The Synod and Style of Preaching or Evangelizing, There is more than one way?

[LittleFlower378]

I guess this could also go under Moral Theology, Spirituality, or Social Justice…

One of the themes from the Synod is style of preaching or evangelizing. The problem I cannot wrap my head around is that there is just one way to evangelize or preach. There are many styles and personalities and different ways to reach different people. I am not sure who the Pope is talking about when he says that people (and I think he meant mainly Bishops or Cardinals but could mean others as well) are acting like Pharisees? If someone has a style of preaching that is more dogmatic or to the point how can this be shunned? Its in the persons personality.

Not to mention the media here’s these words “Pharisee,” and words that sort of put down doctrine or dogma and they run with it.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

I know this might not answer your question but I do believe there is more than one way. For instance I see from your signature I see you’re affiliated with the Franciscans. Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites and others all have different Charisms which probably lead to various forms of preaching and evangelism.

On the note about “Pharisees” I believe (from my vastly limited perception) that our Pope simply wishes to advance the Spirit of the Law which should also fulfill the Law and much more of what legalism can ever do.

In the words of Blessed John Henry Newman, instead of “winning an arguement and losing a soul” our Pope wants to work towards building bridges. In my opinion it’s alright to be dogmatic without pushing too hard so long as you don’t shut down people, turn them off completely and “lose them forever” - that is something I currently struggle with.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Thank you for the response RCIA and giving better understanding to the Popes words. Good point relating the religious orders.

From my understanding the Pope was addressing the Cardinals?. What Cardinals are being legalists or pushing too hard? I have not heard one, have you? Some would say Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Sarah??? I believe these two holy men preach the truth with love. Certainly in listening and talking to American Priests and religious I dont not find many legalists but more often fear preaching the Churchs teachings on sexuality for fear of losing people.

I dont think we ever can lose people forever. Even if we plant a small seed by bringing doctrine orndogma tonthe forefront atleast we laid a little seed. To some you may even want to be a little forcefull or hard per say(not rude or unloving) because that is the beat way that person can understand. I remember reading about St.Therese how in the convent she would preach differently to different sisiters, some hard the others soft, becuase she knew whatvwouldnwork best with that individual. I also remember a story of Franciscans whinwent to a town to preach calling the opponants infidels and they were martyred! Were they wrong? Howb does this relate to Matthew 18:15-20?

 

[johnnyc176]

I know this might not answer your question but I do believe there is more than one way. For instance I see from your signature I see you’re affiliated with the Franciscans. Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites and others all have different Charisms which probably lead to various forms of preaching and evangelism.

On the note about “Pharisees” I believe (from my vastly limited perception) that our Pope simply wishes to advance the Spirit of the Law which should also fulfill the Law and much more of what legalism can ever do.

In the words of Blessed John Henry Newman, instead of “winning an arguement and losing a soul” our Pope wants to work towards building bridges. In my opinion it’s alright to be dogmatic without pushing too hard so long as you don’t shut down people, turn them off completely and “lose them forever” - that is something I currently struggle with.

Jesus gave us an excellent model here…

Neither do I condemn you (compassion). Go your way, and from now on do not sin again (conversion).

Wow…what’s up with Jesus being so legalistic!

Compassion for this life conversion for the next. Now all this talk about meeting someone where they are, and walking with them…that’s all fine. But Jesus did not walk very far with the adulteress woman before He told her not to sin. Because sin separates us from God.

For liberals and the secular world mercy is only the first part failing to realize that the reason for mercy in the first place is because of the reality of sin. But Jesus is also merciful and loving in warning against sin. The spiritual works of mercy attests to that…

To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.

 

[LittleFlower378]

The only ones who are being legalists are the ones that are trying to undermine church doctrine!

 

[frangiuliano115]

The only ones who are being legalists are the ones that are trying to undermine church doctrine!

Gosh LittleFlower, I’d say it’s the opposite.

Too tired to get into this but I’ll post when I get the email.

