Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: boatbums

You wrote:

“”We” see nothing of the kind! LOL. Do yourself a favor and search the word “proselyte” or “proselytize”. When you do you’ll see:”

I already know what I’ll see. And what you fail to comprehend is that the language is a living thing that can have more than one meaning. Here’s an example for 6 years before Francis became pope (again, having to do with the Orthodox):

“Today’s Christian missionaries often contrast “proselytism” with “evangelism”; the former is what they accuse rival denominations of doing, while the latter is what they claim to do themselves. Surprisingly, there is no rigorous distinction between the two terms in canon law or in theological dictionaries—or for that matter in legal dictionaries. The Greek Constitution, for example, has outlawed “proselytism” since 1911 without ever defining it. The term is sometimes used to denounce Christian “sheep stealers” who seek converts among those who are already members of some other Christian confession, as distinct from missionaries who appeal to those who have never been baptized—but no Church council or other authoritative religious organ has ever formalized that usage.”

and:

“Consider the following examples. In 1961 the World Council of Churches pronounced “proselytism” to be “a corruption of Christian witness” that uses “cajolery, bribery, undue pressure, or intimidation, subtly or openly, to bring about seeming conversion.” In a footnote to the documents of Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church defined proselytism as “a corruption of the Christian witness by appeal to hidden forms of coercion or by a style of propaganda unworthy of the Gospel. It is not the use but the abuse of the right to religious freedom.””

This, the word has been used that way BY PROTESTANTS for at least 52 years. And yet you’re blaming the pope? How smart is that????http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/donrsquot-call-it-proselytism-16

Some people don’t like the use of the term (and example from 1999) - “The use of the term proselytism in a pejorative way to criticize the outreach activities of faith communities was rejected by all participants.” http://www.irla.org/226

But none of that changes the fact that the term is used that way whether you like it or not.

So, the Greeks (all of them Orthodox) banned the practice of it in their constitution in 1911. Protestants have used the word the same way since 1961 at least. Looks like Pope Francis was the last one to use it. And yet you accuse him of changing the definition when Protestants have been using it that way for 5 or more decades? Have you no shame at all?


134 posted on 10/08/2013 4:28:57 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies ]


To: vladimir998
Consider the following examples. In 1961 the World Council of Churches pronounced “proselytism” to be “a corruption of Christian witness” that uses “cajolery, bribery, undue pressure, or intimidation, subtly or openly, to bring about seeming conversion.” In a footnote to the documents of Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church defined proselytism as “a corruption of the Christian witness by appeal to hidden forms of coercion or by a style of propaganda unworthy of the Gospel. It is not the use but the abuse of the right to religious freedom.

So, the Greeks (all of them Orthodox) banned the practice of it in their constitution in 1911. Protestants have used the word the same way since 1961 at least. Looks like Pope Francis was the last one to use it. And yet you accuse him of changing the definition when Protestants have been using it that way for 5 or more decades? Have you no shame at all?

This is becoming quite hilarious! Kindly READ the original post of this thread. Once you do, you will note that the Pope is who is depicted as shunning the word "proselyte" or "proselytize". I couldn't care less what the World Council of Churches or the Greek government, for that matter - though it is noted how they failed to define what they even meant by the word they claim to ban people from doing - deems "appropriate", the point of discussion is that there IS no real difference in "evangelizing" or "proselytizing" - except in the minds of those too concerned over appearances than doing the will of God. Getta grip!

168 posted on 10/08/2013 8:09:59 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson