I am gathered with over 200 brother priests from the Archdiocese for a convocation on the New Evangelization. And we are blessed to have Dr. Ralph Martin as our Keynote speaker.Posted on 11/07/2013 2:06:31 AM PST by markomalley
I am gathered with over 200 brother priests from the Archdiocese for a convocation on the New Evangelization. And we are blessed to have Dr. Ralph Martin as our Keynote speaker.
Of course some wonder at the title “new” in the New Evangelization. On the one hand it is new in the sense that we are having now to reach back to once Christian cultures and people and repropose the gospel. The is a “new” (and unfortunate) development that is in a way harder than opening new “virginal” territory for the Kingdom. The ancient Western world was as a virgin awaiting her husband. But the modern West is more an angry divorcee. And this requires new approaches rooted in healing past hurts and overcoming a kind of spiritual boredom and sloth that has overtaken the modern West.
There are also many new modes of communication that make evangelization new in the sense that we must retool, and enter whole new realms of instant and global settings. But one of the most central aspects of evangelization that must be newly emphasized (as it was in the early Church) is to become a personal and firsthand witness of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is to be able to say how I met him, and what he’s doing in my life.
Doctrine and Scripture are essential and help us to verify whether our experiences of God, are in conformity with the truth of who God is as he has revealed himself. But one of the dangers is that we become content to quote the doctrine, to quote Scripture, but not really come to know the One, who reveals them. We run the risk of becoming content to know about the Lord, rather than to know the Lord, personally and intimately.
And thus, there comes a time, and the moment for us to ask the critical questions, Do I know the Lord? Or do I just know about him. Have I met him? How? When? And what is my relationship with him doing in my life?
Sadly, we Catholics are collectively terrible at reflecting on and learning to give witness to the Lord in our life. Frankly, many of us were never taught to give personal testimony, and even worse many have never been taught even to expect a personal encounter with the Lord.
This needs to change, especially in a culture such as ours, where the argument from authority no longer holds much sway. If it was ever true that we could hand on the faith without personal testimony, it certainly is not true today. People rightfully and reasonably expect an authenticity wherein our proclaimed faith, matches with our life, both as publicly lived an experienced.
We may get to a moment with someone where we are able to announce that Jesus Christ can save them from sin and set them free from all bondage. And then comes the question from them, “That sounds like good news, but how do I know it’s true?” And here is where you have to be able to say, “Look at me.” and begin to describe how it is in fact true in your life, that since meeting the Lord, you are seeing sins put to death, and many graces come alive.
Yes, we have to be able to tell our story, to say, briefly, how we met the Lord, and what our relationship with him is doing to change our life.
Critical though it is, all the apologetics in the world, may founder if we cannot authentically and authoritatively answer the question “How do I know it’s true?” by saying, authentically,
“Look at me. ” In other words to be able to say, “This word, this teaching, is true, because in the laboratory of my own life, I have tested it, and found it to be true, and here’s how. And Jesus is real, because I have met him and here’s when, and here is how. And here is how I’m experiencing him today in my life. Yes, when I pray, I am heard. The Lord speaks in the depths of my heart, sometimes in wordless contemplation, at other times vividly through his proclaimed word, and in my mind, and in the experiences and interactions of my day. I see him, I know him, and I experience his presence, and this is changing my life.”
These are essential questions and truths to ponder to be able to answer briefly and articulately if we are going to personally evangelize others today.
Ask the Holy Spirit to anoint you to know the answers to these sorts of questions, and to be able to access the memories of how the Lord is living, working and relating with you in your life. Ask God the Holy Spirit to help you form a testimony, so as to become a first-hand witness to the power of the Lord in your life!
It is increasingly clear to me, that God’s people expect me as priest pastor, preacher, an evangelist not just to know the facts, but to know the Lord. Our people, whether they know it or not, are desperate to hear from us that we who announce the truth, know in a very personal and deep way He who is the Truth. The people of God, need first-hand witnesses, witnesses who know the Lord, and know by experience the truth of his Word. Our preaching cannot simply be technical and a mechanistic it must be personal and proclaimed by someone who knows what and of Whom he speaks.
And if this is true of priest, it is also true parents who must become more comfortable with giving true witness to their children of the faith, of the personal relationship and walk with the Lord, and of the power of God’s Word and Sacraments to change their lives.
