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)
Sorry; but there is NO proof that jesus changed anyone's name.
There IS proof, however, that ol' Simon was ALREADY know as Pete BEFORE the verse that you are going to quote.
(You can look it up.)
Dang!
You stole my zinger!
Where did Jesus GIVE the Magisterium ANY authority at all?
You want ME to defend them??
Yes. Do you believe that changing the subject is a CATHOLIC virtue?
Yes. Do you believe that changing the subject is a CATHOLIC virtue?
Dang it!
You got my zinger!
Dang it!
You got my zinger!
Why isn’t this FR problem FIXED???
You first!
You claim Jesus took St. Peter’s position away. Where did he do so?
“Now the JURY would like to look at your evidence to this claim; if it wouldn’t trouble you TOO much to produce it.”
Perhaps you can show me where ‘faith alone’ appears in the bible prior to Luther.
“Christ never gave him “a position of authority”.”
Yes, he did. Right in Matthew. Matthew clearly states that Jesus, after Peter confessed that Jesus was the Messiah, that he was going to build his church upon Peter - and gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven.
It’s all right there. Now you’re free to deny the Gospels and what they teach, but that doesn’t mean you get to deny the Gospels and at the same time claim sola scriptura. Either the Gospels are true or they are not.
“Simon was ALREADY know as Pete”
[[citation needed]].
“Where did Jesus GIVE the Magisterium ANY authority at all?”
“I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven....” Right there in Matthew.
“Matthew clearly states that Jesus, after Peter confessed that Jesus was the Messiah, that he was going to build his church upon Peter - and gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven.”
Oh sure, I know what Rome teaches. They have to. It is their justification to try to Lord it over Orthodox and Protestant Christians. Take it away and the infrastructure collapses. Further, as a Roman, you are required to believe it - heck you are not allowed to study and come to any other conclusion. I get where you’re coming from.
The rest of us disagree because of what is said, because of language, grammar, history and the totality of Scripture.
Christ alone is the foundation on which the Gathering of His own is built.
“Oh sure, I know what Rome teaches. They have to.”
It’s right there in scripture. “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven”. Again - either the Gospel is true or it is not.
“because of language, grammar, history and the totality of Scripture.”
Show me then in the Greek, where it says what you claim it says. The text is very clear. “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven”.
“Further, as a Roman, you are required to believe it - heck you are not allowed to study and come to any other conclusion”
A terrible argument.
First, you ARE required to take the Roman interpretation without question. That is t an argument, but an observation about why you can’t see it objectively... Nor question what you were taught.
"All right, mistakes were made. But one can hardly hold the current incarnation of Holy Mother Church responsible for the oversights of old."
You claim Jesus took St. Peter’s position away.
Me FIRST?
It's YOUR chosen religions claim that peter was even GIVEN any osition.
I have produced the Scripture in question, in it's en tireity, and in context.
You have huffed and puffed and TRIED to move the goalposts.
Your pathetic efforts to get ME to do something MORE is noted.
There you go AGAIN!
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.