A Humble Pope?
Written by Jason Hauser.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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:
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
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).
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
Who REALLY Preaches "A Different Gospel"?
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.