Apotheoun Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 (edited) My impression is attacking the Quran's integrity would actually be considered proselytism because it's polemetical. It seems evangelization is, if anything, presenting the Gospel (what that may be is another question.) Or maybe only a part of the Gospel, i.e., the love of God and nothing more, because repentance would require something of the convert, and the Church is not about doing that anymore. The article you linked to a few days ago by Mr. Dreher does not seem that far off base. Edited October 1, 2013 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apteka Posted October 1, 2013 Author Share Posted October 1, 2013 Or maybe only a part of the Gospel, i.e., the love of God and nothing more, because repentance would require something of the convert, and the Church is not about doing that anymore. The article you linked to a few days ago by Mr. Dreher does not seem that far off base. Exactly, especially when we factor in Francis' other statements, e.g. each person is to follow what they think is good, atheists to follow their conscience have hope in salvation, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 What if I think that theft or adultery is good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apteka Posted October 1, 2013 Author Share Posted October 1, 2013 What if I think that theft or adultery is good? I suppose the answer would center on whether you are sincerely following your conscience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Conscience and Truth by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apteka Posted October 1, 2013 Author Share Posted October 1, 2013 Conscience and Truth by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger How would this apply to Francis' suggestion for the atheist editor to follow their conscience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Why then in response to the interviewer's use of the word "convert / conversion" does Pope Francis switch to proselytism. It seems he is using the terms interchangeably. Why also does Francis say it is not his intention to convert the interviewer? Shouldn't it be our intention to make disciples of every single person, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? Perhaps if the interviewer had used the word proselytism himself what you are saying would make sense, but I still think you are evading answering my question on this point. Pope Francis does not seem to be interested in converting people, but how can you evangelize people without the intention to convert them to Christ? I pointed out exactly why it made sense to switch to the term proslytization... because if someone was sitting down to ostensibly have a respectful conversation and was really just trying to convert them, it would be proslytization. just like it'd be proslytization if you jumped on top of the thanksgiving table and start preaching to your divorced parents about their need to repent... nothing wrong with admonishing a sinner respectfully and in the proper context, it is a spiritual work of mercy to do so, but please don't get your feet all up in the cranberry sauce. anyway, I've gone about as far as is possible, some people will read those words in a certain way and there's no convincing them otherwise, no matter how much the broader context of Francis's continuing points in his homilies dichotomizing what he calls proslytization and evangelization run counter to their claims about what he really meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I pointed out exactly why it made sense to switch to the term proslytization... because if someone was sitting down to ostensibly have a respectful conversation and was really just trying to convert them, it would be proslytization. I disagree. I am always, in everything I do, trying to bring Christ to others. If that is evil now in the Catholic Church so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 But I did not accept what he said, and instead sought out another priest and he helped me to convert to Catholicism. Was that all "solemn nonsense"? I will say that if it is indeed solemn nonsense, the average Epsicopalian does the solemnity aspect much, much better than the average Roman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ryan Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 There are numerous quotes like the above that can be pulled from Councils and Papal statements throughout the millenia. But reading it one almost feels uncomfortable because it doesn't fit with our current Catholic theology. Clearly one has to question whether Francis even believes in such a thing, when he apparently confirms people in their own falsehood. The Pope feels there is no need to convert such people, rather, we are to dialogue with them to strengthen world peace. If I were an orthodox Catholic, I would find the current state of the Roman Church very troubling. The difference is that you understand a living, evolving sacred tradition to be an impediment to faith, whereas I understand it as the only thing that makes faith meaningful. So, for example, the Vatican historically has not been a proponent of religious liberty. It was only with Vatican II and Dignitatis Humanae that the Church began to come on board with the cult of the individual — to borrow a phrase from Émile Durkheim. The Church is not inerrant. It has learned from its mistakes, and Vatican II's reinterpretation of the Church as the mystical body of Christ which extends beyond the physical walls of the Church is one such thing we have learned as a faith community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 you should of course try to bring Christ to others in everything you do. which is exactly what Pope Francis calls on us all to do in his homily about evangelization. thanks for playing :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apteka Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 The difference is that you understand a living, evolving sacred tradition to be an impediment to faith, whereas I understand it as the only thing that makes faith meaningful. So, for example, the Vatican historically has not been a proponent of religious liberty. It was only with Vatican II and Dignitatis Humanae that the Church began to come on board with the cult of the individual — to borrow a phrase from Émile Durkheim. The Church is not inerrant. It has learned from its mistakes, and Vatican II's reinterpretation of the Church as the mystical body of Christ which extends beyond the physical walls of the Church is one such thing we have learned as a faith community. Does dogma evolve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Pope Francis suggested in that homily that we should bring Christ to people with a firm faith in him, rather than, on human terms, 'trying to convert' them... as the former relies on God and the latter relies on man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ryan Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Does dogma evolve? As I have said in another thread, I am not a believer in fundamentalist magisterium, so while I believe that the Holy Ghost guides the Church, I do believe that errors in judgement exist. So I am probably not the best person to answer that question on behalf of Catholics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apteka Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 As I have said in another thread, I am not a believer in fundamentalist magisterium, so while I believe that the Holy Ghost guides the Church, I do believe that errors in judgement exist. So I am probably not the best person to answer that question on behalf of Catholics. John, I've never heard the term "fundamentalist magisterium" so you'll have to elucidate what you mean by that. The gist I gather is that you believe some dogmas are erroneous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts