Catechism and Solemn Nonsense



'Christian education -- the Pope says -- is not only teaching catechism and proselytizing. Never proselytize in schools.'

Don't worry, Your Holiness. Catechism isn't taught in schools and there is no proselytizing. Why try and 'fix' a 'problem' that doesn't exist?

Is it just me, or does anyone else think ecumenism (at least in its modern format) is solemn nonsense?

After all, Our Lord never commanded it.

Still, well done to the Anglicans for trying (but failing) to get cinema goers to pray during Advent.

You can watch the 'offensive' advert below.



The bizarre thing is what with all this papal talk against the solemn nonsense of proselytism, one wonders, or perhaps one already knows, what the Holy Father would say about such a brazen attempt to spread one's religion in the public square.

Never proselytize?

Comments

Anonymous said…
A very silly man!
http://www.mondayvatican.com/vatican/francis-a-pope-left-alone-at-the-command
reg said…
http://www.mondayvatican.com/vatican/francis-a-pope-left-alone-at-the-command
A very silly man!
Erik Huntzicker said…
How on earth could anyone consider that advert offensive? It's quite lovely, even if only from an aesthetic viewpoint. I simply no longer understand things. And yes ecumenism is solemn nonsense, much like sharing ones precious camp rations witty the local wolf pack. You get weaker, the wolves get stronger, and the outcome of that scenario is quite clear.
Oh, I tried to proselytise while in school.

At first for Christianity in general (including YEC), but with a Protestant understanding of it. Then, from 16, for Catholicism specifically.

Nice to hear I was wasting my time. And not getting to know those I tried to convert either.
Meanwhile for those who would desperately like something positive to say about Pope Francis.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/11/pope-francis-letter-to-the-best-hermeneutical-interpreter-of-the-second-vatican-council/
Unknown said…
So the Catholic religion is not worthy of sharing? Why be Catholic then?

Francis is simply the non-Catholic leader of the Vatican 2 Novus Ordo religion. Of course he sees no reason to spread the faith---he simply doesn't have the faith.
I wish I could say that seeing him in this light makes me less angry with him, but it doesn't. And I'm really tired of being cross.

Seattle Kim
johnf said…
So all that work by martyr missionaries like St Boniface, and even the Jesuits like St Francis Xavier was all a waste of time? To join Martyn's like St Thomas More and St John Fisher in the Bishop of Rome's dustbin of history?
Lynda said…
The antithesis of the mission of the Church, its sine qua non.
JB said…

Francis is solemn nonsense.
Nicolas Bellord said…
I do wonder what Pope Francis thinks the word 'proselytize' means. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary it simply means to convert coming from the Greek which means moving from one place to another i.e. changing an opinion. The problem is that neither he nor his supporters will ever bother to tell us so we are just left in confusion.
viterbo said…
Yeah, Seattle Kim.

"Why try and 'fix' a 'problem' that doesn't exist?"

The entire VII edifice exists to denounce Catholicism as 'witchcraft'. Done a Stirling job.

What a Lying Son of Satan said…
I wonder why Jesus Christ didn't think of this. Guess God just isn't as smart as Pope Fran!
viterbo said…
Not as smart if one is thickly in servitude to the New Heresy, with all its post-Christian bells and whistles.
Lepanto said…
Len McCluskey, who played a great part in the election of Corbyn as the leader of the opposition, has found it necessary to remind his protege publically that he cannot now, in virtue of his office, 'say the first thing that comes into his head'. What a great pity that not even one of those responsible for the election of this Pope, cannot bring themselves to do the same honourable thing.
Savonarola said…
Autres temps, autres moeurs. In my Benedictine parish some of the monks went on a visit to a Hindu temple and came back telling us how they had met holy and prayerful Hindus who were patently close to God. They seemed surprised by this and one of them in a nervous jokey way said, 'Perhaps we should baptise them.' I thought why? If they are already close to God, what could baptism give them?
I am not saying that we should not baptise other people (the Gospels have Christ saying that we should), but maybe it is no bad thing if Pope Francis' words encourage us to think again about what conversion and proselytising could be in the 21st century. Religious people are very inclined to think they know it all already and have nothing further to learn or discover about God and his ways. Open dialogue with other faiths can show us that this is not so.
Nicolas Bellord said…
Savonarola: The problem is "What does Pope Francis mean by the word proselytising when he says it is a bad thing?"
John Vasc said…
" 'Perhaps we should baptise them.' I thought why? If they are already close to God, what could baptism give them? "
1. Perhaps you should ask what it has it given *you* - you seem not to know.
2. The Gospels "in the 21st century" say exactly what they did in the 20th or the 1st Century AD. And conversion means exactly what it always did, and is Our Lord's command binding on all of us, not an optional extra.
3. 'Open dialogue' is 8not* one of Our Lord's commands, but a modernist shibboleth - often used by freemasons.
Anonymous said…
This papacy is a solemn nonsense. God bless+
Nicolas Bellord said…
On the meaning of 'proselytism' Wikipedia tells us:

'Some Christians define "proselytism" more narrowly as the attempt to convert people from one Christian tradition to another; those who use the term in this way generally view the practice as illegitimate and in contrast to evangelism, which is converting non-Christians to Christianity.'

I wonder whether this is not what Pope Francis means. It ties in with other remarks he has made.