Still don’t know how to find threads!!

Fran

 

[LittleFlower378]

Try clicking your user name and going under statistics.

 

[Sirach2]

Jesus gave us an excellent model here…

Neither do I condemn you (compassion). Go your way, and** from now on do not sin again** (conversion).

Wow…what’s up with Jesus being so legalistic!

What you overlook in this incident, I think, is that Jesus did not permit the “elders” to stone her, either … not unless one of them was without sin himself.

We recall the incident of the publican and he sinner in the temple, “Lord, I thank you that I am not like one of these;” whereas, the publican simply recognized his unworthiness before God and asked for mercy. Who was justified?

The “publican” in many of us is quick to cast that stone, without comprehending the sin in oneself while holding the eagerness to judge another. Cardinal Wuerl confirmed tonight on World Over that there was never a move in the Synod to dismiss Jesus’ teaching, The bishops sought means of walking a mile in the sinner’s shoe, so to speak, in order to reach them with the gospel. One cannot effectively evangelize the lost while carrying the stricture of a harsh sentence toward them. (Interestingly, Raymond repeatedly tried to get him to admit that the Synod provided this “opening” for D&M’s receiving communion … Wuerl was brilliant in opposing his obvious tactics)

It is good to ponder these other scriptures in their entirety, rather than focus on narrow limits of the Law.

“Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”
Go then and learn what this means, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I am not come to call the just, but sinners."

 

[LittleFlower378]

That may be your way of preaching Sirach, which is wonderful, but its not everyone’s nor should one be forced a certain way.

What’s wrong with pulling the sinner aside lookinghim in the eye and telling him he is sinning in grave matter. This doesnt mean your not there for him, but your honezt from the vet go.

The experts of the law are the Pharisee being prideful with Jewish law not Catholic Cardinals preachinv the truth with love.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Hi Sirach, I just watched that episode of The World Over and in no way was Raymond trying to pull tactics but very well pointed out the confusion by playing the Archbisops clip in the beginning where he stated not all second marriages are adulterous and then pointed out later the Cardinal frim the UK who stated that its up to the persons concience whether or not to recieve communion. I see what Raymond is saying… Its utter confusion. Even my wife (who watches secular news) came to me and said all divorced and remarried can recieve communion now the Pope has changed things. Cardinal Weurl keeps talking about the pastoral care but there is no pastoral care when the way you present the sin to the person needing care as ok.

The one that suffers is Jesus in the blessed sacrament, who wants to share with thise who are in COMMUNION with his beautiful Church. Sexual sin is different from a sin such as anger since you can be angry and not sin but when you commit the sin of lust as in an adulterous relationship there is no going back. This Kasper proposal should have been squashed from the beginning eapecially after reading STbJPII Familiaris Consorto.

 

[Sirach2]

Hi Sirach, I just watched that episode of The World Over and in no way was Raymond trying to pull tactics but very well pointed out the confusion by playing the Archbisops clip in the beginning where he stated not all second marriages are adulterous and then pointed out later the Cardinal frim the UK who stated that its up to the persons concience whether or not to recieve communion. I see what Raymond is saying… Its utter confusion. Even my wife (who watches secular news) came to me and said all divorced and remarried can recieve communion now the Pope has changed things. [Not so, he has said nothing official yet] Cardinal Weurl keeps talking about the pastoral care but there is no pastoral care when the way you present the sin to the person needing care as "ok." [NOBODY is saying that in any way!]

Isn’t if amazing that we both saw different aspects? That’s exactly what Cardinal Wuerl said throughout the interview – that two people can each understand it in a completely different light. Arroyo kept trying to nail him by repeating his question and using the clips, even though Wuerl kept coming back to his original thought - that he DID NOT see the participants of the Synod as being divided, and that they need to discern with compassion where the person is coming from before trying to evangelize him. I suppose you would see what you want to see. Zing … just blurt out the bare truth without any attempt to reach the heart and soul first. Yah!

