Evangelization Efforts

[cmaD2006]

<P>(take one)</P>

Edited April 14, 2011 by cmariadiaz

[cmaD2006]

Without having read the entire thread ... I like the old and the new together. I don't agree with Nihil Obstat's and I can't say for sure that I entirely agree with zalzan (because of not reading the whole thing yet).

Having said this -- I do respect Nihil's position on music. But -- part of the reason why I don't go to Mass in engish 90% of the time is the music. I'd rather have the Music that I have in spanish. And ... I love the Mass in the vernacular. Period.

Part of the richness of our Church is this diversity. You can have people in both spectrums, and we are all part of the one Body of Christ.

-----------

Back to the topic at hand ... evangelization is important, but I don't know really how it is best carried out in this country. When in Argentina I lead a team of 12 that went door to door during a parish mission, letting people know about the chapel in the area and about the services that would be held. Of course -- that leads to the opportunity to talk about the Lord. Since the chapel was dedicated to Our Lady of Schoenstatt, we'd carry an image of her door to door.

That experience was wonderful and unforgettable, but alas here in the US it is rare to get the opportunity to do what we did in Argentina. In the US I did the door-to-door thing once, and it was to homes that were known to be catholic but not attending Mass.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='zalzan' timestamp='1302795043' post='2228644']
consider the following from Redemptionis Sacramentum, regarding the Bishop's role:
[/quote]
yes, the Diocesan Bishop has authority.

The USCCB does not.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1302898964' post='2228995']
yes, the Diocesan Bishop has authority.

The USCCB does not.
[/quote]
...and then, obviously, only inasmuch as he's acting within what the Church already teaches and always has taught as Tradition, which is why I don't consider it a legitimate exercise of my bishop's authority to deny communion on the tongue (and thereby temporarily suspend the Traditional Latin Mass) during the h1n1 scare.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1302898964' post='2228995']
yes, the Diocesan Bishop has authority.

The USCCB does not.
[/quote]

Ok, you keep saying this. But, if the bishops, as a whole, decide on something to be implemented in their diocese, isn't it still said with authority? I'm somewhat confused by your logic. Maybe i just don't understand how the USCCB works.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1302901938' post='2229029']
Ok, you keep saying this. But, if the bishops, as a whole, decide on something to be implemented in their diocese, isn't it still said with authority? I'm somewhat confused by your logic. Maybe i just don't understand how the USCCB works.
[/quote]
Most people don't. I would go into detail, but I'm headed out the door as we speak. Hopefully Red can speak more.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1302901938' post='2229029']
Ok, you keep saying this. But, if the bishops, as a whole, decide on something to be implemented in their diocese, isn't it still said with authority? I'm somewhat confused by your logic. Maybe i just don't understand how the USCCB works.
[/quote]
to be honest:
most of what comes from the USCCB comes from committees. i'm of the mind that usually what comes out of committees is total, and utter, b.s. (like the movie reviews, or the voters guide, or the document on 'always our children', to provide a few examples.)

i hope i'm saying this right: (i.e. don't take my word for it)

a bishop has authority given to him from our supreme bishop (the Pope). That authority is ultimately from Christ.

Just because a bunch of bishops get together and decide something *does not* mean that as a group, they have more authority than if they stood alone. And I think, [i]I think[/i], that a bishop only has authority to tell the faithful something binding in his own diocese, not in a brother bishop's diocese. (I think....I'm kinda iffy on this, actually). Like one bishop telling a pro-abortion politician he may not receive communion in his diocese...but he cannot tell that person he cannot receive in the next diocese over. (Like I said, I'm not 100% sure on how I'm explaining this...I'm not on the up-and-up today, unfortunately.)

Hopefully Nihil comes back and clarifies. LOL.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1302899674' post='2229003']
...and then, obviously, only inasmuch as he's acting within what the Church already teaches and always has taught as Tradition, which is why I don't consider it a legitimate exercise of my bishop's authority to deny communion on the tongue (and thereby temporarily suspend the Traditional Latin Mass) during the h1n1 scare.
[/quote]
an aside:

i know 2 priests, that during the h1n1 scare, banned holding hands at the Our Father.

