Wednesday, March 13, 2024

Fred Rogers' spiritual journey to the Catholic Church


  1. Baptism of desire is accepted as a possiblity. But we leave it up to God. Salvation in the Catholic Church is found in all men of good will who sincerely desire Christ. Many baptized Catholics do not want to study or deepen their understanding, then they die as non-Catholic- outside the Church. I think the parable able the workers who come at the late hour and get the same pay is not the appropriate parable. Rather, it calls to mind the 3 Stewarts who receive different amounts and one day the Master returns, expecting an investment. For me, the first one was a baptized Catholic, with the largest responsibility. The Second was a baptized Orthodox with a bit smaller responsibility, and the third is Protestant, with a lesser responsibility. The third one is not condemned for preserving his part of responsibility. But any one who does not multiply his responsibility, regardless of the amount entrusted to him, but buries it underground, and hides it, does not advance in Grace in God's eyes, and he condemns himself.
    But the priest who is narrating the story makes a false comparison. There is a sinner, such as the Good Thief, Saint Ditmas, humbly struggling to be closer to God and Grace, in spite of his sins, and a sinner like the Bad Thief who refuses to accept his guilt and lack of caring. Pope Francis does not draw lines, unfortunately.

  2. Minimizing Catholic Faith and Sacraments(sloppiness and carelessness for God & neighbor)?

    There are so many problems with this video. Most surprising is that no evidence is given that Fred Rogers wanted to be Catholic or that he converted. ‘Why would anyone care?” The salvation of a soul makes all other human affairs pale by comparison. I would have wished him nothing less than eternal bliss in the wake of a marvelous conversion, but what’s done is done. So, did Fred Rogers die a Catholic? The video narrator states explicitly that Fred Rogers died a Presbyterian, and the facts he presents militate against concluding that Rogers died in the unity of the Catholic Church.

    The video narrator tells us that Bishop Joseph L. Coffey lauds the story of Fred Rogers and his goodness, but is the bishop fully and correctly informed of the facts of the story as presented in this video? Would he claim that Fred Rogers became a Catholic on his deathbed, given Rogers’ comatose state and his wife’s permission for the anointing? The video narrator never tells us what clear, definite and sufficient sign allowed Archabbot Nowicki to give the sacraments to a yet unconverted and dying Presbyterian. There is no mention that Fred Rogers spontaneously requested the sacraments or that he wanted to be a Catholic. Mere niceness doesn’t cut it.

    Canon 844 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law lays down conditions for “sacramental sharing,” namely, to exhibit the Catholic faith regarding the sacrament and to be properly disposed. In reality, a proper disposition would require the person to reject his errors and hold to the integral Catholic faith, to be already undoubtedly validly baptized, to be reconciled to the Church and, finally, to receive sacramental absolution by way of confession if he is conscious. Canon 844 lays down prerequisites that, in the real world, no non-Catholic could ever meet. This is at best a practical example of the vacuousness of some “reforms” of the post-Vatican II era.

    Not that canon 844 is the only example of post-conciliar foolishness. Recall, for instance, Paul VI’s permission for in-the-hand Communion. It is a similar inanity, because he requires the priest distributing Communion first be assured that no irreverence to the Sacrament would occur. Huh, what?! The very action of distributing Communion directly into the hands of the faithful is by its nature an undermining of due reverence on several fronts, not least of which is the loss of sacred Particles!

    Have we really descended this far in the Church as to accept this carelessness for the sacred and for the true well-being of souls? I guess so. A partial explanation of this ecclesial decline may be hinted at in the video narrator’s mention of Fr. Henri Nouwen and his spirituality. Nouwen was sexually conflicted, with all the psychological and emotional baggage we would expect. No one among the higher clergy today dares to admit it too loudly, but perhaps woundedness such as Nouwen’s can explain why too many in the Church in positions of leadership and responsibility come across as emotion-driven and “floaty,” not wanting anything to be doctrinally or morally absolute. Thus they are often so careless in practice as to put people in serious spiritual danger if not positively damaging their souls.

    God have mercy on the soul of Mr. Rogers, whose conversion seems to be the greatest thing lacking in this talk about his conversion! It appears to me that the man’s neighbors, with their sloppy Catholicism, leave much to be desired. Fred Rogers deserved better, a better and beautiful dying day in the neighborhood of today’s Catholicism.

  3. First a Hollywood Movie about “Mr. Rogers Neighborhood” (played by Tom Hanks) and now the Church of Nice is making a Presbyterian Minister (Mr. Fred Rogers) a new Catholic Saint… ? Ridiculous!!

  4. Stanislaw DjwooskovaMarch 14, 2024 at 6:35 PM

    Thank You God 6:11 PM.

  5. Is this like when someone spread the runout that Fred was a Marine Sniper in Korea?

  6. Wasn’t he a mason?

  7. Massabones HorowitzMarch 16, 2024 at 3:26 AM

    "Yes. So?"

    He was a black Jewish Mason.


