Jason Hauser.'s latest attack: "A Humble Pope?"

A Humble Pope?
Written by Jason Hauser.
When Pope Benedict XVI's successor, Jorge Bergoglio, was announced as the new Pope, the one word that many used to describe him was "humble." The Italian born pope from Argentina is of the Jesuit order which is known for their vows of poverty and work among the poor.

Hauser here displays his lack of due diligence in his articles because look at Pope Francis bio.

Pope FrancisFrancis is the 266th and current Pope of the Catholic Church, elected on 13 March 2013. As such, he is Bishop of Rome, the head of the worldwide Catholic Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State.

Born: December 17, 1936 (age 76), Buenos Aires

Nationality: Argentine

Education: University of Buenos Aires

Parents: Regina Maria Sivori, Mario Jose Bergoglio

Pope Francis is Argentinian and only his dad was Italian born.

 Pictures and articles have surfaced revealing that as an archbishop, Bergoglio took the public bus and cooked his own meals. When it was announced that he would be known as Pope Francis I, the connection was quickly made to St. Francis of Assisi, who renounced his wealth to live a life of poverty and service to others. Many have rejoiced that this is just the kind of humble leader that will further ecumenical relationships and win greater favor for Roman Catholicism.
He is also wrong on the small point that His Holiness is simply Pope Francis. There is no Pope Francis I until and unless there is a Pope Francis II.

Francis of Assisi is known as "the mirror of Christ", so how can a Pope who chooses his name as a patron and so far has been so exemplary of Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ be a problem?

There is great irony however with the premise of a humble Pope. The papacy overseeing and affirming the teachings of Roman Catholicism has long been anything but humble. In the 14th century, Pope Boniface VIII was so bold as to claim in his papal bull, Unam Sanctum: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Fifty years later, Pope clement VI declared in his writing, Super Quisbusdam, "...no man of the wayfarers outside of the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved...all who have raised themselves against the faith of the Roman Church and have died in final impenitence have been damned and have descended to the eternal punishments of hell." Just before the turn of the 20th century, Pope Leo XIII declared, "He who would separate himself from the Roman Pontiff has no further bond with Christ." These papal declarations, by popes who claim to speak infallibly on faith and morals, couldn't be more clear, that salvation is dependent upon obedience and submission to popes. The Biblical response to this nonsense can be found in Acts 4:12; Col. 1:18, 1 Tim. 2:5; John 14:6 and Eph. 5:23.

Which has been the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years. The fact is that those who are fully informed as to the truths of the Catholic faith and then chose to reject them, do so at the peril of their souls. This is no different than so many non-Catholics who preach that anyone who does not "get saved"/"accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" face the same fate.

Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ established only one Church. and this is no news

 Over the last 1500 years, Rome has written her own history and would lead all to believe that such bold and arrogant statements by Popes are fully justified.
Naturally Hauser offers no documentation of this rewriting of any history, because no such thing has occurred and so no evidence exists. Sadly some of his readers will be gullible enough not to question that and that is one problem with propaganda like this.
 But throughout history we see continual opposition to Rome's unbiblical claims. In the third century, for example, Cyprian called out the bishop of Rome, Stephen I, for claiming to excommunicate all churches who disagreed with him. Cyprian wrote that no one should "set himself up as a bishop of bishops" or by "tyrannical terror force his colleagues to the necessity of obeying."
Naturally this is removed from context and the smart man will carefully review the following. SAINT CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE
Later in the 6th century, the bishop of Rome, Gregory I, was very outspoken against the bishop of Constantinople, John IV, using the title "Universal Bishop." He warned him of "all who flatter you and offer you this name in error" and not to "foolishly consent to be called by the proud title." While history reveals that Gregory used his powerful position in questionable ways, he was resolved to reject such antichristian pride and usurpation of Christianity by a singular bishop.
 This is just more inaccurate anti-Catholic propaganda that does not prove true in the context of the historic facts, Take note:
In view of later developments Gregory's dealings with the Oriental Churches, and with Constantinople in particular, have a special importance. There cannot be the smallest doubt that Gregory claimed for the Apostolic See, and for himself as pope, a primacy not of honor, but of supreme authority over the Church Universal. In Epistle 13.50, he speaks of "the Apostolic See, which is the head of all Churches", and in Epistle 5.154, he says: "I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church." As successor of St. Peter, the pope had received from God a primacy over all Churches (Epistle 2.46; 3.30; 5.37; 7.37). His approval it was which gave force to the decrees of councils or synods (Epistle 9.156), and his authority could annul them (Epistles 5.39, 5.41, 5.44). To him appeals might be made even against other patriarchs, and by him bishops were judged and corrected if need were (Epistles 2.50; 3.52; 3.63; 9.26; 9.27). This position naturally made it impossible for him to permit the use of the title Ecumenical Bishop assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster, at a synod held in 588. Gregory protested, and a long controversy followed, the question still at issue when the pope died. A discussion of this controversy is needless here, but it is important as showing how completely Gregory regarded the Eastern patriarchs as being subject to himself; "As regards the Church of Constantinople," he writes in Epistle 9.12, "who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious lord the emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it."