Both priests and parents need to learn what it means to preach and teach with authority. The Greek word for authority is “exousia” which means to literally to speak out of one’s own substance and experience. This is is what made Jesus such an authoritative preacher: he Knew the Father and spoke out of his own substance and experience. And we too, empowered by him must experience his power, love, life, joy and truth and speak out that experience and relationship. Nothing less will be very effective today Dr. Ralph Martin, in his new book The Urgency of the New Evangelizationon, a book which I want to review more thoroughly next week, has the following insight
Now at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit at the beginning of every class I have one of the students give his testimony. …. I ask seminarians and priests not to tell how they discerning a calling to the priesthood, but how they came to discover the reality of God in their lives. This is a struggle for some, but eventually almost everyone reaches the point where they can briefly give an account of how God became real in their lives in such a way that unbelievers could relate to it.
Thus, what is new about the new Evangelization is essentially very old, very apostolic. It is to give personal witness and testimony to the revealed faith based on what we have seen, heard and are experiencing. St. Paul couldn’t look it up and quote it, he had to experience it and write it. And while we are not evangelists like the apostles, we are called to speak to the truth of the faith they revealed out of our own substance, life and experience.
More on this tomorrow wherein I would like to share more directly how and when I met the Lord and what he is doing in my life.
That is a true statement, but a really sad one to see in print. Without such a statement being the norm rather than the exception, there's no wonder why "cultural Catholics" are so common and "committed Catholics" are so rare.
Morning all! Msgr Pope ping.
Vatican II.
Ping!
Enjoyed reading this. And, if I may say this and not offend, this can apply to ALL Christians, and not just those of the Catholic Faith.
Thank You for posting this, a good way to start my morning.
Vatican II would not come to mind mind like that. Certainly not by intention: it was convened to arouse the personal in the laity, was it not? And indeed, not only the intention but also the documents of the Council carry that idea of personal experience of well-formed faith is a valid experience: see Lumen Gentium. A Catholic layman is a priest, prophet and king: that is the Vatican II sentiment. Further, the implementation of Vatican II, however horrible, took off with that particular aspect of Catholicism: this is why we have the Holy Mass taking on the shape of an artistic performance (sometime very good and sometime very bad).
Now, the reaction to Vatican II from the traditionalist was primarily in the re-assertion of the Baroque liturgical norm. That is, it was, it seems, primarily cultural. In this, I think, lies the lack of success of the SSPX in restoring the pre-Vatican II Church: they are not seen as evangelizers, but as cultural watchdogs.
I would say that the watered-down, confusing material of Vatican II is the consequence, not the cause, of the loss of faith in the first half of the 20 century. The problem of Vatican II is not that it does not evangelize, — it does; but in that it evangelizes wrongly. Its primary message was that salvation of Christ is not in the firm, divinely appointed sacraments and institutions of the Church but in some vague never quite succeeding desire to unite with the Church. This warm and fuzzy evangelism could not succeed, and so it failed. Good thing someone understands that.
Hebrews ch 8
The New Covenant
7
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11
And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
I went into a store one time a few years ago to buy a dry washer for gold recovery, i think it was about a $550.00 item, after talking for a time the two guys talked me out of it.
They could have made a good profit.
They could see that i did not have any idea of what i was doing even though i was well on the way to 70 years old and knew that it was a waste of money under the circumstances which they knew i could not afford.
I don,t remember their names but these kind of people are a kind of Gods representatives here on earth in my book.
"Doctrine and Scripture are essential and help us to verify whether our experiences of God, are in conformity with the truth of who God is as he has revealed himself. But one of the dangers is that we become content to quote the doctrine, to quote Scripture, but not really come to know the One, who reveals them. We run the risk of becoming content to know about the Lord, rather than to know the Lord, personally and intimately."
Emphasis added. I simply can't emphasize it enough.
This should be a provocation, a reminder of what it really means to be a Christian. What it really means when we say we have "faith" in Jesus Christ. He isn't "met" in a book. He is met in the world because He is Risen! Allelujah!
To anyone reading this post: Can you honestly say you have met Him? In a real concrete way? Not just by reading the Bible and/or studying history, but that you have met Him now?
This is a question to provoke serious reflection, not to be "debated". It's a question only "you" can answer for yourself. And it's what is being proposed by this article (in the OP).
May you meet Him everyday,
Surely every one of us, in our preparation for the Sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist, and in the (to my mind, excessively) affective, almost emotionally-solipsistic "Jesus My BFF" prayer style they encourage in the Youth Formation programs, at least everybody expects to have a "personal relationship with Jesus"?
If it's true that we --- as a whole --- haven't got even that, then it's a great deal worse than I'd thought.
(And how could my life have been so atypical that I haven't seen this? And I've been, like, "around".)
We are in the middle of a seven week series on apologetics at my church. It has been excellent so far. Next week’s topic is The Bible and Tradition.
Cardinal Dolan: Confession is The Sacrament of New Evangelization
Archbishop Chaput: Catholics responsible for evangelizing US {Ecumenical}
Lessons from Catholic Evangelists
Catholics adopting evangelical methods on college campuses {Ecumenical Thread}
Pope: Catholic education part of New Evangelization (Make Catholic Education Catholic!)
Pope: U.S. Catholics Must Lead Church Revival
US Bishops Issue Document on New Evangelization
Catholic Voices heeds Pope's call for public witness in US
"“Derided as Simple-Minded” [Justice Scalia to Catholics: "Brave the Scorn of the Worldly"]
Father Cantalamessa's 4th Advent Sermon: "The Current Wave of Evangelization" (Catholic Caucus)
Father Cantalamessa's 3rd Advent Sermon: "The First Evangelization of the American Continent"
Father Cantalamessa's 2nd Advent Sermon: "The Second Wave of Evangelization" (For History Buffs)
Father Cantalamessa's 1st Advent Sermon:"The First Wave of Evangelization" [Cath/Ortho Caucus]
Vatican considering dialogue with non-believers in Chicago and DC
From sinner to saved, from Cameroon to Zagreb; Two Men Talk of Hope
Court: Evangelism is free speech [Dearborn, Michigan]
The Need of Zeal
New Missionary Age: New Year Calls Catholics to the New Evangelization
Retrieving the Strays
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS] It’s Time to Obey Christ and His Command that We Evangelize
New Evangelization: Faith Clips featured on EWTN
Obedience vs. Conscience (Help Lapsed Catholics Return to Christ and His Church) [Caucus]
Magazine: Growing Trend--Evangelicals ‘Crossing the Tiber’ to Catholicism
Young Evangelicals Crossing The Tiber
[ECUMENICAL] Evangelicals ‘Crossing the Tiber’ to Catholicism
Benedict XVI Creates Council for New Evangelization -- Will Be Dedicated to Secularized Christian Countries
A Tri-Lingual Catholic Blitz: An Interview with Carlos Caso-Rosendi [JW now Catholic evangelizer]
Evangelize? Sorry, But I’m Catholic!
I’ve never seen Catholics evangelize!
Evangelization: In with the 'new,' while maintaining the old
Priests and laity both responsible for evangelization, asserts Spanish bishop
They Know I’m Catholic, Right?
Why Evangelize?
Pope Benedict creates 'new evangelization' Curial Department: headed by Pro-Abort
A Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization to be Formed? Bring it On!
Pope expected to create new dicastery to re-evangelize Europe, US
Report Says Pope to Launch 'Pontifical Council for New Evangelization'
Archbishop Gomez urges laity to evangelize 'de-Christianized' American culture
Pope invites Christians to join in 'new, intense evangelization'
Coming Home Network: a Catholic apostolate for converts
New Catholic radio station launches ‘channel of evangelization’ in Phoenix
A New Missionary Age: The Year that was and the Year that will be are a Prelude.
Mary is the star that guides us to holiness, says Holy Father during Angelus [Catholic Caucus]
Pope Benedict to Visit London: Is the Rebirth of a Christian Europe Underway?
Catholics are coming home
Cardinal George's Plan to Evangelize America
Jews protest Catholic document on evangelization
Singapore prime minister: Evangelization threatens nation’s stability
Catholic Word of the Day: CONGREGATION FOR THE EVANGELIZATION OF PEOPLES, 06-29-09
Go! Rebuild My Church! [Catholic Caucus]
Ordinations End Shanghai Diocese's Celebration of 400 Years of Evangelization
(Catholic Caucus) Pontiff Says Word of God Is Church's Priority
[Oregon] Rosary Bowl focuses on links between prayer, evangelization
Editorial: The Pew report is an invitation to New Evangelization
Do not be afraid [of evangelization] Catholic Caucus
Catholic Schools Must Commit to the "New Evangelization", Australian Bishops Exhort
Denver Archbishop, Catholic young adults take faith to downtown streets
Mel’s Passion, the New Evangelization and You
Catholics plan 'Passion' evangelism
The Heart of an Apostle If you want to make converts, begin by converting your own heart
Catholic Caucus: 12 Painless Ways to Evangelize
Announcing New Life -- Christians are called to be not only defenders of life but also restorers
Always good to be refreshed by the Word of course. Amen.
It's interesting that after all these Centuries, you religion has decided it must parrot the Protestant churches to sustain its membership...
I don't see this working out as well as hoped since Christians don't become Christians by 'meeting' Jesus as the author suggests...
One becomes a Christian by acknowledging that he/she is a sinner, deserving of hell no matter what you do and calling on the name of the Lord Jesus to save him/her and accepting Jesus as the Savior of his/her soul...
But heh, if that will lead some Catholics to Jesus, I'm all for it...
“Vatican II would not come to mind like that. Certainly not by intention: it was convened to arouse the personal in the laity, was it not?”
That’s odd. What I have gotten from it is efforts to force me into the collective. I’m not to be allowed to come to Mass and focus on Our Lord. I must shake hands and greet people, not pray. Others are having kaffeeklatsches that prevent me from concentrating. Then, when Mass starts, I must stand with the others, sit with the others, kneel with the others, recite the responses with the others, sing with the others (in my horrible voice), hold hands with others to pray the Pater Noster, and then fargin’ shake hands AGAIN, this time with lots of people.
Perhaps worst of all, I must endure women lectors, an insult to the Scriptures.
It’s all very, very protestant in form. Which is not surprising, considering that the enemies of the Church who cooked up the Novis Ordo (Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and cauldron bubble...By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes.) invited protestants to help gin it up.
“A Catholic layman is a priest, prophet and king: that is the Vatican II sentiment.”
That is a protestant sentiment, smuggled into Catholicism through the great, gaping wound created by VatII.
“this is why we have the Holy Mass taking on the shape of an artistic performance”
That also is a very, very bad thing. It’s not supposed to be a performance; it is prayer.
“Now, the reaction to Vatican II from the traditionalist was primarily in the re-assertion of the Baroque liturgical norm. That is, it was, it seems, primarily cultural.”
No, it is entirely theological.
“they are not seen as evangelizers, but as cultural watchdogs.”
I doubt that there are two pew-sitters in this entire town who have even heard of the SSPX.
“I would say that the watered-down, confusing material of Vatican II is the consequence, not the cause, of the loss of faith in the first half of the 20 century.”
I would have to disagree. VatII created an opening for modernists to water down not only the Mass, but Catholic theology itself. They had been waiting and hoping for that opening for decades. Coming as it did in the sixties, it was the perfect storm, and it destroyed the faith of millions.
The clergy, or at least many of them, seem more concerned with making sodomites “welcome” at Mass than they do in saving their immortal souls. They treat the GIRM like the Beast in the Oval Office treats the Constitution.
“The problem of Vatican II is…Its primary message was that salvation of Christ is not in the firm, divinely appointed sacraments and institutions of the Church but in some vague never quite succeeding desire to unite with the Church.”
I agree with the first part of your sentence, but I’m not sure about the desire to unite with the Church.
“This warm and fuzzy evangelism could not succeed, and so it failed.”
It failed even to keep Catholics in the pews. Why bother even to come to Mass if it’s just some hootenanny performance, and communion just an annoying time waster?
Catholic? Have you read Pascendi Dominici Gregis? I’d be glad to post a copy.
What I have gotten from it is efforts to force me into the collective.
That by itself would not be wrong; communal worship is in fact a part of being Catholic. Be it as it may, my point was that the intention of Vatican II was to rouse the laity, and of course it failed at that, at least in the demographical sense.
very, very protestant in form
Indeed.
No, [the reaction to Vatican II from the traditionalist] is entirely theological
Really? I understand that there is opposition to the Vatican II watered down ecclesiology, but I don't think it was advertised enough by the SSPX. To the extent that anyone heard of SSPX at all, it is about Latin Mass. Where is the theological outreach of SSPX?
Pascendi Dominici Gregis
It is good on modernism in general. What part, do you think is particularly relevant to Vatican II?
PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS
ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE MODERNISTS
I think, Vatican II is reactive to modernism but it is not itself altogether modernist. Persuade me otherwise.
“I pointed out that blaming lack of evangelizing spirit on Vatican II is at most not obvious.”
That seems to be true.
“SSPX suffers from the same timidity.”
I’m not sure it’s timidity.
“That by itself would not be wrong”
I think it is wrong. I resent it.
“communal worship is in fact a part of being Catholic.”
So are holy hermits. There is no reason that people should be jerked around like puppets on strings every time they go to mass.
There is no reason I should have to dread mass. But I do dread its hand-shaking, woman-lectoring, and hootenanny slop music.
“To the extent that anyone heard of SSPX at all, it is about Latin Mass.”
To the extent that most people hear of SSPX, it is similar to hearing about Reagan through the LSM.
I don’t think, though, that the preservation of the Latin Mass is completely free of theological issues.
“Where is the theological outreach of SSPX?”
Beats me.
“What part, do you think is particularly relevant to Vatican II?”
...the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man.
