves go to Hell as a result.
What is so difficult? Just get the water and tell others that they need to get the water. God, by His providence, will get the sacrament to those —He desires— to have it.
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
Session VII, Canons on Baptism :
Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema.
P.S. When the Council of Trent speaks of obtaining a sacrament by “desire” it is referring to confession, i.e. perfect contrition, something I highly recommend. Session VII, Canon IV, on the sacraments in general.
P.S.S. The Eucharist is not, strictly speaking, by necessity of means, necessary for salvation. You’ve just committed “Feeneyism” by being too simple and confusing.
We’ve been reading this thread with great interest, and wonder why you keep repeating the same question, when it’s been answered, as if it were not addressed.
Lynda, above wrote
:There is a necessary implicit qualification to this, which is so obvious that there is no need to state it explicitly – that is one must submit to the pope in matters of discipline or Church government WHERE HIS DIRECTIONS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH, THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, SACRED TRADITION AND SCRIPTURE, OR DIVINE LAW, THE NATURAL MORAL LAW, WHICH AS UNIVERSAL AND INFINITE TRUTH CANNOT CHANGE – AND UPON WHICH THE VERY AUTHORITY OF THE POPE DEPENDS ABSOLUTELY.
What is your resonse to her?
You sure as heck are still evading the question at hand.
But at any rate now we can see that you, a mere sinful creature, dare to place conditions on God for your faith.
Good luck on holding fast to the faith once THE abomination of desolation (i.e. the Anti-Christ) comes around.
If a pope were to PURPORT to declare such ex cathedra, it could only mean he was not the pope, as he would not be a member of the Catholic Church.
What would I say to that? I would say it smacks of protestantism. Every heretic always thinks he is holding to the true deposit of faith, the doctrine of faith, etc. They ALL believe that some Pope or Council went off the rails at some point in the past and they hold the “real” faith. Look at all divisions in the trad world. Everyone of them believes that they have the true faith. SSPX, SSPX-resistance, SSPV, CMRI, etc. etc. This is what inevitably happens when you break communion with the one man appointed on earth to settle these issues.
What specific question am I evading?
Ganganelli, you are very confused. Protestantism has nothing whatever to do with this. This is a necessary, inherent truth. If it were to be otherwise, it would be absurd. The Catholic Faith is not absurd. It never conflicts with objective reason. You are portraying the Faith as something changeable according to the erroneousideas of a particular pope. No rational person of good will, who subscribes to the Faith could deny that submission is not due to the pope in matters of discipline or governance when what he says or directs is (as a matter of objective truth) in contravention of the Deposit of Faith or the Divine Law. The Deposit of Faith is objectively fixed and finite. The content of the Faith and morals are unchanging and accessible to all (even children who have attained the age of reason). To deny the unchangeable and knowable nature of the Faith is to reject the Catholic Faith.
There exists objective truth and objective error. It is not dependent on what a pope may say or do. A pope may err, objectively, in matters outside of Faith and Morals declared solemnly ex cathedra. The Faith is never unreasonable and adherence to it never requires jettisoning ones reason to follow statements or actions of a pope tha do not conform to the sacred and unchangeable and knowable content of the Faith. For example, if the pope says something that contradicts the Cathechism of the Church, he is in error, not the unchanging Magisterium which preserves the Faith, as described in the Cathechism. Read Robert de Mattei’s succinct letter to Fr Fanzaga of 13 February for a simple explanation.
You mention heretics. There are heresies only because the Faith has substantive, unchangeable, always-and-everywhere true, content. It is definite, not something vague or nebulous. The problem you refer to is a procedural one regarding how to formally deal with error by a particular person, within the hierarchical Church. That is a separate matter. It is the substantive matter that is being discussed here – the Faith has substance, and all members of the age of reason are required to learn it.
We are talking past each other so maybe an example would be better.
There are traditionalists who believe that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation in all cases. They believe that is the substantive, unchangeable, always-and-everywhere truth. They will cite Popes, doctors of the Church, Church fathers etc. in support of their position.
Now then, how do we know they are wrong? Because the Church through her councils and Popes have told me so. St. Augustine said it best, “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.”
Christ also said that unless one receives the Eucharist he has no life within him – his soul will perish. Yet, very few Feeneyists argue that it is impossible to be saved without physical communion. It is, because God does not bind Himself with his own sacraments – which He created for our benefit in the first place.
Some people are unable to “get the water” because they died while catechumens or even without know the true faith directly. The Church has always taught that a soul that follows natural law and never commits mortal sin, or achieves perfect contrition after mortal sin, will not be punished by eternal torments.
(I know that Feeneyists like to imagine that God dispatches an angel to perform water baptism for such persons in the 11th hour. Such thinking illustrates just how silly Feeneyism is: God knows the heart, and knows the soul, and is able to confect the grace that in the normal case is given by water baptism, without it. The testimonies to this among saints, doctors, and popes are numerous.)
Here are more substantial responses to your arguments:
Despite your sarcastic rejoinder, Feeneyism remains an error regarding a question that was clarified by the Church many centuries ago. God bless.
You constantly muddy the waters with nonsense. Just as there are people confused by Feeneyism in this time of great confusion, there are also countless divisions among neo-Catholics over Communion in the hand, “altar girls”, capital punishment, and many other topics.
“Rome has spoken, the case is closed” refers to infallible teaching. You consistently make use of what I can only call extreme oversimplifications to make your case (or state your confusion). I am not going to repeat myself, or others, for the 100th time. You are either insincere or you need to take a break from blog comments and study Catholic doctrine enough to get past the meaningless (in the way you use them) euphemisms.
Man you are exasperating! The whole point is that OUR SOLE reference point for what constitutes actual, authentic Catholic teaching whether the issue is baptism, invincible ignorance, usury, predestination, free will, etc. etc. is the Papal magisterium. How hard is that to understand? YOU are not the judge of Tradition. LYNDA is not the judge of Tradition. Ganganelli is not the judge of Tradition. As Pope Pius IX said, “I AM TRADITION!”
It would appear that there is now even more confusion about what was said, or what was not said, what was accurately reported, what was not accurately reported, in the latest interview published by Eugenio Scalfari with the Pope.
On a human level, Fr.Lombardi has my sympathies given the level of (deliberate?) confusion that is being sown as a result of these series of interviews.
I can’t recall there being this level of apparent confusion during Joaquín Navarro-Valls tenure.
We gladly join our prayers to yours for them. Please pray for us as well.
We really have to question the common sense of someone in a position of religious authority over vast numbers of people, who would grant a second permission to publish an interview regarding religious matters, to a man in his 90’s, who had shown himself to be damagingly irresponsible and inaccurate in the first one, and who was said not to have even taken notes.
Assuming common sense is NOT the problem, we are left with the obvious alternative that the choice to do so was made knowing the Pope’s words would very likely be reported in the same manner, and then the question becomes, why would anyone WISH that to be the case? Is it any wonder people are left speculating about nefarious intentions?
Ganganelli, you are making a different point, entirely. The point I made about the necessary parameters to submission to a pope re discipline in or governance of, the Church – is simple, necessary logic. Without which, the Faith, morals and ecclesiastical law are absurd – which they are not. Your exasperation would appear to be related to your inability to understand simple logic.
And, the unchanging Magisterium is charged with the preservation of the whole Deposit of Faith. Verbal or non-verbal actions of a pope outside of the infallible Magisterium (which involves strict criteria) can be erroneous, and erroneous to the extent of being objectively in conflict with the Deposit of Faith or morals, which a Catholic who knows his Cathechism ought to and can recognise.
Formal procedures regarding formal findings within the hierarchical Church is another matter.
In the same way, we can know (using our God-given reason and instruction in the Faith) that a pope is wrong when he claims (explicitly or implicitly) something which opposes the unchanging Magisterium of the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church.
God bless you. I pray you are being sincere.
His relativism ought to be challenged & rebuked – Benedict XVI used to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about the evils of relativism – so why is the Pope who follows him allowed to get away with relativism (and with liturgical abuses – another evil that Francis’ predecessor rebuked when lesser beings than Popes were guilty of it) ?
Apparently, what is heinously wrong when mere PPs or laity do it, is A-OK when the offender is the Pope: which is a perfect example of relativism. That is not Catholicism. Francis’ predecessor seems to be a relativist as well 🙁