Learn more about Pope Francis rather than criticize

[JReducation]

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

Yes. That’s them.

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

I don’t know the answer to this. That’s not my community. They’re a very special community, which the Holy See maintains in isolation.

Just for the sake of sharing, there are three communities that the Holy See has severed from the larger Franciscan family.

There is a community of Conventual Franciscan Friars which is the only community that is allowed faculties to hear confessions in St. Peter’s. These friars are pulled from around the world. They are considered the best theologians in the world. They are priests and brothers. Their mission is to hear confessions at St. Peter’s and to teach catechesis there.

There is a community of Capuchin Franciscan Friars which is the only community allowed to preach to the pope and to the papal household. These too are priests and brothers pulled from around the world. They are selected from the best theologians that the Capuchin Franciscan Friars have to offer.

Then there is the Observant Franciscan Friars pulled from around the world to serve in the Holy Land. Again, only the best theologians from that group are allowed to go there.

No other religious order his allowed to occupy these posts. This has been the norm since the 16th century. It all began with the Custody in the 13th century and was finally concluded in the 16th century with the papal preachers.

 

[JReducation]

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.

I have not read this book. Therefore, I cannot say that his understanding is correct or not.

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?

You need to go back. We were speaking about the friars that were sent to Jerusalem.

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.

Bold is mine.

You have a problem with it. That’s fine. But we must think and feel with the Church. Bl. John Paul did not have a problem with it when he beatified her or even when she was alive. He referred to her as a model of evangelization.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I have not read this book. Therefore, I cannot say that his understanding is correct or not.

Sure. But I think it will do us both good if you do read it because it does make a lot of claims against what Franciscans usually hold.

You need to go back. We were speaking about the friars that were sent to Jerusalem.

Well that just proves the case even more. If such a proclamation was made by St. Francis, then more further back it is the more it would be in implementation. The fact that St. Anthony wanted to go and preach to Muslims suggest then that St. Francis probably didn’t say such a thing.

Bold is mine.

You have a problem with it. That’s fine. But we must think and feel with the Church. Bl. John Paul did not have a problem with it when he beatified her or even when she was alive. He referred to her as a model of evangelization.

I think you are now making this an issue of Eufrosnia vs. the Church when this really is not.

Bl. JP II canonized her as worthy of imitation. I have no problems with that. What Bl. JP II cannot have done is make an infallible proclamation that Mother Theresa PREACHED.

As I said before, even if we define preach very vaguely, then we must still be clear that Mother Theresa’s work is not effective in giving reasons for people to convert. It is only good as a tool to open up others to consider Christianity. It seems to me like you want to equate opening up people to giving reasons to convert when those are two different things.

Now if you want to call what Mother Theresa did as preaching, then you will have to find another word to define a very valid method of evangelizing that was usually called by that name i.e. communicating actual reasons for others to embrace Christianity using words. But then it begs the question as to why you want to do something like that.

Why can’t we just accept that Mother Theresa was not evangelizing in the usual sense of the word? There is nothing wrong with that because people aren’t called to do what they cannot do. Same goes for Franciscans today. If they can’t preach, that is fine. They can do their part by opening up others to Christianity and building bridges. But it would be contrary to the Church’s teaching to then go and discourage those who are prepared to use words to give reasons to others to both defend and win followers to the faith.

Witness through ones life and words are not equal and valid ways of evangelizing. They are both part of the evangelizing process. First comes the witness through life to open others up to ask “Why on earth are you doing this?”. Then comes the words describing “This is why I am Christian…”.

What people today want to say is that charity works is an evangelizing method by itself. That is false.

 

[JReducation]

Sure. But I think it will do us both good if you do read it because it does make a lot of claims against what Franciscans usually hold.

Well that just proves the case even more. If such a proclamation was made by St. Francis, then more further back it is the more it would be in implementation. The fact that St. Anthony wanted to go and preach to Muslims suggest then that St. Francis probably didn’t say such a thing.

Pay attention my child. St. Francis wrote this to the Custos of the Holy Land. Anthony was neither the Custos of the Holy Land nor was he part of that community. Anthony and Francis never exchanged two words during their life time other than one letter.

I think you are now making this an issue of Eufrosnia vs. the Church when this really is not.

No I’m not. I’m saying that your position and that of the Holy Father are different. We have to think and speak with the Holy Father.

Do you or do you not want me to be a good Franciscan?

If you do, then you must allow me to speak as a Franciscan. We have been mandated to think and speak with the Holy Father, never to have opinions or positions of our own.

 

[Lormar]

We have been mandated to think and speak with the Holy Father, never to have opinions or positions of our own.

Doesn’t this apply to all Catholics (and not just Franciscans) in a sense? Isn’t it something that many of us have lost?

 

[JReducation]

Sure. But I think it will do us both good if you do read it because it does make a lot of claims against what Franciscans usually hold.

Well that just proves the case even more. If such a proclamation was made by St. Francis, then more further back it is the more it would be in implementation. The fact that St. Anthony wanted to go and preach to Muslims suggest then that St. Francis probably didn’t say such a thing.

I think you are now making this an issue of Eufrosnia vs. the Church when this really is not.

Bl. JP II canonized her as worthy of imitation. I have no problems with that. What Bl. JP II cannot have done is make an infallible proclamation that Mother Theresa PREACHED.

As I said before, even if we define preach very vaguely, then we must still be clear that Mother Theresa’s work is not effective in giving reasons for people to convert. It is only good as a tool to open up others to consider Christianity. It seems to me like you want to equate opening up people to giving reasons to convert when those are two different things.

Now if you want to call what Mother Theresa did as preaching, then you will have to find another word to define a very valid method of evangelizing that was usually called by that name i.e. communicating actual reasons for others to embrace Christianity using words. But then it begs the question as to why you want to do something like that.

Why can’t we just accept that Mother Theresa was not evangelizing in the usual sense of the word? There is nothing wrong with that because people aren’t called to do what they cannot do. Same goes for Franciscans today. If they can’t preach, that is fine. They can do their part by opening up others to Christianity and building bridges. But it would be contrary to the Church’s teaching to then go and discourage those who are prepared to use words to give reasons to others to both defend and win followers to the faith.

Witness through ones life and words are not equal and valid ways of evangelizing. They are both part of the evangelizing process. First comes the witness through life to open others up to ask “Why on earth are you doing this?”. Then comes the words describing “This is why I am Christian…”.

What people today want to say is that charity works is an evangelizing method by itself. That is false.

Not according to St. Vincent de Paul

Doesn’t this apply to all Catholics (and not just Franciscans) in a sense? Isn’t it something that many of us have lost?

:yup:

 

[Eufrosnia]

Pay attention my child. St. Francis wrote this to the Custos of the Holy Land. Anthony was neither the Custos of the Holy Land nor was he part of that community. Anthony and Francis never exchanged two words during their life time other than one letter.

I am objecting to your position that St. Francis banned preaching to others who are non-Catholic. Its not specifically holy land I am referring to here. So do you agree that Franciscans have no such ban from St. Francis in general?

No I’m not. I’m saying that your position and that of the Holy Father are different. We have to think and speak with the Holy Father.

My position and that of the Holy Father can be different on many things. I would not have held Assissi and thought it would be bad but John Paul II thought it would be great and held it. So I think its safe to say that there is no issue with disagreeing on these sort of matters.

What I always will assent to is his teachings and the laws/requests he imposes. The rest is just things I tolerate out of respect but do not need to assent to.

The problem here is actually this though.

You are advocating that Bl. JP II considered Mother Theresa’s work as evangelization by itself. But that would be a teaching of the Church defining what evangelizing is. Such a teaching does not exist. So you are most likely wrong on this line of thinking.

Secondly, in advocating that Bl. JP II taught such a thing, you are contradicting what has been taught by the Church and very plainly in the gospels i.e. Charity work is not the primary concern of the Church. It is not a NGO organization. Evangelizing is done by witness of life AND (not OR) through WORDS.

On these counts, it leads one to think that you are possibly mistaken.

Do you or do you not want me to be a good Franciscan?

If you do, then you must allow me to speak as a Franciscan. We have been mandated to think and speak with the Holy Father, never to have opinions or positions of our own.

No. You are putting words in my mouth that I never said. I want you to be Franciscan to the fullest. What I am against is you trying to make the entire Church Franciscan. There is no place for that. Franciscans, in the understanding you promote as charity workers first, are good at building bridges an interest in others about Christianity. But the sole purpose of the Church is not about building bridges and just creating an interest in others about Christianity. The Church also has a duty to give reasons and share the faith through WORDS! Otherwise the interest will just die off or be just that… an interest.

Now according to God’s providence, it is very possible that Franciscans today were never the bunch to do that particular aspect of evangelizing. But others are called to do that and they should do that.

What I am against is anyone trying to say that what Franciscans do in charity work or Mother did in her charity work is evangelizing itself. That is false. That is only one part of evangelizing. Someone else MUST do the rest. The rest have to use words, reason and discussions to win converts. Not use emotional appeals about how good and charity oriented the followers of Christianity tend to be.

You have also side stepped my questions brother. I asked you the following.

Why doesn’t the Dalai Lama or someone else who does good in other religions make you abandon your faith and convert to their faith? Is it because they are not doing enough good? Where do you draw the requirement? How much good should one do to convince you that their religion is true?

The answer to the above should make it clear why your position is not tenable.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Not according to St. Vincent de Paul

Well without much elaboration, I cannot really acknowledge or reject what you said, yes?

As far as I am concerned, it would be incorrect to interpret the words of St. Vincent de Paul as saying something erroneous on this matter like “Charity work alone = evangelizing”.

I also struggle to see why this is so difficult. Jesus, never said go out to the world and do charity. He would be the biggest hypocrite if what you say is true. All Jesus should have done is use his power to create a bread stall that never ran out, maybe supply clean water for all, solve all the worlds problems and he would have done everything that needs to be done to convert those in his time. So him not doing that means he never even followed his own advise.

He always went away when people just sought him to feed their hunger. He was interested in the spiritual welfare of people. Not ending poverty.

So I don’t know what made you think St. Vincent De Paul thinks otherwise. But all I can say is that perhaps a better interpretation of his writing would be more accurate of what he said.

 

[simple_soul]

I also struggle to see why this is so difficult. Jesus, never said go out to the world and do charity. He would be the biggest hypocrite if what you say is true. .

If Jesus never taught to go out and do charity as in feed the hungry, cloth the naked, heal the sick and visit those who are in prison then what was the reading about seperating the sheep from the goats about?

 

[Eufrosnia]

If Jesus never taught to go out and do charity as in feed the hungry, cloth the naked, heal the sick and visit those who are in prison then what was the reading about seperating the sheep from the goats about?

I was speaking with reference to “go out and preach the gospel”. Jesus did not appear to the Apostles after his death and resurrection and tell them to go do charity work, yes? Do you agree with me on that point at least?

As for the need for charity work, it is something all Christians should do. That is not primarily for evangelizing but to do good works. The good works themselves can create an interest or build bridges between Christians and non-Christians but that is not what is sought after. In the event that these bridges are formed, the ones who are good at preaching, reasoning and communicating take over the evangelizing task.

What I am against is this claim that Jesus instituted a mass charity organization that will evangelize through its charity work. He did not. He instituted a Church which he commanded to go out and PREACH the gospel.

Now notice how Jesus had no problem speaking of good works? So if that is what he wanted the Church to do, then he would have told them do just that… go out and do some charity work. People will convert. BUT that is not what he said. He said that he will send the Holy Spirit, not to strengthen them to do charity work but to give them the grace to preach the gospel and teach the faith.

Quiet honestly, I cannot comprehend why people don’t see this by looking at the early Church. My only guess is that there are those who aren’t good at communicating and possibly have experience of getting nowhere in their attempts to convince others. So they assume that the best route is for ALL OF US to just do charity. That is WRONG. That particular person should just continue doing his good works and living a good Christian life while ENCOURAGING, and contributing in anyway possible for those who do PREACH.

Instead of that, we have people who discourage others who preach and disparage them for disturbing the “peace” and not just getting along. They would try to use cases like Mother Theresa or St. Francis (increasingly becoming problematic with historical works about the saint) to bolster their claim that evangelization is done primarily through works of charity. They will try to point out how many converted during their time etc.

What they are missing is that everyone who converts this way, does so without real reason. So they can fall away just as easily or take short cuts with their faith just as easily. After all, who needs to be rigorous with something they assented to because it appealed to them.

 

[JReducation]

I was speaking with reference to “go out and preach the gospel”. Jesus did not appear to the Apostles after his death and resurrection and tell them to go do charity work, yes? Do you agree with me on that point at least?

As for the need for charity work, it is something all Christians should do. That is not primarily for evangelizing but to do good works. The good works themselves can create an interest or build bridges between Christians and non-Christians but that is not what is sought after. In the event that these bridges are formed, the ones who are good at preaching, reasoning and communicating take over the evangelizing task.

What I am against is this claim that Jesus instituted a mass charity organization that will evangelize through its charity work. He did not. He instituted a Church which he commanded to go out and PREACH the gospel.

Now notice how Jesus had no problem speaking of good works? So if that is what he wanted the Church to do, then he would have told them do just that… go out and do some charity work. People will convert. BUT that is not what he said. He said that he will send the Holy Spirit, not to strengthen them to do charity work but to give them the grace to preach the gospel and teach the faith.

Quiet honestly, I cannot comprehend why people don’t see this by looking at the early Church. My only guess is that there are those who aren’t good at communicating and possibly have experience of getting nowhere in their attempts to convince others. So they assume that the best route is for ALL OF US to just do charity. That is WRONG. That particular person should just continue doing his good works and living a good Christian life while ENCOURAGING, and contributing in anyway possible for those who do PREACH.

Instead of that, we have people who discourage others who preach and disparage them for disturbing the “peace” and not just getting along. They would try to use cases like Mother Theresa or St. Francis (increasingly becoming problematic with historical works about the saint) to bolster their claim that evangelization is done primarily through works of charity. They will try to point out how many converted during their time etc.

If you’re referring to me, I do not discourage anyone from evangelizing.

Secondly, the historical works of which you speak have yet to meet the approval of the Franciscans Council of Major Superiors. The Council has the last word on what is and is not legitimate Franciscan study. That is not to say that the writings being done are not legitimate. I’m simply saying that you cannot push them as being so, until the Franciscans give them a . That is a privilege and authority reserved to the Franciscan superiors general. This was established by the general chapter of February 2, 1257 and in 1266 St. Bonaventure ordered that no writing on St. Francis was to be accepted by the friars without his approval. This has been handed down from generation to generation and upheld by the Church to this day. Many people write about Francis, but few of these writings are endorsed by the Franciscan Order. This is known as the Right of Succession whereby one Minister General inherits the powers and rights of the previous Minister General. The Church has upheld this to this day. Until the Ministers General say that a work is authoritative, it remains one person’s work and cannot be introduced as authoritative Franciscan writing.

As to the conversions brought about by the good example of many holy people, this is a verifiable fact. Again, we just have to look at the 3,000 Missionaries of Charity. Over 80% of them are former Hindus and Protestants who started as volunteers with Mother Teresa and her congregation.

What they are missing is that everyone who converts this way, does so without real reason. So they can fall away just as easily or take short cuts with their faith just as easily. After all, who needs to be rigorous with something they assented to because it appealed to them.

