Pope Francis' speaks out on the disruption of Kristallnacht event by Traditionalist Catholics in Argentina

[Jaberwocky]

I’m going to have back Tim H on this. This is not news.

Here are some important details on this matter.

One:

St. Francis of Assisi and the Sultan at Dalmietta agreed that the Muslims would open the shrines in Jerusalem to the European Christians for pilgrimage and devotion while the Franciscans would protect the Muslims from proselytism. Until recent history, the friars always had safe passage through Egypt.

The Franciscans had a very stable foot in the Holy Land and for 800 years have never done any form of proselytizing to Jews, Muslims or Orthodox in the region. In fact, the Holy See separated Palestine from the rest of the world by declaring it a custody of the Franciscan Order. This way only Catholic missionaries approved by the superior of the Franciscans, known as the Custodian, could approach the Jews. The Custody exists to this day. The custodian continues to be a Franciscan Friar who will have your head and get you deported out of Israel, if you try to preach to Jews or Muslims.

This arrangement was approved by Pope Gregory IX. It has withstood the test of time to this day, with the exception of some isolated pockets in Europe such as certain parts of Spain. Through the centuries, there have been numerous letters and statements on this subject by different popes.

I am just openly speculating here. Is it not possible that this very arrangement at the time was what lead to the stagnation in any conversions from Islam and to the present situation today?

Is it not possible that had there been an aggressive campaign to convert the Muslims instead of an attempt to negotiate, we would not even have the problem of rising Islam today?

Is there any reason for us to think that such a scenario would have been impossible? It seems practically very much possible to have been achievable in those times of Christendom’s dominance.

The result has been very positive. The Jewish leadership and the Catholic hierarchy have very good relations. The laity needs to take its cue from the Holy See. The Holy See is going to adapt to the times and place. We no longer live in a Catholic Europe. It is unrealistic for the Holy See to view Catholicism as the commanding force in the world, because it is not. The Holy See views Catholicism for what it is. It’s a faith community that invites especially sinners.

On the issue of Jews, if it is not such a weighty matter to convert Jews, why was it that Jesus directed his own efforts and so did the Apostles toward the Jewish communities? Why not allow them to be as they are allowed to be today?

We cannot simply say that today is not a time of Catholic dominance because neither was the case in the early Church? Yet it seemed that the focus was on conversion than good relations?

One thing that we have done fairly well has been living the Gospel in the midst of Jews and Muslims while maintaining very fraternal relations with them . . . most of the time. I have to add that too, because we have had some missionaries who hurt instead of help the proclamation of the Gospel. This presence is evangelization without proselytism. It’s a presence that invites, but does not coerce or intimidate.

I like to believe this to be true but to me the evidence just points the other way. The Franciscans haven’t really converted much of Holy Land for all their presence. To my great distress, I even heard that the Franciscans teach the Quran in these parts of the world which can only lead to strengthening of the Islamic faith than an interest in Christianity.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating intolerance. But the opposite of tolerance does not need to be intolerance. It can be attempt to convert the other rather than to merely co-exist with the other.

 

[choliks]

I am just openly speculating here. Is it not possible that this very arrangement at the time was what lead to the stagnation in any conversions from Islam and to the present situation today?

Is it not possible that had there been an aggressive campaign to convert the Muslims instead of an attempt to negotiate, we would not even have the problem of rising Islam today?

Is there any reason for us to think that such a scenario would have been impossible? It seems practically very much possible to have been achievable in those times of Christendom’s dominance.

On the issue of Jews, if it is not such a weighty matter to convert Jews, why was it that Jesus directed his own efforts and so did the Apostles toward the Jewish communities? Why not allow them to be as they are allowed to be today?

We cannot simply say that today is not a time of Catholic dominance because neither was the case in the early Church? Yet it seemed that the focus was on conversion than good relations?

I like to believe this to be true but to me the evidence just points the other way. The Franciscans haven’t really converted much of Holy Land for all their presence. To my great distress, I even heard that the Franciscans teach the Quran in these parts of the world which can only lead to strengthening of the Islamic faith than an interest in Christianity.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating intolerance. But the opposite of tolerance does not need to be intolerance. It can be attempt to convert the other rather than to merely co-exist with the other.

I think you skipped Bro. JR’s point #2 which addresses the “attempt to convert”.

 

[JReducation]

Is it not possible that this very arrangement at the time was what lead to the stagnation in any conversions from Islam and to the present situation today?

The problem here is that the Magisterium does not see such a stagnation. It is not the desire of the Church to convert Muslims or Jews. That’s a layman’s desire, not the hierarchy’s desire. Most laymen grab onto this, more for political and economic reasons.

Is it not possible that had there been an aggressive campaign to convert the Muslims instead of an attempt to negotiate, we would not even have the problem of rising Islam today?

If you read the comments by popes from John XIII to Francis, the Church does not see rising islam as a problem. You’re calling it a problem, not the Magisterium. We’re called to think with the Magisterium and to defend it’s positions and its way of operating. We’re not called to establish our own magisterium when the real one does not do what we believe it should do.

Is there any reason for us to think that such a scenario would have been impossible? It seems practically very much possible to have been achievable in those times of Christendom’s dominance.

The key word here is exactly what you have posted “DOMINANCE”

Fortunately for the Church, the Holy Spirit raised up the Dominicans, Carmelites, Franciscans and Jesuits all who have openly opposed and advised popes against using our “dominance” on Jews or Muslims. With these three formidable forces unwilling to engage in this kind of activity, popes have had to discern. The conclusion has been that it conversion is not opportunistic. It’s not about taking advantage of our position as the dominant force in Europe and the Americas. Conversion is about grace that is freely given and freely received. The less that we interfere in God’s activity, the better off humanity is. Therefore, we live the Gospel in a very visible manner. Through our witness to the Gospel God dispenses graces for Christians and non-Christians according to his will and his plan.

