John Michael Talbot has had a link to an interview as status

Lon Pearson

As an Evangelical "ordained" in the "Anglican entity" I felt excited and blessed with the election of Pope Francis and now feel disappointed reading this interview. Words like "Convert you? Proselytism is solemn nonsense. You have to meet people and listen to them." sounds nice but the charge of proselytism has been used to condemn Christians for trying to convert people to Christ. In the New Testament and throughout much of the history of the Church, proclamation (even to strangers) was done with urgency and without apology. I know His Holiness is a very intelligent and compassionate man with far more experience in the world than I have...yet the primacy of a "listening process" may eventually hurt the witness of the Roman Catholic Church as it has damaged the faith of the Episcopal church.

MR

John Michael, on the whole it was a very good interview. But, for all his pastorally good intentions, this Pope sometimes is a theological train wreck. Please explain to me, for instance, what he meant by this, and how it squares with Catholic moral theology: "And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place."

CR

I think hes the best pope since pope john paul the second

John Michael Talbot

lon (pearson) - there is a vast difference between evangelizing and proselytizing. catholics have always disapproved of the latter, and promoted the former.

MR - good catholic moral theology recognizes the difference between subjective and objective truth, and that the church's obligation is to preach the universal objective truth, but a person is only accountable for what they know. there is also a difference between natural law and formal revelation. natural law can attain to many revealed truths, as st. paul describes in his letter to the romans. on that level there can be accord between believers and non believers on many things. ( take for example, stopping at a red light, or other areas of basic law and courtesy) that is what he is addressing. but notice he is also quite clear, and personally challenging regarding the interviewer's lack of faith in revelation from god in christ, but always in a respectful and non judgmental way that shares his own views, and does not foist them on others. that itself demonstrates the balance we must all walk in this increasingly secularized world. the entire context must be recognized, or lifting only one part of the interview can do violence to its real intent and content. thanks.

isn't it interesting how we sometimes only hear or see part of a person's statements based on our own concerns and fears? i encourage everyone to look at the entire interview, and then comment on specifics in that context. this is the "listening" we need for real evangelization of non believers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

accords between believers and non-believers from natural law are one thing, but today we must fear accord between them (if you call modernists believers) against natural law! That interview was one of the drops, I am either without pope or it is someone like Michael I or Alejandro IX.

John Michael Talbot

hans- that is your right and your choice. for myself, i understand and support what he is saying fully. "i stand with peter."

CR

Being a mentally challenged person i cant say that i comprehend that interview its profound but im not so sure that other religions have the right to try to change other peoples faiths this comes from experience with a former friend steve is a diehard evangelistic protestant who believes that catholics are hellbound however im told that i should forgive ignorant people

John Michael Talbot

CR - you understand very well!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good."

Even if they are wrong and might be corrected by discouragement?

"And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place."

Everyone has a duty, but not every man has a right to follow his own idea therein.

He is however right one should not have a society where everyone (or most) is supposed to crush his conscience.

Was it another one or the same (Italian original) where he said salvation still comes from the Jews?

[turning aside to CR]

CR why not give your evangelical friend a few reading tips?

Great Bishop of Geneva
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/

John Michael Talbot

hans- i am afraid that you have missed the point. please understand the catholic magisterial context of the pope's informal statements. check out the catechism of the catholic church for clarification. your fears are fully covered there. thanks. no need for further comment or debate.

[and to someone else]

geeze! i am amazed at a how off point we get in response to an interview. we miss the forest for the trees. we all want to be pontiffs somehow. let him be the pontiff. he's actually earned it! it is good to dialogue in love. it is quite another to criticize constantly. that seems one of the real problems of our culture today. we are polarized, and grid locked, not only in washington, but in our churches too. jesus must grieve!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"please understand the catholic magisterial context of the pope's informal statements"

I am not saying a Pope informally says he dislikes pistaccio ice cream I conclude he is not Pope because he is wrong on ice cream.

I have a problem figuring how someone who is wrong about theology when informal should be considered right about it when formal.

Besides, if a bad man is hampered by Catholic Theology while doing the formal stuff, he can use charisma plus loyalty to the office and do his bad stuff on informal ways.

"we all want to be pontiffs somehow."

Well, no. I am informal. Precisely as Chesterton was. If you take that as wanting to be pontiff somehow, you are in fact acting as if the pontiff was as much pontiff when being informal.

That is very bad Canon Law.

It is not I who envy the Pope - if such he be - his position. It might even seem as if he envied me a position of informal influence which I have earned by writing (and by getting read by some 300.000 or somewhat less readers [should obviously be page hits, not readers as reading people] by last time I checked).

How many pontiffs are trying to be Chestertons as well?