V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
“Pharisees” are people who appear to peddle a “plausibly orthodox” line, but don’t flag up that the Faith has many parts so doesn’t “need” to be altered.
The Synod and Style of Preaching or Evangelizing, There is more than one way?
- Status
J
johnnyc176
Guest
I didn’t say it. Those are Jesus’ words. Compassion and conversion go hand in hand because to warn again sin is compassion. When Jesus says…Neither do I condemn you (compassion), go and sin no more (conversion) He is being pastoral in both respects. compassion for this life, conversion for the next.
God wishes all to be saved but…there is a hell you know. When those disciples walked away from Jesus because of a hard teaching, Jesus did not run after them saying hey I was only speaking in symbols. They chose to walk but He did not interfere with that choice. That is why it is so important to identify and condemn sin.
“If you love me you will obey my commandments.” Love requires obedience.
Grace which we have to accept. There are many protestant denominations (and supposed ‘catholics’) who claim to love Jesus but don’t follow His teachings.Some claim they are led by the Holy Spirit. Are they? So wouldn’t it be prudent to emphasize the teachings of Jesus and not to go against them as it concerns salvation? Do you think it wise to not talk about sin and rely on hey they’ll figure it out.
I have repeatedly said that the whole Gospel must be preached. Compassion and conversion. When Jesus said go and sin no more it was done out of love. It is the liberal who thinks only a false sense of compassion is needed when it is shown in Scripture and tradition that conversion is also needed for salvation
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
I’m rather in a down mood this evening because I thought catholics were more untied in their thoughts and beliefs. I mean this sincerely:
What are Jesus’ teachings?
What is it that saves us anyway?
J
johnnyc176
Guest
“And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.”
We get God’s Word through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church that Jesus founded, the Catholic Church.
Jesus made it possible that all may be saved. It is a Grace freely given and not earned by us. However we have to accept that Grace and just by the fact that Jesus gave the power to forgive sins to the apostles we know that we can lose our salvation by falling into sin and not repenting. By being in the Church that Jesus founded, the Catholic Church and staying close to the Sacraments He instituted for us (especially Confession and the Eucharist) is the most ordinary way to be saved.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
Little Flower, did we answer your question?
It sounded at first like you were asking what do different styles of preaching do for getting the Christian life across? You listed some Cardinals you think to be good holy men then you still thought the Pope must be trying to get at some who take a particular kind of line.
Well it is more subtle than that, hard heartedness sometimes hides behind orthodox-looking noises, including what might pass for a “new kind of orthodox”.
In God’s cafeteria He sometimes serves up one style and sometimes another.
Then you bring it round to the inevitable thing that 100% of Catholics assume was the sole point of the whole synod: Communion for D&Ms.
As a non-Irish single man with “hidden” disabilities I have a completely different beef with the Church that the rest of the Church finds utterly irrelevant: it is faction ridden and doesn’t care if I am lonely.
The REAL point of the Synod was Mission. Mission would address my problem squarely. Lo and behold, it would address everybody’s problem. All these people who cohabit - they are lonely too! Fran, the answer to your question is Jesus’ teaching was about Mission.
The letter was the spirit and the spirit was the letter, these only fall apart when He isn’t there.
Shall we set ourselves a new goal, to encourage each other in prayer for Mission to the lonely!
As it’s impossible in this kind of situation to quash the Kasper kind of proposal, the Pope’s policy is to showcase it as much as possible to let the faithful discern. Let the hard-hearted (including but not confined to some of those posing as soft-hearted) show themselves up in our eyes!
It sounded at first like you were asking what do different styles of preaching do for getting the Christian life across? You listed some Cardinals you think to be good holy men then you still thought the Pope must be trying to get at some who take a particular kind of line.
Well it is more subtle than that, hard heartedness sometimes hides behind orthodox-looking noises, including what might pass for a “new kind of orthodox”.
In God’s cafeteria He sometimes serves up one style and sometimes another.
Then you bring it round to the inevitable thing that 100% of Catholics assume was the sole point of the whole synod: Communion for D&Ms.
As a non-Irish single man with “hidden” disabilities I have a completely different beef with the Church that the rest of the Church finds utterly irrelevant: it is faction ridden and doesn’t care if I am lonely.
