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

[Church_Militant]

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.

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTR7TDyrmssPcJ3xMcR7lQ8UDOicJ1NZBhmECjTN0D7kz3Mjs_p8UsM1cE

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?
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

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
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

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.

(cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

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.

 

[ahs]

 

[Church_Militant]

Thanks Brother. This guy needs to do some serious fact checking.

 

[Genesis315]

The “universal bishop” controversy between St. Gregory and John the Faster is a classic non-Catholic objection, which, as is often the case, is laden with ignorance.

For those not familiar, what John was claiming (or, in reality, what the emperor in Constantinople was trying to claim for him), was that he was the only bishop and that all the other bishops were essentially his representives. He made the relationship between himself and the other bishops the same as the relationship between a bishop and his priests. Not only was he wrongly claiming for himself the primacy, but he was also destroying the authority of the other bishops.

This is contrary to Catholic doctrine:
Pope Leo XIII:

1. But if the authority of Peter and his successors is plenary and supreme, it is not to be regarded as the sole authority. For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also “chose, twelve, whom He called apostles” (Luke vi., 13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called the ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule.

Second Vatican Council:

The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called “prelates,” heads of the people whom they govern.(59*) Their power, therefore, is not destroyed by the supreme and universal power, but on the contrary it is affirmed, strengthened and vindicated by it,(60*) since the Holy Spirit unfailingly preserves the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church.

The “universal bishop” controversy is actually a perfect example of the power of the authentic universal primacy being used to preserve, rather than destroy, the authority of the other bishops as the Second Vatican Council describes.

In the same controversy, St. Gregory affirmed the primacy and distinguished it from what John the Faster was claiming:
St. Gregory:

For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord’s voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said, Peter, do you love Me? Feed My sheep John 21:17. To him it is said, Behold Satan has desired to sift you as wheat; and I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith fail not. And thou, when you are converted, strengthen your brethren Luke 22:31. To him it is said, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever you shall bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven Matthew 16:18.

Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle; while the most holy man, my fellow priest John, attempts to be called universal bishop. I am compelled to cry out and say, O tempora, O mores!

St. Gregory did not see humility at odds with true primacy. For example:
St. Gregory:

For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see.

 

[Shannon9791]

Because I really want to see this guy on the forums, I invited him over again for some fun. Let’s hope he comes this time.

 

[Church_Militant]

Because I really want to see this guy on the forums, I invited him over again for some fun. Let’s hope he comes this time.

I doubt he’ll do it. He’d be outnumbered about a quarter of a million to one and that doesn’t include the hosts from 2nd Kings 6:16-17http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv...book=2+Kings&chapno=6&startverse=17&endverse=

 

[Shannon9791]

I doubt he’ll do it. He’d be outnumbered about a quarter of a million to one and that doesn’t include the hosts from 2nd Kings 6:16-17http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv...book=2+Kings&chapno=6&startverse=17&endverse=

If he’s as convicted as he says he is, the numbers shouldn’t matter. If he’s got the…ummm…guts to write those things and have them published on the internet for the whole world to see forever, then he should have the guts to come here and defend it. Every time you refute one of his articles, I’m going to let him know and invite him here.

 

[Church_Militant]

If he’s as convicted as he says he is, the numbers shouldn’t matter. If he’s got the…ummm…guts to write those things and have them published on the internet for the whole world to see forever, then he should have the guts to come here and defend it. Every time you refute one of his articles, I’m going to let him know and invite him here.

Well, we’ll see what Mr. Hauser is made of I guess.

If nothing else, we have shown him that he needs to check his facts.

