I haven't seen any sociological studies on how many non-Catholics are joining RCIA programs. From merely anecdotal evidence, I know that our RCIA class is smaller than last year and most parishes in our Savannah deanery are indicating the same thing.
Of course, Pope Francis seems to confuse everyone with his railing against Proselytism. He doesn't seem to understand the term or maybe it is different in Italian and Spanish. Nor does he seem to know what Pelagianism is either. He throws out bombs that scatter and confuse and there isn't any real clarification, albeit, the CDF did try to indicate what real Pelagianism is.
I was listening to Gus Lloyd's Seize the Day program on Catholic Radio. He was asking if a return to tradition was needed today. Most of his callers, but not all, indicated yes.
Most though were speaking liturgically.
One guy who had left the Church for an "independent" Catholic Church (don't know if it was SSPX) said that when Pope Benedict issued Summorum Pontificum, he returned to the Church. Although he prefers the EF Mass, he even said that if the only return to tradition was a worldwide move towards kneeling for Holy Communion and receiving on the tongue, that would be HUGE! (Say that like the ailing Bernie Sanders).
I would agree. Pope Benedict modeled that at each of his Masses. Pope Francis simply stopped giving Holy Communion at most of his Masses but when he does, communicants stand.
I am on record as saying that receiving Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue is even more important than ad orientem and I think it would be less controversial too.
I think that if Pope Francis had been more sober about some of the things that Pope Benedict striven to do liturgically, he would not have alienated so many tradition-minded Catholics from the get-go.
I think most tradition-minded Catholics would be open to the Church's Social teachings because St. Pope John Paul II was very concerned about these teachings and he was well received.
What say you?
35 comments:
Is receiving Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue an option are your parish?
"IS A MOVE TOWARD TRADITION SOMETHING THAT POPE FRANCIS MUST RECOVER IN CONTINUITY WITH POPE BENEDICT?"
Please stop! My sides hurt from laughing so hard@
"He doesn't seem to understand the term [Proselytism] or maybe it is different in Italian and Spanish."
I think he does understand the term very well. His understanding would be:
1. Unfair criticism or caricaturing of the doctrines, beliefs, and practices of another church without attempting to understand or enter into dialogue on those issues.
2. Presenting one’s church or confession as “the true church” and its teachings as “the right faith” and the only way to salvation.
3. Portraying one’s own church as having high moral and spiritual status over against the perceived weaknesses and problems of other churches.
4. Offering humanitarian aid or educational opportunities as an inducement to join another church.
5. Using political, economic, cultural, and ethnic pressure or historical arguments to win others to one’s own church.
6. Taking advantage of lack of education or Christian instruction, which makes people vulnerable to changing their church allegiance.
7. Using physical violence or moral and psychological pressure to induce people to change their church affiliation.
8. Exploiting people’s loneliness, illness, distress or even disillusionment with their own church in order to “convert” them.
Frmjk, The true Church subsists in the Catholic Church headed by the pope and bishops in union with him. Yes, we are the true Church and no apology is needed concerning this as it is the truth.
Trying to talk someone into joining the true Church, who doesn't believe it and never will believe it is proselytism.
We do believe #2 although we also teach as the Baltimore Catechisms teaches that there are many ways for God to skin the cat in need of salvation through the true Church he founded. Yes, non Catholics, who through no fault of their own, can be saved but in and through the Church which offers lifelines to them in a variety of creative ways.
We do believe # 3 as well, but our Church, the true Church,teaches us about humility as well and that we don't flaunt the truth in order to injure others.
YES, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are acts of proselytism and corrupt.
But placing ads on TV,radio, social media and other platforms are about invitation and evangelisation. Pope Francis has mocked this.
"2. Presenting one’s church or confession as “the true church” and its teachings as “the right faith” and the only way to salvation."
Right because Jesus would never do that, or portray Himself like that....
Since the Church has become an unmitigated disaster since Vatican Disaster II, maybe PF knows the Church has nothing of value to impart to non-Catholics, let alone Catholics, anymore
Bee here:
In response to Fr. Kavanaugh's #2, that the Pope would understand proselytizing as "Presenting one’s church or confession as “the true church” and its teachings as “the right faith” and the only way to salvation."
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 2000 declaration Dominus Iesus (On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ):
"It must therefore be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith that the universal salvific will of the One and Triune God is offered and accomplished once for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God. Hence, those solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith."
and
"It would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God. One cannot attribute to [prayers and rituals of other religions] a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments. Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors, constitute an obstacle to salvation."
God bless.
Bee
2. Presenting one’s church or confession as “the true church” and its teachings as “the right faith” and the only way to salvation.
What does the Catholic Church teach about the possible salvation of those who do not belong to the Catholic Church?
"The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church." (Unitatis Redentigratio no 3)
A person can live his/her life as a member of a Protestant faith and, since the liturgical actions of that faith give access to the community of salvation, and since Christ has not refrained from using their church as a means of salvation, he/she can be welcomed to heaven.
Would I prefer that they become members of the Catholic Church? Yes. But I will not attempt to sway them by telling them that, if they do not convert, they will spend eternity in hell.
The restrictive understanding of "Outside the Church there is no salvation" - that unless one is formally a member of the Catholic Church one cannot hope to enter heaven - is what Number 2 above refers to.
3. Portraying one’s own church as having high moral and spiritual status over against the perceived weaknesses and problems of other churches.
What does our Church teach about God preferring us to others inasmuch as we might have a high moral or spiritual status. (We might classify this as "God Loves Us Best!")
"One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him, so Jesus went into the Pharisee’s house and sat at the table. A sinful woman in the town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house. So she brought an alabaster jar of perfume and stood behind Jesus at his feet, crying. She began to wash his feet with her tears, and she dried them with her hair, kissing them many times and rubbing them with the perfume. When the Pharisee who asked Jesus to come to his house saw this, he thought to himself, “If Jesus were a prophet, he would know that the woman touching him is a sinner!” (Luke 7:36-39)
A person is loved by God and offered the gift of salvation not because that person belongs to the "right" church, not because that person has high social standing, not because that person is part of the "approved" crowd, but because that person, like the woman who washed Jesus' feet, sought God's mercy.
Seeking that mercy is open to any person regardless of the church he or she may belong to.
Kavanaugh,
With the numbers of Catholics attending Mass and participating in the life of the Church continues to decline under PF, "what difference does it make?" to borrow a line from another reprobate you admire (who believes a baby has no right to life until it exits the birth canal).
Father K said:
2. Presenting one’s church or confession as “the true church” and its teachings as “the right faith” and the only way to salvation.
The Catholic Church is the true Church (not excepting the Orthodox, who have true sacraments and substantially enough the Faith that they are not barred from Holy Communion, per Canon 844), the Catholic Faith is "the right faith," and it is, essentially, "the only way to salvation.
Non-Catholic Christians, by virtue of baptism, have a real but imperfect communion with this true Church, hence they are not barred from salvation; the Catholic Church IS the Body of Christ; hence, she is "the truth" (and the way and the life), and she is the only way to salvation.
Anyone who is saved, is saved by the merits of Christ, and is, whether s/he knows it or not, saved in the Catholic Church.
Alas, Father!
It’s understandable as he has been involved in tea and crumpets ecumenism an awful long time. Holding one’s pinky out whilst sipping hot tea taxes the brain.
Father McDonald,
LOL! You nailed him
Bee here:
Thank you Fr. Fox and Fr. McD! I know the Church teaches there is no salvation outside the Church. I know the caveat too, and in my understanding, it means it is not impossible for God to grant salvation to those who were not obviously and overtly Catholics, but I think it is a tiny loophole, but it seems Fr. Kavanaugh would have it be big enough to drive a Mack truck through, as is about as close as you can get to a denial of the doctrine of the Church without actually denying it.
The danger here is that although Fr. Kavanaugh may understand the subtleties of the topic, it cannot be assumed ordinary lay people do, and they could fall into error and heresy.
God bless.
Bee
Fr Kavanaugh manages to load no fewer than eight pejorative interpretations onto a term whose etymology and long-accepted usage imply none of them.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
Father McDonald said..."I think that if Pope Francis had been more sober about some of the things that Pope Benedict striven to do liturgically, he would not have alienated so many tradition-minded Catholics from the get-go."
Father, "tradition-minded" Catholics denounced Pope Francis within seconds of his having been announced as Pope.
They claimed that he was a communist...hated God and the Church...hated and would excommunicate the SSPX...outlaw the TLM...ordain women to the priesthood...he was an anti-pope...
We are dealing with "traditional" Catholics who were pleased from the beginning of his Pontificate to have referred to Pope Francis as anything except a child of God.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Bee,
Fortunately priests like Kavanaugh will be out to pasture in the near future and young orthodox priests will be taking over to undo the damage done by two generations of mal-formed priests. The sad thing is that they really think they're still the big man on campus
"Fr Kavanaugh manages to load no fewer than eight pejorative interpretations onto a term whose etymology and long-accepted usage imply none of them."
Your error, John, is to think that the meaning of a word is set at some time in the ancient past, and that no evolution or development of a word's meaning can or does take place.
Words whose meaning has changed over time include nice, silly, awful, fizzle, wench, fathom, clue, myriad, naughty, eerie, spinster, bachelor, flirt, guy, hussy, egregious, quell, divest, senile, and meat.
If, today, you were to describe a man as a bachelor, no one would think that you were suggesting that he is a "novice in arms" or a "youthful knight" even though that was the long-accepted usage.
Fr K
Now you're being silly. We're not talking about archaic usages or gradual development over time. I would simply like to know how a word can accrue, in a few short years, a slew of pejorative meanings which have the effect of completely distorting its actual and very recent definition.
If this isn't an example of the Humpty Dumpty school of lexicography, I don't know what is.
"2. Presenting one’s church or confession as “the true church” and its teachings as “the right faith” and the only way to salvation."
Taken as a whole - True Church AND Right Faith AND Only Way To Salvation - this statement does not reflect the teaching of the Catholic Church. (See quote from Unitatis Redentigratio, no 3 above)
Were a Catholic to say that Catholicism is the True Church, the Right Faith, and that one must be a member of the Catholic Church in order to enjoy salvation in heaven, that Catholic would be wrong. (See quote from Unitatis Redentigratio no 3 above)
That is what is considered proselytism.
Martin's statement, "Non-Catholic Christians, by virtue of baptism, have a real but imperfect communion with this true Church, hence they are not barred from salvation..." is correct. It is when some Catholics wrongly assert or imply that, unless a person is a member of the Catholic Church he/she cannot enter heaven that problems arise.
This is not a "loophole" any more than Baptism by desire is a loophole. We understand that God is not bound by the earthly things that encumber us, that God can and does work outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church to achieve His purposes.
The Church is bigger than the Catholic Church. We know and believe that the fullness of Christ's teaching subsists in the Catholic Church - that is why I and many of you are Catholics. Not bound by the Sacraments, God can and does bring Catholics and non-Christians into heaven.
So, Lord, at length when sacraments shall cease,
May we be one with all your Church above,
One with your saints in one unending peace,
One with your saints in one unbounded love.
O may we all one bread, one body be,
Through this blest sacrament of unity.
Fr. McDonald has never, to my knowledge, been present at any ecumenical gathering that I have attended, so his comments about what is done at those gatherings should be ignored.
Tea and crumpets is a figure of speech and/or a metaphor for what occurs at these academic think tanks especially the raising of the pinky finger to drink that metaphorical cup and saucer of fine china hot tea.
Should have written bone China cup of hot tea.
Kavanaugh,
Give it a rest, John Nolan nailed it again. YOU are clericalism on steroids and a real bore (boar) - you pick which one applies to you
"Tea and crumpets is a figure of speech and/or a metaphor for what occurs at these academic think tanks especially the raising of the pinky finger to drink that metaphorical cup and saucer of fine china hot tea."
As I said, "Fr. McDonald has never, to my knowledge, been present at any ecumenical gathering that I have attended, so his comments about what is done at those gatherings should be ignored."
No, John, I am not being silly. Your assertion is that the use of proselytism in my post of Oct 3, 10:15 is inappropriate or inaccurate because the etymology and long-term usage of the word does not fit the present meaning of the word.
You're wrong, and the evolution and development of the words I cited shows that you are wrong. As to the rapidity of the change, I was not aware that there was a rule as to how quickly a word's meaning could develop. Are you aware of such a regulation, or does it exist, as I strongly suspect, in your own mind.
i am puzzled that FrMJK has such disdain for tea and crumpets and proper comportment in consuming both. It would be more suspect if they had egg McMuffins and diet coke.
Fr K
I would be wrong had I suggested that the meaning of a word 'is set at some time in the ancient past, and that no evolution or development of a word's meaning can or does take place'. But I never advanced such an absurd proposition, and no intelligent person would. What's more, you know full well that I wouldn't write such nonsense, and so your attribution of this to me smacks of dishonesty.
Your well-tried modus operandi appears to be as follows. 1) Make a gross caricature of someone else's argument to the extent that it becomes nonsensical. Ignore what he actually said. 2) Proceed to counter it by stating the blindingly obvious.
You are quite at liberty to define 'proselytize/proselytism' to suit your own predilections and prejudices; however, do not be surprised if there are those who might question your authority in so doing, particularly as Merriam-Webster (to use a US source - I prefer Chambers) defines it in neutral terms. When the word entered the English language in the 17th century it had a purely religious connotation. Now its use also includes recruitment to other causes, including political ones. This latter use would have originally been metaphorical. This is an authentic development of language.
It can, of course, be used disapprovingly, but the criterion for this is whether or not one approves of the cause for which people are proselytizing. The Russian Orthodox Church has in the past accused the Roman Catholic Church of proselytism. I disapprove of the proselytism of the Jehovah's Witnesses not because it is wrong per se, but because it leads souls astray.
John - I am glad that you have seen reason, and that you accept that my use of proselytism is, in the current milieu, entire correct and acceptable.