The REAL point of the Synod was Mission. Mission would address my problem squarely. Lo and behold, it would address everybody’s problem. All these people who cohabit - they are lonely too! Fran, the answer to your question is Jesus’ teaching was about Mission.
The letter was the spirit and the spirit was the letter, these only fall apart when He isn’t there.
Shall we set ourselves a new goal, to encourage each other in prayer for Mission to the lonely!
As it’s impossible in this kind of situation to quash the Kasper kind of proposal, the Pope’s policy is to showcase it as much as possible to let the faithful discern. Let the hard-hearted (including but not confined to some of those posing as soft-hearted) show themselves up in our eyes!
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
So, I have come to learn the code words:
“The church that Jesus founded, the Catholic Church”.
I came across a couple of posters who insist that the apostles were Catholic. ** Do you agree with that too? ** I mean, could we be catholic without getting silly about it? **Or are we drawing lines in the sand? Are we splitting the church in two? **
What would you say the gospel is? What exactly was the good news?
I’m just trying to decide if I should remain on CAF, have the ability to make my position known, if not understood, at the risk of being insulted (which has happend). Do I sound like an instigator to you? (just to hear what you say - I’m not saying you and I are arguing) I keep pointing some to **John 13:35. Isn’t this where we should be headed?
**
Like in your previous post with all the quote thingys, you say compassion and conversion go hand in hand. Okay. How about conversion and THEN COMPASSION. Jesus fulfilled the Law but He also made it more difficult to keep. You Have Heard it Said, But I Say To You. For instance Mathew 5:27-28. So HOW do you think it could be easier to keep? I know how it’s easier to keep, I’m really and honestly wondering how you think it could be easier.
Very interested in your reply.
Fran
I would have liked to ask these questions to others but they seem too upset and you seem very reasonable. I thank you for that.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
I don’t think Johnny C is going against Jn 13:35. It is very strongly implied in his pithy statements. He doesn’t flag up the other ways grace comes into our lives but that doesn’t matter much in a general thread like this. It only distressed me (an omission coming from some) when we were addressing individuals in specific distress.
All the animals are at the watering hole, quietly laughing at themselves, saying: “Are we suspicious, or are we just different species?”
Pope Francis is always on about sin, has always got a constructive critique!
Fran, what’s with the Catholicism = laws?
Here are some of the things being a Catholic has done for me over the years:
Either they were too busy including me in substantial ways, or I was oblivious that they were trying to tell me I was breaking any Church laws! (I think I went through some phases of being fairly frequent at Sacraments.)
Yes Scripture tells us God’s laws, and it also tells us He puts those inside our very own hearts! There is excitement about the indwelling Jesus and the operation of the Holy Spirit in our lives, that enable us to do these things for somebody! When we had dissident members the rest were usually placid about that, without needing to compromise a thing - except a bunch of people I ran into very recently.
I think there’s plenty enough of a balance on this forum overall (we ought to be careful with individuals). Fran, you never know what kind of Catholics you might run into next!
All the animals are at the watering hole, quietly laughing at themselves, saying: “Are we suspicious, or are we just different species?”
Pope Francis is always on about sin, has always got a constructive critique!
Fran, what’s with the Catholicism = laws?
Here are some of the things being a Catholic has done for me over the years:
- interceding in someone’s front room (some Protestants were also attracted into attending)
- being taken away on holiday by the same people
- being included in Bible Studies on and off for many years
Either they were too busy including me in substantial ways, or I was oblivious that they were trying to tell me I was breaking any Church laws! (I think I went through some phases of being fairly frequent at Sacraments.)
Yes Scripture tells us God’s laws, and it also tells us He puts those inside our very own hearts! There is excitement about the indwelling Jesus and the operation of the Holy Spirit in our lives, that enable us to do these things for somebody! When we had dissident members the rest were usually placid about that, without needing to compromise a thing - except a bunch of people I ran into very recently.
I think there’s plenty enough of a balance on this forum overall (we ought to be careful with individuals). Fran, you never know what kind of Catholics you might run into next!
L
LittleFlower378
Guest
Vic,
Just some thoughts since I last posted -
I talked to a good priest and he gave some clarity to my concern. He stated that all the Popes brought their own style into the papacy. He explained the differences in style of Benedict XVI and St.John Paul II the Great. Now we have a pope that brings his own ideas which is strongly favoring mercy. That doesnt mean that the old style, of lets say the negative preaching of Jeremiah is out of date or wrong.