 

[Shannon9791]

So after two tries, I got an answer from Mr. Hauser. It seems he’s not made of the same metal his boss is, because he declined my invitation. Here is his email reply to my invite:

Hi Shannon,

Thank you for the invitation but I am not interested in contributing to the CAF. Those forums are full of misguided speculations by many Catholics simply stating their opinions. Real authority comes from God’s Holy Word and when representing Roman Catholicism should come from official Catholic teachings which need to be cited. I am not interested in arguing online in forums, chat rooms, comment threads and especially with those that are not using authoritative sources. I’d encourage you and others to ground yourselves in the Word of God. Jesus said, “thy Word is truth” (Jn 17:17) and that we will know if we are His disciples if we “abide in my Word… and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31-32).

Thanks for reading the article and checking out our newsletter.

I’m debating with myself as to whether or not I’m going to respond to him. If I did, I think that would make me the only CAF’er to have debated with everyone from PTG ministries as I’ve had a go at both Mike Gendron and his wife. Do I really want the hat trick?

 

[Church_Militant]

So after two tries, I got an answer from Mr. Hauser. It seems he’s not made of the same metal his boss is, because he declined my invitation. Here is his email reply to my invite:

Told ya so…

I took his article apart and it’s not in his best interest to respond? He didn’t even get his facts straight…

I’m debating with myself as to whether or not I’m going to respond to him. If I did, I think that would make me the only CAF’er to have debated with everyone from PTG ministries as I’ve had a go at both Mike Gendron and his wife. Do I really want the hat trick?

You can if you want to I suppose. Here’s my thinking with regard to his response to you.

Thank you for the invitation but I am not interested in contributing to the CAF. Those forums are full of misguided speculations by many Catholics simply stating their opinions.

Looks more like a good description of his own article. He also infers that Catholics do not know their faith nor the Word of God, which, as we both know, is not the case here at CAF.

Granted, there is a learning curve, but the same can be said of anyone of any religious persuasion, so that’s no defense…

Real authority comes from God’s Holy Word and when representing Roman Catholicism should come from official Catholic teachings which need to be cited.

This is a deceptive statement. He’s asserting that the Catholic faith has no basis and support in the Word of God and that (as with many n-Cs) his only and final authority is the Bible (Sola Scriptura), which, as we have seen many times over, is not itself a scriptural belief.

Moreover, he also infers that Catholic teaching does not include the Word of God, which is actually ludicrous. Even a relatively casual stroll through the Catechism of the Catholic Church will show abundant scripture citations as well as in the footnotes. This is the same old propaganda that PTG has been handing out to its followers all along.

I am not interested in arguing online in forums, chat rooms, comment threads and especially with those that are not using authoritative sources.

What he really means is, “I’m not going to explain and defend what I have said with anyone who can actually respond with scripture and authentic and authoritative Catholic documentation because I’ll be shown to be in indefensible error.” Hate it for ya there Jason…

I’d encourage you and others to ground yourselves in the Word of God.

I hate to tell him this (but not really…) but being grounded in the Word of God is precisely what brought me home to the Catholic faith. I know I’m not the only one around here either. The fact is that the Church would say the very same thing, and then encourages it further with a plenary indulgence for doing so. Facts Jason, facts, not misinformation and anti-Catholic propaganda.

Jesus said, “thy Word is truth” (Jn 17:17) and that we will know if we are His disciples if we “abide in my Word… and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31-32).

And every knowledgeable Catholic will say and and fully agree with what those passages say, but if Hauser thinks that such Biblical study will convince Catholics to depart form the faith, then he has another think coming.

Thanks for reading the article and checking out our newsletter.

No problem Jason. Like your scripture citation says, “you will know the truth and the truth will set you free”.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I am not interested in arguing online in forums, chat rooms, comment threads and especially with those that are not using authoritative sources.

This comment is fair enough if he’s not comfortable in that arena; but it sounds like he is unaware that Catholics use Scripture in apologetics. Whatever zeal or earnestness he may have to preach what he believes is truth, it does not sound like he even has enough basic awareness to even be in the conversation.

 

[Shannon9791]

This comment is fair enough if he’s not comfortable in that arena; but it sounds like he is unaware that Catholics use Scripture in apologetics. Whatever zeal or earnestness he may have to preach what he believes is truth, it does not sound like he even has enough basic awareness to even be in the conversation.