An acquaintance of mine, a Protestant married to a Catholic wife, decided that he might like to join the Catholic Church. He went to see the Bishop who told him 'I would not bother.' The Bishop was subsequently put in charge of evangelisation by the Bishops' Conference. I have not made this up! Thank God he is no longer with us.
viterbo said…
@savonarola

It would be so breezy of an evening to belive as you do; but like all Protestants, including the Novus Ordo, you ignore both the external and internal evidence for Christ's Bride; and sublate both faith and reason with whim/satan.

viterbo said…
PS. Sav'

If you ever really conformed to Truth, you could not dare to comment so.
Lynda said…
May he repent. Lord, have mercy.
Savonarola said…
I came across this today: 'One of the perplexing dilemmas for Christianity today is how to communicate the gospel in a non-competitive way in the context of other faiths. . . .For the exclusivist Christian, of course, this is nonsensical. But perhaps. . . .the Spirit is trying to teach us something. Perhaps Christianity is learning that if it is truly universal it must find and recognize itself in all forms of human spiritual experience and in every kind of spiritual event ...'

It's exclusivists who do not listen to the Spirit who need to look at the evidence faith and reason present, who need to repent and conform to truth. Sadly all they know is not God, but "orthodox" Catholicism, so all they can do is repeat their tired old shibboleths and throw insults at anyone who dares to think differently. What an advertisement they are for Christian faith! Lord, have mercy on them.
Nicolas Bellord said…
Savonarola: Have you thought through what the passage you quote means. Do you really believe that Christianity can be found in any spiritual event e.g. a prayer to some pagan God? Are you not advocating syncretism?

As for your second paragraph how judgemental can you get? Those who disagree with you do not know God? Tired old shibboleths? Would you characterise the words of Christ in the Gospel as such? Conform to truth? What truth are you talking about - truth that can be found in any old religion? Sounds like relativism to me.
"Savonarola":

//Perhaps Christianity is learning that if it is truly universal it must find and recognize itself in all forms of human spiritual experience and in every kind of spiritual event ...//

Christianity certainly must recognise SOMETHING in every kind of spiritual event, but NOT ALWAYS itself.

Also, there is a difference between a theoretical scenario of how this or that Pagan or Un-Catholic act of piety is for some who are innocent about its errors an occasion for grace on the one hand and on the other hand the concrete reality of Pagans (both idolaters and Muslims), Jews, Heretics and Schismatics doing outwardly erroneous acts of their erroneous pieties of which we are not sure whether they are inwardly innocent of the error.
Anonymous said…
THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA, AD 325 AND THE FOUNDATION OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM

The first Council of Nicea, instituted by Constantine in 325 AD, It is often credited with forming the current accepted Canon of Scripture, and with being the start of fully Orthodox and organised Christianity. In reality, it marks the beginning of the Roman Church as an alternative to Christianity.

It is important to put Nicaea into context with other key dates of the period. In 312 Constantine was victorious at the Battle of Milvian Bridge. This is the famous battle which he declared he had won in the Name of Jesus, a claim that made it possible for him to begin winning Christians over to his new Universal (Latin catholicus) Religion. The Milvian Bridge victory did not bring Constantine total control over the Roman Empire; he still had to accommodate Licinius I who ruled the Eastern Empire. The two were very uneasy allies. Together they promulgated the Edict of Milan in the year following Milvian Bridge, removing Christianity’s illegal status. For both of them this was a natural political move, a first step to bring Christianity under the control of the Empire. They were both well aware that the intense persecution of Christians under Diocletian had served only to strengthen Christianity.

Eight years after the Milan Edict, in 321 AD, Constantine ordered that the Day of Rest be moved from the Sabbath, or Seventh Day, on Saturday, to the day of the Sun God, Sol Invictus, on Sunday. This is the reason that the Churches today still keep Sunday as if it were the Sabbath. The Seventh Day Sabbath is a principle that goes back to Creation itself. Even though the early Christians sometimes met on the first day of the week for particular reasons, such as to see Paul off on one of his journeys, or to collect donations, there is no Scriptural basis whatever for a change of the Sabbath Day. It is important to be aware that this momentous change was not made by the early Christians nor by the Council of Nicaea, but by diktat of Constantine himself, in favour of the Sun God. Constantine retained his commitment to Paganism, and this far reaching change to the calendar is profound evidence of that.

Another three years passed to 324, when Constantine finally defeated Licinius at the Battle of Chrysopolis. He was now the undisputed leader of the whole Roman Empire. The very next year, 325, he called together Christians from across the Empire to the Council of Nicea, over which he himself presided. The purpose was to consolidate his control, religious as well as military and political, over the entire Empire.

One can only surmise what the real feelings of those attending Nicaea were. For those who had no real faith, just being in a big Imperial Convention, with free travel provided, would have been enough. Others, with real faith, may have hoped that Nicaea would be a step forward for Christianity, and certainly a full turnaround from earlier persecutions. Others must have seen it as a Poison Chalice; a Christian gathering sitting at the feet of an all-powerful Sun god worshipper. Whatever they all thought, they would have been acutely aware of who was in charge. Would they have felt free to express their real thoughts? And how many Christians kept well clear from what they saw correctly as a take-over of their Faith? Opposition to the “Constantinian Shift”, as some Theologians have dubbed it, continued for many years, but was eventually suppressed.
The Council did not adopt the Canon of Scripture as we have it today. The gathering discussed some controversial issues of the day, settled the date of Easter, and produced the Nicean Creed. But its key achievement, both the most significant and longest lasting, was the confirmation of Constantine, a political and military Head of State, as Head of the Roman Catholic Church. True Christianity, which looks only to Jesus, was the loser.