Unfortunately, since not all things are clear or are taken in context, some people want to push their own agenda and can get crafty and twist the Pope how they would like. This happened with Vatican II as well which I believe needs come clarification.
Doctrine and pastoral practice should walk hand in hand. Some people will focus more on one than the other but pastoral practice can only be effective if doctrine and Church teaching is upheld.
Walking with the sinner. I guess there could be those who constantly pound away at Church doctrine which could be a turnoff. There may be a milder approach. A close family member of mine is cohabitating. I brought this up to him and his partner and told him why this is not a good idea. He, of course, didnt like what I said, but I dont regret saying it. I still talk to this person and am there for him but if God gives me the opportunity to bring up the subject of cohabitation again I’m not afraid to talk about it with him again. Yes this person probably does feel alone but it is sin that is contributing to that.
As far as the Kasper proposal, it is one that undermines marriage and indissolubility and in my opinion should have been talked about behind closed doors.
Vic, I am sorry you feel lonely.
The Church does care if you are lonely and Jesus and its members are here to make you feel welcome. You should start a Church group that helps people make new friends and companionship with others.
Just some thoughts since I last posted -
I talked to a good priest and he gave some clarity to my concern. He stated that all the Popes brought their own style into the papacy. He explained the differences in style of Benedict XVI and St.John Paul II the Great. Now we have a pope that brings his own ideas which is strongly favoring mercy. That doesnt mean that the old style, of lets say the negative preaching of Jeremiah is out of date or wrong.
Unfortunately, since not all things are clear or are taken in context, some people want to push their own agenda and can get crafty and twist the Pope how they would like. This happened with Vatican II as well which I believe needs come clarification.
Doctrine and pastoral practice should walk hand in hand. Some people will focus more on one than the other but pastoral practice can only be effective if doctrine and Church teaching is upheld.
Walking with the sinner. I guess there could be those who constantly pound away at Church doctrine which could be a turnoff. There may be a milder approach. A close family member of mine is cohabitating. I brought this up to him and his partner and told him why this is not a good idea. He, of course, didnt like what I said, but I dont regret saying it. I still talk to this person and am there for him but if God gives me the opportunity to bring up the subject of cohabitation again I’m not afraid to talk about it with him again. Yes this person probably does feel alone but it is sin that is contributing to that.
As far as the Kasper proposal, it is one that undermines marriage and indissolubility and in my opinion should have been talked about behind closed doors.
Vic, I am sorry you feel lonely.
The Church does care if you are lonely and Jesus and its members are here to make you feel welcome. You should start a Church group that helps people make new friends and companionship with others.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
This wasn’t an option that was allowed re the Kasper proposal, hence the Pope made a virtue out of necessity which he often has a flair for.… As far as the Kasper proposal, it is one that undermines marriage and indissolubility and in my opinion should have been talked about behind closed doors.
Vic, I am sorry you feel lonely.
I simply wanted to prove that not everybody has the same beef in the Church - some exist that everyone else finds irrelevant! I am a very hardy individual. Piecing together my brief remarks from many threads you can see a little bit of what happened here. Now I’ll see if continuing contacts emerge from Journey In Faith next year. In any case I’ve got some Protestant acquaintances I keep up my sleeve!
G
guanophore
Guest
Is it a code?
Do you believe that Jesus founded a Church?
If it was not Catholic, what Church was it?
You have said that the first members of the Church referred to themselves as “The Way”, then later in Antioch they were called “Christian”. So when did the Church become Catholic?
You have said that the “Catholic” church is based in Rome, and the universal church is everywhere? Did the “Catholic Church” start when the Vatican was built?
The goal is not to be divisive. The Apostles gave to the One Church a depost of faith that is one and whole. Over the course of time, that One Deposit of faith has been sliced, diced, separated and mutilated. If Jesus meant what He said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, then He has protected this once for all divine deposit of faith from falling into error.
I do not think you are an instigator at all, and you have as much right to your position as everyone else does. Others may find your statements insulting, and you may find theirs insulting, but that is something that can be worked out between posters or taken to the mods.
