Evangelize? Sorry, But I’m Catholic!

Catholics are known for many things, such as novenas, devotions to saints, love for the Blessed Mother, and abstaining from meat on Lenten Fridays. One thing that generally doesn’t come to mind when we hear the word “Catholic” is evangelization. To be totally honest, the vast majority of Catholics view evangelization as a negative thing. There is a belief among many Catholics that our relationship with God is a highly personal matter and that “we shouldn’t impose our religious beliefs on others”. I must admit that I felt this way for many years. Even though I went to Mass every Sunday, talking about God to others was something for Protestants and “Jesus Freaks”. I considered it offensive to tell others how they should believe. Furthermore, I didn’t want others to think I was strange. Evangelization is “not something that Catholics do”. To take it a step further, many Catholics don’t feel the need to learn or understand their faith, let alone share it with others. While that may

be a common opinion, is it really what the Church teaches? Not at all! As Catholics, we are not only called to study and understand our faith, but we are mandated to evangelize.

Now that I’ve either piqued your curiosity or caused you to suffer a panic attack, let me present some evidence to support my claim and give you some simple and painless ways to fulfill the Church’s instructions. On December 8, 1975, Pope Paul VI issued an Apostolic Exhortation entitled Evangelii Nuntiandi (EN), which addresses evangelization in the modern world. In this document, the Holy Father explains the importance of Christian evangelization:

…the presentation of the Gospel message is not an optional contribution for the Church. It is the duty incumbent on her by the command of the Lord Jesus, so that people can believe and be saved. This message is indeed necessary. It is unique. It cannot be replaced. It does not permit either indifference, syncretism or accommodation. It is a question of people’s salvation. (EN, Paragraph 5)

The above paragraph spells out the importance of proclaiming the “Good News” of Jesus Christ. It is not something that is “nice to have”, but is necessary for people’s salvation! That’s all well and good, but isn’t evangelization the job of priests, religious and deacons? Not exactly…

Thus it is the whole Church that receives the mission to evangelize, and the work of each individual member is important for the whole. (EN, Paragraph 15)

In other words, evangelization is not only the responsibility of the religious and clergy; it is a requirement for the laity as well. Every member of the Catholic Church is personally responsible for sharing the gospel message with others. The Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium, teaches that all baptized Christians “must profess before men the faith they have received from God through the Church and participate in the apostolic and missionary activity of the People of God”. This profession of faith involves both actions and words. While it is crucial to set a good example, the Church teaches that we must also share our faith verbally.

…even the finest witness will prove ineffective in the long run if it is not explained, justified – what Peter called always having “your answer ready for people who ask you the reason for the hope that you all have” – and made explicit by a clear and unequivocal proclamation of the Lord Jesus. The Good News proclaimed by the witness of life sooner or later has to be proclaimed by the word of life. There is no true evangelization if the name, the teaching, the life, the promises, the kingdom and the mystery of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God are not proclaimed. (EN, Paragraph 22)

Now that we know what is expected of us, do we need to stand on street corners and hand out bibles? Are we required to preach at the office and quote scripture all day long? While there is a time and a place for that approach, there are simpler and less threatening ways to “get our feet wet” in the world of Catholic evangelization. Here are some simple ways to get started:

1. Learn – We need to learn about the Catholic Faith. There is no way that we’ll ever be able to share what we don’t know. There are many great online resources to assist you in learning about the Catholic Faith. Among them are the USCCB and Vatican websites. Additionally, my website http://www.followingthetruth.com lists many authentically Catholic websites and books, all geared toward individuals with a basic or intermediate understanding of the Faith.

2. Witness – Christian witness lays the foundation for evangelization. Avoiding foul language, making the sign of the cross and saying grace before meals, having a positive disposition, and avoiding gossip are all ways that can be used to set a positive example for others. These techniques can be used anywhere: in the workplace, at school, in the home, even at the grocery store. People may notice that there is something “different” about us and could begin to ask questions. This provides the opening to share our “secret”, which is the Catholic Faith.

