Learn more about Pope Francis rather than criticize

[Lucky7]

Oh I get it, a “left” turn… ok, no more political humor.

(Just a joke, I mean no offense to anyone )

LOL…I think that some think that’s exactly what I meant.

Clem: I’m just referring to the whole reason vs emotion topic…a good topic but I’m not sure how we got onto that topic.

 

[TimothyH]

**Well to be fair, reason can get you to faith. Then you assent by faith.**The saints persevered when the articles they believed by faith did not make sense. They did not persevere when having faith in religion did not make sense. Also, they did not just believe in things because they felt like they were true. It was only because the Church taught it. Or else, they were equally quick to discount and shun anything.

Reason points to the Church. No where is there a teaching that we decide what is right and wrong, truth from falsehood based on how we feel or depth of our feeling. That is something people seem to postulate incorrectly. This is also why the Church firmly insists that no matter how true you may feel something is (with respect to truths on faith and morals), if it contradicts the Church, then it is false.

See, now we are getting somewhere.

Your first sentance is more than fair, it is entirely true and why I chose St. Augustine for my confirmation saint. I didn’t even read the rest of your post because I already know I agree based on the first sentance.

I reasoned through the Bible, that Catholicism was the true religion, but it took being touched by God to bring me to faith, to confirm that my reasoning was correct. When I read St. Augustine’s Confessions, that he had done the same, I knew he was my man.

We were talking about promptings of the Holy Spirit however, and reacting to emotional situations with feelings vs reason. I still stand firm, that in the Christian life we are to act first. We are to alleviate suffering, to give people back dignity, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and console those who are sad and love our enemies.

Mother Theresa didn’t ask what got people to this point. She didn’t reason through their problems but acted to alleviate suffering and give people back their dignity which Christ purchased for them on the cross.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

LOL…I think that some think that’s exactly what I meant.

Clem: I’m just referring to the whole reason vs emotion topic…a good topic but I’m not sure how we got onto that topic.

We were discussing, I think, at some point, social justice vs doctrinal morality.

I commented a while back that the social justice “Emotional” crowd seems to be a little taken aback when they read about the strong positions taken on doctrinal and moral issues by this Pope while the docrinal morality “Reason” crowd seems to be shocked by his willingness to embrace social justice issues. I had also commented that social justice vs doctrinal morality it is a false division, because all sin is injustice and all injustice is sin. A world without sin would be perfectly just and a perfectly just world would have no sin.

I think our Pope understands this.

There was a really good blog post by Msgr Charles Pope a while back, worth reading…

***There has been a tendency in the Church in recent decades to divide out the teachings of the Church into separate and often “competing” realms. On the one hand there are said to be the basic moral teachings that include our duty to worship God, tell the truth, obey biblical sexual norms and the like. On the other hand there are said to be “social justice” teachings that include care for the poor, justice to the worker, the accused, the rightful distribution of resources, respect for racial equity and so forth. That social justice should have separated out into a category is problematic for at least two reasons.

1.All sin involves injustice for by it we fail to render to God, ourselves and/or others what is due. I will develop this in a moment.

2.The separation leads to entrenchment and isolation within the Church. Some who are more traditionally minded will tend to speak of those who emphasize the social doctrine of the Church as the “Peace and Justice Crowd” and are offended at their apparent “neglect” of pro-life issues or “fuzziness” on other doctrinal matters. Likewise, the recipients of that title can tend to see themselves as the last bastion of true prophecy and see traditional Catholics as selective in their faith. So both sides have grievances and perceptions that also get mixed in with political viewpoints. The result is entrenched camps, rather than the union which Christ seeks.

Read More…**
-Tim-

 

[McCall1981]

I still stand firm, that in the Christian life we are to act first. We are to alleviate suffering, to give people back dignity, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and console those who are sad and love our enemies.

Mother Theresa didn’t ask what got people to this point. She didn’t reason through their problems but acted to alleviate suffering and give people back their dignity which Christ purchased for them on the cross.

But Mother Theresa also sought to spread the love of Christ and His Church. She was a nun, not an NGO. Same goes for St. Francis, and for Christ Himself for that matter.

Edit - They did what your second post suggests, ie. the social justice and the spiritual/moral. Both are needed.

 

[surritter]

I can’t speak for Bro. Jay, but I think what he was trying to say is that a Franciscan is not allowed to engage in arguments as it is commonly understood today, which is loud and rude.

But I would think all Christians are obligated to avoid arguments which are loud and rude!

 

[McCall1981]

Does anyone else feel like the last couple of months, since Benedict announced his abdication, have been an absolute roller coaster ride of emotions?

I honestly feel spiritually and emotionally exhausted from it all

 

[Eufrosnia]

See, now we are getting somewhere.

Your first sentance is more than fair, it is entirely true and why I chose St. Augustine for my confirmation saint. I didn’t even read the rest of your post because I already know I agree based on the first sentance.

I reasoned through the Bible, that Catholicism was the true religion, but it took being touched by God to bring me to faith, to confirm that my reasoning was correct. When I read St. Augustine’s Confessions, that he had done the same, I knew he was my man.

I do have a problem with the bolded statement above. I am of the position that there is nothing in the Bible that can convince one in and of itself that it belongs to the true religion or contains the word of God. I also see it as unreasonable to pick a religion from a “religious experience” unless this experience is something like Jesus appearing to the person.

But I am not sure in what sense you mean that the Bible directed you to Catholicism. If you mean that the Bible, specifically the NT, as a historical account of Jesus’s death and resurrection and the early Church, lead you to Christianity, then I agree. But if you mean that the Bible made sense to you and therefore lead you to Christ, I do not think that it is reasonable thing to say.

We were talking about promptings of the Holy Spirit however, and reacting to emotional situations with feelings vs reason. I still stand firm, that in the Christian life we are to act first. We are to alleviate suffering, to give people back dignity, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and console those who are sad and love our enemies.

But this is a rather simple matter. Christ himself disagrees with your position.

If what you say is indeed correct, then the first thing Christ should have done is use his power to maybe open a bread stall. But that is not what he did. Fulton Sheen mentions this very fact in his book.

Christ’s first goal was spiritual salvation. He did not say, “Go out to the world and end poverty”. He said to go out and preach the gospel. What he said was that Christians should do charity works to grow in merit. But that is only possible once one has accepted the saving Grace of Christ and has been restored in to right relationship with God as a son of God.

So first and foremost goal is to evangelize. Not feed the poor.

Mother Theresa didn’t ask what got people to this point. She didn’t reason through their problems but acted to alleviate suffering and give people back their dignity which Christ purchased for them on the cross.

Mother Theresa cannot give the ultimate gift unless the other person accepts it. To give the ultimate gift, Mother Theresa can only proclaim the truth through reason. You cannot say “look at how good I am. you should therefore be Catholic like me”. That is not a reasonable line of argument and ticks off not just Atheists but non-Catholics as well.

In my eyes, Mother Theresa did not evangelize because that is not what she would have excelled in. She was probably not the best communicator when it came to reasoning and that is ok. We all have different place in the world. That is why we all aren’t doctors no matter how good it is to save a human life.

But what I am against is using Mother Theresa to try and say that all others should be just like her i.e. continue doing charity work first and foremost. Or that others who try differently are wrong etc. That is not the call of everyone. Others who have a better understanding and can communicate more effectively might choose evangelization first. That is their call. They were called to do different things.

So what I am trying to say is that first there is a confusion that Mother Theresa was evangelizing. That is incorrect. People need to understand that. Mother Theresa was not doing any evangelizing. All she was doing was charity work. BUT THAT IS OK. That was what she could do and was called to do according to her abilities.

