Wasn't Pope John Paul II Wrong to Reject Proselytism?

[Steve_O_Brien]

Another of the negative connotations of the word proselytize is the disrespecting of another religion by specifically targeting its members in this case the Eastern Orthodox.

No where does that statement say that we as individual Catholics cannot and should not evangelize. It does not say that the Catholic Church as a whole should or will not evangelize.

It says the Catholic Church respects the Orthodox Church and will not specifically target its members.

The Catholic Church is attempting to reconcile with the Orthodox Churches and bring them in their entirety into union with us.

Again proselytize in this context is not synonymous with evangelize.

Can you show me a single Catholic source that says evangelize and proselytize are synonymous?

By commanding us to “proclaim the gospel to every creature” (Mk 16:15; 1986 NAB), Jesus “targeted” (as it were) every human being for conversion to the one true Faith.

Among those “targeted” in this way are both Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Christians. We should seek to spread the Catholic Faith, which is the fullness of the Gospel, among both of those groups of non-Catholic Christians as well as among all other human beings who do not yet believe in Jesus and his one true Church, which is the Catholic Church.

As for the concept of respect, we Catholics respect non-Catholics as our brothers and sisters in the human family, and we also respect the true and sanctifying elements to be found in non-Catholic religions, churches, and ecclesial communities. Nonetheless, Catholics cannot respect any teaching or practice that conflicts with the Catholic Faith, because the Faith is the only true religion (CCC 2105).

The *CCC *does not use the word “proselytize,” but the Catholic concept of proselytizing (i.e., charitably and prudently urging all non-Catholics to convert freely to Catholicism) is taught in many of its sections (e.g., 425, 849-856, 2104-2105).

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[rwoehmke]

You guys can all blather in the stratosphere if you want, but down here where the boots are on the ground I can tell you that proselytising is called “sheep stealing” and is counter productive in bringing people into one’s own Faith. Christendom is already split enough without “sheep stealing” I don’t care what your dictionaries say the word means. On the street it is poison. Proclaim and live the Gospel and make your life as a Catholic attractive to others and “they will come” as was said in the movie Field of Dreams. John Paul II was no dummy. He knew what he was doing and to take these incidents out of the context of his whole life is a silly exercise in futility. If you want all to eventually be one, sheep stealing is out…Get a clue man!

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I urge all Catholics on this thread to study Pope Pius XI’s 1928 encyclical on religious unity. Its title is Mortalium animos, and it can be found on the Vatican’s Web site:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

This encyclical, in which the Vicar of Christ teaches that all non-Catholic Christians must return to the Catholic Church, should be regarded as supplementing and clarifying both Vatican II’s Unitatis redintegratio and the sections on ecumenism in the CCC.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

On the contrary, in his 1987 statement repudiating proselytism, Pope John Paul II did not mention coercion. (By the way, who in the Catholic Church of 1987 was advocating coerced conversions? Or deceptive or disrespectful conversions? )

Moreover, section 60 of John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical Ut unum sint praised the 1993 Balamand Statement, which interpreted proselytism by Catholics as merely persuading Eastern Orthodox Christians to make the free decision to cooperate with God’s grace by becoming Catholics. Again, please consider these words from section 22 of the Balamand Statement:

“Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, no longer aims at having the faithful of one church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful, and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church.”

Please note that there is no mention of coercion in the above excerpt.

Here is a link for the complete text of the Balamand Statement:

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/balamand_txt.aspx

It should be noted that section 18 of the Balamand Statement cites the 1987 quotation from John Paul II:

"Towards this end, Pope Paul VI affirmed in his address at the Phanar in July 1967: ‘It is on the heads of the Churches, of their hierarchy, that the obligation rests to guide the Churches along the way that leads to finding full communion again. They ought to do this by recognizing and respecting each other as pastors of that part of the flock of Christ entrusted to them, by taking care for the cohesion and growth of the people of God, and avoiding everything that could scatter it or cause confusion in its ranks’ (Tomos Agapis, n. 172). In this spirit Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I together stated clearly: ‘We reject every form of proselytism, every attitude which would be or could be perceived to be a lack of respect’ (7 December 1987)."

(Pope Paul VI’s statement is also problematic, for Christ has not entrusted any part of his flock to pastors who are not in communion with the successor of Peter.)

In the light of Catholic doctrine, there is no way in which John Paul II’s repudiation of "every form" of proselytism can be defended. Whatever the intentions of those who attempt to defend this erroneous statement, the result of such attempts is to foster the “diabolical disorientation” mentioned by Sister Lucia of the Fátima apparitions.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Tigerhawk]

By commanding us to “proclaim the gospel to every creature” (Mk 16:15; 1986 NAB), Jesus “targeted” (as it were) every human being for conversion to the one true Faith.

Among those “targeted” in this way are both Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Christians. We should seek to spread the Catholic Faith, which is the fullness of the Gospel, among both of those groups of non-Catholic Christians as well as among all other human beings who do not yet believe in Jesus and his one true Church, which is the Catholic Church.

As for the concept of respect, we Catholics respect non-Catholics as our brothers and sisters in the human family, and we also respect the true and sanctifying elements to be found in non-Catholic religions, churches, and ecclesial communities. Nonetheless, Catholics cannot respect any teaching or practice that conflicts with the Catholic Faith, because the Faith is the only true religion (CCC 2105).

The *CCC *does not use the word “proselytize,” but the Catholic concept of proselytizing (i.e., charitably and prudently urging all non-Catholics to convert freely to Catholicism) is taught in many of its sections (e.g., 425, 849-856, 2104-2105).

Keep and spread the Faith.

Proselytize and evangelize do not mean the same thing. The definition of proselytizing is not “charitably and prudently urging all non-Catholics to convert freely to Catholicism”.

If you are charitably and prudently urging all non-Catholics to convert freely to Catholicism and are not disrespecting their respective religions by targeting specific groups (“targeting” every creature does not target a specific group) then you are not proselytizing your are evangelizing.

The CCC does not use the word or the concept of proselytizing

425 says we are to proclaim Christ, it does not say to force or coerce anyone to follow Christ, or to use deception which is the opposite of proclaiming Christ or to target specific groups. 425 is about evangelizing not proselytizing.

849-856 are all listed in the index under Evangelization

2104 contains a direct repudiation of proselytization when it instructs us to have a “‘sincere respect’ for different religions”

2105 “…By constantly evangelizing men, the Church…” again evangelization and not proselytization.

Please present a reference from a Catholic source that says Catholics are to proselytize or that the terms proselytize and evangelize are synonymous.

 

[Tigerhawk]

Moreover, section 60 of John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical Ut unum sint praised the 1993 Balamand Statement, which interpreted proselytism by Catholics as merely persuading Eastern Orthodox Christians to make the free decision to cooperate with God’s grace by becoming Catholics

This is a clear misrepresentation of the Balamand statement. Section 18 which you have referenced several times does not define or interpret proselytism to mean what you state.

I direct you to section 10 of the same document while not exactly defining proselytism it does point out some of its uncharitable characteristics namely:

Individual Christians and Christian Groups were targeted for conversion.
Professing that one cannot be saved unless they convert to the proselytizers faith
The re-baptizing of validly baptized Christians
Ignoring and/or restricting the religious freedom of individuals.

This clearly is not “merely persuading Eastern Orthodox Christians to make the free decision to cooperate with God’s grace by becoming Catholics”

In the light of Catholic doctrine, there is no way in which John Paul II’s repudiation of every form of proselytism can be condemned. Whatever the intentions of those who attempt to attack the Holy Father for this faithful and pastoral statement, the result of such attempts is…I will refrain from redirecting the rest of your statement.

God Bless

 

[tdgesq]

No, JPII was not wrong to reject proselytism with respect to the Eastern Orthodox churches. There is whole lot more going on here than O’Brien is telling you folks.

Some preliminary matters. Quoting a phrase (and then a single sentence including the phrase) from DICHIARAZIONE COMUNE DI PAPA GIOVANNI PAOLO II E DEL PATRIARCA ECUMENICO DIMITRIOS I is worthless to me and probably just about everyone else on this forum. The context of the quote is totally obscured. Tell me; did you translate the entire document? If you did, please provide the entire translation. If you didn’t, please explain why it is you translated a single phrase, and then a sentence that contains the phrase, halfway through the document.

Moreover, section 60 of John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical Ut unum sint praised the 1993 Balamand Statement, which interpreted proselytism by Catholics as merely persuading Eastern Orthodox Christians to make the free decision to cooperate with God’s grace by becoming Catholics. Again, please consider these words from section 22 of the Balamand Statement:

Ut unum sint, paragraph 60 does not cite to the Balamand Statement in the text or the footnotes. It is likely though that this is to what JPII is referring. Here is the text and the link.

1. More recently, the Joint International Commission took a significant step forward with regard to the very sensitive question of the method to be followed in re-establishing full communion between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, an issue which has frequently embittered relations between Catholics and Orthodox. The Commission has laid the doctrinal foundations for a positive solution to this problem on the basis of the doctrine of Sister Churches. Here too it has become evident that the method to be followed towards full communion is the dialogue of truth, fostered and sustained by the dialogue of love. A recognition of the right of the Eastern Catholic Churches to have their own organizational structures and to carry out their own apostolate, as well as the actual involvement of these Churches in the dialogue of charity and in theological dialogue, will not only promote a true and fraternal mutual esteem between Orthodox and Catholics living in the same territory, but will also foster their joint commitment to work for unity.99 A step forward has been taken. The commitment must continue. Already there are signs of a lessening of tensions, which is making the quest for unity more fruitful.

vatican.va/edocs/ENG0221/__PK.HTM

From now on, please provide the text and the link (if available) to all of your sources.

 

[tdgesq]

“Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, no longer aims at having the faithful of one church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful, and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church.”

That is one paragraph. Perhaps we will all understand what is happening with the Eastern Orthodox if we look at it in context:

Progressively, in the decades which followed these unions, missionary activity tended to include among its priorities the effort to convert other Christians, individually or in groups, so as “to bring them back” to one’s own Church. In order to legitimize this tendency, a source of proselytism, the Catholic Church developed the theological vision according to which she presented herself as the only one to whom salvation was entrusted. As a reaction, the Orthodox Church, in turn, came to accept the same vision according to which only in her could salvation be found. To assure the salvation of “the separated brethren” it even happened that Christians were rebaptized and that certain requirements of the religious freedom of persons and of their act of faith were forgotten. This perspective was one to which that period showed little sensitivity.

1. Because of the way in which Catholics and Orthodox once again consider each other in relationship to the mystery of the Church and discover each other once again as Sister Churches, this form of “missionary apostolate” described above, and which has been called “uniatism”, can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking.

Proselytism here is equated to uniatism, which has proven to be an ineffective means at uniting the Eastern Orthodox and the RCC. It does not mean that all forms of evangelization have been eliminated. It is a question of how the Church will effectively evangelize the Orthodox. It has decided that persuading the leaders of the EO to come into communion with Rome and thereby teach their own faithful these lessons is the most expedient and most effective way to accomplish this goal, rather than each church poaching members of the other. An ecumenical meeting between them is scheduled to meet in October in Ravenna, Italy. The issue of the authority of the Bishop of Rome will take center stage.

That the Church at this time disagrees with you on how to effectively evangelize the Orthodox hardly makes its position wrong. If the point you’ve tried to make here is that your one phrase, that you declined to place in context, demonstrates an incorrect non-infallible statement on the part of a Roman Pontiff (actually two including Pope Paul VI), you have utterly failed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

By the same token, no Catholic–not even a Pope–can object to the efforts of Catholics (either Latin-rite or Eastern Catholics) who attempt to persuade Eastern Orthodox Christians to make a free decision to become members of the Catholic Church.