On the issue of Jews, if it is not such a weighty matter to convert Jews, why was it that Jesus directed his own efforts and so did the Apostles toward the Jewish communities? Why not allow them to be as they are allowed to be today?

That’s very Protestant view of the Gospels, not a Catholic one.

We cannot simply say that today is not a time of Catholic dominance because neither was the case in the early Church? Yet it seemed that the focus was on conversion than good relations?

Actually, if one reads the early Fathers, the focus was never on conversion. The focus wa on proclamation. Proclamation and conversion are not interchangeable. Conversion is between the soul and the divine. Proclamation is the human mission.

The Gospels and letters were written to proclaim that Christ was the promised Messiah. They were not written to corner anyone into converting. This was never the idea in the minds of the Apostles. Such an idea would have been foreign to them. Remember, they were Jewish men. Jews have never subscribed to preaching for the sake of conversion.

Throughout the entire OT and NT all preaching is a proclamation, not a campaign.

I like to believe this to be true but to me the evidence just points the other way. The Franciscans haven’t really converted much of Holy Land for all their presence. To my great distress, I even heard that the Franciscans teach the Quran in these parts of the world which can only lead to strengthening of the Islamic faith than an interest in Christianity.

We were not sent there to convert. We were sent there to minister to Christians and to maintain the peace with Jews, Muslims, and Orthodox so that Catholics could come and go freely.

Yes, we do teach the Quran to Muslim children. That is their faith and the faith of their fathers. They have a right to know it. It is not the role of the Franciscan order and has never been our role, to interfere in the faith of people who already believe in the one true God.

The mission that Francis gave us was

a. To live the Holy Gospel in unquestioning obedience to him, the pope and the superior

b. To own nothing as our own

c. To grow and promote intimacy with other Franciscans so as to build the Kingdom of God here.

d. To convert Catholics to Christianity

e. To live among the poor and share their lot.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating intolerance. But the opposite of tolerance does not need to be intolerance. It can be attempt to convert the other rather than to merely co-exist with the other.

I don’t hear you advocating intolerance either. Maybe the difference between you and me is that I see myself as a son of the Church. So, whatever the Church says to do, I do and whatever the Church says to leave alone, I leave alone. An obedient son is a submissive son.

I’m too old to be an adolescent son of the Church. An adolescent son of the Church is one who questions the parent and authority at every turn. I’m wayyyy past that stage in my faith journey. I have settled into adult faith. The Church is mother. The pope is the Vicar of Christ and he always has the last word.

Obedience and submission is not parceled out only when I like it or only when the statement is infallible. No . . . obedience and submission have nothing to do with infallibility or my opinion. Obedience and submission are all about justice. Justice demands that I accept the right of the pope to govern and to dictate what we must do and how we do it… Justice also demands that we acknowledge that no pope is bound by anything said by his predecessors or councils. He is only bound by revealed truth. This issue is not part of revelation. It’s a prudential judgement, which the popes have a right to make.

 

[Cojuanco]

I’d have to take issue, Brother with your statement that the Church does not want Jews and Muslims to convert. The biggest proof positive against that here is, well, you. But I do agree that the Church is more jusitfiably careful in how she evangelizes among those people than the laity would like.

On other subjects to others, on the Quran being taught, well, after all, even Thomas Aquinas College teaches Marx and Engels and Rousseau, and obviously no-one could accuse them of heterodoxy. What more with something that theologically at least affirms one, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God, even if it is not in the fullness of truth? A Catholic university never sticks with only teaching “Catholic” works, which would be futile, given the intellectual influences of, say, Aristotle on the thought of Aquinas.

Back to Brother, as to the gulf between the laity and the clergy, I think it’s in part caused by the upheavals after the recent Council, with a perception in the US and the West generally, often true, that many of the clergy were opposing themselves to Rome. Furthermore this was exacerbated by the sex abuse crises in the West. There’s been a loss of trust among the laity, a sense that maybe because Father sometimes isn’t the most faithful of men, that even his truth is percieved as lies or at least craven compliance with the world.

 

[Mike30]

This mindset is absolutely fascinating to me.

Jesus’ last act on the cross was obedience to the Law of Moses as he gave up his birthright to John.

There was a clear nexus of Temple Judaism, what would later be known as Rabbinical Judaism, and Christianity in the first century. Peter prayed in the Temple, going up at the holiest time, when incense were offered at 3:00 PM. The Apostles taught in the Temple. The Temple remained the focus of life for Jewish Christians until its destruction in 70AD. Paul made offerings in the temple and took a Nazarite vow. Christians were daily praying the central prayer of Judaism - the Shema Yisrael - until well into the third century.

The dearth of knowledge about basic historical fact and the utter inability to comprehend the most basic functioning of the Church as clearly written in the Bible are mind boggling to me.

I really want to ask these people if they have ever opened a Bible and read it.

-Tim-

What about gentile converts to Christianity who formed the largest group of Christians? I know they did not engage in the Jewish prayers and customs completely, nor did they pray in the Temple…

 

[JReducation]

I’d have to take issue, Brother with your statement that the Church does not want Jews and Muslims to convert.

I’m not sure why you’re taking issue with this, because I never said this. I said that the Church does not want to convert Muslims and Jews. The context in which I’m speaking is proselytizing. She does not want us to proselytize. She wants us to evangelize. I said that all too often people use proselytize and evangelize interchangeably when they are not the same thing.

As far as conversion, I said that conversion is a matter between the soul and the divine. The Church cannot impose the faith on others, nor can she handcuff God to do things her way.

None of this means that if a Jew or a Muslim comes asking to be received into the Church he’s going to be turned away because we don’t want him to convert. On the contrary, if he comes of his own free will, he is responding to a call from Christ and an invitation from the Church to come and see.

The biggest proof positive against that here is, well, you.

You’re absolutely right. I was educated by Capuchin Franciscan Friars who rescued me from the Christian bigots in the south where I was born, grew up and was abused because I was Jewish. The friars took my brothers and me in, educated us, offered us protection, served as exemplary models of Christian love and introduced us to their spiritual father, St. Francis.

