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)
“Learning the Scriptures is a daily, lifetime discipline that progresses as you mature. It cannot be outsourced.”
Discipline implies that there are teachers who have the authority to correct you in your understanding.
“In any case, you were convinced based on limited knowledge”
Again, one would not choose a duty unless one believed that the cause was just. I did freely choose the Catholic church. Arguing that my choice was ‘not free’, ‘uniformed’, isn’t going to convince anyone.
It’s a terrible argument. Once again - you are assuming that ‘only those who make the same decision as you are informed’.
Luther killed them, with a sword, knife how?
“We remember how Anabaptist Christians knew suffering and persecution, and we remember how some of our most honored Reformation leaders defended this persecution in the name of faithfulness,”
“Discipline implies that there are teachers who have the authority to correct you in your understanding.”
We are commanded to study to show ourselves approved. We are commanded to love God with our “whole mind”. Outsourcing this is not Biblical.
“Again, one would not choose a duty unless one believed that the cause was just. I did freely choose the Catholic church. Arguing that my choice was ‘not free’, ‘uniformed’, isn’t going to convince anyone.”
No one I see claimed you were not free or were uninformed. I clearly said you now have no choice but to toe the line unless you are willing to leave.
“It’s a terrible argument. Once again - you are assuming that ‘only those who make the same decision as you are informed’.”
No. I assume being fully informed has no practical value to you now that you made your free choice. You must believe whatever they teach you, or switch to Democrat :-)
You said, Luther killed 40 and provide zero proof.
It is?
Just WHICH reply contains that assertion?
I, for one, am not questioning your freedom to choose; but am VERY interested in the information you looked at before COMING to this decision.
And, not ONLY the information, but how you analyzed, and dismissed, any contrary information.
Problem is, doctrine does not save so the Catholic church cannot have *saving truths*. There is no such thing as *the faith*. That's putting faith in their faith, not faith in Jesus. Only Jesus saves, not a church, not *correct doctrine*, not sacraments, not adherence to the catechism or creeds.
To repent, believe, and confess is all we need and those cannot even really be separated for someone who truly believes.
I see your supporting evidence from the CCC was never acknowledged.
Can you say *Inquisition*?
I don’t see how protestants Catholics can justify killing other protestants in any circumstances. Does Jesus say, “kill innocents because other people kill you?
And yet we still see Catholics calling for a return to the Inquisition.
Link to the *Hall of Amazing FRoman Catholic Quotes*
“Catholics calling for a return to the Inquisition.”
Where?
“I, for one, am not questioning your freedom to choose; but am VERY interested in the information you looked at before COMING to this decision.
And, not ONLY the information, but how you analyzed, and dismissed, any contrary information.”
Well, let’s see. It wasn’t a short term process. It took about 2-3 years or so. I was quite ignorant of Rome and as I did my research I realized that much of what I believed the Catholic church taught - was a distortion and incorrect.
I started from the same place as Menno Simons and the issues that justified breaking away from Rome.
http://www.mennosimons.net/ft002-renunciation.html
You can find it here.
You might be shocked at what his justifications were and the hows and the whys. The gap is really not all that much between Menno Simons and the Catholic church. Much has been made of the difference - as I examined further, I realized that at Trent - the Catholic church had taken Luther’s words at face value. Rather than actually speaking to the anabaptists - they relied on Luther’s calumny and that it colored greatly the Catholic understanding of anabaptists.
In short - not only was Luther responsible for hanging and persecution of his fellow brothers and sisters, he was responsible for calumny.
The other part - is that I saw that I had been lied to by many folks I trusted about what the Catholic church believed. So I endeavoured to start from the beginning. What did the Church teach and why - what does the catechism say, and why? Why does the Catholic church state. I made a list - rather long, of the doctrinal issues between me and the Catholic church. And I went through them one by one. That winter I receieved Mere Christianity, and tore that book apart.
I went to RCIA for one year just to find out more about the catholic church. That summer, after the classes, I received Scott hahn’s Rome Sweet Home. Scott Hahn was able to explain to me much of Catholic doctrine in a way that made sense. It all fits together.
The last hurdle ended up being the very first one - rebaptism. I went to RCIA the next year and worked on that one issue exclusively. I prayed for guidance and God helped show me what I had read but never understood. The Nicene Creed states - “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”. Rebaptism denies this doctrine - in asserting that baptism itself can be invalid.
Simon’s argument rests or falls on silence- nowhere does it say that rebaptism is permitted.
While, I, OTOH, believe much of what the RCC teaches!
It's all them things they tend to DO that really have NO solid biblical base that bothers me!
“It’s all them things they tend to DO that really have NO solid biblical base that bothers me!”
Right, things like sola fidae, sola scriptura, believers’ baptism, women’s ordination etc. Plenty of doctrines that are found no where in scripture.
LOOK!!!
Over THERE!
sounds about right.
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.