3. Share – There are many painless (but effective) ways to verbally share our faith with others. We can offer to say a prayer for a coworker who is sick or in a painful situation. We can explain how our faith comforts or sustains us in time of need. We can casually relate a message heard in a homily at Sunday Mass. This technique not only gives us the opportunity to share a positive thought, but it also sends the message that we attend Sunday Mass. Non-threatening techniques such as these are often very effective because they do not involve “beating people over the head” with our Bibles.

4. Pray – The most important step in being an effective evangelist is often the most neglected. We should always remember to pray, especially for an increase in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Everyone who is baptized and confirmed has received the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but we need prayer and grace to help them grow. Prayer and frequent reception of the Sacraments will allow these gifts to grow and will ultimately lead to greater success of our evangelistic efforts. We should also pray for the individuals to whom we are directing our evangelization efforts.

As we begin to follow the Church’s command to spread the gospel in the world, there are a few things that are important to remember. We should not become impatient or discouraged if our efforts don’t appear to be effective. The Lord never asks us to be successful, instead He asks us to be faithful. In the end, any success we have should be attributed to God alone. Also, we must never forget to be charitable when sharing God’s message with others. Our goal must be to win souls, not arguments. Turning to Sacred Scripture, St. Peter provides an excellent one sentence summary of what is expected of us as Catholic evangelists. Staying faithful to his instruction will ensure that we are fulfilling the Lord’s command of charitably spreading the gospel to all nations:

“Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.” (1 Peter 3:15)

>>All I know is that when I investigated Catholicism I had to take the initiative.<<

Because we are not called to pull you out of your denomination. We are called to present the Good News of the Lord to you then show by example the way that we believe we are right, NOT that you are wrong.

I wasn't in a denomination. I was a searcher. And in this country if you're a searcher any Protestant or "heretical" church (JW's, mormons, etc.) is glad to find searchers. But not the Catholic Church. No, not the "one true original church." If you're a searcher you know that everyone wants you except for that church (and the Orthodox), because they are ethnic churches and are strictly for "family."

If you have a good relationship with The Lord, we are not going to beat you over the head. I was even asked by a convert friend of mine, “Why didn’t you TELL us?”

Wow. You guys really do expect the world to come to you, don't you. I can't help but wonder how you converted half the world with such an attitude.

You must also forgive my confusion when a church that claims to be "the one true church" simultaneously insists that "it doesn't matter" whether one belongs to it or not. That's a real poser. The whole thing smacks of "we're better than you because we don't have to recruit our members" (of course not when you "own" several ethnic groups who baptize their infants).

You know who else expects you to come to them? The Masons. Hmmm. That's interesting. Catholics and Masons are opposed, yet their membership is acquired the same way (except for the fact that most Catholics are raised in the Church).

What you seem to regard as a laudable attitude never struck me as anything other than absolutely shameful, even when I was a member. The whole vibe was "the intellectuals will come to us on their own, and the vast majority of mental cripples around here can't handle our beautiful doctrines so it's best to leave them to the Fundies." And you're proud of this? You defend this? I can understand Primitive Baptists not missionizing, since they're hyper-Calvinists who believe preaching is only for the "edification of the elect." But you Catholics who claim to be open to anyone and everyone? You seem to have the exact same attitude. It makes your criticisms of Calvinism seem very hypocritical.

I said, if you know Christ, then it’s what is the problem?

Wow. If that's the Catholic attitude, then why were heretics treated so ruthlessly in the past? Maybe the Church's understanding of itself hadn't "evolved" sufficiently?

You have eyes that see and ears that hear. Our truth is right before your face. We’re not going to smack you with it.

No, you're not going to even make it available. And there is no Catholic church, or even (so far as I know) Catholic presence of any kind in my county, so you're not right in front of our faces.