Upon learning that Francis of Assisi was the man behind their modus operandi, I became interested in finding out more about this man who 750 years earlier (at that time, 800 today) had left an imprint in the life of the world that was still driving these men. The more I studied Francis, the more I became fascinated by Jesus Christ. The relationship between Francis and Christ was one of disciple and master. From this experience I began to see my Jewish roots very differently.

Contrary to what many traditionalist Catholics want to believe, I began to understand what the Church actually teaches. The covenant with Israel has never been abrogated. It was fulfilled by Christ. The “new covenant” is a expression that speaks to us about a covenant that has reached its plenitude, not about a second covenant that replaces a prior covenant. The CCC is very clear on this. The new covenant is the same covenant that God made with Abraham, but it has been fulfilled by Christ and so begins a new era in Salvation History, hence the term “new”. There never was a break, but an eruption. That which was promised in the covenant with Abraham broke into human history and his name is Jesus Christ.

But I do agree that the Church is more jusitfiably careful in how she evangelizes among those people than the laity would like.

Those people have a name, just like the members of your family have names. If you mean Jews and Muslims, then say them. These are not for letter words that will leave a bad taste in your mouth. I promise.

Whether the Magisterium is more careful or not, I’m not sure. I think that the Magisterium is being realistic, which is different. Jews and Muslims are not heretics. Neither group was ever Catholic. So the approach cannot be the same as that which is employed in dialoging with other Christians.

As for the laity, I will never forget something that my novice master told us many years ago. He said that our mission in the Church was not to keep the laity happy. Our mission in the Church was to make the laity as uncomfortable as possible by living the Gospel as it should be lived, not as the laity imagines it.

Back to Brother, as to the gulf between the laity and the clergy, I think it’s in part caused by the upheavals after the recent Council, with a perception in the US and the West generally, often true, that many of the clergy were opposing themselves to Rome.

I agree with this. But I believe that the laity is disingenious when it fails to acknowledge that these individuals did not fall out of a tree. They were born and raised in lay families like everyone else. What they brought with them into the Church was what they had learned in their secular Catholic homes. The origin of their dissent is not part of their priestly or religious vocation. The etiology of their dissent is their family. This generation not only opposed the Church, but everything that stood for authority. It continues to be so. Look at people on this forum. Unless the pope declares from the Chair of Peter that is susceptible to the common cold like everyone else, it need not be believed. Others, on the other end of the spectrum will hold that the pope is not entitled to catch the common cold, because it’s not tradition.

Furthermore this was exacerbated by the sex abuse crises in the West.

This is very true. It’s unfortunate. But what’s more unfortunate is for those of us who have been faithful to the Church, which is the majority of us, to be judged and sentenced by our own people for the sins of a few.

 

[JReducation]

There’s been a loss of trust among the laity, a sense that maybe because Father sometimes isn’t the most faithful of men, that even his truth is percieved as lies or at least craven compliance with the world.

This makes sense. However, there is a flip side to this coin. The clergy, male religious and many female religious have also lost faith in the laity’s ability to be truly Catholic. When people who say that they believe in confession and absolution also turn around and refuse to forgive what God has already forgiven, it raises all kinds of questions about trust.

How can we who are religious trust laymen who judge us unfairly, who refuse to forgive as God forgives, he abuse us and expect us to be at their service 24/7 and demand that we be the kind of priests, brothers, sisters and deacons that they have constructed in their minds, rather than what the Church and our founders want us to be? We can’t trust that layman, because we know that he will stab us in the back as soon as we turn away. Therefore, sometimes it’s much easier to trust the non-Catholic, because we know what to expect from a non-Catholic. We don’t expect non-Catholics to be faithful to us, to show us respect, to care about our wellbeing or to let us pass without judging us. We were naive to believe that Catholic laymen could be trusted, that the average Catholic layman did respect us, that he supported our apostolic endeavors, even if he did not agree or did not understand and that the Catholic layman would not judge us unjustly, because he too is a sinner. But we have been proven wrong as well.

The hurt and the heartbreak is on both side and both sides have good reasons for not trusting each other. This is not a one-sided adulterous affair where clergy and religious have betrayed the laity. This is one of those situation where both parties have betrayed each other.

As much as I’d like to feel that the Catholic laity loves the Church, loves deacons, priests, brothers and sisters, I have a hard time believing it because when one loves one does not hang out the other person’s dirty laundry for the world to use for target practice. This is exactly what some lay Catholics do. In the name of faith, they fly the sins of the clergy and religious from the highest flagpoles in the land so that everyone can see how horrible we are.

But they don’t realize that in doing so they look very foolish. Any man who shouts from the rooftops that his wife is a whore and then sleeps with her probably needs his head examined.

 

[meltzerboy]

I’m going to have back Tim H on this. This is not news.

Here are some important details on this matter.

One:

St. Francis of Assisi and the Sultan at Dalmietta agreed that the Muslims would open the shrines in Jerusalem to the European Christians for pilgrimage and devotion while the Franciscans would protect the Muslims from proselytism. Until recent history, the friars always had safe passage through Egypt.

The Franciscans had a very stable foot in the Holy Land and for 800 years have never done any form of proselytizing to Jews, Muslims or Orthodox in the region. In fact, the Holy See separated Palestine from the rest of the world by declaring it a custody of the Franciscan Order. This way only Catholic missionaries approved by the superior of the Franciscans, known as the Custodian, could approach the Jews. The Custody exists to this day. The custodian continues to be a Franciscan Friar who will have your head and get you deported out of Israel, if you try to preach to Jews or Muslims.

This arrangement was approved by Pope Gregory IX. It has withstood the test of time to this day, with the exception of some isolated pockets in Europe such as certain parts of Spain. Through the centuries, there have been numerous letters and statements on this subject by different popes.