If “proselytizing” is a bad thing, if it has a negative connotation, then EVERY KIND of a bad thing has that same negative connotation.

Please keep the Pope’s frame of reference in mind when analyzing his remarks:

**The word “proselytism” has a negative meaning when it indicates a way of winning followers which does not respect the freedom of those to whom a specific kind of religious propaganda is directed. **(280)

Again, if proselytizing “does not respect the freedom” of other persons, then ANY KIND of proselytizing is bad.

“Evangelizing” and “proselytizing” have different connotations. The former is encouraged while the latter is condemned.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Any Catholic who wishes to understand why Pope John Paul II’s statement repudiating “every form of proselytism” is erroneous and scandalous should study the closing sections of Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Mortalium animos. I am transcribing sections 10, 11, and 13 from the Vatican’s Web site:

***“10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.’[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that ‘this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills.’[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24] ***

***“11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, ‘the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful’[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: ‘The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.’[26]” ***

. . .]

***“13. You, Venerable Brethren, understand how much this question is in Our mind, and We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us: if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity. While awaiting this event, and as a pledge of Our paternal good will, We impart most lovingly to you, Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people, the apostolic benediction.” ***

Section 12 has been omitted merely to comply with the forum’s word limit for one post. That section does not change the obvious import of the transcribed sections. By all means, however, please read section 12 on the Vatican’s Web site. Indeed, please read the entire encyclical:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oh…yeah, I thought you were headed in this direction…

Pius XI is your man, eh?

Tell me, how do you feel about all the “popes” since then?

Were they validly elected?

Is the Chair of Peter vacant today or not?

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Oh…yeah, I thought you were headed in this direction…

Pius XI is your man, eh?

Tell me, how do you feel about all the “popes” since then?

Were they validly elected?

Is the Chair of Peter vacant today or not?

Since Pope Benedict XVI was validly elected to the papacy, the chair of Peter is not vacant today.

Even though Pope John Paul II was the Vicar of Christ and the successor of St. Peter, he was still capable, because of human weakness and confusion, of making an erroneous and scandalous non-ex cathedra statement rejecting “every form of proselytism.” In this matter, we should follow the teaching and example of Pope Pius XI–in fact, the teaching and example of all the Popes who preceded Paul VI.

Not only do dictionaries define the word “proselytism” in a neutral, non-pejorative sense, but Sacred Scripture itself also uses the term “proselyte” in the same sense. In Greek, the word is προσήλυτος (proselutos), and it occurs in these New Testament passages: *Mt *23:15; Acts 2:11; 6:5; 13:43. The 1986 New American Bible correctly translates **προσήλυτος **in these passages as “convert” or “convert to Judaism.”

Proselytism is simply the endeavor to gain converts to one’s religion. Whether it is good or bad depends on whether the religion in question is the true religion. Since Catholicism is now the true religion (just as Judaism was formerly the true religion), encouraging people to become converts to Catholicism is something good and pleasing to God. It is *not *something to be rejected.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[tdgesq]

Any Catholic who wishes to understand why Pope John Paul II’s statement repudiating “every form of proselytism” . . .

Let me finish the sentence, “needs to be able to read the entire document of DICHIARAZIONE COMUNE - not one sentence translated out of the middle of it.” You never did answer my questions. Did you translate the entire document? If so, provide it. If not, why did you choose one phrase, and then one sentence including the phrase, to translate out of the middle of it? What is clear from the Balamand Statement is that the proselytism being referred to is the policy of uniatism, not all forms of evangelism.

1. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.

Amen. Pope PXI is speaking my language. And that is exactly what the Church is doing in the ecumenical sessions with the Orthodox. The Orthodox (in most cases) have an apostolic and sacramental church. The RCC is promoting the return of the Orthodox leadership to full communion with Rome. This is the method the Church has chosen to accomplish that goal: to bring the leadership into communion and then allow it to teach it’s own community of believers the fullness of the Catholic faith. You act as though JPII just gave up on evangelizing the Orthodox because they were “close enough” to the Catholic Church. Frankly, that is a silly notion, as many here already intuitively observed.

1. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.

Right on. That’s primarily why the Orthodox are not in full communion with the RCC. And John Paul the II and Benedict the XVI have and are doing exactly what Pius XI exhorted. The issue of the papacy will be central to the meeting in Italy in October. Notice that nowhere does PXI formulate exactly how this evangelization must occur. You are confusing the way in which evangelization is to occur with actual evangelization itself. I’m sorry you don’t like the way the Church has decided to evangelize the Orthodox, but it doesn’t mean that anyone is teaching error, except you.

I’m not disputing that Popes make “erroneous and scandalous” non-ex cathedra sometimes. It’s just there is no indication that’s what JPII the second did in this particular instance. I would add that imho, it is unwise to throw that accusation around like a frisbee.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

What is clear from the Balamand Statement is that the proselytism being referred to is the policy of uniatism, not all forms of evangelism.

As has already been indicated, the Balamand Statement rejects ***all ***Catholic efforts to evangelize by seeking converts to Catholicism among Eastern Orthodox Christians. But no Catholic can reject such efforts to end the Eastern schism, as Vatican II confirms in Unitatis redintegratio 4 (please see the citation in post #1 on this thread).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with “uniatism,” i.e., the return of a group of Eastern Orthodox bishops and their flocks to Catholic unity by entrance into communion with the successor of Peter:

**“For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained” (CCC 816).

One of the happiest events in Catholic history was the 1596 Union of Brest, whereby millions of separated Ruthenian Christians returned to the one true Church by establishing communion with Pope Clement VIII. Here is an interesting Catholic Encyclopedia article on this event:

newadvent.org/cathen/15130a.htm

To attack “uniatism” is to say that Pope Clement VIII and all succeeding Popes until Paul VI were seriously in error. But they were not in error.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

In post #31, a question mark was omitted from this segment of the citation from Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Mortalium animos:

"Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, ‘the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful’?[25] "

---

Let’s pray that our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, will put an end to the confusion surrounding the concept of ecumenism by using the same kind of language that Pope Pius XI used in the above extract.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Thanks to EWTN, here’s a link for the English text of the December 7, 1987, Joint Declaration of Pope John Paul II and Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2DIM1.HTM

The above declaration’s erroneous and scandalous repudiation of “every form of proselytism” should be carefully evaluated in the light of section 4 of Vatican II’s Unitatis redintegratio:

“However, it is evident that, when individuals wish for full Catholic communion, their preparation and reconciliation is an undertaking which of its nature is distinct from ecumenical action. But there is no opposition between the two, since both proceed from the marvelous ways of God.”

Unitatis redintegratio 4 is a warrant for saying that it is wrong to oppose “uniatism.”

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Tigerhawk]

Not only do dictionaries define the word “proselytism” in a neutral, non-pejorative sense, but Sacred Scripture itself also uses the term “proselyte” in the same sense. In Greek, the word is προσήλυτος (proselutos), and it occurs in these New Testament passages: *Mt *23:15; Acts 2:11; 6:5; 13:43. The 1986 New American Bible correctly translates προσήλυτος in these passages as “convert” or “convert to Judaism.”

Proselytism is simply the endeavor to gain converts to one’s religion. Whether it is good or bad depends on whether the religion in question is the true religion. Since Catholicism is now the true religion (just as Judaism was formerly the true religion), encouraging people to become converts to Catholicism is something good and pleasing to God. It is *not *something to be rejected.

We are wondering off topic here. This discussion of the word proselyte is irrelevant to this discussion. Proselyte is a noun synonymous with convert, believer, disciple, etc. It does not in anyway reference the methods used to make him so.

Both the terms evangelize and proselytize or synonymous with the verb convert. However, they are not synonymous with one an other because they represent different means to the end.

What you are contending is that proselytize means “the endeavor to gain converts to one’s religion”, but not only that. You also contend this is the definition Pope John Paul II is using in the statement you are claiming is blasphemous. You wrote: “then, in the objective sense, his statement would be blasphemous”

To support your claim you stated that Pope John Paul II was using the term as it was used in the Balamand Statement. Specifically you referenced section 18. Section 18, however, simply uses the term and implies no specific definition. Section 10, on the other hand, clearly shows that proselytize as used in that statement and therefore in section 18 and the Pope’s later statement has a very different definition then the one you claim.

The definition alluded to in section 10 indicates proselytization has the following forms, targeting individuals and groups, using coersion via the proclaiming the idea that one can only be saved if they convert to the proselytizer’s faith, using deception by falsely denying the Christian’s previous baptism and re-baptizing the convert, finally restricting the religious freedom of the individual and leaving out parts of the faith to win converts.

You have pointed all of your readers several times to Pope Pius XI’s encyclical however, I see absolutely nothing in that encyclical that condones the type of behaviour laid out in section 10 of the Balamand Statement and attributed to proselytizing.

Is is not clear that proselytize as used by the Balamand Statement and Pope John Paul II does not mean “simply the endeavor to gain converts to one’s religion”?

Is it not clear that in this context evangelize and proselytize or not the same?

How do you define the word evangelize?

In your mind is there any difference between evangelization and proselytization?

God Bless

 

[Tigerhawk]

section 4 of Vatican II’s Unitatis redintegratio:

“However, it is evident that, when individuals wish for full Catholic communion, their preparation and reconciliation is an undertaking which of its nature is distinct from ecumenical action. But there is no opposition between the two, since both proceed from the marvelous ways of God.”

How does this give one the permission to behave as described in section 10 of the Balamand Statement?

Holy Mary Mother of God, Pray for Us

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

To support your claim you stated that Pope John Paul II was using the term as it was used in the Balamand Statement. Specifically you referenced section 18. Section 18, however, simply uses the term and implies no specific definition.

Please see post #25, which also refers to section 22 of the Balamand Statement:

“Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, no longer aims at having the faithful of one church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful, and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church.”

The above is a specific definition of proselytism: persuading the faithful of an Eastern Orthodox church to pass over to the Catholic Church. Please note that there is no mention of coercion or deception in this definition. In it, all Catholic efforts to end the Eastern schism by persuading Eastern Orthodox Christians to convert to the Catholic Church are rejected.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

We should consider how Eastern Orthodox bishops themselves understand the word “proselytism.” They understand this term as including legitimate efforts to persuade Eastern Orthodox Christians freely and peacefully to return (Pope Pius XI’s verb in the encyclical Mortalium animos) to the Catholic Church. Eastern Orthodox opposition to such conversions has nothing to do with the condemnation of coercion, pressure, or deception. They object to encouraging conversions to the Catholic Church, period.

In an April 2005 interview given to the Italian newspaper Corriere della Serra, Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexei II, without mentioning a word about coercion, pressure, or deception, objected to all Catholic conversion-producing efforts in the following words:

“First of all there has to be the renunciation of proselytism, i.e. the conscious conversion to one’s confession of people who by baptism and tradition belong to a different Church. Also, our Church is also greatly concerned by those persistent attempts by Ukrainian Greek Catholics to impose Uniatism in those areas where it had never previously existed, to carry out mission work among the Orthodox population of the Ukraine, to establish a patriarchate and transfer its see from Lvov to Kiev, where the Orthodox make up the majority of the believing population.”

Please note that our Russian Orthodox brother Alexei II is not objecting to coercion when he criticizes “attempts by Ukrainian Greek Catholics to impose Uniatism in those areas where it had never previously existed.” Since our Catholic brothers and sisters in the Eastern Catholic rites are not forcing anyone to join those rites against their will, the Moscow Patriarch has to be referring to the fact that Ukrainian Catholics are merely moving into certain areas of Ukraine.

Here’s a link for the entire interview:

orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/CorrierePatAlexyPope.php

Keep and spread the Faith.