[Lil Red]

btw, this is straight from their mouth (from a facebook exchange):

"Shouldn't the USCCB take steps to rein in US Bishops who choose to take the popular, modernist, easy road instead of standing up for traditional Catholic morality? Wouldn't it help clear up the confusion created by Vatican II if US Bishops would swear an oath to be obedient to the pope?"

They responded: "While we would disagree with your assumption that any bishop in the United States does not give full support to the teaching of the Church, the USCCB has no authority over individual bishops. Only the Holy Father has such authority. Each bishop makes a promise of obedience to the Holy Father as part of his ordination to the episcopacy."

the USCCB may not mandate what an individual bishop does within his own diocese.

[Lisa]

[quote name='CherieMadame' timestamp='1302805755' post='2228684']
I honestly think a simple thing like a rosary group is beautiful. Back where I'm from in PA, there is one in which families have gotten together and have done beautiful things, all from a simple "rosary group" that gets together to pray the rosary once a week, either at someone's house or at the church. Perhaps this could also be manifested in having those who would like to stay before/after Mass pray the rosary together. Maybe you could print out or purchase inexpensive rosary meditation booklets to put in the pew or keep in a handy place for those who would like to use them while they pray it. Perhaps a passage from Scripture pertaining to the next mystery could be read aloud before it's begun.


I must say, regarding music, I believe we have SUCH a rich, beautiful, traditional musical heritage in the Church, that it would do a [i]world[/i] of good to "bring it back," so-to-speak, and make it more accessible to young people. People are drawn to beauty, and these hymns have inspired and spiritually uplifted scores of Catholics throughout the centuries.

I came from a convent in which the musical heritage was PART of our apostolate of catechesis, so "evangelization with music" was a [i]huge, huge[/i] part of what we did. We used [b]all[/b] traditional hymns, and we had a HUGELY positive response from people. We used Latin hymns, too, and there was always a translation for the Congregation to at least know the meaning of what they were singing. That in itself, while seemingly simple, does so much good, and introduces people to the "language of the Church." What a beautiful way to bring Latin into more common usage: starting with the music! There are countless traditional, beautiful, incredible hymns that were composed in Latin (e.g. Mozart's "Ave Verum" is a perfect example!), and perhaps people wouldn't have such a problem with Latin responses in the Mass if it was already being used in the music.

People would leave our convent's Sunday Mass literally in [i]tears[/i] over the beauty of the Liturgy, and a huge part of that was the music. It was reverent, uplifting, beautiful; oftentimes we could sing [i]a capella[/i] so we wouldn't even need an instrument. The organ was the perfect compliment to our voices, however, when we did need an instrument. I'm a firm believer, as I said, in traditional hymns, including Gregorian chant. I've seen the good it has brought about in people time and time and time again. Sure, a nice choir helps (and by choir I mean just a handful of people; nothing major) but it's not necessary.

Anyway, I say all that to offer proof of the fact that traditional liturgical music IS catechetical. It [i]compliments[/i] the Liturgy and draws people to it. I don't believe any sort of Christian "rock" music belongs in the Liturgy; it's just completely unsuited to the intensely beautiful, awe-inspiring, and reverential mystery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar. People often told us they felt like they were worshiping amongst the angels singing -- that is the image the music we sang at Mass put in their minds, and that's the image that [i]should[/i] be put into our minds, because that's the reality of the Mass. I don't think the same could be said of "modern" Christian rock music.
[/quote]

I agree with all of this- there is something beautiful and holy about Latin. Thank you Cherie, for that meaningful description. Simple, traditional English hymns lift the heart to true, God-centered praise.

On thing that I want to bring up, however, is that I think both of the arguments have merit. I don't think the rock/radio music is at all appropriate for Mass. However, IMHO, that music still has merit. Matt Maher did not write "Love will hold us together" as liturgical music. It can lead people closer to the Church outside of the church building (which, I believe was what this thread was more about). Catholics with musical talent should consider using their music as a method of evangelization in coffee shops, battle of the bands, etc.

We can and should start by catechizing/re-energizing the people within the Church- especially with the Rosary from Our Blessed Mother. But we also have a responsibility to go outside our comfort zone to "go make disciples of all nations" and follow JPII's recommendations about the "New Evangelization." Just my opinion

Edited April 16, 2011 by Lisa

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1302905796' post='2229063']
to be honest:
most of what comes from the USCCB comes from committees. i'm of the mind that usually what comes out of committees is total, and utter, b.s. (like the movie reviews, or the voters guide, or the document on 'always our children', to provide a few examples.)

i hope i'm saying this right: (i.e. don't take my word for it)

a bishop has authority given to him from our supreme bishop (the Pope). That authority is ultimately from Christ.

Just because a bunch of bishops get together and decide something *does not* mean that as a group, they have more authority than if they stood alone. And I think, [i]I think[/i], that a bishop only has authority to tell the faithful something binding in his own diocese, not in a brother bishop's diocese. (I think....I'm kinda iffy on this, actually). Like one bishop telling a pro-abortion politician he may not receive communion in his diocese...but he cannot tell that person he cannot receive in the next diocese over. (Like I said, I'm not 100% sure on how I'm explaining this...I'm not on the up-and-up today, unfortunately.)

Hopefully Nihil comes back and clarifies. LOL.
[/quote]
Basically the bishops conferences are just a glorified think tank. A bishop has authority within prescribed limits, within his own diocese. A group of bishops has no special additional authority unless we start to talk about the development of legitimate Tradition when the Magisterium speaks with one voice to affirm ancient teachings.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1302926700' post='2229186']
Basically the bishops conferences are just a glorified think tank. A bishop has authority within prescribed limits, within his own diocese. A group of bishops has no special additional authority unless we start to talk about the development of legitimate Tradition when the Magisterium speaks with one voice to affirm ancient teachings.
[/quote]

Oh thanks. that makes sense.

[tinytherese]

The botton line is that contemporary Christian music is fine if you want it outside of Mass, but not during it. If you find that the music speaks to people outside the context of Mass in terms of evangelization (at least with some people, since not everyone has the same tastes) fine.

[AudreyGrace]

The biggest problem is that too many Catholics don't truly [i]know [/i]the faith to evangelize it effectively. There's so much more to the Catholic Church than there is to most Christian denominations, which makes it easier for them to actively evangelize. Cases like Father Wall are great, in part because his mission is constant and he's always prepared (or at least I would hope he is) for whatever questions he is asked regarding God and His Church. Recently, I've been taking a Catechism class with my parents for their training to become RCIA teachers. It made me realize that the education kids and teens get in regular church school or religious ed comes nowhere near what they should be learning. It's no wonder why we lack people passionate about the faith who are well equipped to and have a desire to evangelize.

Also, it doesn't hurt to remember that evangelization doesn't necessarily mean knocking on doors, handing out pamphlets, or trying to convert everyone we meet to the Church. Evangelizing can simply be giving a witness of our own lives to others, granted we root our lives in Christ and His Church.

[Cherie]

Yes I must say I misunderstood the original context of the discussion on music. Inside Mass, I think I made clear my opinion on the subject.

However, [i]outside[/i] of Mass, Christian music is all I listen to on the radio. Sometimes I'll listen to classical music, but for the most part, especially in my car, contemporary Christian music is the only thing I have on. I find it very uplifting.

I think this is [i]definitely[/i] an area where Catholics need to come to the fore!!! It could be a great tool for evangelization. Most of the "Catholic" contemporary Christian music I have heard is just, well, [i]hokey. [/i]