Two:

There exists a great schism between laymen and clergy and between laymen and religious. As sad as it is to admit, I don’t think that it will close anytime soon. In fact, I see opening wider. There is definitely a disdain that many laymen have toward the old religious orders, to the point that laymen can’t tell the difference between an order and a congregation, between a mission and ministry, and between proselytism and evangelization. I believe that this blur is a byproduct of a laity that refuses to trust the clergy and religious and priests who are far from humble. As a result, religious who are not priests get caught in the middle and are unable to carry out their mission of educating the laity. Many laymen have joined what I call the *“Magisterium of the Laity.” *

As a result of this Magisterium of the Laity, one finds laymen on sites like this, hammering away at the notion that Catholics must convert everyone under the sun. Obviously, if there is little or no interaction between orthodox religious, clergy and laity, there is a* “gulf of meaning”* in the use of language. Two words that are lost in that gulf of meaning are proselytism and evangelization.

The Church received from Christ a mission or commission, to proclaim the Gospel or to evangelize. She never received a commission to convert anyone. Conversions come from grace, not through words or force. A true conversion is an acceptance of the grace of faith. This particular grace is given to people in different ways, at different times and in different doses. At the end of time all will meet at one point, which is Christ. But we’re nowhere near there as Pope Benedict said in his interview in Light of the World. The Church cannot impose faith, nor can she handcuff God.

Three:

There are many ways to Evangelize. Today, we have a problem and it’s mostly found among Catholics who are former Protestants. These Catholics often don’t have a shared meaning of proselytism and evangelization with the Church. They often use both terms interchangeably. They’re not the same. They have very different meanings. As Pope Francis has said, we (religious and clergy) have always believed that proselytism is a negative. Pope Francis calls it nonsense. I like negative bettter.

I’ve never been Protestant, but I have been Catholic for over 40 years and a Franciscan. This is an area in which Dominicans, Franciscans and Jesuits excel. We have been “master missionaries” if you will. We have made many mistakes, but we have done many things right too.

One thing that we have done fairly well has been living the Gospel in the midst of Jews and Muslims while maintaining very fraternal relations with them . . . most of the time. I have to add that too, because we have had some missionaries who hurt instead of help the proclamation of the Gospel. This presence is evangelization without proselytism. It’s a presence that invites, but does not coerce or intimidate.

Four:

The Church has always supported an open presence among Jews and Muslims. She still calls for this today. In fact, this week, Pope Francis met with the Patriarchs of the East. His message was very simple. “You can’t have an East without Christians.” Christianity was born in the East.

Pope John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger did a lot of work with and wrote many letters to Jewish leaders inviting them to dialog with a promise that we (Catholics) were not setting them up to preach to them.

The result has been very positive. The Jewish leadership and the Catholic hierarchy have very good relations. The laity needs to take its cue from the Holy See. The Holy See is going to adapt to the times and place. We no longer live in a Catholic Europe. It is unrealistic for the Holy See to view Catholicism as the commanding force in the world, because it is not. The Holy See views Catholicism for what it is. It’s a faith community that invites especially sinners.

Once again, excellent post! Forced conversion only drives people further away: that is something psychologists have researched, and it accords with common sense as well. Judaism well understands this, and that is why Jews neither proselytize nor evangelize. Even if one desires to convert to Judaism, one is NOT encouraged but rather forewarned (traditionally three times) concerning how difficult it is to be a faithful Jew. If, after the third caution, one is determined to convert then, and only then, is one considered ready to meet the challenge.

 

[JReducation]

JReducation;11424305:

I’m going to have back Tim H on this. This is not news.

Here are some important details on this matter.

One:

St. Francis of Assisi and the Sultan at Dalmietta agreed that the Muslims would open the shrines in Jerusalem to the European Christians for pilgrimage and devotion while the Franciscans would protect the Muslims from proselytism. Until recent history, the friars always had safe passage through Egypt.

The Franciscans had a very stable foot in the Holy Land and for 800 years have never done any form of proselytizing to Jews, Muslims or Orthodox in the region. In fact, the Holy See separated Palestine from the rest of the world by declaring it a custody of the Franciscan Order. This way only Catholic missionaries approved by the superior of the Franciscans, known as the Custodian, could approach the Jews. The Custody exists to this day. The custodian continues to be a Franciscan Friar who will have your head and get you deported out of Israel, if you try to preach to Jews or Muslims.

This arrangement was approved by Pope Gregory IX. It has withstood the test of time to this day, with the exception of some isolated pockets in Europe such as certain parts of Spain. Through the centuries, there have been numerous letters and statements on this subject by different popes.

Two:

There exists a great schism between laymen and clergy and between laymen and religious. As sad as it is to admit, I don’t think that it will close anytime soon. In fact, I see opening wider. There is definitely a disdain that many laymen have toward the old religious orders, to the point that laymen can’t tell the difference between an order and a congregation, between a mission and ministry, and between proselytism and evangelization. I believe that this blur is a byproduct of a laity that refuses to trust the clergy and religious and priests who are far from humble. As a result, religious who are not priests get caught in the middle and are unable to carry out their mission of educating the laity. Many laymen have joined what I call the *“Magisterium of the Laity.” *

As a result of this Magisterium of the Laity, one finds laymen on sites like this, hammering away at the notion that Catholics must convert everyone under the sun. Obviously, if there is little or no interaction between orthodox religious, clergy and laity, there is a* “gulf of meaning”* in the use of language. Two words that are lost in that gulf of meaning are proselytism and evangelization.

The Church received from Christ a mission or commission, to proclaim the Gospel or to evangelize. She never received a commission to convert anyone. Conversions come from grace, not through words or force. A true conversion is an acceptance of the grace of faith. This particular grace is given to people in different ways, at different times and in different doses. At the end of time all will meet at one point, which is Christ. But we’re nowhere near there as Pope Benedict said in his interview in Light of the World. The Church cannot impose faith, nor can she handcuff God.