Yeah, I couldn’t resist, so I had to respond. I let him know we here at CAF know our bible, and that our catechism is full of scripture references. I also asked him what he thought an “authoritative source” was, and if his only “authoritative source” was scripture, then where in the bible does it say that. If I get a response, I’ll report back.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Yeah, I couldn’t resist, so I had to respond. I let him know we here at CAF know our bible, and that our catechism is full of scripture references. I also asked him what he thought an “authoritative source” was, and if his only “authoritative source” was scripture, then where in the bible does it say that. If I get a response, I’ll report back.

You’re a persistent one.

 

[Shannon9791]

You’re a persistent one.

My wife says hard headed, I like your description a little more

I’ve emailed Jason a few times back and forth and it’s not really going anywhere.

He doesn’t trust “in man” but yet he allows himself to be taught by Mike Gendron .

His only authority is the bible, but when asked if his interpretation is infallible he says no. Then when asked if he could be wrong, there is silence.

His claims that the Catholic Church is run by sinners, to which I said AMEN! His follow up with that was to ask how could I follow such men? Mike Gendron is a sinner, and he follows Mike, but yet he can’t see the correlation there.

Methinks I’m wasting my time.

 

[rcurtis555]

I have spoken with Jason also, his responses are identical to Mike Gendron’s, although he does not seem to tell as many distortions and outright lies as Mike does.

 

[Church_Militant]

Yeah, you guys are persistent, God bless ya for it too!

I have a new thread on Jason that deals with his testimony and gives some insight where and how he got himself into this mess. I also take issue with some of the stuff he admits about himself and says about us Catholics.

I think there are lessons to be learned from what he says, and again, it comes down to that he was living a sinful lifestyle while going to Mass regularly and when challenged about it he fell into the trap of going outside the faith instead of following the scriptures and going to confession.

A Catholic Response to “A Testimony of God’s Grace” by Jason Hauser

I think this also ties in with one of John Martignoni’s recent newsletters in which he addresses the question Does God Want Everyone to be Catholic? He also has it as a free CD on his site. It is not yet available in his free MP3 downloads. I have it and it is one his best. Very thought provoking and inspirational.

 

[Gorgias]

I think this also ties in with one of John Martignoni’s recent newsletters in which he addresses the question Does God Want Everyone to be Catholic? He also has it as a free CD on his site. It is not yet available in his free MP3 downloads. I have it and it is one his best. Very thought provoking and inspirational.

Hmm… I wasn’t too impressed by the Martignoni essay. (I’ve been avoiding the thread by the same name around here, since I didn’t want to get pulled into the fray, but I might dip my feet into the water here…)

It seemed to me that John got pulled into a different direction than he intended: although he intended to ask the question ‘does God want everyone to be a Catholic?’, he instead went off in the direction ‘do you believe that God wants everyone to be a Catholic?’. The distinction here is based on the fact that he doesn’t want to offend Protestants, and so, his point becomes one of belief in one’s own faith tradition: if one believes in his faith tradition, then he believes that his faith is true, and he believes that there is good in having every last person convert to that faith. Conversely, if one says ‘no’, then he doesn’t believe in his faith tradition with all his heart. This dilutes the message that John was trying to convey, I think.

And, as it turns out, I think that John’s assertion wrt the answer ‘no’ is off-target, too. My personal answer to the question is ‘no’: what God wants is for all to be saved. The fullness of the truth can be found in the Church, but there are other means, too (and, just for the sake of assuring you that I’m not going syncretist here, let me quickly add that those means operate by virtue of the Church, such that extra ecclesiam nulla salus). So, I would argue that God’s goal is salvation, not affiliation. (Along similar lines, I don’t think that in heaven, we’ll all be Catholics – rather, the Catholic Church, having fulfilled its purpose on earth, will give way to the eschatological Kingdom of God and the Wedding Feast of the Lamb.)

Anyway, that’s my two cents…