S
Shoshana
Guest
Church Militant:
Maybe the term ‘relationship’ with God, with Jesus, with the Holy Spirit was taken from us in the first place!
Code:
- Status
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Church Militant, I really liked your tract too except for what Elzee brought up. We do want to convert everyone to the Catholic Church no matter how far (atheists, Buddhists, etc.) or how close (Eastern Orthodox, Conservative Anglicans, etc.) they are to us. After all, Pope Pius IX condemned the following propostion:
“Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.”
I would just suggest deleting that line from the tract altogether. It seems to be overstepping the bounds of true ecumenism into indifference.
L
Loy
Guest
I share Elzee’s and Smitty’s concerns here. As Catholics, we are not only called to evangelize the world, but our fellow Catholics as well as other Christians and the unchurched.
If you choose to leave this paragraph in your tract, at least consider replacing the word “evangelize” with the word “proselytize”. Although I personally see no problems with persuading non-Catholics to become Catholic, for many people the word “proselytize” has come to mean using underhanded or coercive tactics.
You might also try adding, “we would love to share our faith with you when you are willing to hear us.”
D
Della
Guest
Church Militant:
True, and I agree. :tiphat: However, as you stated in your tract, it is misleading. You used the phrase: “…and that we are saved by a personal relationship with the risen Lord Jesus Christ.” It would be better to say: “we are saved by grace which allows us to enjoy a deeply personal relationship with…” or some other such wording so that you will not mislead anyone into thinking Catholics believe that in order to be saved one must have, as the Evangelicals expound, a “personal relationship with the Lord.” Yes?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I am not a radical traditionalist Catholic. I am orthodox in my beliefs and follow the CCC. and I’m one LONG way from “overstepping the bounds of true ecumenism into indifference.” I see now that the text is superfluous. I have edited as follows based on LOY’s good counsel.
“We do not attempt to proselytize people though we will readily dialog with anyone and try to answer any questions they may have concerning Catholicism. Our focus is on insuring that everyone hears the Gospel.”
I’ll see if our forum mod can go in and fix it for me, so the text can be copied as is.
Pax vobiscum,
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I think so. So it stays. the rest of ya write yer own tracts!Maybe the term ‘relationship’ with God, with Jesus, with the Holy Spirit was taken from us in the first place!Code:
M
MariaG
Guest
Things don’t get any more personal than receiving the Sacraments.Hi CM! I liked your tract very muchexcept for this line:
“…and that we are saved by a personal relationship with the risen Lord Jesus Christ.”
We don’t believe that, you know. I understand you are using their terminology to get them to open their minds, but is it misleading, just the same (although unintentionally so).
We believe we are saved by grace through faith, lived out within Christ’s Church by availing ourselves of the Sacraments Christ instituted and made evident by our good works. One does not have to have “personal relationship with Christ” of the type they preach, which is unbiblical and not a part of the Sacred Tradition of Christ’s Church.
So I respectfully, disagree with you. I ***do ***have a personal relationship with Christ, with my Risen Lord. And since my “personal relationship” was first expressed in a Non-Catholic Church but has since deepened through the sacraments, I actually think you are wrong when you say that what Evangelical preach is “unbiblical”. It is incomplete. Not unbiblical.
Of course, it also depends on which evangelical tradition one would be refering to since there are differences even within each Evangelical crowd. In mine, the emphasis was of daily confession of sins to stay “right with God”. Confessing ones sins is to God is clearly not “unbiblical”. The fact that it was never understood to be with a priest shows the “incomplete” not unbiblical teaching.
And I guess I was blessed. My Evan church did not preach against the Catholic Church.
Anyway, I respectfully, disagree with you when you say personal relationship is misleading in any way. Catholic Christians have the deepest personal relationship available through the sacraments. Non-catholic Christians are able to acheive a personal relationship because although God gives us grace through the sacraments, He is not limited to them.
God Bless,
Maria
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Plus, we have a very special thing called Tradition that sola scriptura Protestants are bereft of. Tradition allows us to have a closer relationship with Christ because the bishops of the Church were taught by men, who were taught by men…who were taught by the apostles themselves, who were taught by Christ Himself! BTW, “…” = 2000 years, but, no, this isn’t like a game of “telephone.” Our Lord promised that he would preserve His Truths though the Apostles and their successors FOREVER. I’ll take His word for it.
E
estesbob
Guest
This morning I held our Lord Jesus Christ in my hands and then i followed his instructions to eat his body and drink his blood. you cant get a more personal relationship than that.Plus, we have a very special thing called Tradition that sola scriptura Protestants are bereft of. Tradition allows us to have a closer relationship with Christ because the bishops of the Church were taught by men, who were taught by men…who were taught by the apostles themselves, who were taught by Christ Himself! BTW, “…” = 2000 years, but, no, this isn’t like a game of “telephone.” Our Lord promised that he would preserve His Truths though the Apostles and their successors FOREVER. I’ll take His word for it.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
None.
D
Della
Guest
You misunderstand me, which is most likely my fault. I do not in any way deny that Catholics can have and do have a personal relationship with Our Lord. What I objected to was the phrase “…that we are saved by a personal relationship with the risen Lord Jesus Christ.” We are not SAVED BY our personal relationship with Christ but by GRACE (not grace alone, of course).
Those who do hold that one must have a “personal relationship with Christ” in order to be saved will think that either the author of the tract is being disingenuous or that he believes as they do, which he doesn’t and neither do you, as Catholics.
The phrase, as used in the tract, is (unintentionally) misleading, and so should be corrected to reflect Catholic teaching, as I’ve written and tried (seemingly in vain to demonstrate) in all my posts on this topic.
M
MariaG
Guest
You are right. I was concentrating on the personal relationship part of your objection instead of the saved part.
I do think there could be room for some to misinterpret, however, I have to say, that my understanding of “saved by a personal relationship” while in the non-Catholic arena seems to be slightly different that what you seem to think it is?
According to my understanding, while not stated as precisely as the Catholic Church at the time, I was saved by God’s grace, because I believe. Saved NOT meaning a one time event, but an ongoing walk. The relationship did not save, God did, (more precisely God’s grace) I saw it, and it was explained by me that God is just waiting for us (Grace is made available), once we say yes to Him, establish that relationship, we use that grace that has been freely offered to us. It sometimes is explained as opening the door to Him and the word Grace was not always used by all people (imprecise definitions) but the concept was the same.
Of course, I might have misunderstood, I mean, I AM Catholic now
But for Evangelicals like I was, I think the tract is great and in no way misleads
God Bless,
Maria
E
Elzee
Guest
I have to agree with Della, also. I think saying we are ‘saved by a personal relationship’ is misleading, especially, because in context, you follow it with being ‘born again’ which implies we believe being ‘born again’ means having that relationship. That is not the case in the Catholic Church (or the bible…)
If you add ‘we are born again through Baptism and continually mature and renew our relationship with Jesus Christ through the Sacraments instituted by Him and through personal prayer’ then I think that would be more accurate.
If you add ‘we are born again through Baptism and continually mature and renew our relationship with Jesus Christ through the Sacraments instituted by Him and through personal prayer’ then I think that would be more accurate.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
This post resulted from a PM by a wonderful Catholic sister on here whom I will not name, but only let Our Lord reward her. 
I used the term that I did for one very good reason. I want them to ask me about that relationship with Our Lord, because I believe that we (faithful) Catholics have the deepest relationships with Our Lord of all Christians. When I read the lives of Padre Pio, The Little Flower, Maximilian Kolbe, Francis and Clare of Assisi, Augustine, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, (and of Loyola), John Paul II, and the rest of the treasury of Catholic saints and then compare it to the experience that I personally have during the celebration of the Eucharist and in my prayers, I am convinced that we Catholics really do have a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ”, where those who seek to evangelize us have a term for something that is experientially less, though they may not realize it.
I feel like we Catholics should be saying to others, “You want a relationship with Jesus Christ? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!”
I may be being too nice to say it outright, but I wouldn’t be Catholic if I didn’t believe with all my heart & soul that everyone should be Catholic too.
Pax tecum,
I used the term that I did for one very good reason. I want them to ask me about that relationship with Our Lord, because I believe that we (faithful) Catholics have the deepest relationships with Our Lord of all Christians. When I read the lives of Padre Pio, The Little Flower, Maximilian Kolbe, Francis and Clare of Assisi, Augustine, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, (and of Loyola), John Paul II, and the rest of the treasury of Catholic saints and then compare it to the experience that I personally have during the celebration of the Eucharist and in my prayers, I am convinced that we Catholics really do have a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ”, where those who seek to evangelize us have a term for something that is experientially less, though they may not realize it.