The bold is mine. History has proven differently. I don’t think this is the case at all. We have many men and women who came to the faith because of the good example of someone. Among these am I.

I came to the faith by the good example of the Capuchin Franciscan Friars. No one convinced me that it was the right thing to do. I loved by friars. I respected and admired what they did and how they lived. I read about St. Francis and understood a little more about the friars. The more I read about this man, the more I wanted to be like him. Then I realized that to be like him, I had to be a Catholic. That’s when I started to look at Catholicism more seriously. But by the time that I started to look at Catholicism, I was sold on Franciscanism. What brought me was the great charity and simplicity of the Capuchins.

Prior to meeting them, I was the victim of discrimination, because I was a Jewish kid living in the South. Being sent to them for schooling provided me with a safe haven. I experienced their love for Christ through their love for me.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

The bold is mine. History has proven differently. I don’t think this is the case at all. We have many men and women who came to the faith because of the good example of someone. Among these am I.

I came to the faith by the good example of the Capuchin Franciscan Friars. No one convinced me that it was the right thing to do. I loved by friars. I respected and admired what they did and how they lived. I read about St. Francis and understood a little more about the friars. The more I read about this man, the more I wanted to be like him. Then I realized that to be like him, I had to be a Catholic. That’s when I started to look at Catholicism more seriously. But by the time that I started to look at Catholicism, I was sold on Franciscanism. What brought me was the great charity and simplicity of the Capuchins.

Prior to meeting them, I was the victim of discrimination, because I was a Jewish kid living in the South. Being sent to them for schooling provided me with a safe haven. I experienced their love for Christ through their love for me.

Br. Jay, this is beautiful!!

What a beautiful example of evangelization.
I think part of the problem with this discussion is that some are looking at the situation as “either/or” instead of “both/and”. Yes “preaching” is important, as is teaching, but Jesus also told us that feeing the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. were things we should do, because when we do for the least of His people, we do for Him.
One way is not “better” or more productive than the other, both are important, needed and should not be seperated from each other.

 

[Rich_C]

Originally Posted by Rich C
Is knowledge of this letter only passed down verbally, with no written references at all?

If you’ll pardon my persistance,

if you don’t know of any written reference to this that people can read, then how do you know that St. Francis forbid preaching to non-Catholics? Did you hear this from a superior or a teacher?

I mean no disrespect, but it’s a line of argument I’ve seen you advance perhaps dozens of times since I joined CAF, a line of argument that seems contrary to the rest of the Catholic Faith *on the face of it *(may well just be my lack of understanding), and when something seems opposed to the rest of what I know about the Faith, I like to see a primary source, a Church document, or at least several persons’ interpretations of the point in question.

Are you sure you couldn’t suggest anything?

 

[McCall1981]

One way is not “better” or more productive than the other, both are important, needed and should not be seperated from each other.

 

[clem456]

Evangelization…
The most influential evangelization I have been given was nursing home EMHC visits.
The people there are broken. Some can’t walk, some can’t speak, lonely, terrified.
Because they are broken, suffering, and empty, they have all kinds of room for God in their lives. They don’t know what day it is or who they are, but they know the sign of the cross and the Our Father.
How do they evangelize? Just by being faithful to who they are. They draw compassion out of people, teach them how to persevere, teach them how to be thankful. They heal the person who comes to minister to them. I swear it’s true. Their suffering might be completey silent, and none of them can make a reasonable argument, but they evangelize.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I agree with this 1000%!

It was actually my work with seniors (in an independant living community) and watching them live their faith in large & small ways, that helped lead me back to the Church. No amount of words would ever have been able to change my heart the way them loving me, in spite of myself, did.

