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)
Yup; it sure is!
AGAIN?
Why didn't you READ it the FIRST time?
Ok; just for you...
NIV Matthew 4:18-19
18. As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.
19. "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men."
No; a terrible attempt to KEEP TRYING to use a verse OUT OF CONTEXT to justify Roman teaching.
Aren't you ashamed of your leaders YET?
Oh; I agree wholeheartedly!
But one CAN hold 'her' accountable for CONTINUing to misinterpret Scripture.
“No; a terrible attempt to KEEP TRYING to use a verse OUT OF CONTEXT to justify Roman teaching.”
What ‘Roman teaching’? It’s right there in scripture. The passage is clear as day. Why am I arguing with protestants over sola scriptura? It’s clear that they don’t really believe in it.
“Simon called Peter”
Funny, your own citation disagrees with you. You might want to try actually reading scripture next time.
Show me where the original says ‘faith alone’, and I’ll happily retract the comment.
If you cannot, then I rest my case.
Or do you contend that sola fidae isn’t what Luther taught?
“but an observation about why you can’t see it objectively... Nor question what you were taught.”
Two men were walking along the side of the road. One man said to the other
“I have watched you for many days and yet you do something I cannot understand. In the morning - your horse is laden and full. So you walk alongside the horse. In the evening - rather than ride your horse, you continue to walk alongside the horse rather than ride it?”
“Ride it and you’ll understand”.
So the other man walked back with the rider and the next morning, walked out with him to the market. Then the horse was laden with many goods. The rider got a good price and on the way home - the other man mounted up on the rider. Then it became obvious to him why the man did not ride the horse - for the horse had never had a rider.
This is a good example of why we need Tradition and it’s keeper, the Magisterium as our guide when reading Scripture and indeed, this is only one of many such examples (even on this thread). The fact if the matter is, two people can read the exact same sentences out if the Bible (or anything really) and interpret them entirely differently (if no further guidance is given or accepted). Observe...
(Some) Protestants clearly interpret the passages Elsie provided as saying, in effect, everytime Peter is mentioned, “Peter (his name now at the time of this incident)...”
We Catholics interpret/read those verses to say, “Peter (the one who would later be called Peter but at this time was called “Simon”)...
In other words, we believe the author was saying “He who was called Peter later..” Whereas you (non-Catholics) believe it says “He who used to be Simon sometime before but is now Peter...” (You just can’t identify the moment his name was changed apparently).
The point is, both readings, when read alone and divorced from any historical and/or Traditional teaching on the matter are valid. No one can say which is “better” from the Bible alone. One needs a context of some sort not provided by Scripture alone.
This is the ironic and glaring truth that stands out, to me and I dare say others who read such debates: those who reject the need for a Tradition and a Magisterium to guard and preserve both Tradition and Scripture do, by their own rejection, demonstrate the need for such time and time again by their insistence upon their own, personal interpretation of Scripture (in effect, making themselves a “mini-Pope”)
Demonstrated, to those who have no preconcieved agenda against the Church and possess a love for Truth over all else, that is.
Forgive my intrusion into your “discussion”. I leave you to resume arguing over something that can never be resolved, given the present course, as I have demonstrated, if you so desire.
Well, this is MA, and i did not know of any born again local churches except an Assembly of God a few miles away, but wanted more assurance before i made a move and did not want to move around the pasture. So i sought to serve God as a CCD teacher and lector, and more and more by personal evangelism on my own (though i myself would tell potential converts to find a born again church).
Having an ongoing hunger to know how the word of God since i was born again, i listened earnestly to a local Christian station that just came on the air, with preaches such as Chuck Smith, J. Vernon Mcgee, John MacArthur, Chuck Swindoll, etc., which were very edifying and basically preaching the same message, outside things that could have different views, such as like tongues. If any of the above had a church in my area i am sure i would have went to it.
When I talked with others in my church about the things of the Bible and faith, as such was abundant in my heart, it was usually met with indifference, and only a couple could identify with the relationship i had with the Lord since my actually conversion. I did go to charismatic RC meetings looking for some life in the church and fellowship in Christ, and which was then (80's) closer to evangelical faith and overall had more positive aspects, but the leadership shackled it with a social gospel ministry done by the nuns and afterwards the people were troubled by a lack of the Spirit (I think God will work where He can, but then they must continue on - and out of Rome).
But God steers an moving vessel trying to obey Him, and after i first prayed sincerely to God that if He really wanted me to go to a different church then He would show me, then the next day He answered my prayer, with a man in my small town telling me of an evangelical church he went to not too far away, which decision to leave Rome for better pasture the Lord has abundantly confirmed in His grace, while i can also testify to His chastisement for now walking consistent with the consecration that brought liberty.
Nothing to forgive. You make the exact point I was hoping to deliver. By taking a consistant position - we arrive at two different conclusions - ergo interpretation of the Word is essential.
Thank you for your comment sir. :)
It is always about numbers, Luther or Luther's church killed these martyrs? Prove it. On the other hand the Catholic caused casualties are well documented.
JC,
I explained earlier that I understand where you are coming from and the limitations you have to accept when you choose to join the Roman church. That is not a criticism. I just recognize it as the way it is and I wish you the best.
“The point is, both readings, when read alone and divorced from any historical and/or Traditional teaching on the matter are valid. No one can say which is “better” from the Bible alone. One needs a context of some sort not provided by Scripture alone.”
Yellow flag.
If you can PROVE this is historical and directly from the Apostles teaching before 100 AD, fine. It lends real credence. If like so much of Roman teaching, it did not arise for hundreds of years, it is simply eisogesis that is used to support later doctrine.
In this case, historical context is not the magisterium. It would be factual history. It would be accepted by almost all as an important reason to choose one possible view over another. Magisterium not needed where facts are present. If no facts are present, the magisterium can add nothing absolute.
Unfortunately, in declaring a doctrine that arose hundreds of years later - and here you can take your pick from among many - grammar, language, history, systematic theology, etc. are ignored by the magisterium. In that case, they do a disservice to the Holy Words of God.
Not so.
They are fulfilling the commands of Scripture to "study to show themselves approved, a workman who rightly handles the Word of Truth." Those who fail to fulfill this command cannot rightly say they are also fulfilling the Greatest Commandment - "to love God with ALL your heart, ALL your would and ALL your mind."
No mini-me popes needed. Just a commitment to do what He commands.
I have ALREADY 'provided' Scripture that shows PETER being used when Jesus called him to be a disciple.
What the RCC cannot do is show that this verse is somehow different than the Saul/Paul name change.
NIV Matthew 4:18-19
18. As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.
19. “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.”
I’m sorry, what exactly do you want me to show from history and directly from the Apostles’ teaching?
“I’m sorry, what exactly do you want me to show from history and directly from the Apostles’ teaching?”
In your earlier post, you claimed that only the roman magisterium could decide between Elsie’s view and the roman view - using tradition.
Clearly, if something is actual fact in history, it is germane to the decision. If not, it arose sometime later and cannot be used with accuracy. To be Apostolic teaching or tradition, is had to be taught or followed from the time of the Apostles forward. If it was not, to call it apostolic tradition is false.
In this case, Elsie pointed out that Peter was referred to as Peter previously. Your post detailed variations on that theme and concluded that the roman ministerium was needed to resolve that dilemma.
My point was simply that if something was historical tradition, we all would inform our Bible study based on actual history and the ministerium was not needed for that purpose.
“limitations you have to accept when you choose to join the Roman church.”
Your argument assumes that:
someone hasn’t considered the other position and rejected it because the Catholic position is superior. That’s why your argument is terrible.
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.