Learn more about Pope Francis rather than criticize

[simple_soul]

But what is there to really understand or reflect as a non-Catholic? Mother Theresa did what she did because she thought that is what Christ, who she claims to be the son of God, asked her to do. But that does not give me or anyone else any reason to be Christian, yes?

Why should your actions lead anyone to second guess their own faith? They might just say “Simple soul has some good intentions and does good things. Its a shame that he believes in Christianity though”.

Also, I am not saying tell people to become Christians. That is not reason. Rather, I am saying that to evangelize is to give reasons for people to become Christian. Being able to do good charity work is not reasons to become Christian. One rejects Christianity or accepts it not because of its appeal but because its true or false.

If Christ, who did not sin, was not appealing, what makes you think that we can be any good at evangelizing that way?

I agree that people need to know their faith. BUT, if faith is just something they picked because of seeing a person do charity and it appealed to them, then they really wont feel the need to learn the faith anyway. There is no reason. Just appeal. So based on appeal, they will pick and choose what they like. You cannot object to them because you never gave actual reason to think Christianity true. You only made it appealing to them.

But aren’t you being biased? Why doesn’t a good Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist convince you that their religion is true? What makes you think they are the ones who have elements of truth and you have the fullest? They will say it is the other way around.

But we are not speaking of sainthood specifically. We are speaking of evangelizing. All saints were canonized because they did their best according to their state in life. A St. Peter evangelized using words and died for the faith. A Mother Theresa did charity work and in an indirect way, contributed to evangelizing. But that does not mean we can label charity work as evangelizing. That is like saying “All Good works = Evangelizing”. That is a mistake. The Church does not say in its mission that it has a right to do Charity. It says it has a right to evangelize.

Well I think we can agree at least that in the sense of “converting others”, Mother Theresa did not really evangelize.

But if we were to define evangelizing as

1. giving reasons to consider Christianity true
2. attracting others to the faith
3. teaching the faith to others (usually other Christians since non-Christians wouldn’t care much)

then yes, we can categorize it as evangelizing because it meets (2) and (3). But what people like to do is forget (1). Perhaps some would even like to argue that (1) does not even exist or have a place in the Church. That I find problematic. (1) is what Christians have done throughout its history beginning with the early Church.

To be fair though, I think this thinking comes from how helpless many people feel in trying to do (1). For most people, it is frustrating. So the Church, perhaps to relieve frustration tends to emphasize that (2) and (3) can be done instead. But people have started to look at (1) as if it does not exist now. That is bad. There are people who are called to do (1) and get discouraged.

So I am ok if you want to say Mother Theresa did evangelizing work in the second sense. But you have to see that she did not give anyone reasons to convert. Not to presume her thoughts but her sayings usually tend to say that she did not even think (1) and (2) was needed. In saying “let a good X be a good X” tends to say that I don’t want to give reasons to them to think otherwise. I will just try to make mine look appealing. But since truth of religion is not based on how attractive it is, this thinking does not contribute to (1).

I took minut to read some more of this post and I beleive the answer t a lot of your questions is God’s Grace.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Sorry I clipped your post but two things I really need to address.1st
No one from this thread has claimed other wise. But what I am trying to say is we all have to do good works toward the people we interact with on a daily basis
2nd
I never claimed such a thing.

So you do agree with me that we must use words to convince people by giving them reasons? Because all this time I was under the impression that you were calling everyone to be a Mother Theresa?

 

[Eufrosnia]

I took minut to read some more of this post and I beleive the answer t a lot of your questions is God’s Grace.

God’s grace works through us. What you are trying to do is somehow take away the responsibility we have to act as instruments of God’s grace to convince others through reason.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I don’t beleive any one here is disputing this. It is the “seemingly” claim that Blessed Mother Theresa’s good works and the good works of other saintly people are some how equated to being a charitable NGO. Personally I beleive that what Pope Feancis is saying is that we can’t be doing Good works just because God says we have to. We have to do it because we genuinely love people as Jesus loves them. If we don’t then it becomes a charity like an NGO.