Evangelization…
The most influential evangelization I have been given was nursing home EMHC visits.
The people there are broken. Some can’t walk, some can’t speak, lonely, terrified.
Because they are broken, suffering, and empty, they have all kinds of room for God in their lives. They don’t know what day it is or who they are, but they know the sign of the cross and the Our Father.
How do they evangelize? Just by being faithful to who they are. They draw compassion out of people, teach them how to persevere, teach them how to be thankful. They heal the person who comes to minister to them. I swear it’s true. Their suffering might be completey silent, and none of them can make a reasonable argument, but they evangelize.

 

[Eufrosnia]

If you’re referring to me, I do not discourage anyone from evangelizing.

Secondly, the historical works of which you speak have yet to meet the approval of the Franciscans Council of Major Superiors. The Council has the last word on what is and is not legitimate Franciscan study.

I think we are talking two different issues here though. I am not speaking about the legitimacy of the historical analysis based on Franciscan thought. That would be a discussion of Franciscan Theology and their outlook of St. Francis.

Rather, I am speaking of the authority and legitimacy of the work from a historical stand point.

To explain this with an example, we do not say Christ died and rose from the dead because we believe what the Church teaches by faith. We say that Christ died and rose from the dead because it is a historical truth. In this sense, Christianity stands or falls on the historicity of the resurrection. The Church is not the authority then in judging the historical work. In fact, the church itself will be judged by the historical truth of the death and resurrection. If the fact is false, the church is mislead. If it is true, the Church is true.

Similarly, we are here speaking of the history of the Franciscans. So the authority of the Franciscans, unless we are speaking of them as historians, has no bearing on the matter.

As to the conversions brought about by the good example of many holy people, this is a verifiable fact. Again, we just have to look at the 3,000 Missionaries of Charity. Over 80% of them are former Hindus and Protestants who started as volunteers with Mother Teresa and her congregation.

I think again you are attacking a position I do not hold. Of course we can verify that people convert for all types of arbitrary reasons. We have people who convert when forced by the sword as many Muslims did in the past. We have people who convert when given incentives. Then there are those who convert because they see something that appeals to them in a religion. None of this is beyond verification.

My point is that while people have various reasons, most of them are not reasonable in converting based on those reasons. In other words, what I am saying is that such reasons are not reasons to think a particular religion true, which is the sole reason a person should convert anyway. No one should adopt some story as their faith because it makes them feel good or seems appealing, yes?

If people do convert for arbitrary reasons, they will be equally likely to leave or change the religion to match their needs because they do not know if what they believe is actually true. They only have their liking of the faith to go by. This I feel is the main reason why you have so many Catholics today who feel that the Church itself is destroying the Church. Why? Because they have not embraced the faith through reason. So they see the Church as trying claim monopoly on the truth while making it least appealing. In their minds, the true religion is the most appealing. That is an unreasonable position.

The bold is mine. History has proven differently. I don’t think this is the case at all. We have many men and women who came to the faith because of the good example of someone. Among these am I.

As I said before, I am not saying many have NOT converted. It is indeed true in history that people can be converted by various means. The objection I am making is that such reasons are not real reasons to convert. They are arbitrary. By arbitrary, I mean that anyone could have chosen any other religion if they were to use that line of reasoning.

So if we were to think of charity work, a person who met Dalai Lama first instead of Mother Theresa might have incorrectly lead to think that Buddhism was the true religion.

Prior to meeting them, I was the victim of discrimination, because I was a Jewish kid living in the South. Being sent to them for schooling provided me with a safe haven. I experienced their love for Christ through their love for me.

I cannot go in to an in depth discussion on the process of assent. But at best, I would say that the Capuchins disposed you to have a positive view of Christianity and consider it. Then you were convinced to be Christian by reasons offered through them.

At the end of the day Brother, every person has to ask what reasons they have to think their faith is true. It can’t be that I chose this faith because I felt the presence of God when praying or looking at the people in that religion. I have seen many a Catholics who think the United Church is the true church because they see God in his fullness as they embrace everyone and does not disparage their life style choices like same sex marriage etc. But you will probably be the first to tell them that they are mistaken. So such a form of appeal is arbitrary. It was never meant to be reasons to convert but reasons to remind us that there is something greater than this physical world.

