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.
He
can't tell us that he didn't know that personal meetings with His
Holiness are scheduled far in advance. This is just another of his
outright lies that he propagates as an attack on the Catholic faith. Is
this the kind of Christian integrity that he should display? I think
not.