Posted on 08/17/2013 2:06:44 AM PDT by NYer
The Church's most prominent outreach today, the New Evangelization, aims at reviving the spiritual lives of those who have drifted from Christ. While these people may have been baptized and perhaps catechized, while they may attend Church semi-regularly, they have never been truly evangelized. They have never experienced a life-changing encounter with Jesus Christ or real transformation through his Church.
A couple weeks ago, Pope Francis delivered a powerful message to the Brazilian bishops in the midst of his World Youth Day celebrations. Unfortunately, it didn't get nearly the attention it deserved.
Speaking on the New Evangelization, and using the Emmaus Journey as a framework, the Pope encouraged his listeners to reflect on why people reject the Church today—why, like the Emmaus disciples, they decide to walk the other way. To bring people back to Christ and his Church, we must understand why they leave in the first place.
To that end, Pope Francis offered ten specific reasons:
1. The Church no longer offers anything meaningful or important.
2. The Church appears too weak.
3. The Church appears too distant from their needs.
4. The Church appears too poor to respond to their concerns.
5. The Church appears too cold.
6. The Church appears too caught up with itself.
7. The Church appears to be a prisoner of its own rigid formulas.
8. The world seems to have made the Church a relic of the past.
9. The Church appears unfit to answer the world's new questions.
10. The Church speaks to people in their infancy but not when they come of age.
Read the excerpt below for more context:
"The two disciples have left Jerusalem. They are leaving behind the 'nakedness' of God. They are scandalized by the failure of the Messiah in whom they had hoped and who now appeared utterly vanquished, humiliated, even after the third day.
Here we have to face the difficult mystery of those people who leave the Church, who, under the illusion of alternative ideas, now think that the Church—their Jerusalem—can no longer offer them anything meaningful and important. So they set off on the road alone, with their disappointment. Perhaps the Church appeared too weak, perhaps too distant from their needs, perhaps too poor to respond to their concerns, perhaps too cold, perhaps too caught up with itself, perhaps a prisoner of its own rigid formulas, perhaps the world seems to have made the Church a relic of the past, unfit for new questions; perhaps the Church could speak to people in their infancy but not to those come of age.
It is a fact that nowadays there are many people like the two disciples of Emmaus; not only those looking for answers in the new religious groups that are sprouting up, but also those who already seem godless, both in theory and in practice.
Faced with this situation, what are we to do?
We need a Church unafraid of going forth into their night. We need a Church capable of meeting them on their way. We need a Church capable of entering into their conversation. We need a Church able to dialogue with those disciples who, having left Jerusalem behind, are wandering aimlessly, alone, with their own disappointment, disillusioned by a Christianity now considered barren, fruitless soil, incapable of generating meaning.”
(HT: Thomas Doran at Catholic World Report)
Don’t defiled JESUS with saying HE has ANY PART in those who OPPOSE HIS WORD - Catholicism. And Catholicism didn’t exist then - they were known as heathens.
Jesus founded His Church which is based on Who He is and on HIS Word ALONE and He used Paul to write over half of the OT while he never knew Jesus in the flesh - he only knew HIM in the Spirit.
I agree with you on #11. And I too am a practicing Catholic.
There are still, to this day, some who have never been brought to justice for what they did i.e. moving pedophiles/covering for them.
And over half of them were innocent of charges. In my own realm of acquaintances I know of three priests that were innocent. Jurors talked. In one case a juror was quoted saying one of the fellow jurors said something like “well, he’s a Catholic priest; now let’s prove he is guilty.”
Fortunately the priest worked for the state at the boys reform school and had dates to verifiy his presence there. On one charge, he was even there; on another charge he had already left the position according to state records and on the third charge, it was another priest who took a boy somewhere.
Many of them are manufactured lies; true some were guilty, but not all of them.
Scripture that they twist. Like 'remembrance' as just ONE example.
GOD'S WORD is The FINAL authority.
No, that’s not what I am saying. Please read my note again. Many of these men were innocent. It was ambulance chasing attorneys that dug up supposed victims, and as I cited, in this one case the supposed victims were frauds. Three attorneys from local parishes attended the hearing and chased down jurors. They finally found one that talked.
If you want to fin d out about Cardinal Mahony read the first book about Mother Angelica by Raymond Arroyo. It’s all there.
he wasn’t even there
Says it all doesn’t it. Killing folks for heresy isn’t wrong when your side does it.
“GOD’S WORD is The FINAL authority.”
Except for Daniel. Then it’s ok to cut parts out.
We Christians at FR show the flaws in your 'faith' on a daily basis...No disrespect meant, but I would believe Mother Teresa of Calcutta over your statement in a heartbeat!
“Human, I think what JCB is getting at here is the idea that the Vulgate is authoritative”
The Vulgate is authoritative because of the authority of the magisterium. The magisterium decided which books should be in scripture, and the list they came up with is the same list used in the Vulgate in the 4th century, and the same list at Trent.
So it’s not the same argument as the King James, as it stems from the argument that the magisterium of the church has the ultimate authority.
It’s not liable to the same critique as the King James version either, which rests on inspiration.
Look, I don't want to get into some heated argument about it.
I love my faith, but, IMO, they failed miserably in responding to this horrendous scandal, and they have been paying the price ever since.
Maybe it's just better to say that there are some things that are never going to be right- Some wounds that will never heal. Best to let them scar over and move on, I suppose.
**So your saying the abuses didn’t happen? The charges were phony?**
In the cases I know the details about.
In the three cases I mentioned, the priests were innocent.
“Luther made the same pronouncements as Jerome did”
So you’re admitting then that Luther took a book that was very old and chose to rewrite it to his preferences, removing books that he did not like?
How is this any different from what the Witnesses do and what the Mormons do?
If Luther didn’t remove them from the Bible - why do you remove them from yours?
“since not all Bible translations are based on the Latin Vulgate”
Not all bible translations are good translations.
“There is no copyright on the vulgate”
Again, not a good argument. The Vulgate has been in existence over a millenium before the first protestant. Protestants have as much authority over the text as Mormons do.
“we still wouldn’t lose access to the scripture, which wasn’t written in Latin anyway.”
Which book was the one Luther used? The Vulgate. Did Luther appropriate it for himself and his purposes? Yes. That’s the point here. Despite the fact that he had absolutely nothing to do with the book, he went around and took stuff out and said that the stuff he was taking out was stuff that wasn’t important anyways.
This is a far cry from the Word of God. Or Christ saying, “not the least stroke of the pen”. But I guess he meant, “Not the least stroke of the pen, until the time of Luther”.
“then your post is nonsensical and irrelevant.”
I suggest you address the four claims that I did make. Luther and all protestants have exactly zero authority to make changes to scripture, just as Mormons have zero authority to do the same.
The only ones lying are those who claim Jesus said he founded his church on Peter...
“The only ones lying are those who claim Jesus said he founded his church on Peter”
Given that Matthew says just that, you’re calling the Gospel author a liar.
Don't you know your own history??? Christ founded the Catholic Church on ONE apostle, Peter...
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.