Intent is not the issue here. Unless we are first concerned with SPIRITUAL POVERTY, we are just NGO’s. That is just it.

Mother Theresa is not a great person because she helped the poor. She is great because she loved God and therefore obeyed his command to do good works.But that is not the only command for all of us. Some are called to do more than just do charity work.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Eufrosnia, I personally know of a man who was attracted to and converted by Mother Teresa’s example. He was a cardiologist at the hospital where I worked. He has written a book on it and gave up his cardiology practice to open free medical clinics associated with her work. He has been associated with the Missionaries of Charity since the early 90’s. I heard his personal testimony of his transformation and he goes around the country giving his testimony. He worked at my hospital in the 80’s and early 90’s. He became Mother’s cardiologist in the US.

The name of his book is Mother Teresa’s Prescription and the author is Paul Wright, MD. It is available on Amazon and from Barnes and Noble.

The Bible says the early Christians were known by their love. Their service to each other became a witness to the world and attracted followers. Yes, some also preached the word, but that alone will not necessarily convert. Unless there is a reason, people may not be convinced. Why should they believe one person over another? When they see how true Christians live, how they love, how service to others brings them joy and peace, then they are convinced. Many people have a longing for something they cannot name, and when they see and interact with Christians who are living a life of service and charity and see the peace and joy they have, they want it. Acts of charity certainly can become a powerful tool for evangelization. This is the essence of Dr Wright’s story. And then he goes round evangelizing others. Do an internet search and read the testimonies of people and what converted them to Christianity. Many times you will read that it was from observation of how Christians lived and loved. Acts of charity are love in action to a Christian. This is Biblical.

Eufrosnia, you really have no idea how many people have been converted by Mother Theresa"s example. They probably are not doing as Dr. Wright does and going around writing books and giving testimonies. But this is one man that was brought to conversion by observing her charity. And the likelihood is that many others have been also and some of their stories may be on the internet also. This is a big world. I read one testimony from a college student who visited her in India and her example of love and service transformed her life also. I cannot remember her name or I would link it.

Maybe you are not understanding what I am saying here. Mother Theresa might have converted MILLIONS in that way. My point is that those people embraced a religion for no real reason. Mother Theresa being a good charity worker is not evidence that Christianity is true. Do you agree or disagree?

To me it seems plain as day that one has to agree. So what you are doing is showing how people convert for arbitrary attachments or appeal and then trying to say she evangelized.

I can pay people to convert and embrace Christianity. I would have converted but I wouldn’t have really given them any reason to do so. What is problematic is that many like you today think that this arbitrary form of appeal should be the primary vehicle of evangelisation in the Church. That is just unreasonable.

EWhen they see how true Christians live, how they love, how service to others brings them joy and peace, then they are convinced. Many people have a longing for something they cannot name, and when they see and interact with Christians who are living a life of service and charity and see the peace and joy they have, they want it.

I can just replace this to even support gay marriage.

Emotional appeal or feeling like “this is what I want” is not an indicator of truth. I don’t know why Catholics want to stoop to the level of reducing their faith to something as unreasonable as this.

Nothing you said above should convince anyone other than some emotional person to embrace Christianity. They will leave the minute they see something that irks them emotionally as well. So no, I am afraid I disagree.

 

[simple_soul]

God’s grace works through us. What you are trying to do is somehow take away the responsibility we have to act as instruments of God’s grace to convince others through reason.

I accept full responsibility of my having to act as an instrument of God’s Grace. Granted I am not a perfect instrument yet.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I accept full responsibility of my having to act as an instrument of God’s Grace. Granted I am not a perfect instrument yet.

Sure, but you don’t seem to agree that some people are called to do this using words that communicate reasons.

