A Saint Engages In Interreligious Dialogue. With Some Reflections
Follow the link to the blog “Call Me Jorge” and read an interesting page from an interesting book about the Middle Ages. if you click the page the click will lead you to the internet version of the book.
Then try to explain the differences between the approach of a King of the past, and the approach of a Pope of the present. A Pope who would not only invite the Jew to his discussion, but would insist that he eats kosher as he assures him that the Old Covenant still applies to him and wonders why men must bicker because of matters that only interest theologians.
Finally, you may want to wonder what the Saint of the past would have thought of a Pope like the present one, and how would he have gauged the latter’s chances of salvation unless repentance intervenes before death.
Whenever I read these stories from the past I feel a sense of vertigo at the thought of how the most elementary sense of Christianity has deteriorated in our time. At the same time, it is consoling to know that even in places like Cluny mistakes of the sort were made; not that the Cluny monks would have been in the least interested in “dialogue” as it is understood today (the “I am OK, you are OK” sort; they certainly had the conversion of the infidels in mind at all times), but that they too were able to lack in prudence at times.
Every Jew (or Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever else) is evangelisation material. Every Jew (or Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever else) is in danger of damnation if he dies in the denial of Christ. This being the case, one can only imagine what will might happen to a Pope that encourages infidels in their own error, and scolds the Catholics who want to convert them.
Francis must be an atheist. There is no other way how he could, otherwise, be able to sleep at night.
Posted on March 11, 2015, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged Call me Jorge Blog, False ecumenism. Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.
His constant words, actions and omissions in respect of the Deposit of Faith and the moral law, indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that he does not ascribe to, but rather, rejects the unchangeable Faith.
Agree with every word.
Thanks for calling attention to the post on Saint Louis and his view on ecumenism t with your cross-reference. In contrast, Jorge Bergoglio, Timothy Dolan, Sean O”Malley, and other high prelates so consistently fail to preach the teachings of the Church–while they pander to its enemies–that we must conclude these men do not believe and would like to replace Christ’s “hard” truths and would like to replace them with “soft” false alternatives that are limp-wristed, trendy, temporal, and will harm society as well as souls.
I saw the following in that other blog’s comments and was appalled to find the scandal exposed is current: