Pagans need not convert: Can someone help me understand?

[SantaGemmaPrega]

The first Christians were Jews. They did not convert away from Judaism. They continued to attend temple worship and practice the Jewish faith. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, not the antithesis.

True, our Lord said he came “not to make void the law or the prophets…but to fulfil.”

But any and all practice of Mosaic Law tradition was abolished by the Church in the first few centuries of the Church because it was no longer necessary.
Lamb offerings and circumcision - the shedding of innocent blood for reparation of sin - was no longer necessary as it had been replaced by baptism and the shedding of the blood of the Lamb of God had made sufficient sacrifice for all.

Hebrews 8:13 - “Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end.”

We no longer celebrate Passover as the Jews did because we celebrate the fulfillment of the Passover in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass every Sunday.

Consider the following from the Council of Florence:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, 1442
It firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law…once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning…it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they [Mosaic Laws] cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors…the difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the gospel.

They had no conflict with Judaism. Their conflict was with the laws that had been created to prepare for the coming of the Messiah. Those were no longer needed. But the law of prayer, charity, faith, hope, the commandments, the wisdom of the prophets, the Liturgy of the Hours, the fasts and abstinence were not new to them. They were part of Jewish life. They are still part of Orthodox Judaism.

Yes, you touch on what I stated above that they no longer needed the Mosaic Law. But the most important thing to note is that Orthodox Judaism (which may be rare today given the widespread promulgation and dominance of Talmudic Esotericism, a whole different subject), is that it is missing Jesus Christ. It is not just missing Christ, it is rejecting Christ.

1 John 2:22 - Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.

Move forward one verse and it gets even more telling…

1 John 2:23 - Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also.

It is being widespread today two things:
a.) That Jews and Muslims still worship the same “One True God of Abraham”
b.) That the Jewish Old Testament Covenant is still valid

Both of these are patently false. The former because of the verses I listed above and because Christ is not divided. The Most Holy Trinity is One. Indivisible and mysterious as He may be. You cannot separate or reject Christ and still have the Father (nor the Holy Ghost).
The latter because of Hebrews 8:13, among many, many other verses (in fact, the entire New Testament…fulfillment of their covenant)

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

The Gentiles came attracted by the teaching of the Christian community and by its exemplary life. If you notice, the epistles are not written to non Christians. They were written to Christians. There were very few times in the Acts of the Apostles where we see the Apostles preaching to non-Christians. What they delivered to their Jewish brethren was their experience.

I am a bit confused by this…all of St. Paul’s letters are to peoples who were former Gentiles and converted to Christianity: Ephesians, Galatians, Thessalonians, Colossians, Corinthians, etc. There are a number of places that talk about some people hearing St. Paul’s words and others laughing, mocking and rejecting him.
As for the Acts of the Apostles, take the story of the eunuch or the following to the Athenians:

Acts 17:22-23 But Paul standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious. For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you.

Side bar, this verse (22) has been very poorly translated in more recent versions (not DRB) to “very religious” instead of “superstitious,” thus implicitly (if not explicitly) conveying a measure of syncretism. St. Paul was correcting the Athenians, not praising their present methods.

If we look at Peter’s discourse in Acts, he is speaking to those around him about what he knows. He is not telling them to become Christians. His entire speech is a Christological sermon

Acts 2, following the Pentecost, reveals Peter specifically addressing the Jews.

22 “You who are Israelites, hear these words. Jesus the Nazorean was a man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know. This man delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him…36 Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified. Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?”…41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.”

It seems pretty clear from the above that he was most assuredly telling them to be baptized (aka become Christians).

The letters written by the Church Fathers during the first 300 years were written to other Christians. Many of these were disciplinary letters and others were correcting heresies.

This wasn’t just the first 300 years. It was really the first 1900+. Most if not all Ecumenical Councils prior to Vatican II were doing just those two things: addressing the faithful and stamping out heresies. And all encyclicals are written first to the ecclesial hierarchy and then to the faithful laity.

The Catholic Church does not have a history of going out to get new recruits until much later when the missionaries go out to the East and to the Americas. Even then, there was always a conflict between the Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits and the laity. The Catholic laity wanted to proselytize.

Brother JR, what? I am very certain that you are well aware that Christ’s disciples immediately set off to different parts of the world. It is in this way that the Assyrians claim their apostolic lineage to Sts. Thomas and Thaddeus and why they still have not been united to Rome since their acceptance of Nestorianism. It’s how the Chaldaeans do the same, how even those in areas like India claim the earliest original disciples preached in their territories. True, the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed and had to begin somewhere; but let’s make sure we still portray it as just that…the mustard plant.

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

We see this today in America. The urban centers where the white European Catholics settled are much less Catholic than the small towns and villages where they did not go. The lay faithful wanted to bring a piece of home to the new world. They built churches and cities that replicated Europe. They imposed European culture on the local people, including European Catholicism.

I apologize but I’m not sure what you are suggesting here. That somehow the areas where initial Catholic presence was there they are now worse off than the areas where it was not? All I know is the word “impose” is the favorite of liberals in this millennium. That word makes me a bit queasy, Brother. Not one often used by Catholics because we understand that to bring truth is no imposition of burden but in fact an ark of true liberation.

The more remote areas were protected from that. The missionaries there did not transplant European Catholicism. Instead, they christianized the local culture. As St. Francis Xavier wrote to St. Ignatius. The issue was not to make the people more European Catholic, but to make Catholicism more Chinese (in his case). The Dominicans and Franciscans did the same thing in the Americas. They tried very hard to make Catholicism more American (not USA), but real American. This brought people to them.

I will agree with you here for the most part. St. Paul did write that he became all things to all people, and we also read that we are to hold onto what is good and reject what is bad. This is indeed why our Church has taken even some pagan practices (in form and which are not sinful or tainted) but transformed them into Catholic practice.

If you have a faithful Jew or a faithful Muslim, you’re already starting with a person who believes in the same God you do. His understanding of the nature of God is not as complete as your own, but he knows the one true God. The issue becomes a moral one.

See my comments earlier about how they do not worship the same God. Jews, I can see what you are saying in a sense. They have the idea at least of a monotheistic concept down. But Muslims’ understanding of “Allah” as Creator/Master is entirely different than our understand of God as Father, as Love. If you refer to God as Father in front of a Muslim, you will see their sudden and enraged reaction.

The devout Jew or devout Muslim is going to be as concerned with observing the law of God as you are. He’s not going to buy into our faith, just because we say so and the Church does not expect them to do so, nor does she demand that of them. She hopes that they will listen, pray over it, and truly try to find the truth in their faith that leads them to the fullness of truth that subsists in the Catholic Church.

If he is truly seeking Truth, he will “buy into” Christianity and believe. This is key, and again I will cite “seek and you shall find” from Matthew 7. Lest we believe our Lord to be a liar, we must believe that anyone truly seeking will find. Anyone not truly seeking does not find. But yes, we must pray about it. And fast and do reparation for conversion of sinners.

Now this phrase “fullness of truth” is one that has become commonplace in the last 50 years. People are under the impression that having some measure of truth therefore implies that those people are still okay…or still can have salvation. This is naturalism. Of course everyone has seeds of truth because of natural law which is written on everyone’s heart and mind. But natural law is not enough, they must have supernatural law brought to us by divine revelation of Christ’s incarnation. See Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors for more on this or St. Pius X’s Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

We as Catholics believe in One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. One faith. Just one true faith. All others of which are false and are therefore against God. All denominations of Protestantism anger God; they do not please Him. Judaism today (whether Orthodox or Talmudic) angers Him. Islam - promulgated by Muhammad through the angel Lucifer (not Gabriel) - most surely angers Him. These are not my own words, these are the words of our former Pontiffs echoed throughout the last two millennia as listed in my original quotations).

Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

If we approach with the message that we have truth and they don’t, we blow it. First of all, they do have pieces of the truth. Secondly, they are very devout and are concerned about fidelity to God. Their understanding of sin is different from our own. But they do understand right and wrong. Much of what we have to say just sounds wrong to them. They’re going to reject it not because they’re evil, but because they’re good people who don’t what to embrace what they believe is wrong, just as you and I don’t want to embrace what we believe is wrong. This makes the approach very complicated and very delicate.

I just finished reading a book called “What is Liberalism?” I have posted a summary of that book and would really suggest you (or anyone) read it. We DO hold the Truth and absolutely must approach it in that way lest we fall into syncretism, indifferentism, relativism, theosophy or irenicism…or schism, heresy or apostasy. Again, One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. Jesus is the Way, TRUTH, and Life. No one comes to the Father except by Him.

John 8 - * 42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: 43 Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word.
44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him*

There may indeed be ordinary civilian Muslims or Jews who believe they are doing God’s will by being faithful to their traditions and to their faiths. But this certainly does not apply to those rabbinic leaders, for example, with whom our Bishops and even Holy Father are meeting. They know the Christian faith inside and out. Many of them have written about how wicked it is. They do not think that we are okay to believe in Jesus. They think Jesus is in Hell in hot excrement and that his Mother was a whore. They reject Him as their Messiah, openly and knowingly. Faith from God in the Truth is indeed a gift. But this faith comes because of a submissive self-abnegation to God to receive that gift. A declaration of love through our own free will. If we do not believe that these men do not believe in Christ because of their own free will, then we risk falling into the heresy of Calvinism and the idea that God sends people to hell (basically, we would be blaming God for not giving them faith).

The Vatican does not trust the Catholic layman to do this right. It doesn’t trust most of the Catholic clergy and religious either. The Vatican actually handpicks the missionaries that go into the Muslim and Jewish territories.

The entire focus of this Year of Faith is tied into what is called the “New Evangelization.” Since Vatican II, powers and responsibilities have not been taken away from the laity, they have been given to them in overabundance. Lectors, Eucharistic Ministers, etc. etc. etc.
Just go to the Archdiocese of Detroit’s web page and you will see that any and all laity are being called to partake in ecumenical gatherings between Jews, Muslims, Protestants and Catholics. The purpose of these gatherings is not for conversion but rather some kind of alleged “mutual enrichment” through “interfaith dialogue.” Our Holy Father has said on numerous occasions in the past few years (both in General Audiences and in his books like Jesus of Nazareth) that Jews no longer need to convert. That no one is to try to convert Jews. This was echoing an earlier publication of the USCCB from 2000 or 2001 (I can find it if you like).

I think you and I would both agree, Brother JR, that the only way anyone is going to convert is not through anything of our own doing but through God and the intercession of the Blessed Mother. We need to start encouraging Catholics to pray the rosary daily as our Lady instructed us to do at Fatima. We must pray and do penance. “Unto whom much is given, much will be expected.” We have the Truth, and we must at all costs hold fast to it, never dilute it, and leave the rest in God’s hands through our humble submission.

When you do the right thing, you attract attention. When you treat people in a non-threatening way, you win their trust. When you answer their questions, you encourage them to ask more. When you respect their request that you stay back, you win their respect. These are cultures that place a high value on honor.

John 15:20 - Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also.

Luke 6:26 - Woe to you when men shall bless you: for according to these things did their fathers to the false prophets.

Our Lord told us that if we are truly taking up our cross and following Him, we would be persecuted. If we are being praised by all, we are doing something wrong. Again, the book What is Liberalism? will explain better what it means to be truly ultramontane and a defender of the faith.

Please read the final quote from Custodi di Quella Fede by Leo XIII for how he describeds those who promote tolerance and respect for other religions.

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

Imagine a Catholic walking in and telling a Muslim or a Jew that the God they worship is a false God. That would be enough to bring down the house on both sides of the road. They would be horrified and the Vatican would probably excommunicate you for heresy. If we pay close attention on these boards, there are many people who want to take that approach. It’s offensive. It’s not practical and it is a lie. We already know that the only God is the God of Abraham, whos is the God of Jesus Christ. They do worship the God of Abraham.

What?? This is EXACTLY what Jesus did! He went around and told the Jews they were wrong. He told the Pharisee tax collectors and prostitutes would enter the kingdom of heaven before him.

To quote the book I keep referencing:

*- St. John the Baptist calls the Pharisees a “race of vipers”; Jesus Christ, Our Divine Saviour, hurls at them the epithets “hypocrites, whitened sepulchres, a perverse and adulterous generation,” without thinking for this reason that He sullies the sanctity of His benevolent speech. St. Paul criticizes the schismatic Cretians as “always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies.” The same Apostle calls Elymas the magician a “Seducer, full of guile and deceit, a child of the devil, an enemy of all justice.”

• The pacific St. Thomas of Acquin [Aquinas] forgets the calm of his cold syllogisms when he hurls his violent apostrophe against William of St. Amour and his disciples: “Enemies of God” he cries out, “ministers of the devil, members of antichrist, ignorami, perverts, reprobates!”…The seraphic St. Bonaventure, so full of sweetness, overwhelms his adversary Gerard with such epithets as “impudent, calumniator, spirit of malice, impious, shameless, ignorant, impostor, malefactor, perfidious, ingrate!”
• Did St. Francis de Sales, so delicately exquisite and tender, ever purr softly over the heretics of his age and country?..In his Introduction to the Devout Life, that precious and popular work, he expresses himself again: “If the declared enemies of God and of the Church ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry wolf when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock and in every way and place we may meet him.”*

This is indeed the problem today! The Church is excommunicating the SSPX for holding onto the faith holy and inviolate while NOT excommunicating the 250 priest and bishops in Austria promoting gay marriage, female ordination and lay people being able to consecrate the Eucharist. NOT excommunicating public figures like Nancy Pelosi or the many radical, liberal nuns and brothers in the country promoting Liberation Theology and the same as the Austrians.

Proverbs 17:15 - He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, both are abominable before God.

The narrow gate is not a reference to the Catholic Church. It’s a reference to the life of detachment. Scripture scholars have established a link between the two metaphors: the narrow gate and the eye of the needle. Actually, I believe it may have been St. Anthony of Padua who first made the connection. He was a Doctor of Sacred Scripture, one of the best in the Church’s history. Even Aquinas was not as good as he was in this area.

The Haydock explanation of Matthew 7 Narrow Gate:
Ver. 13. Enter ye in at the narrow gate, &c. The doctrine of these two verses needs no commentary, but deserve serious attention. (Witham)

It does not require explanation or commentary because it is obviously referring to everyone (including Catholics). It’s hard to get into heaven. Period. This comes as a shock to most.

The narrow gate is not a reference to the Catholic Church. It’s a reference to the life of detachment. Scripture scholars have established a link between the two metaphors: the narrow gate and the eye of the needle. Actually, I believe it may have been St. Anthony of Padua who first made the connection. He was a Doctor of Sacred Scripture, one of the best in the Church’s history. Even Aquinas was not as good as he was in this area.

This is true, a life of detachment is necessary for salvation. That’s right in the CCC. More specifically, a willingness to give up everything (though not necessarily needing to do it) in order to follow God. This goes back to the submissive self-abnegation I was alluding to earlier. A willingness to give up whatever may be a stumbling block for us to Christ; no false gods. Cannot serve two masters, God and mammon.

 

[Melchior_1]

This is indeed the problem today! The Church is excommunicating the SSPX for holding onto the faith holy and inviolate while NOT excommunicating the 250 priest and bishops in Austria promoting gay marriage, female ordination and lay people being able to consecrate the Eucharist. NOT excommunicating public figures like Nancy Pelosi or the many radical, liberal nuns and brothers in the country promoting Liberation Theology and the same as the Austrians.

The Church did not excommunicate the SSPX, they did it to themselves through the illegal consecrations.

Saying “but so and so does this!!” isn’t an effective tactic for children to use on their parents. We, children of the Church, probably should do the same towards the Holy Father.

My friend, you catch more flies with honey. There’s nothing charitable by thumping folks.

 

[SperainDeo7]

Did not Christ say: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”?

The word “Teach” (also translated as make disciples) is a verb. Christ was expressly commanding the Apostles to actually go out and do something; spread the Gospel and baptize others into the Faith. I don’t see how a “live and let live” evangelization effort consisting of “dialogue” without necessarily intending or even wanting conversion gets this job done. On the day of Pentecost Saint Peter converted thousands of souls right off the bat: **“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” **

The notion that if you act Catholic enough in how you live your life people will see this and radically change their lives could maybe be true to a point, though I doubt the practicality and prudence of such an approach. I also doubt that many conversions to the fullness of Truth (The Catholic Church) would actually happen under this model. In today’s world, much like the Apostolic era, few people embrace a truly Catholic lifestyle and those who actually do are often seen as weirdos, not beacons of light. I used the word Catholic instead of Christian because many Christian ecclesial communities believe in practices contrary to Catholic teaching and the Catholic way of life. That’s the reality of the culture we are living in. If one lives primarily in a close Catholic environment, one may not fully appreciate this fact.

If one feels that catechized Catholics should not actively engage in authentic dialogue with those of other religions or ecclesial communities (no compromise), pointing out both common points and legitimate errors that stray from the Truth (with an explanation of course) and finds that acceptable, how could such a person really believe in objective absolute truth. Two different propositions that are completely opposed to each other cannot both be true at the same time without some compromise happening. One side has to be wrong, at least in part. If one does not hold there to be one absolute truth, then we enter the realm of relativism and religious indifference that we unfortunately see rampant around the world. Furthermore, what exactly is the point of evangelization? I’m not advocating some kind of forced conversion here, or uncharitable actions, but sitting on our laurels and just continuing upon our own way keeping to ourselves is not going to do a whole lot of good. I’ve noted that Protestants are pretty good at evangelization and many Catholics are leaving the Church because someone with zeal for their beliefs spoke to them. In many cases these evangelizers condemn the Catholic Faith in the process, yet we worry so much about possibly offending someone. Where is the Catholic zeal?

Being a practicing Catholic is the path most conducive to eternal life because we have the fullness of Truth. Isn’t the Church’s mission the salvation of souls?

 

[Mike30]

The first Christians were Jews. They did not convert away from Judaism. They continued to attend temple worship and practice the Jewish faith. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, not the antithesis. They had no conflict with Judaism. Their conflict was with the laws that had been created to prepare for the coming of the Messiah. Those were no longer needed. But the law of prayer, charity, faith, hope, the commandments, the wisdom of the prophets, the Liturgy of the Hours, the fasts and abstinence were not new to them. They were part of Jewish life. They are still part of Orthodox Judaism.

The Gentiles came attracted by the teaching of the Christian community and by its exemplary life. If you notice, the epistles are not written to non Christians. They were written to Christians. There were very few times in the Acts of the Apostles where we see the Apostles preaching to non-Christians. What they delivered to their Jewish brethren was their experience.

The letters written by the Church Fathers during the first 300 years were written to other Christians. Many of these were disciplinary letters and others were correcting heresies.

The devout Jew or devout Muslim is going to be as concerned with observing the law of God as you are. He’s not going to buy into our faith, just because we say so and the Church does not expect them to do so, nor does she demand that of them. She hopes that they will listen, pray over it, and truly try to find the truth in their faith that leads them to the fullness of truth that subsists in the Catholic Church.

.

Yet the overwhelming majority of Jews of that time thouroughly rejected the idea that Christ was the Messiah and regrettably, still do. While you can say that the Jews and the Muslims worship the one true God, I would respectfully say that if they reject and completely reject the fullness of God in the Holy Trinity, then what they are worshiping is only a piece of God. Somehow, I would think the Church would want to correct that situation yet from everything that I have read recently, that does not seem to be the case. When I was being raised I was taught that not only Jews and Muslims, but protestants as well were not worshipping the completeness of God because they consciously rejected Him in His fullness. I know that I am not the only one who was taught that nor was it a recent innovation. In fact, from everything I have been able to find out, the Church taught it for generations. Yet today, it really doesn’t seem to matter too much.

Disciplinary matters and various heresies. Interesting. How do you suppose the heresies addressed by Paul and others in the early Church be viewed and treated by the Church if encountered today? Accepted as deformed and ill informed but still valid paths to God? Or would they be looked upon as heresies?

In fact, de we even have heresies anymore?

 

[SperainDeo7]

Yet the overwhelming majority of Jews of that time thouroughly rejected the idea that Christ was the Messiah and regrettably, still do. While you can say that the Jews and the Muslims worship the one true God, I would respectfully say that if they reject and completely reject the fullness of God in the Holy Trinity, then what they are worshiping is only a piece of God. Somehow, I would think the Church would want to correct that situation yet from everything that I have read recently, that does not seem to be the case. When I was being raised I was taught that not only Jews and Muslims, but protestants as well were not worshipping the completeness of God because they consciously rejected Him in His fullness. I know that I am not the only one who was taught that nor was it a recent innovation. In fact, from everything I have been able to find out, the Church taught it for generations. Yet today, it really doesn’t seem to matter too much.

Disciplinary matters and various heresies. Interesting. How do you suppose the heresies addressed by Paul and others in the early Church be viewed and treated by the Church if encountered today? Accepted as deformed and ill informed but still valid paths to God? Or would they be looked upon as heresies?

In fact, do we even have heresies anymore?

It seems like somewhere along the way heresy was redefined by some as merely a “different expression of the truth”. Calling an actual heresy a heresy - that would be considered downright uncharitable.

 

[JReducation]

JReducation, i have read all your replies in this thread and really do appreciate it, as i really didn’t understand what Muslims believe in, and I had no idea how the Church selects people from different orders to put around the world for missionary work as you have described.

I know for at least me " Muslim extremists " are the ones throwing me for a loop and perhaps the world … It is hard to draw a line an say all muslims are not this extreme when we hear so little of those who disagree and trying to put an end to that violence, let alone not think there is something wrong when there are snipits of news relating to sharia law being influenced to some degree into American law… So there is this biased image being painted at least for me , to want to dismiss Islam altogether, an then to take a step back and read all that you have posted , is making me at least stop an take off the blinders to see what other information pops up down the road. I can only draw the comparison being Catholic to the scandals that have happened and lumping every priest or catholic in that boat, we know it isn’t true. So why should I or anyone else really be so misguided or judgemental toward Islam / Muslims.

lastly I do not know how you handle all the madness the forums offer, the debating can be fun at times, when you are in the mood for it i suppose, but you are proving to be smarter than the average bear and if you haven’t written any books yet I hope you do soon an announce it in due time.

Why do I get a sense that I’m speaking to a bunch of Protestants rather than Catholics. So far, all I have gotten back for my explanation has been bible citations for which the Church has already offered tons of explanations through exegesis. If one wants to know what Christ meant by many of these citations, read Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth trilogy. It’s user friendly and quite biblical.

But I am concerned that not a single person responded to my post with anything written by Pope Paul VI, Blessed John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI, as if these men don’t exist and as if they don’t know the scriptures as well as the posters on these boards. That’s very scary.

We must be very careful not to give a non-Catholic, especially a Fundamentalist Protestant, the impression that the popes act and teach contrary to scripture or that they don’t understand the bible. When one leaves out what they are saying and simply quotes bible, one is taking a very Protestant approach, not a Catholic one.

The Catholic approach is to look to the Magisterium to see how the Magisterium applies the principles in the scriptures. At the end of the day, only the Magisterium can say, “Christ meant this.” or “Paul meant that”. All we can do is quote him. We have diverse ideas of what they meant, while the Magisterium has the one idea.

The book that was recommended on liberalism is a very dangerous book. It is not written by anyone with any authority in the Church, but it takes the Church to task as if it had authority to do so. I read this book.

These are good books to read, because one should always try to understand the other person’s perspective. Charity demands that we try to understand. These works are very helpful. But only those works that echo what the popes say about the Church, scripture, and tradition have any authority, because they are consistent with the voice of authority.

Let’s be careful that when we read, we don’t ascribe authority to writers who differ from the popes. That can be very dangerous. The writer ha a right to his opinion. But at the end of the day, the Catholic must think with the Church, not with the writer.

 

[Lormar]

We’re not at war with Jews and Muslims. The Magisterium has told us this over and over.

You’re right about my passion, but I’m afraid that you’re mistaken about its focus. I’m not passionate about this particular subject. Actually, my area of passion is the Gospel of Life.

But I have an even greater passion, to obey our Holy Father Francis. He commanded both the laity and the religious of his time to obey the pope and follow the Magisterium. If the Magisterium says that we’re not at war and we’re not out to conquer this or that, nor are we out to overthrow the Jews and Muslims, then that’s what I’m passionate about. I’m passionate about the Church and what the Church wants me to think and do.

I vowed to forfeit my immortal soul if I fail to obey the Francis and the Magisterium. The reason for making this vow was to be an example to you and to the faithful of how we are to live our baptismal commitment. We are the light on the hill.

**I can’t make you look, nor can I make you see the Church and the Magisterium as it wants to be seen. Only you can do that. All that I can do is be a role model of a passionate, submissive and obedient Catholic. ** That’s what Christ called us religious to be, salt of the earth and light to the world. But if the world does not want to taste the salt or walk in the light, we cannot do what God cannot do. In other words, we can’t force another person to love and follow the Church as we’re called to do. We can only show you how, by doing it.

I try my best and the rest I leave up to you and grace.

Will I ever be able to do that so completely after what I’ve been through? I don’t know at this late stage in my life. It is hard to teach an old dog new tricks. With God’s grace though, all things are possible.

 

[choliks]

Yet the overwhelming majority of Jews of that time thouroughly rejected the idea that Christ was the Messiah and regrettably, still do. While you can say that the Jews and the Muslims worship the one true God, I would respectfully say that if they reject and completely reject the fullness of God in the Holy Trinity, then what they are worshiping is only a piece of God. Somehow, I would think the Church would want to correct that situation yet from everything that I have read recently, that does not seem to be the case. When I was being raised I was taught that not only Jews and Muslims, but protestants as well were not worshipping the completeness of God because they consciously rejected Him in His fullness. I know that I am not the only one who was taught that nor was it a recent innovation. In fact, from everything I have been able to find out, the Church taught it for generations. Yet today, it really doesn’t seem to matter too much.

Disciplinary matters and various heresies. Interesting. How do you suppose the heresies addressed by Paul and others in the early Church be viewed and treated by the Church if encountered today? Accepted as deformed and ill informed but still valid paths to God? Or would they be looked upon as heresies?

In fact, de we even have heresies anymore?

A piece of God? That’s the first time I’ve heard it from a Catholic.

The Church said their beleif is incomplete. I think it’s wise to rely on that and not on our own opinions.

 

[hudson]

SGP that was top notch information. I had to save it for later reading incase it goes away.

 

[choliks]

A piece of God? That’s the first time I’ve heard it from a Catholic.

The Church said their beleif is incomplete. I think it’s wise to rely on that and not on our own opinions.

Oooops. I meant understanding of God. Mea culpa.

 

[JReducation]

Yet the overwhelming majority of Jews of that time thouroughly rejected the idea that Christ was the Messiah and regrettably, still do. While you can say that the Jews and the Muslims worship the one true God, I would respectfully say that if they reject and completely reject the fullness of God in the Holy Trinity, then what they are worshiping is only a piece of God. Somehow, I would think the Church would want to correct that situation yet from everything that I have read recently, that does not seem to be the case. When I was being raised I was taught that not only Jews and Muslims, but protestants as well were not worshipping the completeness of God because they consciously rejected Him in His fullness. I know that I am not the only one who was taught that nor was it a recent innovation. In fact, from everything I have been able to find out, the Church taught it for generations. Yet today, it really doesn’t seem to matter too much.

Disciplinary matters and various heresies. Interesting. How do you suppose the heresies addressed by Paul and others in the early Church be viewed and treated by the Church if encountered today? Accepted as deformed and ill informed but still valid paths to God? Or would they be looked upon as heresies?

In fact, de we even have heresies anymore?

There are many points in your post that we have to very gentle about. Many things that we were taught in the past were never official positions of the Church. They were the thinking of many theologians and at times even of popes, but they were never declared to be binding.

There is a danger to our souls when we start to thing that everything that we were taught was binding for all time. What that kind of thinking does to us is trap us on a time warp. In other words, it separates us from the current Magisterium and ties us to the previous Magisterium. As has been said by many popes, tradition is one, but it is not stagnant. Binding are revealed moral laws and revealed dogmas. Everything else is binding until another pope comes around and expands on it or pulls it completely. The danger is to forget that the past cannot bind the present pope. That steals authority from him and places it on someone who is no longer pope. Also, as St. Boniface said, no council, no pope, no saint, no doctor of the Church, not isolated scripture passage can bind any pope. Popes are only bound, again, by divinely revealed moral law and by dogma.