What an attitude. No wonder I couldn't last. And no wonder there's no Catholic church in this county. That attitude by someone who claims to be non-Calvinist is just . . . I'm sorry, it's crazy. Literally crazy.

Oh, so that's how all Western Europe became Catholic and Eastern Europe became Orthodox--the bishops and theologians just sat in their cathedrals and millions of people showed up and asked questions.

No, ZC, I am surprised you would say something like that.

In fact, the number of Christians at the end of the century was relatively small (less than ten thousand, according to estimates). There were many competing "mystery religions" that cliamed Jesus of their own, and at one point one such cult, Manicheanism, was much more prominent then all Christian sects combined. Christianity was established in Europe by much more effective means than proselytizing.

Europe became Christian 1,698 years ago by the Edict of Milan, an imperial decree by the Roman Emperor Constantine. In other words, by fiat.

And he did that out of supersititon! After having dreamt of a victory with a sign of a cross, he decided that the Christian God was the "stronger god", and ordered everyone to become Christian. So, Europe (which was Rome) became Christian by an imperial edict. Of course the Church didn't complain...ebven though Constantine refused to be baptized until near his death, and in fact, is venerated as a saint in the Orthodox Church.

And Russia became Christian by the will of her prince. He sent emissaries to find out more about this Christian religion and they visited Rome and Constantinople and liked the eastern liturgy ("it's like heaven on earth" they reported back to him) and that sealed Russia as an Orthodox country.

It's been a while since I've read the "new testament," so maybe you can refresh my memory. Where did it tell how Paul just sat and waited for all of Anatolia and Greece to come to him?

But Anatolia and Greece didn't come to him. Yes, he did preach there, because that was his mission. He was saving the Church! Literally speaking.

Of course, the "official truth" is that he preached because God told him to do so (where did I see that reason before?).

And someone made sure to put that into the Gospels at the very end (catching up with times), in order to make it look look "official."

But Jesus never taught that. To the contrary! He told the disciples to go only to the "lost sheep of Israel" (which we know is not Gentiles and not even Samaritans). And they were supposed to go there to heal and to announce the messianic message that the kingdom of God (re-established Israel) and not to preach a new religion.

It is only at the very end of the Gospels of Mark (Ch. 16), apparently a latter-day addition after verse 9, and Matthew (Ch. 28), a "trinitized" version that was apparently introduced after the First Ecumenical Council in 25 AD, that they are sent to the "ethne" (which literally means "tribes").

Now what other tribes would Jesus send his disciples to if he specifically forbade them to go to any other than Jewish tribes, and if he himself admits to having been sent ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel?!?

Yes, he does send them to go to the "end of the world" but that's because the Jews were scattered all over the known world, and one of the things the Jewish messiah will accomplish is convince all the Jews in diaspora to return to Israel!

Clearly, the Church later changed this (and many other things) to mean nations of the world, since the Church was no longer a Jewish gathering and her mission was to the Gentiles.

But it is clear that Christianity, in most instances, was introduced by the will of the rulers, as a state religion, and not by proselytizing.

The current withdrawn non-activist attitude of Orthodox Judaism doesn't come from the religion but from two millennia of living in a situation where all that mattered was survival and where any proselytization would have been met with mass slaughter.

Was there an active attempt to convert large groups of people to Judaism? No of course not. It is contrary to Judaism to proselytize. Noahaide laws, yes, because that goes hand in hand with the OT Covenant God made with Noah and "all living creatures" after the Flood "for all generations."

Christianity, on the other hand, is out there to "save" the rest of the world, so they tend to proselytize. But the Church, especially the more traditional Eastern Church, never proselytized very actively.

In the colonies, there was a pressure gradient to convert the population and in some instances for strictly moral reasons (nudity, incest, etc.) encountered among indigenous populations.

So, while it is understandable that the ostracized Jews preferred to take a low profile in the Christian world, I can't recall an instance in history when Judaism actively proselytized.

No, ZC, I am surprised you would say something like that.

Europe became Christian 1,698 years ago by the Edict of Milan, an imperial decree by the Roman Emperor Constantine. In other words, by fiat.

It's been a while since I've read the "new testament," so maybe you can refresh my memory. Where did it tell how Paul just sat and waited for all of Anatolia and Greece to come to him?

But Anatolia and Greece didn't come to him. Yes, he did preach there, because that was his mission. He was saving the Church! Literally speaking.

Of course, the "official truth" is that he preached because God told him to do so (where did I see that reason before?).

And someone made sure to put that into the Gospels at the very end (catching up with times), in order to make it look look "official."

But Jesus never taught that. To the contrary! He told the disciples to go only to the "lost sheep of Israel" (which we know is not Gentiles and not even Samaritans). And they were supposed to go there to heal and to announce the messianic message that the kingdom of God (re-established Israel) and not to preach a new religion.

Clearly, the Church later changed this (and many other things) to mean nations of the world, since the Church was no longer a Jewish gathering and her mission was to the Gentiles.

But it is clear that Christianity, in most instances, was introduced by the will of the rulers, as a state religion, and not by proselytizing.

::Sigh:: I have refrained from responding to this very honest, very detailed post of yours for some time; first, because FR wasn't connecting, secondly, because it even now isn't up to speed, and thirdly, because it is not pleasant and I dread it.

The entire chr*stian religion, from beginning to end, appears to me one of the most cruel jokes that has ever been invented. And I can see that of all the peoples of the earth the biggest victims are the Fundamentalist "rednecks" of the Bible Belt, who literally have taken it to heart. No wonder they are the only chr*stians who proselytize. No wonder the older, more historical versions don't. It seems to go along with the fact that the older versions don't take any of it seriously.

I hope the world is enjoying this laugh at my people's expense. I must confess, though, that for me this stopped being funny a long time ago. In fact, it was never funny to begin with.

The happy ending to all this would be the "Bible-thumpers" at last getting wise to the whole thing and turning from this fraudulent religion to the Noachide Laws. But there isn't going to be any happy ending, at least not until Mashiach comes. They have committed their lives to this joke to the extent that they will never listen to me or anyone else. You can even come out and tell them the whole thing's an imposition and they won't believe you (since they have the KJV). Never in my life have I seen such dedication, wasted as it is.

Yuck it up, people. I hope you're all proud of yourselves. Posting my opinion of the people who have perpetuated this fraud for two thousand years would get me banned.

The current withdrawn non-activist attitude of Orthodox Judaism doesn't come from the religion but from two millennia of living in a situation where all that mattered was survival and where any proselytization would have been met with mass slaughter.

And if it hadn't been for the joke the apostles and their successors played on the world the entire Roman Empire might have converted to the Noachide Laws. Good job ruining that for everyone.

Neither did the western church of the Holy Irish Nation, whom G-d liberated from Oliver Cromwell.

In the colonies, there was a pressure gradient to convert the population and in some instances for strictly moral reasons (nudity, incest, etc.) encountered among indigenous populations.

So, while it is understandable that the ostracized Jews preferred to take a low profile in the Christian world, I can't recall an instance in history when Judaism actively proselytized.

Judaism never actively proselytized for Judaism. It proselytized for the Noachide Laws until faced with such penalties that it ceased.

The entire chr*stian religion, from beginning to end, appears to me one of the most cruel jokes that has ever been invented

And we could say we couldn't do it without the Jews! :) They wrote the script. They some were better at hellenizing Judaism and selling it to the Greeks than the other Jews were at convincing the Gentiles to embrace Noachide laws. Christianity simply had more to offer. You don't really think Christians go to Church for the glory of God alone.

Take out the "salvation" and "benefits" (or "rewards") and see how many people show up for Sunday service! That's why Noahcides are few and far in between. They get the crumbs.