  8. A swarm of bees forced a nearly two-hour disruption of a quarterfinal match at the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells, Calif. as billionaires Larry Ellison and Bill Gates looked on

  9. The video is riddled with so many problems. Where to begin? I’d say the two biggest issues are:

    (1) Mr. Rogers was in a comatose state and never made an actual Abjuration of Error regarding the Protestant heresies he held his entire life. There is no salvation outside the Church, full stop. Whether he can be held to be invincibly ignorant at his judgment is, of course, for God alone to decide. But by all objective criteria, this man did not die adhering to the Catholic Faith, without which “it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6); and

    (2) If Vatican II and the reforms that followed are Catholic—and, as such, proceeded from the authority of the Church—then why would it even matter if Mr. Rogers actually converted to Catholicism? Vatican II teaches in Unitatis Reintegratio 3 that non-Catholic (i.e., false) religions are “capable of giving access to the community of salvation” and that “the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.” It also teaches in Lumen Gentium 8 that there are “elements of sanctification” outside the visible structure of the Catholic Church, thus making the (gravely erroneous) distinction between the Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church. It (Lumen Gentium) further states that, “[The Church of Christ] subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible structure.”

    So if Mr. Rogers (or Scott Hahn or any other non-Catholic) is capable of being saved outside of the “visible structures of the Catholic Church”---*and, instead, saved by their non-Catholic religion*---then who cares whether they convert(ed)? (Side note: why would anyone bother converting for that matter?)

  10. Of course, serious people know that Vatican II isn’t Catholic. It directly contradicts Church teaching in various respects, most notably regarding:
    (1) ecumenism (discussed above; see also Pius XI's Mortalium Animos);
    (2) the unity of the Church (discussed above; see also Leo XIII's encyclical Satis Cognitum, Pius XI's Mortalium Animos, Pius XII's Mystici Corporis, and in the condemnations of the "Branch Theory" made by the Holy Office under Pius IX;
    (3) religious liberty (see Dignitatis Humanae (Vatican II) vs. Pius VII's Post Tam Diuturnas, Gregory XVI's Mirari Vos, Pius IX's Quanta Cura, and Leo XIII's Libertas Praestantissimum, and in Pius XI's Quas Primas); and
    (4) collegiality (see the Council of Florence and the ("first") Vatican Council regarding the doctrine that the pope alone is the possessor of the supreme authority of the Church and NOT the pope *together with the bishops*, as taught by Vatican II).

    The fruits of Vatican II are indisputably rotten because it is not Catholic. This is why we are seeing more and more people of good will---who sincerely want to practice the Catholic Faith as it was done by their ancestors for the almost 2000 years prior to Vatican II---flocking to tradition, namely going to the Latin Mass, resisting Vatican II/the Novus Ordo and “the pope” and the Novus Ordo hierarchy who are forcing it on them, etc.

    It’s also why over the past 60 years we’ve seen Church pews completely empty, seminaries and convents shut down, the moral degradation of Catholics, and an overall loss of the Faith.

    But if the Catholic Church is infallible (it cannot give false teachings to the faithful that necessarily lead souls to hell) and indefectible (its essential qualities from the moment Our Lord founded the Church onward cannot change) then it is, therefore, impossible that the false, erroneous, and heretical teachings of Vatican II proceeded from the authority of the Church, despite all appearances that indicate otherwise. Moreover, it is impossible for the Pope---the Vicar of Christ on earth assured of the Holy Ghost’s protection and who possesses the God-given authority to teach, rule, and sanctify---to promulgate and impose a false religion on the faithful. Yet this has been the case with respect to the papal claimants following the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, from John XXIII to the present Francis.

    These men do not (and did not) possess the formal authority of the papacy to teach, rule, and sanctify on account of the obstacle they have placed to the reception of that authority from God: that is, their objective intention to impose the false Vatican II religion on the faithful. If you’re interested in learning more, the clergy of the Roman Catholic Institute (romancatholicinstitute [dot] org) have done remarkable work on this subject, including a paper entitled “The New Doctrine of Vatican II” available here: thethesis[dot]us / chapter-ii. God bless.

  11. God is God and God is not restricted by the time conditioned rules and boundaries set by the Catholic Church or by Sede-Tom's interpretation of them.

  12. Blessings to you, sir. I get you praying for the eternal soul of Mr Rodgers. I get you having hope. But try to be more objective in your conclusions. There are so many issues with your claims, as others have pointed in detail. I will pray you can take a step back and see it. God bless you.

  13. Why is anyone getting all whooped up over a children's show Host?

  14. Captain Kangaroo could kick his butt!

  15. The prolix gibberish of Nemo 6:27 AM indicates very strongly membership of the EENS Slaves cult based in NH. They are largely excommunicated ipso facto for refusing to accept the Tradition of the Church. This is a perilous situation, Nemo. Time to be reconciled I suggest.

  16. Father Gaybrielle scrawls: “The prolix gibberish of Nemo 6:27 AM indicates very strongly membership of the EENS Slaves cult based in NH. They are largely excommunicated ipso facto for refusing to accept the Tradition of the Church. This is a perilous situation, Nemo. Time to be reconciled I suggest.”

    What “Tradition” says there’s salvation outside of the Catholic Church, pray?

  17. Great Catholic insights! Hope you have a website, if you do please share the url. Pax tecum.