Three:

There are many ways to Evangelize. Today, we have a problem and it’s mostly found among Catholics who are former Protestants. These Catholics often don’t have a shared meaning of proselytism and evangelization with the Church. They often use both terms interchangeably. They’re not the same. They have very different meanings. As Pope Francis has said, we (religious and clergy) have always believed that proselytism is a negative. Pope Francis calls it nonsense. I like negative bettter.

I’ve never been Protestant, but I have been Catholic for over 40 years and a Franciscan. This is an area in which Dominicans, Franciscans and Jesuits excel. We have been “master missionaries” if you will. We have made many mistakes, but we have done many things right too.

One thing that we have done fairly well has been living the Gospel in the midst of Jews and Muslims while maintaining very fraternal relations with them . . . most of the time. I have to add that too, because we have had some missionaries who hurt instead of help the proclamation of the Gospel. This presence is evangelization without proselytism. It’s a presence that invites, but does not coerce or intimidate.

Four:

The Church has always supported an open presence among Jews and Muslims. She still calls for this today. In fact, this week, Pope Francis met with the Patriarchs of the East. His message was very simple. “You can’t have an East without Christians.” Christianity was born in the East.

Pope John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger did a lot of work with and wrote many letters to Jewish leaders inviting them to dialog with a promise that we (Catholics) were not setting them up to preach to them.

The result has been very positive. The Jewish leadership and the Catholic hierarchy have very good relations. The laity needs to take its cue from the Holy See. The Holy See is going to adapt to the times and place. We no longer live in a Catholic Europe. It is unrealistic for the Holy See to view Catholicism as the commanding force in the world, because it is not. The Holy See views Catholicism for what it is. It’s a faith community that invites especially sinners.

Once again, excellent post!

That’s because you and I speak the same language. Even though we’re in different places in our faith journey, you represent who I am. I have never ceased to be a son of Israel. Hopefully, I represent what G-d is inviting you to come and see.

זה לא חשוב איפה אנחנו מתפללים, יהודים תמיד יהיו אחים.​

 

[TimothyH]

What about gentile converts to Christianity who formed the largest group of Christians? I know they did not engage in the Jewish prayers and customs completely, nor did they pray in the Temple…

Well, the temple was destroyed only 37 years after Pentecosts so there was not much time for Gentiles to engage in temple worship before the temple was destroyed. Gentile “God fearers” were not allowed into the temple proper anyway, unless they took the next step and were circumcised into the covenant family of God as real Jews. God fearer Gentiles had to stay in the outer court of the Temple. They were not allowed in.

Temple worship was certainly a part of every day life for Christians in and around Jerusalem. Outside of Jerusalem there would have been a more Rabbinic form of Judaism based on the Synagogue, and these more or less influenced the local Gentile Christians in one way or another. Remember that the basis for belief in the Messiah was to a significant extent built upon the Old Testament scriptures. One of the first things a Gentile convert would have done was to be instructed in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The worship the Gentiles would have entered into would have been Jewish in nature and origin as well - breaking open the scriptures in the setting of the Synagogue or someone’s home or other gathering place and celebrating the Eucharist. The celebration of the Eucharist was founded on the Passover Seder meal. Gentiles would have given up whatever worship they knew at Pagan temples and entered into this early adaptation of Jewish worship to Christianity.

The prayer they entered into would have been Jewish in origin and nature too. Psalms, morning and evening prayer - all Jewish in origin.

I don’t think people understand how Jewish our faith really is today. The Jewish friend I had as guests at Mass commented on how Jewish it felt. Incense, the chalice, the “lamb of God”, the hour of prayer at 3:00 PM … All Jewish.

-Tim-

 

[simple_soul]

Well, the temple was destroyed only 37 years after Pentecosts so there was not much time for Gentiles to engage in temple worship before the temple was destroyed. Gentile “God fearers” were not allowed into the temple proper anyway, unless they took the next step and were circumcised into the covenant family of God as real Jews. God fearer Gentiles had to stay in the outer court of the Temple. They were not allowed in.

Temple worship was certainly a part of every day life for Christians in and around Jerusalem. Outside of Jerusalem there would have been a more Rabbinic form of Judaism based on the Synagogue, and these more or less influenced the local Gentile Christians in one way or another. Remember that the basis for belief in the Messiah was to a significant extent built upon the Old Testament scriptures. One of the first things a Gentile convert would have done was to be instructed in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The worship the Gentiles would have entered into would have been Jewish in nature and origin as well - breaking open the scriptures in the setting of the Synagogue or someone’s home or other gathering place and celebrating the Eucharist. The celebration of the Eucharist was founded on the Passover Seder meal. Gentiles would have given up whatever worship they knew at Pagan temples and entered into this early adaptation of Jewish worship to Christianity.

The prayer they entered into would have been Jewish in origin and nature too. Psalms, morning and evening prayer - all Jewish in origin.

I don’t think people understand how Jewish our faith really is today. The Jewish friend I had as guests at Mass commented on how Jewish it felt. Incense, the chalice, the “lamb of God”, the hour of prayer at 3:00 PM … All Jewish.

-Tim-

Some times I wish I was Jewish. In some ways, deep down inside of me I feel like I am but I don’t want to insult the Jewish people by saying that. In some way I believe I might even envy them. Regardless I have always felt a deep kinship with them and the more I get to know them and Judaism the stronger it becomes. Maybe some day they will adopt me. It was coming to CAF that I was able to start seeing how Jewish true Catholisisim really is. It was then that I started to see that in order to understand the Catholic faith one has to understand the faith of the Jewish people. Judaism. It is like the Jewish faith puts Catholisism into focus or maybe a better way of saying it is the Judaism is the roots of Catholisism and if you seperate the roots from the tree the tree dies. Not sure if this is making any sense but thank you for sharring these things. Someday, when my children are on thier own, I hope to be able, if God is willing, to sit down and studie it all.

