Another Pope Francis Interview, Strap On Your Seat Belts!

[Apotheoun]

I think the Church ought to have the intention to convert others, but to approach someone with, "Hello, I'm here to convert you" is simply naïve. You present the message clearly, defend it, dismantle any ideas in the person's head that act as obstacles, and you make them understand the seriousness of the decision. I know the Conciliar Church paints it as if people get into heaven by default, and faith is not necessary, but I would strongly consider what tradition has to say. Christ apparently wept over cities that reject him, which makes no sense in the conciliar view. Why weep, oh Christ, if you will accept those who follow their conscience sincerely, even if they reject you? What we read today is nothing more than the modernist heretical ideas that sprouted a century or two ago.

I suppose a new interpretation of Christ's words in the Great Commission is coming soon. Christ said: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," but what He actually meant is "Go and talk in as vague a manner as possible about God's love, but do not intentionally try to make anyone into a disciple."

[Apteka]

I suppose a new interpretation of Christ's words in the Great Commission is coming soon. Christ said: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," but what He actually meant is "Go and talk in as vague a manner as possible about God's love, but do not intentionally try to make anyone into a disciple."

 

The Conciliar Christ

 

 

[Era Might]

I think the Church ought to have the intention to convert others, but to approach someone with, "Hello, I'm here to convert you" is simply naïve. You present the message clearly, defend it, dismantle any ideas in the person's head that act as obstacles, and you make them understand the seriousness of the decision. I know the Conciliar Church paints it as if people get into heaven by default, and faith is not necessary, but I would strongly consider what tradition has to say. Christ apparently wept over cities that reject him, which makes no sense in the conciliar view. Why weep, oh Christ, if you will accept those who follow their conscience sincerely, even if they reject you? What we read today is nothing more than the modernist heretical ideas that sprouted a century or two ago.

 

Christ did not dismantle ideas in people's heads, In fact, he refused to argue with the petty pharisees and their attempts to trap him with their scholarly learning.

 

So when someone disagrees with you, and does not buy your arguments, and to top it all off, cannot be your friend, because friendship is not based on getting someone to do something you want them to do...then what is your answer? To weep for them. Ok, while you're weeping in the corner, Pope Francis is content to be friends with them. Life goes on, friendship goes on...and, yes, conversion goes on, even when it looks like nothing has taken place.

[Apotheoun]

What kind of friend fails to share the truth with those he claims to "love". Pope Francis is going to be friends with people who do not know Christ, and who have no desire to know Him, and he is not going to even try and convince them of the necessity of faith in Christ, and so as a friend he will just sit by and let them dam[i][/i]n themselves. What a great friend.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apteka]

Christ did not dismantle ideas in people's heads, In fact, he refused to argue with the petty pharisees and their attempts to trap him with their scholarly learning.

 

Matthew 19:1-9, for your reference and meditation.

 

So when someone disagrees with you, and does not buy your arguments, and to top it all off, cannot be your friend, because friendship is not based on getting someone to do something you want them to do...then what is your answer? To weep for them. Ok, while you're weeping in the corner, Pope Francis is content to be friends with them. Life goes on, friendship goes on...and, yes, conversion goes on, even when it looks like nothing has taken place.

 

 

Just because someone rejects the truth doesn't mean you can't be friendly with them. This is a false dichotomy you are painting. But what you are suggesting is that we should not intend to convert someone because it may offend our friendship with them, and that I find to be problematic. Following the truth and advancing in spirituality is usually a difficult road with many sacrifices. You have adopted the modernist conciliar view Era, in that salvation by one's conscience, heaven if it exists is basically the default destination unless you are Adolf Hitler, so of course, why sacrifice a friendship when it's not necessary?

 

James 4:4

[Aloysius]

Apotheoun and Apteka, I have explained Francis's position as best as I can.  If you refuse to accept that and continue to calumnize him by suggesting he does not want people to convert, that he doesn't want people to evangelize and work for people's conversion, I can't stop you, but I am sorry for you.  a

 

again, there is nothing wrong with intending to convert, but there is a point to be made about what kinds of means and motives you have when doing so, which is what the modern use of the term "proselytize" the way most all theologians use it these days,  is referencing.

[Era Might]

What kind of friend fails to share the truth with those he claims to "love". Pope Francis is going to be friends with people who do not know Christ, and who have no desire to know Him, and he is not going to even try and convince them of the necessity of faith in Christ, and so as a friend he will just sit by and let them damn themselves. What a great friend.

 

lol. Get over yourself.

[Aloysius]

apo, your response to my statement about motivation only applies if one is trying to judge another's motivation, but it is perfectly reasonable as a matter of examining one's conscience.  Pope Francis didn't say "x person is proselytizing" only that "proselytizing is solemn nonsense"... we can't know another person's motivation, but we can say that people can do things for wrong motivations and that attempts to convert either by bad means or bad motives are solemn nonsense.

[Apotheoun]

Apotheoun and Apteka, I have explained Francis's position as best as I can.  If you refuse to accept that and continue to calumnize him by suggesting he does not want people to convert, that he doesn't want people to evangelize and work for people's conversion, I can't stop you, but I am sorry for you.  a

 

again, there is nothing wrong with intending to convert, but there is a point to be made about what kinds of means and motives you have when doing so, which is what the modern use of the term "proselytize" the way most all theologians use it these days,  is referencing.

Al, I appreciate your efforts. I suppose that we just do not see things in the same way. I have concerns that Pope Francis is not stating the doctrine of the Church clearly on various issues (e.g., conversion / evangelization, and conscience in this particular interview), and what he has said seems to indicate that he is going to take the Roman Church in a direction that from my perspective as a former Episcopalian looks a lot like Episcopalianism. I suppose I will have to work out my concerns through prayer and fasting. That said, I do appreciate your efforts even though they seem to promote the idea that one can know the internal disposition of other men in a way that traditionally the Catholic Church has said is not possible.

 

I believe troubled times are ahead for the Roman Church, but also for the Eastern Catholic Churches. One thing is clear to me, Pope Francis has made me think about things I have not thought about before, because he has made me question my own conversion to Catholicism in 1988. I wish he would stop giving interviews, but perhaps this is being done to cause a real shake up in the Catholic world, perhaps it is meant to bring about the conversion of many Catholics to other Churches and religions, I really do not know.

 

God grant you many years.

[Apotheoun]

apo, your response to my statement about motivation only applies if one is trying to judge another's motivation, but it is perfectly reasonable as a matter of examining one's conscience.  Pope Francis didn't say "x person is proselytizing" only that "proselytizing is solemn nonsense"... we can't know another person's motivation, but we can say that people can do things for wrong motivations and that attempts to convert either by bad means or bad motives are solemn nonsense.

That is not what Pope Francis is talking about, he said quite clearly that he has no intention of converting his interviewer. I think Pope Francis is attacking that intention itself, but I do not see how that can be conformed to the Great Commission, and if I must choose between what a particular Pope says and what Christ says, Christ will win every time.

[Apotheoun]

Al, this same debate is happening at the Byzantine Forum too, with many people defending Pope Francis no matter what he says, and others (both Eastern and Western Catholics) expressing major concern over the things he is saying.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Apotheoun

[John Ryan]

John, I've never heard the term "fundamentalist magisterium" so you'll have to elucidate what you mean by that. The gist I gather is that you believe some dogmas are erroneous?

 

Fundamentalist Magisterium is a term I learned from Father James Alison. It finds its contrast in Biblical Fundamentalism in which the words of biblical literature are taken as inerrant and infallible. Fundamentalist Magisterium is then the belief that the Pope and the congregation of cardinals are infallible in asserting dogmas. The world is much more uncertain than that in my humble opinion. Human beings have an insatiable desire to have certainty in their lives, and the idea of biblical and magisterial fundamentalism both fulfill this need.

[Apteka]

Fundamentalist Magisterium is a term I learned from Father James Alison.

 

I don't think that priest is in good standing with the Church.