Believe me it works a lot better when you ask questions, rather than assigning people a strawman position, then correcting them for having it!
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
Believe me it works a lot better when you ask questions, rather than assigning people a strawman position, then correcting them for having it!
I was, kind of, expecting an answer from johnnyc176.
G
guanophore
Guest
Then you have something to which you can look forward with eagerness! You seem to avoid my questions, and don’t like to be held accountable for things you have said.
D
djames99
Guest
What we need to do is tell the truth conveyed in a kind and caring way, period.
I think today’s warnings in evangelical style, of trying to precedurally assure success is only an obstacle. The See is attempting to have more successes which is OK. The bent of these directives is to assemby line create “Bishop Barrons” at a hat drop, That’s not going to happen, and throughout history learning and experience was always a part and parcel of scholastic undertakings. Often the evangelist is called to account because he wasn’t such and such, or applied such and such. These directives leave out one additional fact, that the student must be responsive to the inadequacy of the teacher, and this characteristic he should have developed on his own. Sometimes all of these necessities to be in place are all present and in sync, and with the help of the Holy Spirit the student comes away fulfilled.
The open directives to evangelists are counter productive, and should be in house. The student sees these directives to the evangelist as one more way to excuse himself from the responsibility of trying to understand what the evangelist is saying. He feels justified in remaining in his particular level of ignorance and walks off with “it’s not my fault”. This reaction is most seen in the behavioral teachings. An analogy is the medicine and care giver. The medicine is too bitter to take, and the illness is unhealthy but enjoyable, but now that the care giver is reprimanded for his method of deliverance, the patient has a legitimate excuse for not accepting it.
In the charismatic movement the desire is to have every person slotted to his expertise(charism). On occasion, a person can be referred to give the teaching. But most of the time this is not practical, or the timeliness does not permit it. Here is when a less experienced person may need to step up to the plate. I also doubt as we are led to believe that there are hostile warring isolationist Catholics on a vengeful crusade to “get the heathen” in any way possible. Most scenes I see are would-be evangelists trying to do a good job and are sincere, although are not up to snuff.
It is left to God in the end to determine the success of the lesson.
I think today’s warnings in evangelical style, of trying to precedurally assure success is only an obstacle. The See is attempting to have more successes which is OK. The bent of these directives is to assemby line create “Bishop Barrons” at a hat drop, That’s not going to happen, and throughout history learning and experience was always a part and parcel of scholastic undertakings. Often the evangelist is called to account because he wasn’t such and such, or applied such and such. These directives leave out one additional fact, that the student must be responsive to the inadequacy of the teacher, and this characteristic he should have developed on his own. Sometimes all of these necessities to be in place are all present and in sync, and with the help of the Holy Spirit the student comes away fulfilled.
The open directives to evangelists are counter productive, and should be in house. The student sees these directives to the evangelist as one more way to excuse himself from the responsibility of trying to understand what the evangelist is saying. He feels justified in remaining in his particular level of ignorance and walks off with “it’s not my fault”. This reaction is most seen in the behavioral teachings. An analogy is the medicine and care giver. The medicine is too bitter to take, and the illness is unhealthy but enjoyable, but now that the care giver is reprimanded for his method of deliverance, the patient has a legitimate excuse for not accepting it.
In the charismatic movement the desire is to have every person slotted to his expertise(charism). On occasion, a person can be referred to give the teaching. But most of the time this is not practical, or the timeliness does not permit it. Here is when a less experienced person may need to step up to the plate. I also doubt as we are led to believe that there are hostile warring isolationist Catholics on a vengeful crusade to “get the heathen” in any way possible. Most scenes I see are would-be evangelists trying to do a good job and are sincere, although are not up to snuff.
It is left to God in the end to determine the success of the lesson.
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
I read with interest but, of course being an insider, you’re using language not all will understand.
Evangelization is not for everyone. Some amount of charisma must be present. A lot of theological information is necessary. Some young people take a course and think they could go out there and teach catholicism and convert someone just because of their “speech” and “lesson”.
My diocese has a program like this. The young people, 20-30 years old will, for the most part, hand out leaflets to passers by and also answer if anyone has a question. They do this at a Comix thing which the whole town hates but the Comix people love. Getting dressed up like their favorite hero and all that. It does seem like a good occasion.