 

[TimothyH]

Some times I wish I was Jewish. In some ways, deep down inside of me I feel like I am but I don’t want to insult the Jewish people by saying that. In some way I believe I might even envy them. Regardless I have always felt a deep kinship with them and the more I get to know them and Judaism the stronger it becomes. Maybe some day they will adopt me. It was coming to CAF that I was able to start seeing how Jewish true Catholisisim really is. It was then that I started to see that in order to understand the Catholic faith one has to understand the faith of the Jewish people. Judaism. It is like the Jewish faith puts Catholisism into focus or maybe a better way of saying it is the Judaism is the roots of Catholisism and if you seperate the roots from the tree the tree dies. Not sure if this is making any sense but thank you for sharring these things. Someday, when my children are on thier own, I hope to be able, if God is willing, to sit down and studie it all.

I know how this feels. I know what you mean.

My Father went to Israel and made a few friends including one man in particular. When the man found that he was going to the wailing wall, the man invited him into his home and gave him a yamaka which my father wore at the wall. He used to say “I’m LBJ. Little Bit Jewish” and displayed the yamaka in his home until he died. I think we are all LBJ.

After he died, my mom asked me if there was anything she could give me as a memory of my father. I asked for his US Marine Corps portrait and his yamaka. The Yamaka sits on a little table in my living room with my rosaries, Bibles and other holy books, and the picture of my family with the Bishop.

I’m going to wear that yamaka again some day at the wall in Jerusalem.

-Tim-

 

[spartan_cop]

I don’t associate with SSPX but I find it so ironic that so many on here bash the entire organization for something that a few individuals did. I also find it funny that when it comes to protestants, orthodox, Jews, Muslims, and other religions/atheist we are to respects and see as equals yet when it comes to our fellow Catholics, who unfortunately have gone through hard times with the Church, it’s open season on them. I can say this, no criminal, gang banger, or scum of the earth I’ve dealt with has ever shocked me more than the way Catholics treat each other. The Catholic mentality is respect all diversity and customs EXCEPT anything having to do with catholic traditions prior to the 70s. If it has Latin then throw it away!! For the sake of unity! PATHETIC! It has come to the point where honestly I don’t see reason to stick around with Catholicism. The faith is meant to nurture and strengthen my faith, but if anything I’ve only grown hatred in my heart. So I ask, what’s the point? So much confusion, negativity, false love, and pride. This is the crud I deal with in the city, so why go to a Church that shoves it down my face starting from the top all the way down?

 

[spartan_cop]

All this SSPX bashing is seriously disappointing. Do you realize how ridiculous all of this is? So its okay for RPRPsych and others to literally despise and hate the SSPX but the second someone says they pray for the conversion of the Jewish people they are some horrible evil person? Very disappointed by reading all of this. The SSPX do not hate the Pope and should not “become followers of Pope Michael” Or whatever else garbage you have been throwing out about them.

Then this ridiculousness that if you disagree or question Lumen Gentium “Then you are in opposition to our Pope.” Seriously?? God forbid someone questions a non-infailable document. What about all the people who were in opposition to religious leaders during the iconoclasm or the various other heresies in the Church.

If anyone else did the opposite like bashing on liberal nuns or disagree with a certain bishop we would be suspended or banned. As I said this site is literally what I’ve seen is the Catholic Church. So much for living the way you preach.

 

[Jaberwocky]

The problem here is that the Magisterium does not see such a stagnation. It is not the desire of the Church to convert Muslims or Jews. That’s a layman’s desire, not the hierarchy’s desire. Most laymen grab onto this, more for political and economic reasons.

I agree that the Magesterium certain does not see this. However, the issue here to me is that this is an empirical fact that is verifiable with evidence. Hence not specifically even within the jurisdiction of the Magesterium.

The evidence does indicate a stagnation. There is no conversion.

On the issue of not converting Muslims and Jews, that too is a very recent development. There has been effort made by the Church to convert both these groups. The position, tracing it through history, only changed drastically since Vatican II when the emphasis became co-existence.

If you read the comments by popes from John XIII to Francis, the Church does not see rising islam as a problem. You’re calling it a problem, not the Magisterium. We’re called to think with the Magisterium and to defend it’s positions and its way of operating. We’re not called to establish our own magisterium when the real one does not do what we believe it should do.

I agree they do not see it as a problem. However, that too would be outside the jurisdiction of the Magesterium to decide for us to assent.

Empirical evidence shows that rise of Islam has lead to increase in Jihad, persecution, and even mass conversions of Christians to Islam. The fact might be denied by the Magesterium but the evidence exists. You and I can look through historical evidence or statistics to see this fact. Therefore, even if you and I decide to overlook this evidence and just assent to the Magesterium, there exist the very real fact that someone else can rightfully disagree with the Magesterium on the basis of the evidence. Does it not?

The key word here is exactly what you have posted “DOMINANCE”

Fortunately for the Church, the Holy Spirit raised up the Dominicans, Carmelites, Franciscans and Jesuits all who have openly opposed and advised popes against using our “dominance” on Jews or Muslims. With these three formidable forces unwilling to engage in this kind of activity, popes have had to discern. The conclusion has been that it conversion is not opportunistic. It’s not about taking advantage of our position as the dominant force in Europe and the Americas. Conversion is about grace that is freely given and freely received. The less that we interfere in God’s activity, the better off humanity is. Therefore, we live the Gospel in a very visible manner. Through our witness to the Gospel God dispenses graces for Christians and non-Christians according to his will and his plan.

I think a good case can be made that this is largely unsuccessful.

We know from evidence that a sinful life is more attractive or seductive than a good life. We also know, as it is revealed truth some might say, that living a good life is difficult and less appealing than living an immoral life. That is why Christ himself says that the road is wide to damnation but narrow for salvation.

With that in mind, I think a person can reason to the position that “living the gospel” itself does not work. No Apostle ever practiced such a style of evangelization in known records. Why should we?

That’s very Protestant view of the Gospels, not a Catholic one.

But this would be just name calling. Even if Protestants hold such a view, if that is what the evidence suggests is true, then it must be true.

(Got too long, so went to another post)

 

[Jaberwocky]

Actually, if one reads the early Fathers, the focus was never on conversion. The focus wa on proclamation. Proclamation and conversion are not interchangeable. Conversion is between the soul and the divine. Proclamation is the human mission.