There are those others in the Church, however, that needs to do actual evangelization. Those people should be encouraged to do so and not viewed at negativeley.

Instead what you have today is a Church full of members who are trying to use Mother Theresa as a cop out for making themselves feel better that they evangelize and deride those who use words to evangelize or give it high priority. They don’t need to do that. If they can’t evenagelize, by all means, do the other good works. But don’t impede or discourage those who do other things or pretend they are evangelizing.

 

[simple_soul]

Uummm…what does evangelizing mean?

Does anyone know the Catholic definition of evangelize?

 

[Eufrosnia]

Uummm…what does evangelizing mean?

Does anyone know the Catholic definition of evangelize?

To proclaim Christ and convert people in to becoming his followers i.e. get them to join the Catholic Church.

CCC 905 : Lay people also fulfill their prophetic mission by evangelization, “that is, the proclamation of Christ by word and the testimony of life.” For lay people, “this evangelization . . . acquires a specific property and peculiar efficacy because it is accomplished in the ordinary circumstances of the world.”

I think, perhaps the reason for major confusion today is that people seem to think there is a way to know Christ apart from the Church. This is why ideas like “I hate the Church but love Christ” go viral.

Simple reason will tell us that if we don’t have the Church, we don’t know Christ. All we have are best guesses.

So to get one to follow Christ is to get one to assent to the Catholic Church.

 

[McCall1981]

I think, perhaps the reason for major confusion today is that people seem to think there is a way to know Christ apart from the Church. This is why ideas like “I hate the Church but love Christ” go viral…

I think this idea goes viral because following Christ your own way equals following your own interpretation equals following yourself equals you are god now. Goes all the way back to the garden, “eat this and you shall be as gods”

 

[simple_soul]

To proclaim Christ and convert people in to becoming his followers i.e. get them to join the Catholic Church.

And your claiming Mother Theresa never did this through her works/actions and words?

I think, perhaps the reason for major confusion today is that people seem to think there is a way to know Christ apart from the Church. This is why ideas like “I hate the Church but love Christ” go viral.

I personally believe the reason people "hate the church but love Christ " has more to do with the sinfulness of the church’s members, our sinfulness, than anything else.

Simple reason will tell us that if we don’t have the Church, we don’t know Christ. All we have are best guesses.

Actually I believe that if we do not have Christ we do not have the Church. If it was not for Jesus Christ there would be no Catholic Church. I asked a question of you a few posts back. You may have missed it. The question is do you believe that elements of Truth can be found in other religions?

So to get one to follow Christ is to get one to assent to the Catholic Church.

I believe some people are already doing their best to follow Christ. To get them to follow Christ more fully we need to evangelize them. I still am kind of shocked in a way that you do not see Mother Theresa as evangelizing. Will have to ponder that one some more.

In your quote from the CCC

CCC 905 : Lay people also fulfill their prophetic mission by evangelization, “that is, the proclamation of Christ by word and the testimony of life.” For lay people, “this evangelization . . . acquires a specific property and peculiar efficacy because it is accomplished in the ordinary circumstances of the world.”

I believe the way Blessed Mother Theresa and so many more saints proclaimed Jesus Christ was by allowing themselves to be transfigured by Jesus Christ so that they could take Christ to others by allowing themselves to become Living Images of Christ so that others could come to know Jesus Christ through them. It is there very life’s that give this testimony to Christ. It is this testimony to Christ that makes them Saints.
I also believe that this is what Pope Francis is trying to show us and tell us.

 

[choliks]

Alright guys. before this thread gets shut down, can we go back to topic?

 

[simple_soul]

Some one on another thread posted this and I did not see it already posted so I thought I would share it so we can try and learn more about Pope Francis and from him.

en.radiovaticana.va/m_articolo.asp?c=682926
I have never read about calumny quite like he explains it. Gives a soul a lot to ponder these days

Church > 2013-04-15 12:52:17

Pope: Calumny destroys the work of God in people

(Vatican Radio) The destructive force of calumny was the focus of Pope Francis’ homily for Mass on Monday morning celebrated with staff from the Vatican’s telecommunications office and internet services. Emer McCarthy reports:

The Pope drew inspiration from the daily readings, in particular the first reading that recounts the episode of Stephen, the first martyr of the Church, being dragged before the Sanhedrin because of his witness to the Gospel. Pope Francis noted that Stephen was a victim of calumny. He is accused of “false witness” but it is not a “fair fight, a fight between good men”, noted Pope Francis, because Stephen’s enemies chose the path of a dirty fight, “the path of calumny”. Calumny he continued is worse than sin - it is the direct expression of Satan.

"We are all sinners; all of us. We all commit sins. But calumny is something else. It is of course a sin, too, but it is something more. Calumny aims to destroy the work of God, and calumny comes from a very evil thing: it is born of hatred. And hate is the work of Satan. Calumny destroys the work of God in people, in their souls. Calumny uses lies to get ahead. And let us be in no doubt, eh?: Where there is calumny, there is Satan himself. "

From the behaviour of the accusers, Pope Francis then turned his attention to the accused. Stephan, he noted, does not return falsehood with falsehood: “He does not want to go that way to save himself. He looks to the Lord and obeys the law”, being in the peace and truth of Christ. And that Pope Francis said “is what happens in the history of the Church", because from the first martyr until today there have been numerous examples of those who have witnessed to the Gospel with great courage:

“But the age of martyrs is not yet over, even today we can say, in truth, that the Church has more martyrs now than during the first centuries. The Church has many men and women who are maligned through calumny, who are persecuted, who are killed in hatred of Jesus, in hatred of the faith: some are killed because they teach the catechism, others are killed because they wear the cross … Today, in many countries, they are maligned, they are persecuted … they are our brothers and sisters who are suffering today, in this age of the martyrs”.

And again Pope Francis repeated “The age of martyrs is not yet over, the Church has more martyrs now than during the first centuries". This age of “such great spiritual turmoil” reminded the Pope of an ancient Russian icon that depicts Our Lady covering the people of God with her mantle:

“We pray to Our Lady to protect us, and in times of spiritual turbulence the safest place is under the mantle of Our Lady. She is the mother who takes care of the Church. And in this time of martyrs, she is the protagonist, the protagonist of protection: She is the Mother. (…) Let us state with faith: Mother, the Church is under your protection: Care for the Church. '”

 

[McCall1981]

Some one on another thread posted this and I did not see it already posted so I thought I would share it so we can try and learn more about Pope Francis and from him.

en.radiovaticana.va/m_articolo.asp?c=682926
I have never read about calumny quite like he explains it. Gives a soul a lot to ponder these days

The part about the martyrs is very intense, Im glad he talks about those kinds of things though. We need to be reminded about the cross, now more than ever I think.

I also like the part about Our Lady. Turning to her in times of turbulence is something I need to take to heart.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I think this idea goes viral because following Christ your own way equals following your own interpretation equals following yourself equals you are god now. Goes all the way back to the garden, “eat this and you shall be as gods”

Good point!

 

[Eufrosnia]

And your claiming Mother Theresa never did this through her works/actions and words?

As far as I know, Mother Theresa did not actually evangelize. She did good works and merited much as a baptized Christian.

I have never heard of any proclamation she made of the faith. The most annoying line I hear attributed to her is “I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.”. That hardly is going to get anyone in to the Church.

For a Muslim, to be a good Muslim is to listen to the Imam. For some Imam’s, to the best of their knowledge and understanding, the Quran says to kill the infidel and convert the world by the sword. So if we act according to Mother Theresa, there are some serious issues here.

I personally believe the reason people "hate the church but love Christ " has more to do with the sinfulness of the church’s members, our sinfulness, than anything else.

People hated Christ. That certainly was not because he was sinful, yes?