You can’t just expect “doing charity work” to be labelled as evangelization. That is doing good works. Not evangelizing in and of itself. It can only be part of it. Not the complete thing. The complete package needs witness through ones life AND giving REASONS through words.

 

[Rich_C]

Superior JR, I have read where the rule of 1221 discusses the “Saracens” and St. Francis doesn’t forbid converting Muslims here. He just says there are “two ways” to live among them, and that one consists of not preaching and the other of preaching and baptizing.

Could you point to where St. Francis forbid his brothers from preaching to non-Catholics?

Thanks.

Bump.

 

[simple_soul]

Sure, but you don’t seem to agree that some people are called to do this using words that communicate reasons.

You can’t just expect “doing charity work” to be labelled as evangelization. That is doing good works. Not evangelizing in and of itself. It can only be part of it. Not the complete thing. The complete package needs witness through ones life AND giving REASONS through words.

I use words and give reason when necessary as best as I can and some people can do this better than me. I really do need to bow out at this point because I really have no idea what you are trying to accuse me of. To me you seem to try and twist things I say to fit what you beleive I am saying and it is really confusing me.

 

[CB_Catholic]

This is all true, but I would draw attention to the bolded. By saying “interact with Christians”, you are implying that the Christian identity of the person doing the good deeds is fundamental to the good deed and apparent to the other person. And that is exactly what I’m saying is necessary, the Christian identity/purpose of the works has to be acknowledged or known. If not, the person receiving the good deeds wouldn’t even know Christianity was involved at all. When a person doing good works ignores, or even actively hides, the Chrisitan identity, then there is literally no difference between their good deeds and those of a Muslim or an atheist, and thus there is no evangelization.

As for the Mother Theresa example, it was well known that she was Catholic. She was not ignoring or hiding her Catholic identity, so that when she helped someone they knew that Catholicism was central to her identity and that it was the cause of her works. That is why people could be drawn to Catholicism by her works. but if we ignore or hide the Catholicism, our works can’t draw anyone anywhere at all because there is nothing to draw them to.

I am saying that they know (or soon find out) they are Christians, I never claimed or implied anything else. The fact that they are Christians is not always known at first, but when people see the fruits of living a life of love and service they are attracted to it, and will soon find out. I am saying that the acts of charity and the love with which they are done produced the fruits of love and joy and peace (the fruits of the Holy Spirit) in the lives of Christians and people are attracted to this. Thus, living this kind of life is evangelizing. The words come later. But if I am reading it right, some have claimed that acts of charity alone cannot evangelize. I say they can, the fruits of living in love attract the people in the first place. That is where the initial evangelization took place.

Of course we use words. But words are not always the starting point. People can be evangelized without using them. The explanations and catechesis comes later. It is all part of a process. That is why I believed Mother Theresa evangelized plenty just by being and doing what God wanted her to be and do. People were attracted to what she did and the evident holiness and wanted to find out more. but then the process is continued and integrated by preaching and teaching, personal testimony, etc. There is not just one way to do it, and the final goal is conversion of heart.

 

[McCall1981]

Thus, living this kind of life is evangelizing. The words come later. But if I am reading it right, some have claimed that acts of charity alone cannot evangelize. I say they can, the fruits of living in love attract the people in the first place. That is where the initial evangelization took place.

Of course we use words. But words are not always the starting point. People can be evangelized without using them. The explanations and catechesis comes later. It is all part of a process.

I’m confused becasue on the one hand you’re saying that of course we use words and that words are part of a process, and on the other hand you’re saying acts of charity alone can be evangelization.

I fully agree that acts can be a great starting point to the process, but I’m saying they have to be followed up by words in order for it to be evangelization. Without the follow up words, these are just nice acts and are indistinguishable from nice Muslim acts, or nice atheist acts.

If you think that words need to be part of the process then we are in agreement

 

[simple_soul]

Intent is not the issue here. Unless we are first concerned with SPIRITUAL POVERTY, we are just NGO’s. That is just it.