Of course, I saw the clips, which were Raymond’s way of leading the discussion into his own venue. But Wuerl kept his distance, remember?

If there IS confusion, it is not on the part of the Synod, since they have left the final decision up to Pope Francis. Any of us who try to second guess the outcome as allowing all D&M’s to receive HC and finger-point to division/confusion are missing the real heart of the Synod, which was simply to help the Pope in an advisory role. The harm is being done by the media who have allowed the laity, who were NOT present there, to think it was all double-speak These lay persons then become uninformed bystanders who keep the ball of confusion rolling with threads such as this one all over the internet

 

[Sirach2]

That may be your way of preaching Sirach, which is wonderful, but its not everyone’s nor should one be forced a certain way.

What’s wrong with pulling the sinner aside looking him in the eye and telling him he is sinning in grave matter. This doesnt mean your not there for him, but you’re honest from the get go. already KNOW the truth]

The experts of the law are the Pharisee being prideful with Jewish law not Catholic Cardinals preaching the truth with love.

Certainly, but these very people were the ones Jesus had trouble with throughout the gospels. It is not much different today. Did you read the Pope’s words to the Pharisees of today?
“The Synod was 'about bearing witness to everyone that, for the Church, the Gospel continues to be a vital source of eternal newness, against all those who would ‘indoctrinate’ it in dead stones to be hurled at others. [alluding to the gospel incident with the woman caught in adultery whom they wanted to stone]
It was also about laying bare closed hearts, which frequently hide even behind the Church’s teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families.”
Your words, and even your intent in your OP give witness of your understanding that there is no wiggle-room, but only bare truth to be blurted out as you look the poor sinner in the eye, all in the name of love.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… who have allowed the laity, who were NOT present there, to think it was all double-speak. These lay persons then become uninformed bystanders who keep the ball of confusion rolling with threads such as this one all over the internet

Francis is not Mao.

Beware wedge-driving based on the “coded talk” model.

Maybe Francis is getting at us all a little bit.

On top of that, what happened to participation in the Church without the sacraments - by catechesis, evangelisation, good works, intercessions, Scripture study.

Perhaps the “heresy” since Vat II and the CCC is sacramentolatry.

(I would argue I’m not breaking forum rules, just trying to get a reaction. )

Making outer signs a barrier, a closed door, is what some of the old “doctors” did. Jesus’ strategy is surely just to go straight for the inner grace. He doesn’t break rules. Sinners like me refreshed. Everyone happy. No-one living a lie. Gospel spreading.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Sirach,
Thank you for your reply, but it seems like we are not going to get far here.

The only one without wriggle room, I think is you, since you are saying your style of helping the sinner is the only and best style. That Is truly the point of my whole post… that there is not only one style and different approaches work better for different people.

Surely your style is a good one and as Cardinal Weurl said the Synod is looking for new approaches to pastoral care. But if you gonthe rout of the Archbishop and the Cardinal from the UK where pastoral care somehow trumps teaching the truth then you can lead the sinner down a path of greater destruction.

And if the decision to allow communion to the divorced and remarried is in the hamds of a pariah priest there can be all sorts of problems, I once had a confessor tell me that since a few Bishops dissented on Humae Vitea that it was ok in certain circumstances to use artificial contraception.

 

[frangiuliano115]

HELLO LITTLE FLOWER

The thread has moved along quickly but let me say this:

You say:

The only ones who are being legalists are the ones that are trying to undermine church doctrine!

I’d have to say it’s the opposite. Legalists are the ones trying to hold on desperately to church doctrine. I have legalist friends who are threatening to leave the church if remarrieds are allowed to receive communion. This is a difficult topic and not what I’m here for.

If you remember, it was Jesus who was upset with the pharisees regarding how they maintained the Law and forced it onto people without bothering to teach them of the love and freedom in God. Jesus said that they wouldn’t enter (the kingdom) and they were not allowing others to enter.

I believe Pope Francis is trying to get away from this idea of legalism. Whether you agree or not is a different matter, but you can’t deny that this is where he’s headed. I do believe there is change on the way - he’s made many comments to prepare us for this.

I’m afraid I’ll have to agree with Sirach2 and Vic Taltrees.

There is a big difference between following the Letter of the Law or following the Spirit of the Law.

God bless
Fran

 

[Sirach2]

Sirach,
Thank you for your reply, but it seems like we are not going to get far here.

The only one without wriggle room, I think is you, since you are saying your style of helping the sinner is the only and best style. That Is truly the point of my whole post… that there is not only one style and different approaches work better for different people.

You are correct that we are not going to get anywhere, since you are putting words into my mouth that I never said. I merely quoted Pope Francis and gave an interpretation for his comment about the Pharisees. In general, however, I do agree with him.

Surely your style [there it is again ] is a good one and as Cardinal Wuerl said the Synod is looking for new approaches to pastoral care. But if you go on the route of the Archbishop and the Cardinal from the UK where pastoral care somehow trumps teaching the truth then you can lead the sinner down a path of greater destruction.

Did I say this? No. Neither did Wuerl, nor did the Synod. You need to change paint brushes. In fact, you are attempting to prove in this thread that YOUR way is the “only and best style.” My goodness, shouldn’t Magisterium of the Church SEE THAT?!! The two you referenced are only two out of 270, so why all the panic?

And if the decision to allow communion to the divorced and remarried is in the hamds of a parish priest there can be all sorts of problems, I once had a confessor tell me that since a few Bishops dissented on Humae Vitea that it was ok in certain circumstances to use artificial contraception.

Nobody has said this yet, so why all the concern? Let’s allow the Holy Spirit to speak through Francis before making these huge leaps of danger and destruction. Faith would ask nothing less of us than to trust the guidance of the Church when it comes forth officially. No need for you to alarm yourself or he public with posts of this nature.

 

[Sirach2]

Just for the record, here is the recap of Cardinal Wuerl’s statement to Arroyo. He emphatically stated that he saw no division in the Synod.
youtube.com/watch?v=wB9qkmsselE&t=14m32s

 

[johnnyc176]

What you overlook in this incident, I think, is that Jesus did not permit the “elders” to stone her, either … not unless one of them was without sin himself.

We recall the incident of the publican and he sinner in the temple, “Lord, I thank you that I am not like one of these;” whereas, the publican simply recognized his unworthiness before God and asked for mercy. Who was justified?

The “publican” in many of us is quick to cast that stone, without comprehending the sin in oneself while holding the eagerness to judge another. Cardinal Wuerl confirmed tonight on World Over that there was never a move in the Synod to dismiss Jesus’ teaching, The bishops sought means of walking a mile in the sinner’s shoe, so to speak, in order to reach them with the gospel. One cannot effectively evangelize the lost while carrying the stricture of a harsh sentence toward them. (Interestingly, Raymond repeatedly tried to get him to admit that the Synod provided this “opening” for D&M’s receiving communion … Wuerl was brilliant in opposing his obvious tactics)

It is good to ponder these other scriptures in their entirety, rather than focus on narrow limits of the Law.

“Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”
Go then and learn what this means, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I am not come to call the just, but sinners."

I’m not overlooking anything. We need to preach the whole Gospel not just the parts that make us feel good. For instance…

.the rich young man who asked what he must do to be saved… ‘Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’…If someone like Cardinal Burke said this today liberals would be accusing him of being legalistic. Cardinal Wuerl is a liberal so has a liberal take on it. But Jesus said it and then he told the rich young man to give up his possessions, give to the poor and follow Him. And the rich young man could not do it…he had to hold on to his possessions. \In this case it was greed but it could easily be said of any sin we ‘possess’. If a sin (possession) is holding you back from following Jesus then that is what needs to be addressed . It needs to be identified and condemned. Compassion and conversion go hand in hand.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I’m not overlooking anything. We need to preach the whole Gospel not just the parts that make us feel good. For instance…