Actually I believe that if we do not have Christ we do not have the Church. If it was not for Jesus Christ there would be no Catholic Church. I asked a question of you a few posts back. You may have missed it. The question is do you believe that elements of Truth can be found in other religions?

Elements of truth can be found in other religions. But this is just a technicality unless one can say which is truth and which is falsehood, yes? So to say which is truth or falsehood, one must be Christian, i.e. Catholic. Otherwise, people will just be giving their best guess. As far as a non-Christian is concerned, their whole religion is true. Us saying that they have some truth in them only makes them think that they have no reason whatsoever to embrace Christianity. You know what they will say? You have some truths in Christianity too.

I believe some people are already doing their best to follow Christ. To get them to follow Christ more fully we need to evangelize them. I still am kind of shocked in a way that you do not see Mother Theresa as evangelizing. Will have to ponder that one some more.

Well, think about it this way. If you were a Hindu who thought Christians were good intentioned but a mislead group of people, what part of Mother Theresa makes you change your mind?

If I was a Hindu with that view, I don’t see anything changing.

In your quote from the CCC

I believe the way Blessed Mother Theresa and so many more saints proclaimed Jesus Christ was by allowing themselves to be transfigured by Jesus Christ so that they could take Christ to others by allowing themselves to become Living Images of Christ so that others could come to know Jesus Christ through them. It is there very life’s that give this testimony to Christ. It is this testimony to Christ that makes them Saints.
I also believe that this is what Pope Francis is trying to show us and tell us.

As far as I am aware, most of the saints were canonized (apart from Mother Theresa) for upholding teachings of Christ or proclaiming heroically. A person who just dies as a Christian does not relay anything unless they communicate they they are not afraid. But again we have WORDS. You do not canonize a Christian who died so that his family can get money from his life insurance, yes? So in this way, actions alone do not tell us much is my point.

So Mother Theresa helping the poor is GOOD works. That is something all Christians must try to do. But some have a greater calling. They are to try and feed the spiritual poverty i.e. evangelize.

What you see today is that people have made “feeding the poor” = “evangelizing”. That is not true. Feeding the poor gives an example for Christians and encouragement or reminder to do good works. But it does not give reason for one to become Christian.

So Mother Theresa in that sense is worthy of imitation as a Christian. But not in the sense of exclusively doing charity work but in terms of making sure one does engage in charity as well. Some others may have to do more according to their gifts.

Since this is getting way out of topic here, perhaps you can open a new thread on this very specific issues of Mother Theresa - Good works - evangelizing, I would love to join it. Just PM me the link after you open it

EDIT: Something that I have read not officially though is that people complained that Mother Theresa used most of her finances to fund actual missionary work. Since this is an accusation by non-Catholics, I feel that this may indeed be true. So in this case, it is possible that Mother Theresa did engage in a secretive movement to actually evangelize. Perhaps the Church does not want to emphasize this aspect of her at this time because that work is ongoing.

What I mean to say by this is that I cannot claim if she did or did not do missionary work at all. Maybe she indeed do a lot of it by supporting it with funds. But my point here is that the charity work, most usually associated with her, is not evangelizing work in and of itself.

 

[JReducation]

As far as I know, Mother Theresa did not actually evangelize. She did good works and merited much as a baptized Christian.

I have never heard of any proclamation she made of the faith. The most annoying line I hear attributed to her is “I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.”. That hardly is going to get anyone in to the Church.

For a Muslim, to be a good Muslim is to listen to the Imam. For some Imam’s, to the best of their knowledge and understanding, the Quran says to kill the infidel and convert the world by the sword. So if we act according to Mother Theresa, there are some serious issues here.

People hated Christ. That certainly was not because he was sinful, yes?