Mother Theresa is not a great person because she helped the poor. She is great because she loved God and therefore obeyed his command to do good works.But that is not the only command for all of us. Some are called to do more than just do charity work.

P.S. I beleive all forms of work should be charity work. Are you saying there not?

 

[CB_Catholic]

Maybe you are not understanding what I am saying here. Mother Theresa might have converted MILLIONS in that way. My point is that those people embraced a religion for no real reason. Mother Theresa being a good charity worker is not evidence that Christianity is true. Do you agree or disagree?

To me it seems plain as day that one has to agree. So what you are doing is showing how people convert for arbitrary attachments or appeal and then trying to say she evangelized.

I can pay people to convert and embrace Christianity. I would have converted but I wouldn’t have really given them any reason to do so. What is problematic is that many like you today think that this arbitrary form of appeal should be the primary vehicle of evangelisation in the Church. That is just unreasonable.

I can just replace this to even support gay marriage.

Emotional appeal or feeling like “this is what I want” is not an indicator of truth. I don’t know why Catholics want to stoop to the level of reducing their faith to something as unreasonable as this.

Nothing you said above should convince anyone other than some emotional person to embrace Christianity. They will leave the minute they see something that irks them emotionally as well. So no, I am afraid I disagree.

You know, you are very insulting and making assumptions you have no business making about me and others. I can see no point continuing this discussion with you. You are implying I am some overly emotional person that cannot see beyond my emotions into reason, and that most of your fellow Catholics are stupid enough to let their emotions overrule their reason, so their conversions are not real. That is quite an assumption. You need to cool the rhetoric and start seeing your fellow Catholics in a better light, rather than assuming the worst in them.

 

[simple_soul]

So you do agree with me that we must use words to convince people by giving them reasons? Because all this time I was under the impression that you were calling everyone to be a Mother Theresa?

Sorry I missed this post.
Let me see if I can say this in a way you might understand. I know I am not Mother Theresa but I can take her example of evangilization and apply it to my life in my role of being a wife and mother and neighbor and friend. Are you saying this is wrong?

 

[JReducation]

Superior JR, I have read where the rule of 1221 discusses the “Saracens” and St. Francis doesn’t forbid converting Muslims here. He just says there are “two ways” to live among them, and that one consists of not preaching and the other of preaching and baptizing.

Could you point to where St. Francis forbid his brothers from preaching to non-Catholics?

Thanks.

First, you don’t have to call me “Superior JR”. LOL The brothers call me Father and everyone calls me Brother. Superior sounds so formal.

Second, this is not in the Rule. This was the mandate given to the friars who went to the Province of Jerusalem, today known as the Custody of the Holy Land. The friars’ mission there is to serve the Catholics who come to the Holy Land by preaching to them, providing them with spiritual and sacramental nutrition to help them along their spiritual journey. They are not allowed to proselytize to Jews or Muslims. However, they do preach to the Jews and Muslims by their faith and their lives.

First thing I would like to say is that I disagree with grouping Francis of Assisi together with those people. There is enough historical work done on St. Francis to show that the view of him as just a charity worker is untenable. He did actually proclaim teaching to the world.

Franciscans have never called St. Francis a “charity worker”. He was a preacher and most of all he was a father to his brothers. Most of his energy and time was spent on that particular ministry. He certainly was not a social worker. Neither is Mother Teresa or Vincent de Paul et al.

Most of Mother Teresa’s congregation is made up of converts from Hinduism to Catholicism. These were men and women who witnessed her life and work and were curious as to why she did what she did. There is a rather interesting anecdote by a Protestant European who was visiting and later became Catholic because of her response to him.

She was washing a leprosy patient. The person said to her, “I wouldn’t do that for all the money in the world.”

Mother Teresa responded, “Neither would I, only for him,” and she looked at the crucifix. This left an impression on her audience.