I feel like we Catholics should be saying to others, “You want a relationship with Jesus Christ? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!”
I may be being too nice to say it outright, but I wouldn’t be Catholic if I didn’t believe with all my heart & soul that everyone should be Catholic too.
Pax tecum,
A
Annunciata
Guest
Hey Church…Is this the final draft? I copied it once and then twice…I actually made it into a threefold…just have to put some “stuff” on the front and back…Any suggestions???
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I found a good piece of clip art that has a Crucifix and a Bible (In Works) for the top half of the 1st page of my bi-fold, but that’s all the art I’ve put into it so far. There’s lots of room for art and formatting as you assemble it in your own comp, and I admit I haven’t messed with it as a three fold yet, but probably will at some point. One can always google free Catholic clipart, and/or copy cool art that you see. I am partial to the Divine Mercy Image myself, and may add it to the tract later on. That might work especially well on your trifold!Hey Church…Is this the final draft? I copied it once and then twice…I actually made it into a threefold…just have to put some “stuff” on the front and back…Any suggestions???
Pax tecum,
E
Everyman
Guest
What does this part of the tract mean?
"…we do our best to live out that relationship by producing fruit worthy of repentance. "
Repentance? Is that the right word?
"…we do our best to live out that relationship by producing fruit worthy of repentance. "
Repentance? Is that the right word?
U
USMC
Guest
Church Militant:
Such a stance is very uncharitable since the Church has taught for 2000 years - and even defined as a dogma - that all heretics and schismatics will go into eternal perdition.
“**The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans [those with no faith], but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
Since heretics and schismatics will go into eternal perdition unless they convert to the Catholic Church, shouldn’t you at least “seek” to convert them? Is it only “radical traditionalists”, as you wrote, who are charitable enough to seek to save the souls of all people, including heretics? Is this 2000 year old practice of seeking the conversion of heretics and schismatics now forbidden, or at least taboo?
Is this way of thinking not the product of a imprudent ecumenism gone astray? We are no longer allowed to seek the conversion of those of other “faiths”, but only those of no faith?
This is indeed the product of such false ecumenism as practiced by misled prelates, such as Cardinal Kasper - John Paul II’s point man for ecumenism - who said the following:
"Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics’… each church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved, and not in the fact that we should become ‘Protestants’, or that the others should become ‘Catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism." (In February 2001, Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity).
It is nothing other than false ecumenism that has led some sincere Catholics to conclude that we should not seek to covert heretics ans schismatics. God willing, the new Pope will put an end to such madness.**
So you are not interested in converting a heretic or schismatic to the one true Church, but only those without a faith?
Such a stance is very uncharitable since the Church has taught for 2000 years - and even defined as a dogma - that all heretics and schismatics will go into eternal perdition.
“**The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans [those with no faith], but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
Since heretics and schismatics will go into eternal perdition unless they convert to the Catholic Church, shouldn’t you at least “seek” to convert them? Is it only “radical traditionalists”, as you wrote, who are charitable enough to seek to save the souls of all people, including heretics? Is this 2000 year old practice of seeking the conversion of heretics and schismatics now forbidden, or at least taboo?
Is this way of thinking not the product of a imprudent ecumenism gone astray? We are no longer allowed to seek the conversion of those of other “faiths”, but only those of no faith?
This is indeed the product of such false ecumenism as practiced by misled prelates, such as Cardinal Kasper - John Paul II’s point man for ecumenism - who said the following:
"Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics’… each church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved, and not in the fact that we should become ‘Protestants’, or that the others should become ‘Catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism." (In February 2001, Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity).
It is nothing other than false ecumenism that has led some sincere Catholics to conclude that we should not seek to covert heretics ans schismatics. God willing, the new Pope will put an end to such madness.**
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
I think he will considering what he said on Dec. 9th, 2005 to the World Methodist Council. He stated that ecumenism should lead to “the stated goal of full visible unity in faith.” **Finally ** a return to *true * ecumenism!
B
bene7
Guest
Interesting. So does this mean that not only “Prostestants” but Eastern Orthodox as well as all “Christians” who are not under the authority of the Roman Pontiff are destined for hell? Are these not all considered “schismatics?”
And if what you say is correct, then Church Militant needs to make some radical changes in his tract (and in his own thinking). For it’s salvation itself that’s in question here, not simply “unity.”
Bene
- Status