.the rich young man who asked what he must do to be saved… ‘Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’…If someone like Cardinal Burke said this today liberals would be accusing him of being legalistic. Cardinal Wuerl is a liberal so has a liberal take on it. But Jesus said it and then he told the rich young man to give up his possessions, give to the poor and follow Him. And the rich young man could not do it…he had to hold on to his possessions. \In this case it was greed but it could easily be said of any sin we ‘possess’. If a sin (possession) is holding you back from following Jesus then that is what needs to be addressed . It needs to be identified and condemned. Compassion and conversion go hand in hand.

First you say that greed has to be given up, in the case of the rich young man, if we want to follow Jesus, Then you say that compassion and conversion go hand in hand.

Uh. What if I can’t give up greed? Does Jesus not want me?? The RYM left sad. Jesus didn’t tell him to leave. He might have come to understand someday - he CHOSE to leave.

Can we come to an agreement between the two terms Legalistic and Law. I don’t like either one, BTW.

Law: Living under the Law. Being oppressed by the Law. The pharisees followed the Law. That would be all the law in the books of leviticus, deuteronomy and even exodus.
How does one keep the Law? It’s pretty much impossible. I like grace better.

Legalism: I understand this to be what the church has prescribed we do. With a small c. All the regulations that have been instituted. From the sacraments to liturgies to indulgences, etc.

In other words, God instituted the Law, man instituted the legality of being a catholic.

Jesus came to fulfill the Law. So the Law is now obsolete. He was not legalistic because he was pretty unhappy with the pharisees, mathew 23 - the woes.

So what are we left with? Grace. God’s love will bring us to follow Him, we’ll give up what we need to give up when He gives us the strength to.

Would you agree?

When we evangelize it should be with this love. If you just bring up the sin to someone, they’ll be turned away. It’s up to the Holy Spirit to convict, not us. These last 3 sentences are mostly for the OP and not you - but it came to mind.

Fran

 

[Sirach2]

I’m not overlooking anything. We need to preach the whole Gospel not just the parts that make us feel good.

If someone like Cardinal Burke said this today liberals would be accusing him of being legalistic. Cardinal Wuerl is a liberal so has a liberal take on it.

I see that we have differing opinions on who a liberal is. C. Wuerl is** not a liberal**, espousing a different gospel than C. Burke. Apparently you did not watch the link I gave you where Wuerl continuously opposed Arroyo and insisted that the Synod is not divided, nor will the Church change Her doctrine. It is rather odious of you to pit these two Servants against each other, as if only Burke teaches the truth.

If a sin (possession) is holding you back from following Jesus then that is what needs to be addressed. It needs to be identified and condemned. Compassion and conversion go hand in hand.

Underlying your assumption of guilt and sin is the very attitude that the Church has opposed in the Synod. Yes, outwardly, there may be sin and ALSO repentance, with no means of reconciling the lost sheep due to legalism. Pastoral guidance in dealing with those caught in this dilemma was the directive of the Synod, while at the same time, upholding the Church’s teaching.

As had been said, we simply need to await the decision of the Holy Father until he issues his papal teaching and refrain from asserting one’s own interpretation prematurely. The “sky is falling” scenario is not helpful to anyone.

Today’s gospel gives us food for thought:
The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all these things and sneered at Jesus.
And he said to them,
“You justify yourselves in the sight of others, but God knows your hearts;
for what is of human esteem is an abomination in the sight of God.”

As Fran shared above, God’s ‘grace’ will seek out the lost, just as Jesus exclaimed in Thursday’s gospel to the Pharisees::
“This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”
So Jesus addressed this parable to them.
“What man among you having a hundred sheep and losing one of them would not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go after the lost one until he finds it?
I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance.”

Your assumption that there has been no remorse or repentance in certain cases, such as was addressed in the Synod, is out of order here, for only God knows the heart.