Instead of taking the reminder and starting the search, many people just convert to the religion. It is great as long as the person is willing to give such blind assent and chose the true faith. But the moment they start to wonder what is different from them and the person who chose Hinduism because they found that the most attractive or as God being present, they start to realize that they just don’t have any real reason. Then they either invent ideas like “every religion is a valid and true religion” or “we can’t know if any religion is reasonable to believe in as true”.

It should also be mentioned that one of the popular persons who started emphasizing this sort of conversion based on emotional experience rather than reason was actually Luther himself. We all know where that has lead most of the Christians.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Evangelization…
The most influential evangelization I have been given was nursing home EMHC visits.
The people there are broken. Some can’t walk, some can’t speak, lonely, terrified.
Because they are broken, suffering, and empty, they have all kinds of room for God in their lives. They don’t know what day it is or who they are, but they know the sign of the cross and the Our Father.
How do they evangelize? Just by being faithful to who they are. They draw compassion out of people, teach them how to persevere, teach them how to be thankful. They heal the person who comes to minister to them. I swear it’s true. Their suffering might be completey silent, and none of them can make a reasonable argument, but they evangelize.

But ask yourself the following. What rules of logical inference makes you conclude from the

Proposition A: The attachment to Christianity of the patients

to

Conclusion: Christianity is true and it is what I must believe?

Because think for a bit, what would have happened if you visited a similar place in a Buddhist or Hindu country where the occupants were from these religions. Would you have then been driven further away from Catholicism to embrace that faith?

Also, should you embrace a faith for any other reason than because you know it to be the most reasonable to assume as true?

 

[clem456]

But ask yourself the following. What rules of logical inference makes you conclude from the

Proposition A: The attachment to Christianity of the patients

They are not “attached to” Christianity. They are Catholic Christians obviously, but they do not have an attachment to Christianity, in fact they are detached. They are faithful Christians.

to

Conclusion: Christianity is true and it is what I must believe?

Because think for a bit, what would have happened if you visited a similar place in a Buddhist or Hindu country where the occupants were from these religions. Would you have then been driven further away from Catholicism to embrace that faith?

No. There is one God. God is love. If they draw love out of me they cannot drive me away from God.

Also, should you embrace a faith for any other reason than because you know it to be the most reasonable to assume as true?

I don’t think I have an answer that is going to be sufficient. My best answer is to refer to the cross. Christ is truth. Christ gives himself up while remaining silent. He taught us, but his sacrifice does not force reason and truth on us. Yet he evangelizes. He is faithful. He is the good news.

 

[Eufrosnia]

They are not “attached to” Christianity. They are Catholic Christians obviously, but they do not have an attachment to Christianity, in fact they are detached. They are faithful Christians.

Sure, that is semantics.

No. There is one God. God is love. If they draw love out of me they cannot drive me away from God.

But you only know such things because you are already assuming Christianity to be true. You wouldn’t know that before you assented to any religion. Yes?

We are speaking here about why one should accept Christianity in the first place.

I don’t think I have an answer that is going to be sufficient. My best answer is to refer to the cross. Christ is truth. Christ gives himself up while remaining silent. He taught us, but his sacrifice does not force reason and truth on us. Yet he evangelizes. He is faithful. He is the good news.

Again, you answer with a Christian answer. Unless one is already Christian, that does not make any sense, yes?

Is it not true that you are appealing to an emotional response in taking this approach? Let us say that I do feel like a great attachment in seeing Christ on the cross as a non-Christian. Does it mean that my religion is false and Christianity is true?

P.S. Does the United Church that draws “love” out of same sex couples qualify as bringing you closer to God or away from God?

Also, since “love” is to “will the good of another” and “Good” is usually defined with clarity in religion, how do you know whether you are drawn to “love” by a religion in the first place? At best, what you are saying is that the religion drew you to how to you imagined love to be like. But that is surely not reasons to think the religion true, yes?