Elements of truth can be found in other religions. But this is just a technicality unless one can say which is truth and which is falsehood, yes? So to say which is truth or falsehood, one must be Christian, i.e. Catholic. Otherwise, people will just be giving their best guess. As far as a non-Christian is concerned, their whole religion is true. Us saying that they have some truth in them only makes them think that they have no reason whatsoever to embrace Christianity. You know what they will say? You have some truths in Christianity too.

Well, think about it this way. If you were a Hindu who thought Christians were good intentioned but a mislead group of people, what part of Mother Theresa makes you change your mind?

If I was a Hindu with that view, I don’t see anything changing.

As far as I am aware, most of the saints were canonized (apart from Mother Theresa) for upholding teachings of Christ or proclaiming heroically. A person who just dies as a Christian does not relay anything unless they communicate they they are not afraid. But again we have WORDS. You do not canonize a Christian who died so that his family can get money from his life insurance, yes? So in this way, actions alone do not tell us much is my point.

So Mother Theresa helping the poor is GOOD works. That is something all Christians must try to do. But some have a greater calling. They are to try and feed the spiritual poverty i.e. evangelize.

What you see today is that people have made “feeding the poor” = “evangelizing”. That is not true. Feeding the poor gives an example for Christians and encouragement or reminder to do good works. But it does not give reason for one to become Christian.

So Mother Theresa in that sense is worthy of imitation as a Christian. But not in the sense of exclusively doing charity work but in terms of making sure one does engage in charity as well. Some others may have to do more according to their gifts.

Since this is getting way out of topic here, perhaps you can open a new thread on this very specific issues of Mother Theresa - Good works - evangelizing, I would love to join it. Just PM me the link after you open it

EDIT: Something that I have read not officially though is that people complained that Mother Theresa used most of her finances to fund actual missionary work. Since this is an accusation by non-Catholics, I feel that this may indeed be true. So in this case, it is possible that Mother Theresa did engage in a secretive movement to actually evangelize. Perhaps the Church does not want to emphasize this aspect of her at this time because that work is ongoing.

What I mean to say by this is that I cannot claim if she did or did not do missionary work at all. Maybe she indeed do a lot of it by supporting it with funds. But my point here is that the charity work, most usually associated with her, is not evangelizing work in and of itself.

Whoah!!!

You are misunderstanding evangelization and Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa was beatified precisely under the title “Evangelist”. An evangelist is not always one who makes speeches or preaches sermons. Many evangelists such as Mother Teresa, Vincent de Paul, Francis of Assisi, John Bosco, Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, and others preached incredible sermons on the Gospel through their life and their apostolic zeal.

There does not have to be an overt effort to convert someone to Catholicism to make him an evangelist. One of the mandates that St. Francis gave our early friars who went to the Province of Jerusalem, today known as the Custody of the Holy Land was NOT to try to convert the Muslims and Jews, but to convert Catholics to Christianity. They are to preach to non-Catholics by the way they live the Gospel. They’re only allowed to preach to Catholics. This is not new. This goes back to 1219.

 

[JReducation]

I’m having an uneasy feeling about the excessive focus on the Franciscan angle. Yes, he’s obviously inspired by St Francis, but I see him as imitating Christ in his actions. Great Saints imitate Christ.

Not where you were headed with your post, but it just sparked the thought.

Let’s see if we can help you out of that uneasy feeling.

In the religious life you must always seek to imitate Jesus, but you have a master who teaches you how to imitate Jesus. We don’t choose for ourselves how we’re going to imitate Christ, as you would as a layman. Part of our obedience is to imitate Christ by obeying the master, because Christ speaks through the master.

In this particular case, the master is St. Francis of Assisi. The manner in which St. Francis imitates Christ is known as Franciscan Spirituality. Obedience requires that the individual religious follow Christ the way that the master did. Therefore, St. Francis and the Franciscan School become Pope Francis’ textbook on Gospel Living. If he lives by that textbook, he will become a great saint. The textbook has helped many men and women become great saints, from St. Anthony (the first Franciscan saint) to the last Franciscan to be canonized.