 

It finds its contrast in Biblical Fundamentalism in which the words of biblical literature are taken as inerrant and infallible. Fundamentalist Magisterium is then the belief that the Pope and the congregation of cardinals are infallible in asserting dogmas. The world is much more uncertain than that in my humble opinion. Human beings have an insatiable desire to have certainty in their lives, and the idea of biblical and magisterial fundamentalism both fulfill this need.

 

 

Ok, so the Pope is not infallible as defined by Vatican I and neither is an Ecumenical Council. I presume you don't believe the Roman Catholic church is necessary for salvation either, and that one may be saved following their conscience sincerely for example. I have to ask then John, why be Catholic? If the official teachings of the Catholic Church disagree with your personal beliefs, and you feel the RC has erred, why not find a Church more suitable to your worldview? I'm asking seriously here, I never understood why people decide to stay.

[KnightofChrist]

converting someone 'intentionally' isn't really the problem, it depends upon how real and sincere you're being, on what your means and motives are.  the word proselytism is currently used (feel free to find another word if you prefer to defend the Greek original) to refer to intentions to convert either through wrong means or through the wrong motives.  the extreme ends of proselytism for means are Mormon doctrines of double-speak where they're allowed to lie if it will gain a convert, and for motives, Conquistadors whose motives for conversion are not rooted in the gospel, but are rooted in a desire for power (I guess you could point out wrong means for Conquistadors too)
 
"trying" to convert, relying on human power rather than on God, is the problem.  do or do not, there is no try ;)  have real unshakable faith that you do not feel the need to try to justify all the time (this is Pope Francis's main point about St. Paul in contrast to a proselytizer whose faith is less firm), express real true love and charity, and there is no need to "try"
 
and there's also the question of whether to get your foot in the cranberry sauce.  there are times and places when you should hope that you are sharing Christ with people simply be being sincere... explicitly attempting to steer every conversation into an attempt at conversion would be counterproductive solemn nonsense, and will make no one want to eat Thanksgiving Dinner with you.  people who get like that are demonstrating a rather weak faith that they feel the need to justify all the time by human argument, which Pope Francis in the homily on this same subject contrasted with St. Paul's example of strong faith that made him fearless to simply engage with the world in a way that brought people into an encounter with Christ.
 
in the end, there's a hugely valid point to be made here, and as I've said before, I don't think the way it came across in the interview was good... the way it came across in the Pope's homily I've referenced is fantastic though, he calls on us to emulate St. Paul in evangelizing people and explains how that is different from proselytizing, which relies on human power instead of God's power.  I don't want to put the Pope's interview on trial, merely to point out that the broad conclusions many are trying to draw from it are in no way consistent with what he's really trying to say, for what he's really trying to say I will point you one more time to this excellent account of a homily he gave in May on the very subject:
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/papa-el-papa-pope-24654/

 
Well you've succeeded in making me more confused than Pope Francis has confused me. I don't agree that "trying" to convert someone is always and foremost relying on human power. God is always the one that actually does the converting the person "trying" convert the person is a tool of God.
 
Also what is the Good the Pope and the interviewer are talking about? It's capital G good so this implies some direct connection to God.
 

Q: Your Holiness, is there is a single vision of the Good? And who decides what it is?


Pope: "Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good."



Q: Your Holiness you wrote that in your letter to me. The conscience is autonomous, you said, and everyone must obey his conscience. I think that's one of the most courageous steps taken by a Pope.


Pope:"And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough

to make the world a better place."

 

Everyone does have a understanding of good and evil, true. But many have a understanding of good and evil that contradict the understanding of good and evil of others. Some people understand evil to be good and good to be evil. So there's a real danger in encouraging people to move towards what they think is the Good.
 

And again, I still strongly disagree and do not understand why the Pope would say unemployment is the greatest evil the world faces today when in fact it is not. Millions of children murdered by abortion is at least levels above unemployment. So far I've not see many try and defend or correctly interpret that part of this interview.

Edited October 2, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Apteka]

My conscience tells me not to put any money in the basket next time I go to Church