At the same time the pope was most careful not to interfere with the canonical rights of the other patriarchs and bishops. With the other Oriental patriarchs his relations were most cordial, as appears from his letters to the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria.

Regardless of any winsome humble acts that Pope Francis might display, his very position and affirmation of the teachings of Roman Catholicism reveal that he is, in fact, a cleverly disguised deceiver of a false gospel (2 Pet. 2:1-3). 
Which is your errant opinion Mr Hauser and you are entitled to it, but the rest of the world is entitled also to the truth. I feel pretty certain that few people will accuse you or your boss Mike Gendron of many "winsome humble acts" especially after seeing how you misrepresent Catholic teachings and attempt to distort them by cherry picking them over out of context.

Perhaps readers here will also be interested in my blog article that speaks to who exactly is offering " a cleverly disguised deceiver of a false gospel".
Who REALLY Preaches "A Different Gospel"?
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

Mike (Gendron's) Observations of the First Jesuit Pope: Refuted

Mike (Gendron's) Observations of the First Jesuit Pope: Refuted

Mike's Observations of the First Jesuit Pope Within minutes after appearing for the first time to hundreds of thousands of Catholics in St. Peter's Square, Pope Francis, the first Jesuit pope, announced that he would be praying to Mary for the protection of Rome. Not once did he mention the name above all names, the name of Jesus. The Vatican released this statement about his first official act: "Francis began his first day as pope with a visit to a Roman basilica dedicated to the Virgin Mary and prayed before an icon of the Madonna." No one must have told him that praying to anyone other than God is forbidden by the Word of God (Ex. 20:4; 1 Tim. 2:5). Okay...here we go again with this guy. As usual Gendron wants to make an issue of Catholic Marian devotion, but of course he doesn't even understand it even though he claims that he was once Catholic.
Those who want an excellent and factual source for apologetics on Marian belief should invest $10.00 on.

During his first papal Mass, his message was not about the Lord Jesus Christ, but on Joseph, the husband of Mary. He asked, "How does Joseph respond to his calling to be the protector of Mary, Jesus and the Church?" "By being constantly attentive to God, open to the signs of God's presence and receptive to God's plans."This is nothing more than a desperation attempt with polemics. Who does Gendron think His Holiness is inspired by? Mickey Mouse? This is so shamefully weak as to be almost pitiful. Furthermore, isn't what Pope Francis said a very clear statement of what being a fully committed Christian really is all about?
Delegations from 33 Christian denominations and 132 national governments or international organizations, as well as Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist leaders, came to Rome for his inauguration mass. Among the many religious leaders who attended was the spiritual head of the world's Orthodox Christians, Bartholomew I. He became the first patriarch to attend a papal ordination since the two branches of Christianity split nearly 1,000 years ago. Also attending for the first time was the chief rabbi of Rome. Their presence underscores the broad hopes for the pope's ecumenical and interfaith dialogue for unity.Gendron loves to bang on about this as if it's wrong, but if he didn't waste so much time on his anti-Catholic drivel and propaganda, he might actually win some souls. (See Proverbs 11:30)
The next day, the new pope met representatives of other Christian communities and other religious groups, including Jewish, Muslim and Jain communities. He described the spiritual bond between Catholics and Jews as "very special" and expressed gratitude to Muslim leaders. He also said he feels close to atheists, even praising them as allies; "who, although not claiming to belong to any religious tradition, still feel themselves to be in search of truth, goodness and beauty."Gendron would never make a good soldier because with this statement he shows he has no compunction about "friendly fire". A person who has some truth, even though it is not the fullness of same, at least has a point at which one can enter into dialog and this is exactly the tactic Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ used on many occasions. (See John 3, John 4, and Matthew 8:8-10 just for example). If Christ Himself sought the common ground from which to begin His evangelism then how can Gendron fault Pope Francis for doing that same thing?