As to heresy, again we have to be careful. We’re looking in retrospect. Looking back, we’re well informed of all the heresies of the past and what the Church said about them. However, the people of that time had no idea what was and what was not being said about heresies. They didn’t have the information resources that we have today. To say that there are no heresies today and there were in the past is not fair.

To be truthful to ourselves, we’re much more informed of what the Magisterium is thinking than were our ancestors. Sometimes, it took years before those folks found out. They didn’t have internet.

Not having internet deprived them of constant information. However, it also protected them from misinformation. Today, between the internet and the news media, we are fed a lot of misinformation. We get pieces of the facts, according to the agenda of the blogger, reporter or organization. To say that there are no heresies or that the Church does not care about them is dangerous. It actually places us on the verge of heresy. Anyone who says that the Church does not care about heresy is speaking heresy.

There are some very strong messages being sent around the Church between the Vatican and bishops, the Vatican and religious superiors, religious superiors and subjects, bishops and priests and laity and so forth. We are not privy to that information, because it’s shared on a right to know policy.

As a superior, I share a lot of information with the bishop and other Church authorities about heresy and schism that I don’t share with the brothers or with any layman. The person who is looking will see the guilty party, but will not see what we’re doing or saying. That person does not have a right to know. If the guilty party wants to share it. That opens the door for us to share, as was the case with Father Corapi, the Maryknoll priest who was just dismissed, and Patrick Kennedy. They took their case to the public square, which then forced the authorities to speak up and tell their side. But there are others who never say anything. If they don’t say anything, then we can’t say anything. I recently dealt with such a case. No one knows what happened and what I decided and what the bishop and I discussed except the person involved. One ha to be careful not to assume that because one is not in the loop, nothing is being done about a problem.

Not all problems go way quickly. Some take a long time to settle. There are laws that give people rights and those laws have to be observed.

 

[JReducation]

As far as Jews and Muslims, it has never been the teaching of the Church that they worship a piece of God. God cannot be divided into pieces. They worship God in his totality. What they don’t know is that God is a Trinitarian being. The fact that they don’t know this, does not mean that they worship only a piece of God. Abraham didn’t know that God was a Trinitarian being. He worshiped God. This is exactly how Muslims and Jews still worship God, as Abraham did. We would never say that Abraham’s worship was incomplete or that Abraham’s God was not our God. Abraham simply did not know the nature of God. Neither to Muslims and Jews. From their perspective, our idea of the Trinity is partitioning a God who is One.

Islam objects to the use of the term Father as does Judaism, not because they deny the supremacy of God. It has to do with their mystical theology. They see God as the transcendent Other. Actually, this is true even in Christian Spirituality. Because we have the fullness of Revelation, we also know about the Incarnation. This allows us to see God as the imminent God. They don’t understand the Incarnation. To them, this is blasphemy. Man is not holy enough for God to become Incarnate.

Actually, this concurs with what the Church Fathers said, especially St. Augustine. Man is not holy enough or worthy. We understand the Incarnation as an act of love and humility on God’s part. They have a piece of the truth, the unworthiness of man. The’re missing the other piece, the humility of God. That will come with time. No matter how much we write about it and how many times we say it, does not mean that they have to buy into it. God and the Church do not expect that of them. God and the Church expect them to reflect on these things and expect us to give time and grace an opportunity to do what needs to be done one person at a time.

You mentioned Paul’s condemnation of heresies. I’m not sure which heresies you’re talking about. Paul does not address heresies. He deals with morality, discipline, and perseverance in the faith. If Paul has run into Arianism, he would not have known how to answer that. The theology of the Church was not that far advanced in Paul’s time. Some of the things that we say in order to explain our faith would sound like Chinese to Paul.

Again, I can’t repeat enough the importance of staying very close to the Holy Father. If we drift too far into the scriptures without him, we risk ending up in Fundamentalist Protestantism. We certainly don’t want to go there.

 

[Melchior_1]

The concept of what it means to be a missionary and evangelist is an interesting one, which I wrote about in some detail. Most people when they hear “missionary” they think those who travel, and when you hear evangelist they think the folks who stand on the soapbox, go door-to-door. The Bible thumpers, really. We’ve all seen and heard “those” people, the JW’s that come knock’n, the fundamentalists who give out Bible verses like they’re Halloween candy.

As Catholics we indeed are armed with the Truth. And there are different ways how we can deliver this message. There are times when we can instruct and teach with words, or with writing. However make no mistake; actions do speak louder than words. There’s no accident that the Jews used to perform sacrifices, and it’s no accident that the Act of Redemption was done in the fashion it was. Christ could have spoken any number of things to loose us from our chains, but He acted.