I think the best evangelizaion is just telling someone what Jesus means to you; how He changed your life, how you got to know Him, why you trust Him, etc.
Most people won’t get into physics, philosophy or even weird arguments, but if they do, what then? I like the “something cannot come out of nothing” routine but at some point I tell them to get Fr. Spitzer’s books.
I’m not officially evangelizing, sorry if I gave that impression. Just people you run into every now and then so I could appreciate someone who really does this as a mission.
Fran
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m not sure what was really meant by any of this exhortation.
But I will say that I have often wished some seminary or other would engage someone like, well, me, to teach seminarians how to construct and deliver a sermon/homily. I don’t think they’re dull and boring because the priests lack a heartfelt desire to communicate well to their parishioners. I suspect a lot of them truly wish they could. But nobody has taught them.
There are structural elements to giving an effective talk. Most sermons/homilies are poorly constructed. While personalities differ, methods of speaking can be adapted to personality differences and still be persuasive and inspiring.
Sometimes I think a lot of parishioners never really learn anything from sermons/homilies. There should always be something that is not only informational, it should be informational in a dramatic way. By “dramatic”, I don’t mean bombast or carnival showmanship. It should be kind, but firm. It should at least nudge a person toward spiritual growth in a way that really accomplishes it. It is not for nothing that we call priests “Father”.
Evangelization is like anything else. We have to know what it is before we can do it. We need to see it happen. We need exemplars.
I honestly think that when priests or bishops seem rigid, “legalistic” or whatever, for the most part the problem is that they just have never been taught how to speak in any other way. It’s an art, and it can be learned.
But I will say that I have often wished some seminary or other would engage someone like, well, me, to teach seminarians how to construct and deliver a sermon/homily. I don’t think they’re dull and boring because the priests lack a heartfelt desire to communicate well to their parishioners. I suspect a lot of them truly wish they could. But nobody has taught them.
There are structural elements to giving an effective talk. Most sermons/homilies are poorly constructed. While personalities differ, methods of speaking can be adapted to personality differences and still be persuasive and inspiring.
Sometimes I think a lot of parishioners never really learn anything from sermons/homilies. There should always be something that is not only informational, it should be informational in a dramatic way. By “dramatic”, I don’t mean bombast or carnival showmanship. It should be kind, but firm. It should at least nudge a person toward spiritual growth in a way that really accomplishes it. It is not for nothing that we call priests “Father”.
Evangelization is like anything else. We have to know what it is before we can do it. We need to see it happen. We need exemplars.
I honestly think that when priests or bishops seem rigid, “legalistic” or whatever, for the most part the problem is that they just have never been taught how to speak in any other way. It’s an art, and it can be learned.
D
djames99
Guest
“I think the best evangelizaion is just telling someone what Jesus means to you; how He changed your life, how you got to know Him, why you trust Him, etc”.
Your love for Jesus is obvious.
But what Jesus desires is what is important, and what we deliver is a constant task while on earth. We can only deliver this answer from dogma of the Church, so that we discover what those things that are to be relayed on.
Just for example let me assume that I don’t believe in going to confession and accepting the Eucharist. I tell someone that Jesus means a whole lot to me, that he changed my life, how I got to know him, and why I trust him. I’ve made an insincere statement because I portrayed to someone else what the ideal response is to accepting Jesus. If I’m successful, then the other person emulates me. He then finds unimportant the things I find unimportant, because I make no mention of my faults. I come away satisfied that I converted someone.
I think Jesus would prefer that we tell him what is being demanded of him. We need to take on the evangelization with sincerity and properly disposed(state of my soul from God’s point of view). In our analogy I was not properly disposed because God has an issue with me since I don’t go to confession and I committed a mortal sin after my baptism and am not absolved. If I truly loved him I would obey him and go to confession.
As a protestant, he has already run the gamut of people who love Jesus the way they think he should be loved, rather than in the way he desires.
Now some may say, “Yeah, but he changed my life, so my relationship with him must be the ideal”. Jesus many times changes lives because he wishes this gift to people to inspire them to explore further and make greater commitments. This was accomplished because he bargains with the Father on our behalf, asking for “just one more chance” to change us. Jesus scolded Saul(St. Paul), “I would have killed you…”. However, we can see that prior to this revelation Paul was almost lost, even though he too loved God and pursued his genocide with zeal, but was awakened to a great ministry in His Church. He was called to explore and discern. His genocide is our refusal to do all that Jesus commands us.