I think Pope John XXIII and Paul VI were such men. Even if they were not, they could not have been unaware that hordes of such men lurked ready to pounce upon any opening, or that the Church would be harmed.
“I think, Vatican II is reactive to modernism but it is not itself altogether modernist. Persuade me otherwise.”
Right now I just don’t feel up to the task. Sorry.
Do you know of anything in the Catholic faith that was strengthened through VatII? I’m not talking about the introduction of protestant elements; I mean something Catholic.
Yes, I think so as well, but the description you quoted applies to any reformer; it is not specific to the Vatican II core teachings, such as:
There is no reason that people should be jerked around... There is no reason I should have to dread mass
I agree, but the handshaking and handholding are American innovations; it is not fair to blame Vat II for everything you and I dislike in modern liturgy, even if the impetus was given by Vat II. In fact, these are worse offenses:
Do you know of anything in the Catholic faith that was strengthened through VatII?
Evangelism was strengthened: the lay apostolates flourished after Vatican II. That was my original point. Also, I think there was a need for an entry-level rite in vernacular. The Novus Ordo mass converted my formerly Baptist wife. I doubt that sitting through countless masses in utter reverence like she had done, would have happened had the Mass been in a language she did not understand.
“Yes, I think so as well, but the description you quoted applies to any reformer”
I disagree. Some reformers are on the side of error, others on the side of truth. Those on the side of truth are entirely different personalities.
“it is not specific to the Vatican II core teachings, such as: elevated role of laity”
That was not a good thing.
“expansive view on the Church, reaching out to diverse “denominations”
Perhaps not a bad thing, in and of itself, but the odds against abuse were zero.
“conciliatory tone especially toward the Jews”
I have nothing against the Jews. The mob that howled for Jesus’s blood was a self-selected fraction of the population, much like the “occupy” filthbags.
I had foster parents who were Southern Baptists. They were wonderful people, and I can’t imagine that they are not in Heaven.
Conciliatory is OK. Surrendering important articles of faith is not.
“simplified liturgy in vernacular”
That I oppose strongly, with very few exceptions, and those strictly limited.
Those who translated the Mass into English were theological leftists; they abused the authority of their position to mistranslate texts, changing the meaning to suit themselves. This will happen every time that sort of person—so well described by Saint Pius X—gets the slightest chance. VatII gave them that opening, and it was obvious that it would. No other outcome could have been expected.
“I agree, but the handshaking and handholding are American innovations; it is not fair to blame Vat II for everything you and I dislike in modern liturgy, even if the impetus was given by Vat II.”
VatII gave the theological leftists the opening they needed; the popes had to have known it would. It should never, never, never have been convened.
“In fact, these are worse offenses: priest facing the people from across the portable altar, especially when Jesus is hanging on the cross behind him”
That is a grievous offence, certainly, but I’m not sure it’s worse than the handshaking and handholding.
“Drums, hand-clapping, silly sentimental songs; or, conversely, virtuoso performances that draw attention to the musician”
IMO, the priest or bishop who allows this commits a mortal sin.
“or, conversely, virtuoso performances that draw attention to the musician”
Mass is not a performance, certainly, but there is in my view room for inspiring music, so long as it turns the heart to the things of God. One of these things is beauty.
“No Rosary time before the Mass; no St. Michael prayer”
Muy malo.
“Applause at the end, when people should be praying silently.”
Applause is never—NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER—appropriate in Church.
“Evangelism was strengthened: the lay apostolates flourished after Vatican II.”
I don’t know much about lay apostolates, or what they have accomplished. I suspect, though, that if it were significant, I would have heard more.
“Also, I think there was a need for an entry-level rite in vernacular.”
Perhaps, for children and Catechumins. And, of course, it’s good to give the translation alongside the Latin.
Perhaps reading along with the Latin would have been enough for your wife.
In any case, men must never be trusted to produce an accurate translation. The Latin must be preserved, and enough Latin scholarship to catch scoundrels pushing bad translations.
The new Mass is much weaker than the Tridentine—in Latin. The scoundrels who translated it into English made it even worse. If the new Mass and English are used at all, it should be—as you said—an entry-level rite.
Since I returned to the States in 2006, I have not heard a single homily that was aimed at listeners with an IQ above 70. Any of those could have been delivered in Latin with no loss to anyone. Good homilies, I have to admit, should be delivered in the vernacular to maximize their impact.
We haven’t mentioned perhaps the worst abuse of all: altar girls. It was seen as a step toward “female priests,” which of course, cannot exist no matter what any mortal says. It also contributed to the great decline in vocations.
OK.
Regarding lay apostolates: Catholic Caucus on FR is one, so you cannot say you have not heard of any.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.