The Gospels and letters were written to proclaim that Christ was the promised Messiah. They were not written to corner anyone into converting. This was never the idea in the minds of the Apostles. Such an idea would have been foreign to them. Remember, they were Jewish men. Jews have never subscribed to preaching for the sake of conversion.

Throughout the entire OT and NT all preaching is a proclamation, not a campaign.

From what I understand, none of the gospels were written to evangelize. They were written for the faithful.

The evangelization dealt with going in and speaking about the resurrection and other reasons to convert to others to the faith. In other words, it was like a Scientist attending a conference. The goal was to convince the others that what he/she has discovered is true.

But today all we see is a scientist who simply lives in silence and just practices his own formulas. No one cares about that because there are far many others screaming for their appeal.

We were not sent there to convert. We were sent there to minister to Christians and to maintain the peace with Jews, Muslims, and Orthodox so that Catholics could come and go freely.

Yes, we do teach the Quran to Muslim children. That is their faith and the faith of their fathers. They have a right to know it. It is not the role of the Franciscan order and has never been our role, to interfere in the faith of people who already believe in the one true God.

The mission that Francis gave us was

a. To live the Holy Gospel in unquestioning obedience to him, the pope and the superior

b. To own nothing as our own

c. To grow and promote intimacy with other Franciscans so as to build the Kingdom of God here.

d. To convert Catholics to Christianity

e. To live among the poor and share their lot.

I know this is what St. Francis asked. I am just asking how this is compatible with what seems to be clearly different from what the Apostles and Jesus did (with respect to conversion). On Pentecost Sunday, did not Peter get up and preach to convert the Jews?

I don’t hear you advocating intolerance either. Maybe the difference between you and me is that I see myself as a son of the Church. So, whatever the Church says to do, I do and whatever the Church says to leave alone, I leave alone. An obedient son is a submissive son.

I’m too old to be an adolescent son of the Church. An adolescent son of the Church is one who questions the parent and authority at every turn. I’m wayyyy past that stage in my faith journey. I have settled into adult faith. The Church is mother. The pope is the Vicar of Christ and he always has the last word.

Obedience and submission is not parceled out only when I like it or only when the statement is infallible. No . . . obedience and submission have nothing to do with infallibility or my opinion. Obedience and submission are all about justice. Justice demands that I accept the right of the pope to govern and to dictate what we must do and how we do it… Justice also demands that we acknowledge that no pope is bound by anything said by his predecessors or councils. He is only bound by revealed truth. This issue is not part of revelation. It’s a prudential judgement, which the popes have a right to make.

I agree with obedience. However, we cannot obey or assent the Church on matters outside her jurisdiction.

For an example, if the Church says there is no problem due to rising Islam, that is not something the Church can demand the assent of her children. The evidence suggests otherwise for most people and they are therefore right in not assenting. It is not even a matter of divine revelation. It is a matter of empirical fact.

 

[RPRPsych]

The evidence does indicate a stagnation. There is no conversion.

On the issue of not converting Muslims and Jews, that too is a very recent development. There has been effort made by the Church to convert both these groups. The position, tracing it through history, only changed drastically since Vatican II when the emphasis became co-existence.

Empirical evidence shows that rise of Islam has lead to increase in Jihad, persecution, and even mass conversions of Christians to Islam. The fact might be denied by the Magesterium but the evidence exists. You and I can look through historical evidence or statistics to see this fact. Therefore, even if you and I decide to overlook this evidence and just assent to the Magesterium, there exist the very real fact that someone else can rightfully disagree with the Magesterium on the basis of the evidence. Does it not?

I think a good case can be made that this is largely unsuccessful.

We know from evidence that a sinful life is more attractive or seductive than a good life. We also know, as it is revealed truth some might say, that living a good life is difficult and less appealing than living an immoral life. That is why Christ himself says that the road is wide to damnation but narrow for salvation.

With that in mind, I think a person can reason to the position that “living the gospel” itself does not work. No Apostle ever practiced such a style of evangelization in known records. Why should we?

Counterfactuals always seem true, because the premise is false.

Your premise is: “the Church’s method of evangelization these days doesn’t seem to be working, so we ought to do it another way.”

But we have no guarantee - and this is the key point - that any other way would have worked any better. Did the Crusades prevent the eventual rise of Islam? Did Lepanto? They kept it at bay for a long time, but there’s no guarantee that a tough approach is necessarily better than what Holy Mother Church is doing now. (In fact, if one goes by the sequelae of the “War on Terror”, it would have the opposite effect.)

The same goes for the conversion of Jews.

Let’s assume that, for discussion’s sake, the Church’s current approach led to the conversion of 10,000 Jews (of which one was Brother JR ).

Your premise would imply that if we’d been more energetic, we could have saved 20,000.

But Divine Providence (and human nature) don’t work that way. It’s equally possible that a tougher approach could have alienated more people, and led to say 5,000 being converted, and 5,000 hardening themselves and becoming more “secular” or “radical”. By traditional theology, that works out to 5,000 lost souls - and, worse, no Brother JR

We can’t stake too much on counterfactuals; God’s plan is subtle, but not malicious (to quote Einstein), and this includes the Church’s current action. As unsatisfactory as the method may seem to you, we have to believe that she is being guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Mike30]

Well, the temple was destroyed only 37 years after Pentecosts so there was not much time for Gentiles to engage in temple worship before the temple was destroyed. Gentile “God fearers” were not allowed into the temple proper anyway, unless they took the next step and were circumcised into the covenant family of God as real Jews. God fearer Gentiles had to stay in the outer court of the Temple. They were not allowed in.