One of the best writers on Mother Teresa’s preaching is Malcum Mudgeridge (sp?). He was an Anglican who converted to Catholicism because of his contact with Mother. There is also a congregation of sisters, whose name escapes me, but it has something to do with Our Lady. They were converted by observing the Missionaries of Charity. They say this in their history.

This goes back to 1219 according to Franciscans. But history seems to disagree. There are enough claimed accounts of Francis himself trying his best to convert using ample words.

I believe that Franciscans would like to see those. Franciscan scholars have been unable to produce much by way of sermons of St. Francis. Even writings are very few. Most of what we know about his is from a few things that he wrote and from what Celano, Bonaventure, the Three Companions, the Legend of Perugia, the anecdotes in the Little Flowers, and the letters of early Franciscans. Francis of Assisi is like Christ in many respects. Most of what we know about him is through extrapolation.

But what is there to really understand or reflect as a non-Catholic? Mother Theresa did what she did because she thought that is what Christ, who she claims to be the son of God, asked her to do. But that does not give me or anyone else any reason to be Christian, yes?

I disagree. When I see a congregation of over 3,000 men and women made of more than 75% converts whose conversion was influenced by their contact with Mother, I’m more convinced than ever that there is a great deal to the power of example.

Do you have a problem with Mother’s way of preaching?

 

[Rich_C]

First, you don’t have to call me “Superior JR”. LOL The brothers call me Father and everyone calls me Brother. Superior sounds so formal.

Sorry, I wasn’t sure. I suppose I’ll call you “brother,” then.

Second, this is not in the Rule. This was the mandate given to the friars who went to the Province of Jerusalem, today known as the Custody of the Holy Land. The friars’ mission there is to serve the Catholics who come to the Holy Land by preaching to them, providing them with spiritual and sacramental nutrition to help them along their spiritual journey. They are not allowed to proselytize to Jews or Muslims. However, they do preach to the Jews and Muslims by their faith and their lives.

Yes, I see. But is there a written mandate you could point me to, where you learned this? Or supposing St. Francis didn’t actually write it himself, a historian who mentions this? I just can’t see to turn anything up.

Thank you for taking time out of your day to answer my questions, brother.

 

[JReducation]

Sorry, I wasn’t sure. I suppose I’ll call you “brother,” then.

Yes, I see. But is there a written mandate you could point me to, where you learned this? Or supposing St. Francis didn’t actually write it himself, a historian who mentions this? I just can’t see to turn anything up.

Thank you for taking time out of your day to answer my questions, brother.

There is the Letter of Obedience given to the first Custos of the Holy Land. To the best of my knowledge, it’s not in public domain. It’s in the archives of the Custody. To this day, every Custos passes this mandate on to his successors. I can’t recall the date, but at some point along the way, the Holy See carved the Province of Jerusalem out of the Franciscan Order and renamed it the Papal Custody of the Holy Land and confirmed the mission that Francis gave to the first Custos.

Today, the Custody is under direct control of the Holy Father, while the friars are under the governance of the Minister General. The Minister General guides the friars according to the wishes of the Holy Father. No pope has ever changed the mission of the Custody. They’ve only changed the governance.

 

[Lormar]

One of the best writers on Mother Teresa’s preaching is Malcum Mudgeridge (sp?). He was an Anglican who converted to Catholicism because of his contact with Mother. There is also a congregation of sisters, whose name escapes me, but it has something to do with Our Lady. They were converted by observing the Missionaries of Charity. They say this in their history.

Brother, are you referring to these Sisters: sistersofmarymotherofthechurch.org/67

 

[Rich_C]

There is the Letter of Obedience given to the first Custos of the Holy Land. To the best of my knowledge, it’s not in public domain. It’s in the archives of the Custody. To this day, every Custos passes this mandate on to his successors. I can’t recall the date, but at some point along the way, the Holy See carved the Province of Jerusalem out of the Franciscan Order and renamed it the Papal Custody of the Holy Land and confirmed the mission that Francis gave to the first Custos.