The reverse is also true. Some are so mired in sin that satan, for reward of improper behavior, backs off, and the world looks rosy to the victim with bright sunny days. He too loves Jesus while he was in a state of capital sin. In this case Jesus imposes no special demands on him, because His love would have him in the confessional. He already offered the proper remedy. He may think that it is Jesus that changed his life, but if he had investigated properly he would find that he is further from him that he thinks, nor is he a safe inspirational source for anyone else.
Your love for Jesus is obvious.
But what Jesus desires is what is important, and what we deliver is a constant task while on earth. We can only deliver this answer from dogma of the Church, so that we discover what those things that are to be relayed on.
Just for example let me assume that I don’t believe in going to confession and accepting the Eucharist. I tell someone that Jesus means a whole lot to me, that he changed my life, how I got to know him, and why I trust him. I’ve made an insincere statement because I portrayed to someone else what the ideal response is to accepting Jesus. If I’m successful, then the other person emulates me. He then finds unimportant the things I find unimportant, because I make no mention of my faults. I come away satisfied that I converted someone.
I think Jesus would prefer that we tell him what is being demanded of him. We need to take on the evangelization with sincerity and properly disposed(state of my soul from God’s point of view). In our analogy I was not properly disposed because God has an issue with me since I don’t go to confession and I committed a mortal sin after my baptism and am not absolved. If I truly loved him I would obey him and go to confession.
As a protestant, he has already run the gamut of people who love Jesus the way they think he should be loved, rather than in the way he desires.
Now some may say, “Yeah, but he changed my life, so my relationship with him must be the ideal”. Jesus many times changes lives because he wishes this gift to people to inspire them to explore further and make greater commitments. This was accomplished because he bargains with the Father on our behalf, asking for “just one more chance” to change us. Jesus scolded Saul(St. Paul), “I would have killed you…”. However, we can see that prior to this revelation Paul was almost lost, even though he too loved God and pursued his genocide with zeal, but was awakened to a great ministry in His Church. He was called to explore and discern. His genocide is our refusal to do all that Jesus commands us.
The reverse is also true. Some are so mired in sin that satan, for reward of improper behavior, backs off, and the world looks rosy to the victim with bright sunny days. He too loves Jesus while he was in a state of capital sin. In this case Jesus imposes no special demands on him, because His love would have him in the confessional. He already offered the proper remedy. He may think that it is Jesus that changed his life, but if he had investigated properly he would find that he is further from him that he thinks, nor is he a safe inspirational source for anyone else.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
Whilst the testimony Fran mentions is the context that will convince people, I also second the helpful ideas of djames99.
Thought needs to be given to how many people are involved, and over what time frames. In practice the scheme or programme often goes ahead (if at all) not fully worked out.
In principle, the same sort of things (with differences) apply whether to deepening the faith of already-belongers, as to whetting the appetite of potential newcomers, and hanging on to those who have begun to “bite”.
Which aspects mesh in with concepts of “community” and “relationship” (e.g forgiveness) and how much is individual (e.g trust in God)?
Sometimes as I can testify frictions and carelessness loom larger than the Good News we hoped was going to be rolled out, but that’s another story!
How do we maintain a pool of those with sufficient aptitudes to fulfil these roles and whet the appetite of newer blood to train up in them? Do we admit the need to ask the faithful to back it with their prayers or is it something we would like them to take for granted (a fait accompli we can present them with at minimal emotional impact to them)?
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
You’re very capable of summing things up in a few sentences.Whilst the testimony Fran mentions is the context that will convince people, I also second the helpful ideas of djames99.
Thought needs to be given to how many people are involved, and over what time frames. In practice the scheme or programme often goes ahead (if at all) not fully worked out.
In principle, the same sort of things (with differences) apply whether to deepening the faith of already-belongers, as to whetting the appetite of potential newcomers, and hanging on to those who have begun to “bite”.
Which aspects mesh in with concepts of “community” and “relationship” (e.g forgiveness) and how much is individual (e.g trust in God)?