And I can see that of all the peoples of the earth the biggest victims are the Fundamentalist "rednecks" of the Bible Belt, who literally have taken it to heart

Why is that? What is the psychological, let alone intellectual, profile of a(ny) zealot? Don't kid yourself, there are "redneck" fundamentalists among the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, trust me. Take the Old Catholics or the Russian old Believers, some Ahtonite monks, and so on, and discover "redneck" fundamentalists to the bone.

No wonder the older, more historical versions don't. It seems to go along with the fact that the older versions don't take any of it seriously

No, ZC, they take themselves very seriously. But they are established and they have enjoyed centuries of state-sponsored authority to back them up. Wherever the state went to claim the territory in the name of the sovereign, the Church followed. There was no need to proselytize.

And with the British, French, Russian and Spanish empires stretching the entire globe, it looked as if Christianity would become the only religion on earth.

"Your people" did not proselytize either as they do today. That is something of a much more recent origin, and most of it is in already Christian countries! Duh! Few and far in between is spreading the gospel in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where heads tend to fly off the shoulders for something like that.

But visit Russia or Latin America and Eastern Europe, where it's safe, and you will find scores of Evangelicals "evangelizing" Christians. They may be crazy but they are not stupid.

If they took it to heart, they must have missed the fact that the apostles did not go into each other's territories and steal believers. The Judiazers did and Paul wrote about that practice and called it hypocritical. So maybe they just don't get it.

And if it hadn't been for the joke the apostles and their successors played on the world the entire Roman Empire might have converted to the Noachide Laws. Good job ruining that for everyone

Based on what evidence? There is no indication pagans were embracing Noachide laws. The Christian religion they accepted was heavily Platonized, the deity humanized, the Jewish eating restrictions dropped, and what they considered silliness (circumcision) was disposed of, so the whole thing was made to their taste and preference, and most importantly something they could relate to.

In contrast, what did Noachide laws have to offer to mysery-religions-crazed pagan Greeks? Or, for that matter, to 40 million Evangelicals in America?

Judaism never actively proselytized for Judaism.

And why is that? And why is that okay, but not when it comes to the Church? How is Judaism different? The messiah will comes and will establish order on earth and everyone will know the God of Israel.

What they are saying is that the world will come to fear and respect the God of Israel by the power of Israel. In other words, there is no need to proselytize.

It proselytized for the Noachide Laws until faced with such penalties that it ceased.

Where and when did Judaism proselytize for Noachide laws? Judaism is alien to every other nation. It is the ultimate xenophobic religion. It is only for the Jews. And, let's be brutally honest, Noachides are like groupie tag-alongs who sit at the back of the bus. How enticing is that?

Don't kid yourself, there are "redneck" fundamentalists among the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, trust me. Take the Old Catholics or the Russian old Believers, some Ahtonite monks, and so on, and discover "redneck" fundamentalists to the bone.

I'd better save this admission before you realize what you've done and it disappears forever down an Orwellian memory hole!

Actually, they always proselytized, but what they recognize as "adult conversion to chr*stianity" (the "new birth") is recognized by you and most people as a "rite of passage." "Born-again" parents who raise their kids to believe everything that they do still have to "convert" them once they reach the "age of reason." The whole idea of the "new birth" is to provide an adult conversion experience to people who have never had to be converted to chr*stianity intellectually. And btw, they "steal sheep" from each other (Baptist, Church of Chr*st, Pentecostal) for the simple reason that each one believe it is the "one true religion." That's what you do when you believe you're the "one true religion" and you're not physically afraid to do so. You try to convert everybody.

If they took it to heart, they must have missed the fact that the apostles did not go into each other's territories and steal believers.

Because (at least according to "orthodox" chr*stianity) the apostles all shared the same religion. Fundamentalist Protestants of various stripes, Catholics, Orthodox, etc., do not. Each regards the other as heretical--unless they choose to ignore logic completely.

There is no indication pagans were embracing Noachide laws.

I have heard otherwise; that the Greco-Roman world was full of "G-d-fearers." Of course, your history is radically different from mine.

I will do my best to explain, though I doubt I can satisfy you.

Having G-d associated in an especial way with one nation is the only way to assure universality and objectivity. All "universal" religions degenerate into localized tribal religions. Chr*stianity has been adapted and re-adapted to every culture in the world until J*sus has been reduced to the ancestral totem of whatever people worship him. The only way to ensure that the One True G-d is to be worshiped is to have Him worshiped explicitly as the Jewish G-d. This is where Judaism differs because it's the only way that works. The True G-d will be acknowledged by what amounts to Jewish spiritual conquest of the world. And pally . . . my white flag's already hanging out!

I broke my reply into several sections for ease. I hope you don't mind.

[Kosta: Don't kid yourself, there are "redneck" fundamentalists among the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, trust me.]

ZC: I'd better save this admission before you realize what you've done and it disappears forever down an Orwellian memory hole!

I am not sure what you mean.

Born-again" parents who raise their kids to believe everything that they do still have to "convert" them once they reach the "age of reason."

The god parents have exactly the same obligation. I realize that the concept of god parenting has become a virtual nonentity, but in the eyes of the Church they make a commitment to God at infant baptism to raise the child in the faith until adulthood and convert him to it through participation in the life of the Church from the very first.

When you think about it, god parents make an awesome commitment which most of them soon neglect or forget, so to an outsider and, pretty much, in reality the "conversion" does become a "right of passage," as you say.

This is why I left the Church and religion in general — it's a man-made dog and pony show, a bunch of Pharisee-wannabees who try to outdo each other publicly who is a greater Christian. In addition to being a ritualistic theater, with smells and bells, the Church has also become a political party and, in some instances, a secular power. That's not what God is all about.

That's what you do when you believe you're the "one true religion" and you're not physically afraid to do so. You try to convert everybody

That's why I don't score and points when I remind the Evangelicals that they and Muslims think alike. The reason is the same. But it has little to do with the belief that it is the "one true religion" since all religions believe that, but not all are aggressively converting others just the Muslims and the Evangelicals.

[Kosta: they must have missed the fact that the apostles did not go into each other's territories and steal believers]

ZC: Because (at least according to "orthodox" chr*stianity) the apostles all shared the same religion. Fundamentalist Protestants of various stripes, Catholics, Orthodox, etc., do not. Each regards the other as heretical--unless they choose to ignore logic completely.

Catholics and Orthodox excommunicate (i.e. not thrwo them out of the Church, but cease communion with) those bishops who stray from what they consider orthodoxy.

The same could be said of the early Christians, going back all the way to the first decade after Jesus, and involving the so-called "Judaizers" or "hypocrites" of the Church of Jerusalem under James, who is somehow related to Jesus.

Paul and James didn't see eye to eye, and Paul wastes no time on several occasions to condemn proselytizers of the Jerusalem Church who were "intruding" in Paul's "jurisdiction," teaching the Gentiles to observe the Law, dietary restrictions and circumcision.

But you have to understand that James was not an apostle, even thought Paul calls him one. Those who were apostles supposedly didn't do this, so neither are the bishops supposed to.

However, that is a fairytale like all the rest. The book known as 1 Peter was written precisely for the purpose of mending the rift between the apostles "to the circumcision" and Paul, the apostle "to the uncircumcision."

The book was written psuedoepigraphically pretending to be Peter's, in order to mend the deep rift that existed between the two camps. So to claim that the apostles were of the "same faith" is a fairy tale. The Synoptic Gospels, or the Epistle of James, do not reflect what Paul teaches as "his" gospel. Christianity was decidedly heterodox in its beliefs all the way until the first Ecumenical Council in 325 AD (which is precisely why the Council was convened —to establish "orthodoxy" and reject "heresies").

You see, I would have had no problems staying in the Church if I were snug in my ignorance, and remained ignorant about it, which seems to be the requirement, whether volunatry or involunatry, in all cases. The most loyal followers are always those who know the least and accept "offcial truth" uncritically on its face value.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.