Today, the Custody is under direct control of the Holy Father, while the friars are under the governance of the Minister General. The Minister General guides the friars according to the wishes of the Holy Father. No pope has ever changed the mission of the Custody. They’ve only changed the governance.

Is knowledge of this letter only passed down verbally, with no written references at all?

 

[Eufrosnia]

Franciscans have never called St. Francis a “charity worker”. He was a preacher and most of all he was a father to his brothers. Most of his energy and time was spent on that particular ministry. He certainly was not a social worker. Neither is Mother Teresa or Vincent de Paul et al.

Most of Mother Teresa’s congregation is made up of converts from Hinduism to Catholicism. These were men and women who witnessed her life and work and were curious as to why she did what she did. There is a rather interesting anecdote by a Protestant European who was visiting and later became Catholic because of her response to him.

She was washing a leprosy patient. The person said to her, “I wouldn’t do that for all the money in the world.”

Mother Teresa responded, “Neither would I, only for him,” and she looked at the crucifix. This left an impression on her audience.

One of the best writers on Mother Teresa’s preaching is Malcum Mudgeridge (sp?). He was an Anglican who converted to Catholicism because of his contact with Mother. There is also a congregation of sisters, whose name escapes me, but it has something to do with Our Lady. They were converted by observing the Missionaries of Charity. They say this in their history.

So I think it must be clarified that I do not mean Mother Theresa’s style does not win converts. I think any style can honestly win converts. One effective style maybe to give a cash incentive. I am sure at least many more will consider become Catholic if were to do so.

My point therefore is that its not so much what leads people to convert. Rather, I am concerned about communicating actual reasons to convert. That cannot obviously be done through charity work. That same person who saw mother Theresa washing a lepor and was impressed might have been equally mad if they heard her position on contraception. So my point is that it is important that we give reasons to accept the faith.

The charity work is primarily the result of our call to do good works. It can’t be a primary mechanism of convincing others to accept Christianity.

The primary mechanism has to be reasons to convert. That way, the faithful can fully commit to the faith.

I believe that Franciscans would like to see those. Franciscan scholars have been unable to produce much by way of sermons of St. Francis. Even writings are very few. Most of what we know about his is from a few things that he wrote and from what Celano, Bonaventure, the Three Companions, the Legend of Perugia, the anecdotes in the Little Flowers, and the letters of early Franciscans. Francis of Assisi is like Christ in many respects. Most of what we know about him is through extrapolation.

Well, the book by the Dominican priest that we discussed in the past seems to provide sources to build a case contrary to what Franciscan’s do say.

That aside, it is said that St. Anthony of Padua was going to go to Morocco to preach to Muslims as a Franciscan brother. But that will not make sense if St. Francis already had a ban. So does it not show that this view that Franciscans hold that St. Francis was against preaching to non-Catholics is incorrect?

I disagree. When I see a congregation of over 3,000 men and women made of more than 75% converts whose conversion was influenced by their contact with Mother, I’m more convinced than ever that there is a great deal to the power of example.

Do you have a problem with Mother’s way of preaching?

Yes. I do have a problem in referring to it as preaching. It can only be described as opening people up to consider Christianity. Someone else has to then do the preaching.

I mean, I do not see why this is so surprising. Atheists do charity, Muslims do charity. But we never consider their religions or lack of religion as true, yes? I feel that calling “charity work” as preaching is problematic because

1. it leads others to think that picking a religion is just a matter of figuring out what appeals in a very deep way to them
2. there is no reasonable way of knowing whether Christianity is true. Christianity just happens to be the one most people seem able to relate to. (People being able to relate to something does not make it true)

Due to the above, I do have a problem in saying Mother Theresa did any preaching. I believe it is correct to say that she was a good Catholic who did good works and opened up others to Christianity.