You need to explain this better. Are you saying that a Secular Franciscan is prohibited from arguing/speaking out in favor of traditional marriage or against abortion?

I can’t speak for Bro. Jay, but I think what he was trying to say is that a Franciscan is not allowed to engage in arguments as it is commonly understood today, which is loud and rude. Aside from not loving, such rude and brazen behavior makes the Truth that one wants to convey unpalatable and unacceptable. It compromises, not only the messenger, but also the message’s credibility.

BINGO!

Choliks has the right of it.

Being obnoxious, rude, and unkind is not Franciscan. There are many ways that one can defend truth without engaging in belligerent behavior, arguments, or being condescending. Look at someone like Archbishop Charles Chaput. He’s a Capuchin Franciscan. Look at Fr. Benedict Groeschel. He’s a Franciscan of the Renewal. Look at Mother Angelica. She’s a Poor Clare Franciscan. I’m a Franciscan of Life. None of us engage in arguments or confrontations. We teach. We write. We give talks. We attend marches. We deliver sermons. We answer questions. We offer guidance.

In all of that, we never lose our composure. In addition, we strive to address the points that you mention using the most academic and intellectual language possible. No one can accuse us of being ignorant or crass. We make it easy enough to be understood, but not so common that we come across as common. St. Francis was always the gentleman. His model of daily behavior were the knights of his day. He always referred to himself as a knight. He trained his sons and daughters, both religious and secular, to behave in the same dignified manner.

 

[simple_soul]

The part about the martyrs is very intense, Im glad he talks about those kinds of things though. We need to be reminded about the cross, now more than ever I think.

The way I see it, the only way to become Christ like we first need to accept His sacrifice for us and then we need to join Jesus crucified on the cross. It is the only way we will be reborn, transformed and resurrected into everlasting life. So many Saints have shown us this with their lives.

I also like the part about Our Lady. Turning to her in times of turbulence is something I need to take to heart.

So many times I remember her always being there for me and seemingly to always help me find a way through the turbulent times in my life. Some times she would seemingly just tell me that there was just nothing she could do and that I just needed to trust in God and His plan sometimes when I would feel like I could just not stand the pain and confusion I was in anymore she would seem to say; "Remember my Son and every thing He went through for you and it would remind me that I wanted to do everything for Him no matter how much suffering was involved because I knew He loved me and had gone through so much for me. If it was not for her being at my side constantly guiding me to where I needed to go to find the strength and healing that only her Son could give me I would never have made it through some of the darkest times of my life. Now I know and understand i would not have made it through any part of my life if it was not for her and her Son. Now days when I go to her she just seems to smile at me in an encouraging and reassuring way that seems to always put my troubled tormented soul to ease. She has been here with me right at my side all my life and she really has been such a source of grace comfort and joy to have her with me as I have tried to live my life. I really do beleive she has spread her veil over our home offering us her protection and keeping us safe while we focuse on her Son and what God wants us to do with our lives. I have this Icon of her in our home and it has been such a source of grace for us. I so hope and pray that others will come to know her protection, comfort and joy that only she can offer us…through her Son. Our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[Rich_C]

Whoah!!!

You are misunderstanding evangelization and Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa was beatified precisely under the title “Evangelist”. An evangelist is not always one who makes speeches or preaches sermons. Many evangelists such as Mother Teresa, Vincent de Paul, Francis of Assisi, John Bosco, Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, and others preached incredible sermons on the Gospel through their life and their apostolic zeal.

There does not have to be an overt effort to convert someone to Catholicism to make him an evangelist. One of the mandates that St. Francis gave our early friars who went to the Province of Jerusalem, today known as the Custody of the Holy Land was NOT to try to convert the Muslims and Jews, but to convert Catholics to Christianity. They are to preach to non-Catholics by the way they live the Gospel. They’re only allowed to preach to Catholics. This is not new. This goes back to 1219.

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.