Sometimes as I can testify frictions and carelessness loom larger than the Good News we hoped was going to be rolled out, but that’s another story!
How do we maintain a pool of those with sufficient aptitudes to fulfil these roles and whet the appetite of newer blood to train up in them? Do we admit the need to ask the faithful to back it with their prayers or is it something we would like them to take for granted (a fait accompli we can present them with at minimal emotional impact to them)?
I was going to answer djames99 last night but was too tired.
Because there was so much I wanted to say! But you’ve pretty much covered it all in a couple of paragrapsh.
I wanted to remind everyone of St. Francis. Always preach the gospel, and, when absolutely necessary, use words.
Our life and example counts for much. But it’s as you say, it depends on the time, how we know the person, etc.
I’m afraid just proclamation isn’t enough. Was it on this thread that I said that one plants, one waters, one helps to grow, one prunes. It takes a few different methods. I can’t say that there is only one way to evangelize…
Fran
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
Hi,“I think the best evangelizaion is just telling someone what Jesus means to you; how He changed your life, how you got to know Him, why you trust Him, etc”.
Your love for Jesus is obvious.
But what Jesus desires is what is important, and what we deliver is a constant task while on earth. We can only deliver this answer from dogma of the Church, so that we discover what those things that are to be relayed on.
Just for example let me assume that I don’t believe in going to confession and accepting the Eucharist. I tell someone that Jesus means a whole lot to me, that he changed my life, how I got to know him, and why I trust him. I’ve made an insincere statement because I portrayed to someone else what the ideal response is to accepting Jesus. If I’m successful, then the other person emulates me. He then finds unimportant the things I find unimportant, because I make no mention of my faults. I come away satisfied that I converted someone.
I think Jesus would prefer that we tell him what is being demanded of him. We need to take on the evangelization with sincerity and properly disposed(state of my soul from God’s point of view). In our analogy I was not properly disposed because God has an issue with me since I don’t go to confession and I committed a mortal sin after my baptism and am not absolved. If I truly loved him I would obey him and go to confession.
As a protestant, he has already run the gamut of people who love Jesus the way they think he should be loved, rather than in the way he desires.
Now some may say, “Yeah, but he changed my life, so my relationship with him must be the ideal”. Jesus many times changes lives because he wishes this gift to people to inspire them to explore further and make greater commitments. This was accomplished because he bargains with the Father on our behalf, asking for “just one more chance” to change us. Jesus scolded Saul(St. Paul), “I would have killed you…”. However, we can see that prior to this revelation Paul was almost lost, even though he too loved God and pursued his genocide with zeal, but was awakened to a great ministry in His Church. He was called to explore and discern. His genocide is our refusal to do all that Jesus commands us.
The reverse is also true. Some are so mired in sin that satan, for reward of improper behavior, backs off, and the world looks rosy to the victim with bright sunny days. He too loves Jesus while he was in a state of capital sin. In this case Jesus imposes no special demands on him, because His love would have him in the confessional. He already offered the proper remedy. He may think that it is Jesus that changed his life, but if he had investigated properly he would find that he is further from him that he thinks, nor is he a safe inspirational source for anyone else.
There are two “evangelizations”. With one you’re trying to convince one God exists, or that God should be worshipped and followed. With the other, the New Evangelizaton, you’re trying to make people who are already catholics know more about their faith; understand why catholics believe as they do; maybe make then understand the beauty of
Humanae Vitae which explains well the love that should be in a marriage relationship as devoting it to God.
Jesus said to the adultress, Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.
So first He did not condemn. He invited her into the fold. I really see this as evangelization . Proclaiming the good news - we’re sinners, Jesus died to redeem us. In fact I think explaining redemption is a great way of evagelizing.
Then comes the learning. So first you tell them what Jesus means to you, or in general, and welcome them to the body, and then you tell them about confession and the Eucharist.
It’s a bit like catechism for kids. It’s not a religion class. What you’re trying to do is transmit your faith to them. In the mix is also teaching them about what sin is, why priests wear different colors, the stories of Christmas and Easter, the sacraments and all the rest.
So don’t the two go hand in hand? it sounds like you understood that I’m separating one from the other. You need both. But getting into the fold comes first.
Fran
- Status