The election of the new pope has polarized many evangelicals on the issue of Roman Catholicism. Many do not know whether Catholics should be treated as our brothers and sisters in Christ or as unbelievers who need to be evangelized. Evangelist Louis Palau, megachurch leader Rick Warren, former presidential candidate Gary Bauer and others have enthusiastically welcomed Pope Francis and his calls for ecumenical unity.Well Mike, maybe that's because, unlike you, they actually listen to what His Holiness says and don't just attack out of hand the way you do.
Others such as Pastor John MacArthur, Mike Gendron and Tom McMahon of the Berean Call have released strong warnings against the ecumenical compromise of the Gospel. John MacArthur gave a "must hear" message on the new pope entitled Usurping the Seat of Christ. It is a message that every evangelical and Catholic needs to hear.Big surprises here. NOT! That's like a short list of the most vitriolic anti-Catholic polemicists and propagandists around. The only reason that I would even consider listening to MacArthur's stuff is to refute it. "Berean Call", just like Gendron's own "Proclaiming the Gospel" are nothing more than ongoing anti-Catholic organizations that(as I have proved many times in my refutations of Gendron's tracts and articles) do anything but proclaim the authentic New Testament Gospel of Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ.

When Argentina was on the verge of approving gay marriage, the Roman Catholic Church stood in firm opposition to it, with one notable exception. Cardinal Bergoglio, who is now Pope Francis, supported the idea of civil unions for gay couples. ... I suggest that we actually read the context of what the New York Times (never a very Catholic friendly media) article says.Faced with the near certain passage of the gay marriage bill, Cardinal Bergoglio offered the civil union compromise as the “lesser of two evils,” said Sergio Rubin, his authorized biographer. “He wagered on a position of greater dialogue with society.”

In the end, though, a majority of the bishops voted to overrule him, his only such loss in his six-year tenure as head of Argentina’s bishops’ conference. But throughout the contentious political debate, he acted as both the public face of the opposition to the law and as a bridge-builder, sometimes reaching out to his critics.

“He listened to my views with a great deal of respect,” said Marcelo Márquez, a gay rights leader and theologian who wrote a tough letter to Cardinal Bergoglio and, to his surprise, received a call from him less than an hour after it was delivered. “He told me that homosexuals need to have recognized rights and that he supported civil unions, but not same-sex marriage.” 

Evangelicals must be ready to contend earnestly for the faith because this Jesuit pope's primary agenda is to bring undiscerning separated brethren back home to Rome.That's funny because all the converts I have met and talked with here at CAF have been very discerning people who took their time to check it all out before swimming the Tiber. Read any of the many threads on here where people talk about their conversion and you'll see that (as usual) Mike Gendron doesn't know what he's talking about. 
He will use Catholic mysticism, apparitions of Mary, social gospels, liberation theology, unity accords and deceptive propaganda to accomplish his objectives.Really Gendron? So far, all His Holiness' messages have been calls to be more saintly and more diligent followers of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ and his own personal actions have been exemplary of Christ-like humility and love for others. Hate it for ya Mike, but your assertion just doesn't hold water.
The glory of God and the purity of the Gospel is at stake if Christians refuse to fight the good fight of faith. Don't worry Mr. Gendron. We Catholics will keep right on presenting the fullness of the original, full Gospel, New Testament, Christian message. We haven't refused "to fight the good fight of faith."
A Catholic sister then asked: I wonder, did he not hear the Holy Father's first homily about how if the Church forgets about Christ it ceases to be a Church and becomes a NGO?? I don't have the link to the homily but I thought it was really beautiful and perfectly sums up Pope Francis' beliefs. Catholicism is all about Christ.Well said my friend! Here's a quote and a link. Thirdly, professing. We can walk as much as we want, we can build many things, but if we do not profess Jesus Christ, things go wrong. We may become a charitable NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of the Lord. When we are not walking, we stop moving. When we are not building on the stones, what happens? The same thing that happens to children on the beach when they build sandcastles: everything is swept away, there is no solidity. When we do not profess Jesus Christ, the saying of Léon Bloy comes to mind: "Anyone who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil." When we do not profess Jesus Christ, we profess the worldliness of the devil, a demonic worldliness.

Journeying, building, professing. But things are not so straightforward, because in journeying, building, professing, there can sometimes be jolts, movements that are not properly part of the journey: movements that pull us back.
This just shows all the more how this particular anti-Catholic misrepresents almost anything Catholic and (it seems to me) that this is a serious effort at deception that is unworthy of anyone who names themselves as a follower of Christ. This propaganda is generally pretty simple to refute by just looking at the facts.

I always marvel that so many people are fooled into paying this guy's salary to be fed such misinformation. If I were someone who had supported Gendron's "ministry" and saw this kind of stuff, I think I'd be angry enough to cut off any support. That only makes common sense, doesn't it?