Skip to comments.There is something strange going on in the Vatican
Posted on 10/09/2013 8:25:55 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
Speaking of "signs of the times," take a look at this article in, of all places, the Huffington Post:
I agree with that too, Jesus died for sins, paid the price of my admission with his perfect sacrifice. That’s why I get into with catholics a lot. So close, yet so far from the truth. It’s truly discouraging to me to see so many good people misled into a false teaching.
Proselytism is what the Jehovahs Witnesses do
Its also the vast majority of postings on the Religion Forum from certain sectors.
It is also what Christ commanded His disciples to do, what they did on Pentecost, Paul did throughout the known world, what Christians have done to the corners of the earth for thousands of years, into the deepest jungles, deserts, islands, etc., and fulfills the prophecy that people from every tribe, tongue and nation will worship Him.
Not to diminish the seriousness of the topic, that is funny. :o)
The think most Catholics when being judged can be saved, but some of them have spent far too much time thinking about or praying to one of the 10,000 or so Saints, to the point where Jesus has just become one of many.
That’s how it goes with scribes and pharisees; brilliant and curious as they may be - they are dissatisfied with the plain and simple Word of Truth, and extremely uncomfortable at the suggestion others less worthy may enter the Kingdom of Heaven ahead of them.
The Pope is making a distinction between proselytizing and evangelizing. Its a distinction lost on most.
If one reads Pope St. Pius X’s encyclical condemning Modernism (”Pascendi Dominici Gregis,” 1907), one comes to the conclusion that Pope Francis is a full-blown Modernist. The fact that Pope St. Pius X declared Modernism to be a heresy leads to the other conclusion that Pope Francis is a heretic. It is hard to wrap one’s mind around that little factoid, but looking at the facts dispassionately and objectively leads one to that conclusion.
We must face reality in order to know how to pray.
“The Pope is making a distinction between proselytizing and evangelizing. Its a distinction lost on most.”
Would you be so kind as to articulate what your understanding is, of how he sees the difference between the two?
It would appear to the great unwashed masses who only own dictionaries, that the first attempts to convert someone from their current religious belief to a new one. The second attempts to convert someone from their current religious belief to a new one.
What say you, to enlighten FR with the correct definitions, and after that we can discuss if the pope is correct?
you’re a strange one, Mr. Pope ...
An excerpt from “Pascendi Dominici Gregis:”
“38. It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments. They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity, and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized. The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified. The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?”
Yeah yeah yeah. That’s a perfect summary of the shibboleth being cast towards those who question the prudence of this pope’s approach to “evangelization.” It may be true for some, but it cannot explain away the truth that many Catholics are very hurt and unsettled by this pope’s liberal phraseology and approach, and the many accolades he is receiving from Obama, Planned Parenthood, the homosexual lobby et al.
But you count on the Vatican press to interpret it all for you and comfort those who are troubled? Why?
I know what the distinction between the two is. Here's a quick summary I saw online:
Technically speaking, proselytism and evangelism are synonyms for the act of advocating for one's own cause and seeking to bring others to belief in that cause. In recent decades though, and in religious parlance, some have used the term proselytism to refer to "hard sell" techniques for gaining converts that often are disrespectful of the conscience, human dignity, and personal convictions of the person who is being proselytized, while evangelism is used is refer to respectful means of witnessing to one's own faith while respecting those who are being evangelized.
If the more recent distinction between the two terms is recognized, then Catholics are called to evangelism and not to proselytism.
That's a post Vatican II development of the concepts that can be debated separately.
Admittedly, I do not know how the Pope sees the difference, because he and the Vatican have not offered any clarification of the words in his interview.
And there's the rub.
Actually, no, I’m not counting on anyone to interpret this pope for me. I’m watching and praying, fasting and sacrificing, and hoping for the best while preparing my mind and heart for something somewhat less than that.
Thanks so much. It is nice to actually discuss without animosity.
If someone is forced to convert - whether through pressure or threat of sword, I don’t consider that an act of faith and would not support it, nor does someone have a true conversion that leads to salvation.
If someone is exposed to the truth of the Gospel of Christ and chooses to come to faith in Him as an act of their will, I support it, since we are called to do just that.
Perhaps the context was the current Islamic situation?