Temple worship was certainly a part of every day life for Christians in and around Jerusalem. Outside of Jerusalem there would have been a more Rabbinic form of Judaism based on the Synagogue, and these more or less influenced the local Gentile Christians in one way or another. Remember that the basis for belief in the Messiah was to a significant extent built upon the Old Testament scriptures. One of the first things a Gentile convert would have done was to be instructed in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The worship the Gentiles would have entered into would have been Jewish in nature and origin as well - breaking open the scriptures in the setting of the Synagogue or someone’s home or other gathering place and celebrating the Eucharist. The celebration of the Eucharist was founded on the Passover Seder meal. Gentiles would have given up whatever worship they knew at Pagan temples and entered into this early adaptation of Jewish worship to Christianity.

The prayer they entered into would have been Jewish in origin and nature too. Psalms, morning and evening prayer - all Jewish in origin.

I don’t think people understand how Jewish our faith really is today. The Jewish friend I had as guests at Mass commented on how Jewish it felt. Incense, the chalice, the “lamb of God”, the hour of prayer at 3:00 PM … All Jewish.

-Tim-

All true, yet the early Church separated itself completely from Judaism at a very early stage in its development, even though it did start out as or was considered to be a Jewish sect. In fact, the bulk of the persecutions suffered by the early Church came after it had separated itself from Judaism, as the Jews were not persecuted by the Romans for their faith.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Counterfactuals always seem true, because the premise is false.

Your premise is: “the Church’s method of evangelization these days doesn’t seem to be working, so we ought to do it another way.”

But we have no guarantee - and this is the key point - that any other way would have worked any better. Did the Crusades prevent the eventual rise of Islam? Did Lepanto? They kept it at bay for a long time, but there’s no guarantee that a tough approach is necessarily better than what Holy Mother Church is doing now. (In fact, if one goes by the sequelae of the “War on Terror”, it would have the opposite effect.)

The same goes for the conversion of Jews.

Let’s assume that, for discussion’s sake, the Church’s current approach led to the conversion of 10,000 Jews (of which one was Brother JR ).

Your premise would imply that if we’d been more energetic, we could have saved 20,000.

But Divine Providence (and human nature) don’t work that way. It’s equally possible that a tougher approach could have alienated more people, and led to say 5,000 being converted, and 5,000 hardening themselves and becoming more “secular” or “radical”. By traditional theology, that works out to 5,000 lost souls - and, worse, no Brother JR

We can’t stake too much on counterfactuals; God’s plan is subtle, but not malicious (to quote Einstein), and this includes the Church’s current action. As unsatisfactory as the method may seem to you, we have to believe that she is being guided by the Holy Spirit.

I understand what you mean. But that is not exactly what I am getting at.

What I am trying to say is that there are certain truths, which are not religious truths, that are established regarding how people are attracted to something, how people learn, evaluate etc.

Something that is universally agreed upon and practiced is that unless something is clearly heard and visible, it just does not spread. This is the same policy used by Advertisements. It is also a universal fact that one cannot bring about an attraction to something different by performing actions that reinforce what that other person already believes. It is also agreed upon that to make one change their mindset, usually arguments are needed that are of ethical or logical nature. The emotional arguments are considered less effective against those with opposing positions. But an example of a good Christian life falls under this emotional realm of argument than anything else. If one does not already hold the same goods that Christianity holds as actual goods, it is more likely that they will see a Christian life as being the product of foolish obedience.

Now, given these universal truths, the approach chosen by the Church to evangelize (which I disagree is even the goal. I think it has been made clear that the goal is co-existence too many times to the exclusion of conversion) seems ineffective. They are contrary to what we know from history as well as any other field of study regarding how ideas or following of a person is made heard or spread.

With respect to God’s plan, God works through you and me. When we see that the mission of the Church is to make sure that everyone recognizes Christ as God and savior of the world, we must use our intellect and means to do just that. How can we settle for something that our intellect says is inferior and is more apt for co-existence than conversion?

 

[asd72]

…

Three:

There are many ways to Evangelize. Today, we have a problem and it’s mostly found among Catholics who are former Protestants. These Catholics often don’t have a shared meaning of proselytism and evangelization with the Church. They often use both terms interchangeably. They’re not the same. They have very different meanings. As Pope Francis has said, we (religious and clergy) have always believed that proselytism is a negative. Pope Francis calls it nonsense. I like negative bettter.

I’ve never been Protestant, but I have been Catholic for over 40 years and a Franciscan. This is an area in which Dominicans, Franciscans and Jesuits excel. We have been “master missionaries” if you will. We have made many mistakes, but we have done many things right too.

One thing that we have done fairly well has been living the Gospel in the midst of Jews and Muslims while maintaining very fraternal relations with them . . . most of the time. I have to add that too, because we have had some missionaries who hurt instead of help the proclamation of the Gospel. This presence is evangelization without proselytism. It’s a presence that invites, but does not coerce or intimidate.

Four:

The Church has always supported an open presence among Jews and Muslims. She still calls for this today. In fact, this week, Pope Francis met with the Patriarchs of the East. His message was very simple. “You can’t have an East without Christians.” Christianity was born in the East.

Pope John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger did a lot of work with and wrote many letters to Jewish leaders inviting them to dialog with a promise that we (Catholics) were not setting them up to preach to them. There were copies of these letters sent to religious superiors and to bishops in areas where the Jewish population is large.

The result has been very positive. The Jewish leadership and the Catholic hierarchy have very good relations. The laity needs to take its cue from the Holy See. The Holy See is going to adapt to the times and place. We no longer live in a Catholic Europe. It is unrealistic for the Holy See to view Catholicism as the commanding force in the world, because it is not. The Holy See views Catholicism for what it is. It’s a faith community that invites especially sinners.

One of the best places to find information on how Jews come into Catholicism is through the Association of Hebrew Catholics of which I am a member.

I am a former Protestant myself, and I have found many former Protestants (myself excluded) excellent at evangelising. I haven’t come across a large amount of former Protestants using unethical methods which would amount to proselytism, as defined in the document below. Could you please expand on this accusation? Are the majority of lay persons associated with SSPX ex Protestants? Is this common knowledge that I just didn’t know about?

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0602697.htm