The Commission was to go forth and preach the Gospel and baptize; it wasn't to engage in "dialogue."
To me, these are not mutually exclusive.
...(in fact, it is the traditional Catholics who are MOST clear on this. Catholics who don't understand this concept are either sedevacantist or those who think the Pope can do no wrong because every little thing he does must be infallible and must be defended or else the Petrine ministry is a lie and the Gates of Hell have prevailed, and so forth).
You will not see me involved in papalatria, nor do I believe that it is the Traditionalists who understand heresy the best. As far as I am concerned, Traditionalists are no more educated about the Catholic Faith than the Liberal Catholics are. Prayerful education is the only tool that we can use to win this attack we are under. The Traditionalists have responded in a knee-jerk fashion instead of practically assessing the situation and working from there. Do I think that Assissi could have been worked better? Yes, because it has created a bit of a scandal, which is not good. Do I believe that it, in and of itself, was wrong? No. John Paul, like The Apostle, realized that the inherent desire that all men have to find God is what leads them to pray, whether they are Hindu, Islamic, etc. That desire for God is an excellent point to begin the Great Commission. As for Protestants:
Mark 9:38-41
John said to him, "Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us." But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward."
God Bless,
Neal
Upvote
0