I see and hear a lot of militant types, people inclined to think that we need to lay the smackdown on those who aren’t Catholic. They take a lack of words to mean that one is weak, and equate words with being the primary action. The mistake debate and combativeness with being assertive, when it’s actually aggressive.

Don’t confuse those speaking with their actions with showing signs of weakness. Look instead to those who speak by what they do emulating what is outlined in the Epistle from James. Outlined by Blessed John Paul II, Venerable Paul VI, and Pope Benedict XVI.

If you truly want to see the power of actions over words, may I suggest we look closely at how we were redeemed; not through any words, but through the Sacrifice on the Cross.

 

[JReducation]

One of my favorite stories regarding converting others is Chapter 6 of John. Christ does not try to convert anyone in the audience. He delivers his preaching on the Bread of Life. Anyone who wants to hear it can do so and those who don’t want to don’t have to do so.

What’s very interesting in how it end. They leave. Jesus simply turns to the 12 and asks them if they too are leaving.

If we follow the logic and the passion of some people, Jesus should have pressed the point and done something to keep the crowd engaged.

However, that’s not what he did.

Another passage that I love is Jesus interview with Pilate. Pilate is practically begging Jesus to give him the right answer so that he can release him. He does not want to get involved in this mess. He has enough problems with Rome. History tell us that he was cruel to the Jews and that this did not sit well with the Roman Senate. His butt was on the line here.

Jesus answers some of Pilate’s questions, but not the way that Pilate wants. He teaches him something. Other questions, Jesus just remains silent. He lets his silence do the speaking. There is no proselytizing on Jesus’ part.

We have a distorted image of what the Apostles did after the Ascension. We know that they went off to distant places to preach the Gospel. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that they proselytized. They were teachers. We have this from the first generation Church Fathers, especially in the writings of Clement, Peter’s successor.

They were not the kind of missionaries that we portray here. Polycarp speaks of them as gentle, warm, honest, simple and accommodating to all men. He also tells us that they taught and those who wanted to hear came on their own. Many came, because they were hungry for God. They were not pushed into coming.

In a recent book on the early Church, Pope Benedict uses the early Church writings to show us that the actual reason that the the first Christians were martyred was because of their demand for religious freedom, not because they attacked the religions of the people around them.

The state found them to be dangerous. To grant religious freedom, meant that the people were no longer subject to the monarch who was allegedly a god. They died for their faith. They did not die because they were knocking on doors converting people.

They died, because they were not willing to acknowledge the monarch as god. They exercised religious freedom, even though it was a capital offense. They were certainly afraid of death, but not afraid of what was on the other side. Their fear, like anyone else, was fear of being burned, torn apart by lions, boiled in oils or whatever cruel punishment the monarch employed to get rid of “criminals”.

We have to put things into context, if we’re going to be real Catholic missionaries or we will end up being fundamentalists. Fundamentalists, be they Christian, Jewish or Muslim are often driven by passion rather than love. Passion has often led to murder as well as virtue.

 

[Isolde22]

Of course there is no way to reconcile those two assertions.

They are totally contradictory.

You have to decide which is the Truth.

The words of Jesus are the best resource in making your decision.

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

My friend, you catch more flies with honey. There’s nothing charitable by thumping folks.

Humbly noted, Melchior.
But I also would recommend you read Holy Mother Church’s historical position on this.
The book “What is Liberalism?” is the same one I recommended to Brother JR.

Unfortunately the mentality that “being nice” is the best approach is one that has been indoctrinated into us (Americans) and most of Western Civilization for the last half century, largely because of the abounding pluralism with which we are forced to be tolerant.

But the first two spiritual works of mercy are as follows:

1. Admonish the Sinner
2. Instruct/Teach the ignorant

In addition, a good examination of conscience will have something like the following:
“Have I omitted religious duties or practices through motives of human respect?”

Chiefly among these religious duties is to love our neighbor as ourselves. This means first and foremost the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, the latter being more important.

Our Lord said “he who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
He did not mince words. He did not tell people why their current lives were admirable with seeds of truth but could be improved if they wanted to listen to Him.
He told us, point blank and frankly, that He is the ONLY way to the Father and to life everlasting. Take it or leave it.

Now I can agree that there is a great deal to be said about tact, humility and kindness.
There is a gentleness - at times - to be taken. But if some people don’t like to hear that our Lord is the only way, and through his Church (his one faith) the only way, it is ultimately and unfortunately their loss. This isn’t a sale of a Kirby vacuum, it’s eternal life or death. So the honey sometimes need to be swapped out for the rod.
Lead first with all kindness and gentleness. If they should obstinately persist in sin or heresy, a more stern approach is necessary.
If they still persist, shake the dust from your feet and move on our Lord said.