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)
One line in the Apostle's Creed says, I believe in the holy catholic church. The word "catholic" is not capitalized because it means the Christian church universal, not a particular denomination.
IMO, Pope Francis' words are relevant to ALL Christians and ALL churches everywhere. The church and the Gospel of Jesus Christ must become more relevant in people's lives. That's how we make believers, and that's how we'll turn our nation around and back to the Lord.
(PS: I'm a Methodist.)
1. Why profess our sins to a Priest when the Lord hears our confessions Himself?
John 20:19-23 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20. After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. 21. Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22. And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
There is also a good answer here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121015134058AA3Lhco
2. Why are Priests called "Father" when the Lord is our Father?
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father
The above is a lengthy read, but offers a very detailed explanation to anyone interested.
I think a lot of what people dislike about the Catholic Church stems from misunderstanding.
Was the Inquisition merely “tragic?” Rome may have a friendlier face, but at her core she’s no different today than she was when the rivers of Europe were red with the blood of “heretics.” In fact, her doctrine is much worse.
At this point, Teresa of Calcutta, Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu, has learned that the Roman “church” has big big flaws. That’s tragic!
Yes, it is a message to all Christians. We have a responsibility to find and bring all lost souls to Christ.
There is nothing more relevant to any man than the gospel. The gospel has a God-given power of its own that goes beyond anything we can do in our attempts to be relevant.
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16)
“Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.”(Jeremiah 6:16)
You left out that having a “personal salvational relationship with Jesus Christ” is more or less having it on one’s own mind.
As I see it, many do know know how to love God and our neighbors as Jesus told us.
The Church has not effectively lived this message.
We are all sinners, yet there is a selfishness that inhibits us from recognizing our sins and accepting God’s Love and the happiness that comes with our relationship with God.
John 17:21
He did it for me and I am a Crazy Evangelical
He did it for me, too and I am a sane Catholic.
Sounds like the similar list of reasons why the Republican party needs to ‘change’ in order to garner more supporters.
Seriously.
A discerning judgment. And indeed the description below by Francis fits the church, most supremely that of Rome, thus far more convert to being evangelicals than the reverse, with the main reason not being doctrine, but that Rome did not meet there spiritual needs (see here ), though that is a result of her church centered doctrine.
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.
That broadbrush is honestly absurd. The majority of those whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death are liberal, as is much of her scholarship (reflected even in your own Bible's notes ).
Meanwhile, though you are stuck with your liberal members, we can obey Scripture and come out from among them, and as a result evangelicals (even today in the latter day apostasy of the church) are more conservative and unified overall in conservative moral views and basic truths than Catholics. See here .
THere is a reason why. Clearly you are naive about Catholicism. Your comments show this.
Written not to me, and the contrary is shown to be the case here.
Which makes the church supreme, a man made doctrine, as Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Thus tradition is only what she decrees it is (significantly differing even with the tradition-based Byzantine rite), and the only interpretation of Scripture that has any authority is hers.
like Luther's novel doctrine of "the Bible alone,"
Like Luther's novel doctrine of "the Bible alone," which is not biblical or part of Apostolic Tradition.
So Luther believed only the Bible could be used in knowing God's will, or do you want to provide a valid definition rather than the typical RC strawman? Do you deny even the supremacy of Scripture as the standard for obedience and establishing truth claims?
Can you prove that what was referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 were things such as the assumption of Mary, and were not written down as was the norm for any revelation called the "word of God/the Lord," and that historical descent assures successors have the same level of veracity as the apostles? Be back later.
Why are Priests called "Father" when the Lord is our Father? http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father The above is a lengthy read.
Of course is a lengthy read (after the emergency appeal for money) as the NT nowhere distinctively calls or titles NT pastors priests (hiereus), and only refers to them as such as part of the general priesthood (hierateuma) of all believers. (1Pt. 2:9)
<Titus 1:5-7: Bishops and elders were one: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position). Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also what were ordained for every church in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1. This does not exclude that there could have been “archbishops/elders” in the New Testament church who were head pastors over others, but there is no titular distinctions in Scripture denoting such, and which distinctions are part of the hierarchical class distinctions which came later, and foster love of titles and position which the Lord warned about. (Mk. 10:42-44; Mt. 23:8-10).
Does presbyter or elder mean priest?
In her effort to conform the Bible to her erroneous understanding of what the elements used in the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Roman Catholicism (and near kin) came to render presbuteros” as “priests” in English (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently does: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), and sometimes “episkopos,” but neither of which is the same word which is distinctly used for priests*, that being “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) Nor does presbuteros or episkopos denote a unique sacrificial function, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.
The only priesthood (hierateuma) of the church is that of all believers as they function as priests, offering both gifts and sacrifices response to being forgiven of sins, in thanksgiving and service to God and for others. (1Pt. 2:5; Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9)
Jewish elders as a body existed before the priesthood, most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) A priest could be an elder, and could elders exercise some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, but unlike presbuteros and episkopos. the two were not the same in language or in function, as one could be a elder without formally being a priest. Even the Latin word (sacerdos) which corresponds to priest has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter.”
Despite the Scriptural distinctions in titles, Rome made the word “presbyteros” (elders) to mean “priest” by way of functional equivalence, supposing that the bishops turn bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ which is then physically consumed. However, the elements used in the commemoration of the Lord death (“the Lord's supper,” and called the “Eucharist” by Catholics) symbolically represent Christ death (see here), and the sacrifice involved in this is one which all communicants are to engage in, that of unselfish love for His body, the church (as shown here in the exegesis of 1Cor. 11:17-33). Moreover, despite Rome's centralization of this act as a cardinal doctrine, little is taught on it, the description of the Lord's supper and of disciples breaking bread neither assigns nor infers that pastors engaged in transforming the elements, but simply show it to be a communal meal. Thus formally identifying a distinctive class of Christian clergy as “priests” rather than “presbyters” (elders) is not only grammatically incorrect by is functionally unwarranted and unscriptural.
In response to a query on this issue, the web site of International Standard Version (not my preferred translation) states,
No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people.
Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description.
To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. ( http://isvbible.com/catacombs/elders.htm) Later
LOL. He can start with this one:
The “Church” is not the clergy. It’s the people.
Thanks for that Eucharistic Adoration map. We are getting a new chapel in our new church.
Note what doesn't appear in the list. The Catholic Church uses Jesus Christ and the Bible as afterthoughts.
To me, only number eight of these is true that the world has relegated the Church as useless.
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.