I did not ignore what was originally said. I spoke directly to your comment regarding how I used the word proselytism, noting, correctly, that the meaning of words can change and develop over time.
I am very glad that Merriam-Webster defines proselytism in "neutral terms." However, being an intelligent man, you are entirely aware that context can and does change the meaning of words. To suggest otherwise smacks of dishonesty.
If you want to disparage the importance of context and how context impacts the meaning of words, take up that up to date Merriam-Webster and look up "up." My on-line version lists twenty-seven definitions, each determined by the context - how the word is used in a sentence.
Fr K
Ah, I see. Your definitions are indeed definitive, 'entire (sic) correct and acceptable', but Merriam-Webster, Chambers, Oxford et al. have yet to update their entries to conform with your heroic attempts to drag the English language kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Let me know when they do. In the meantime work on improving your reading comprehension and debating skills, and familiarize yourself with the phrase 'non sequitur'.
John, the definition I presented for proselytism is not mine, so whether or not it is definitive is not for me to decide.
The list comes from "Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness - The Report from the Fourth Phase of the International Dialogue 1990-1997 between the Roman Catholic Church
and some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders."
Immediately preceding the list is this statement: "Attempts to define proselytism reveal a broad range of activities and actions that are not easily interpreted. These tend to be identified and evaluated differently by the parties involved. In spite of these difficulties, we have concluded that both for Catholics and for Pentecostals, proselytism is an unethical activity that comes in many forms. Some of these would be:..."
Also included in that report: "Proselytism must be sharply distinguished from the legitimate act of persuasively presenting the Gospel. Proselytism must be avoided."
From footnote 10 to that document: "On the multilateral level, the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches has recently published a study document entitled The Challenge of Proselytism and the Calling to Common Witness, 1996, IS 91 (1996/I-II), 77-83. In so doing, Catholics, like many Protestant and Orthodox groups, have expressed the desire to condemn all proselytism."
The warnings about proselytism are not new to Pope Francis. Pope Benedict XVI: "Charity, furthermore, cannot be used as a means of engaging in what is nowadays considered proselytism. Love is free; it is not practiced as a way of achieving other ends. But this does not mean that charitable activity must somehow leave God and Christ aside [Deus Caritas Est 31]."
You can fret all you want about etymologies and long-accepted usage. But that concern should be addressed, not to me, but to the Church leaders I depend on for teaching and guidance in the question of proselytizing.
Fr K
If you depend, for teaching and guidance, on the unadulterated piffle you have quoted at length above, then you are an even bigger fool than I thought you were.
And that's saying a lot.
This is getting good. Be right back. I am going to grab some tea and crumpets.
John - I tend to believe that popes and members of the curia have a better grasp of many things than I. I base this on the respect that I give to scholarship, to experience, and to the nature of the structure of the Church.
As always, I am gratified that you think me a fool.
Making converts is an 'unethical activity'? That's a new one, but hardly out of character for something called 'the Fourth Phase of the international Dialogue etc. etc.'
It's fair enough for modern Catholics to condemn 'all proselytism'. After all, the Catholic Church, mired in scandal, led by the worst Pope in modern times, and with (in most places) a deeply unattractive and non-liturgical worship style, is unlikely to make many converts. Meanwhile, protestants continue to make advances in South America since they actively proselytize.
Pope Benedict, in issuing (and expediting) Anglicanorum Coetibus, in the words of one newspaper 'parked his tanks on the lawn of Lambeth Palace'. Rowan Williams, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, was greatly miffed. The English Catholic hierarchy were nonplussed. In faraway Argentina one Jorge Bergoglio was openly critical.
Yet Benedict was not afraid to proselytize.
I'm surprised that Americans know what a crumpet is. After all, they call a sticky cake a muffin. Are they confusing it with a strumpet? Or a trumpet?
Making converts is not an unethical activity. The means one might choose to do so may be unethical.
Anglicanorum Coetibus did not, in any way, suggest or encourage the use of inappropriate means of making converts that I listed above. This first line of AC makes it very clear that this act was not one of attempting to use inappropriate means: "In recent times the Holy Spirit has moved groups of Anglicans to petition repeatedly and insistently to be received into full Catholic communion individually as well as corporately."
Nolan - 1
Kavanaugh - 0
Making converts is not an unethical activity. Proselytism is by definition making or trying to make converts. 'Inappropriate' is one of those words whose meaning is largely subjective. I think hymns are inappropriate at Mass; others disagree.
Saying that some forms of proselytism are unethical is one thing; condemning all forms of proselytism is quite another.
Charlemagne was reputed to have offered the heathen Saxons the choice of baptism or death, although historians now tend to doubt this. Now that's an unethical way of making converts, as Alcuin was quick to point out.
Post a Comment