Posted on 08/17/2013 2:06:44 AM PDT by NYer
The Church's most prominent outreach today, the New Evangelization, aims at reviving the spiritual lives of those who have drifted from Christ. While these people may have been baptized and perhaps catechized, while they may attend Church semi-regularly, they have never been truly evangelized. They have never experienced a life-changing encounter with Jesus Christ or real transformation through his Church.
A couple weeks ago, Pope Francis delivered a powerful message to the Brazilian bishops in the midst of his World Youth Day celebrations. Unfortunately, it didn't get nearly the attention it deserved.
Speaking on the New Evangelization, and using the Emmaus Journey as a framework, the Pope encouraged his listeners to reflect on why people reject the Church today—why, like the Emmaus disciples, they decide to walk the other way. To bring people back to Christ and his Church, we must understand why they leave in the first place.
To that end, Pope Francis offered ten specific reasons:
1. The Church no longer offers anything meaningful or important.
2. The Church appears too weak.
3. The Church appears too distant from their needs.
4. The Church appears too poor to respond to their concerns.
5. The Church appears too cold.
6. The Church appears too caught up with itself.
7. The Church appears to be a prisoner of its own rigid formulas.
8. The world seems to have made the Church a relic of the past.
9. The Church appears unfit to answer the world's new questions.
10. The Church speaks to people in their infancy but not when they come of age.
Read the excerpt below for more context:
"The two disciples have left Jerusalem. They are leaving behind the 'nakedness' of God. They are scandalized by the failure of the Messiah in whom they had hoped and who now appeared utterly vanquished, humiliated, even after the third day.
Here we have to face the difficult mystery of those people who leave the Church, who, under the illusion of alternative ideas, now think that the Church—their Jerusalem—can no longer offer them anything meaningful and important. So they set off on the road alone, with their disappointment. Perhaps the Church appeared too weak, perhaps too distant from their needs, perhaps too poor to respond to their concerns, perhaps too cold, perhaps too caught up with itself, perhaps a prisoner of its own rigid formulas, perhaps the world seems to have made the Church a relic of the past, unfit for new questions; perhaps the Church could speak to people in their infancy but not to those come of age.
It is a fact that nowadays there are many people like the two disciples of Emmaus; not only those looking for answers in the new religious groups that are sprouting up, but also those who already seem godless, both in theory and in practice.
Faced with this situation, what are we to do?
We need a Church unafraid of going forth into their night. We need a Church capable of meeting them on their way. We need a Church capable of entering into their conversation. We need a Church able to dialogue with those disciples who, having left Jerusalem behind, are wandering aimlessly, alone, with their own disappointment, disillusioned by a Christianity now considered barren, fruitless soil, incapable of generating meaning.”
(HT: Thomas Doran at Catholic World Report)
“It is always about numbers”
I don’t see how protestants can justify killing other protestants in any circumstances. Does Jesus say, “kill innocents because other people kill you?
So Luther didn't kill them, did he? Of course not.
Does Jesus say, “kill innocents because other people kill you?
Nope, just as He doesn't countenance the Catholics under the jurisdiction of the church killing them. Or that blockades work.
“So Luther didn’t kill them, did he? Of course not.”
Yes, he did. He killed Anabaptist heretics.
It appears that YUOU are assumin' that HE is assuming.
Not that it matters.
You have implied with this statement that you HAVE studies the other side's point of view and found it inferior.
Would I be correct in assuming that?
Dang!
I can't either; with such a vague implication that you assert here.
Dang!
I can't either; with such a vague implication that you assert here.
No. My argument states accurately that you must support whatever your magisterium comes up with to stay in good standing.
Therefore, to remain roman, you are wasting your time to actually examine the meaning of the text, because if you realize there is a better explanation of meaning, you still must believe what you were taught. You can repeat what you are taught and no more. Once the magisterium speaks you obey... unless it it like birth control and abortion, where many roman catholics in practice ignore what it taught.
“Therefore, to remain roman, you are wasting your time to actually examine the meaning of the text, because if you realize there is a better explanation of meaning, you still must believe what you were taught. You can repeat what you are taught and no more. Once the magisterium speaks you obey... unless it it like birth control and abortion, where many roman catholics in practice ignore what it taught.”
Then you can cite the catechism where it says that this is so.
I am really surprised you do not know this.
"The faithful therefore have the right to be instructed in the divine saving precepts that purify judgment and, with grace, heal wounded human reason.79 They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church."
As I added, you could go awol. Or pursue the truth and follow it wherever it leads.
"2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."76 "
"2051 The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed. "
So are you saying that the Pope is infalliable in everything he does?
“So are you saying that the Pope is infalliable in everything he does?”
Obviously not. I think the “pope” is never infallible in any age on any topic. Nor is any church of any denomination.
God, however, is always infallible.
Good try.
“Obviously not. I think the “pope” is never infallible in any age on any topic. Nor is any church of any denomination”
Are you saying that the Catholic church believes that the Pope is infalliabile in everything he does?
“Are you saying that the Catholic church believes that the Pope is infalliabile in everything he does?”
No. I’m saying you have a DUTY to believe what your magisterium teaches. No more and no less.
Having said that, I understand your arguments on this thread do not go beyond what you were taught - they cannot. It is the lens through which you view things. You have no choice, if you are to remain a roman.
OR
You can seek truth and follow it no matter the cost.
“I’m saying you have a DUTY to believe what your magisterium teaches. No more and no less.”
On faith and morals, yes. That’s an important caveat.
“It is the lens through which you view things. You have no choice, if you are to remain a roman.”
One does not assume a duty voluntarily unless one is convinced that the cause is just.
Nice statement; but the CAUSE is NOT what is being discussed here.
The IMPLEMENTATION of the cause is.
Nice statement; but the CAUSE is NOT what is being discussed here.
The IMPLEMENTATION of the cause is.
“Nice statement; but the CAUSE is NOT what is being discussed here.”
The assertion is that the obedience to a lawful authority is unjustified.
“One does not assume a duty voluntarily unless one is convinced that the cause is just.”
Learning the Scriptures is a daily, lifetime discipline that progresses as you mature. It cannot be outsourced. Your call.
In any case, you were convinced based on limited knowledge and now you must dance to the tune that is played. If you claim you dance willingly to whatever music is played, again, your call.
My point was that if you decide the music is lousy, you cannot remain a roman christian. You must accept whatever tune is played.
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.