Should we evangelize non-Catholics?
#1
Boy do I get mixed messages from the clergy on this.  The idea that salvation is pretty much the same weather you are Catholic or not seems to be what I hear.

If you are Catholic, great, if you are not, well it's not really a problem either.

What do you guys make of this?
Reply
#2
Yes. All men are called to Christ. Our clergy have failed in this regard over the past 60 years. Unfortunately, efforts to evangelize have been labeled "proselytism" in recent years, so many are not doing their due diligence. I think the "you're good where you are" view is a grievous injustice that will lead many people to hell.

To add a point: I believe that the best means of "ecumenism" is to come to understand these non-Christian religions so that we can more effectively convert these people, not approve of their error and leave them where they are. I am reminded of the parable of the good Samaritan to some extent in this case.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

“Behold this Heart which has so loved men that It spared nothing, even going so far as to exhaust and consume Itself to prove to them Its love” - Our Lord to St. Margaret Mary

My blog: https://slavetothesacredhe.art.blog/

Malachi Martin was right.
[-] The following 4 users Like Augustinian's post:
  • antiquarian, Everlasting Hills, Ioannes_L, josh987654321
Reply
#3
Markie Boy,
the short answer is, yes, absolutely. Remember the Great Commission? We're called to it also, not just the clergy. Pardon my blunt speech, as one of the least-educated here. There's sufficient evidence (I think) to support the theory that false ecumenism had crept into (or had been allowed into) the minds of some clergy from at least the thirties on, but it's also easy to point at the flourishing of it emanating from the documents of Vatican II, and all the subsequent rot. Without any intentions toward hyperbole, how could we not, with the treasure we've been given?
Eternal Father, I offer Thee the most precious blood of Thy Divine Son, Jesus, in union with the Masses said Throughout the world today, for all the holy souls in Purgatory. Amen.
[-] The following 4 users Like dahveed's post:
  • antiquarian, karl, OLOTS, SeeTheLight
Reply
#4
Maybe.  Of course the answer is yes, but you need to do it the right way or you can do more harm that good.
.
And, yes, this stopped due to VII.  I was in school and remember the Sister telling us that we were NOT to evangelize anymore.  We were to do it by living a good life, be a good example.
.
Being a good example, day in and day out, is still a very good idea.  If proper evangelization is a gift you have, then God Bless You!
Reply
#5
I returned to the Church a few years ago and noticed the same thing. I was uncomfortable with ecumenism and interfaith dialogue as well, at least the way it was presented. I'm also not a fan of the Vatican document that says we shouldn't try to convert Jews, or CCC 841, the Church's relationship with Muslims.

I much prefer the resolute and uncompromising tone of the Catechism of Saint Pius X. I also have an old 1950s Missal that is very matter of fact about the Faith. The contrast between then and now seems pretty profound and I often struggle with that. I often wonder if the Church of my Grandfather is the same as see nowadays.

For me, I bring my faith up when I feel it's appropriate and don't compromise or sugar-coat anything to spare feelings. I pray before meals in public, cross myself when I pass a Catholic Church and so on.
[-] The following 4 users Like jack89's post:
  • Ambrosiano, LionHippo, Markie Boy, OLOTS
Reply
#6
Yes, of course we should evangelize. We should want the non-Catholics to convert more than anything. What if they went to hell? We mustn't beat them over the head with this message. Just a simple sentence or two for starters: the Church is the one true Church and we love/care about them and want to see them in heaven is enough. Unless they pursue the matter further, of course.Our Lord has promised He will take it from there.
"Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.” --G.K. Chesterton
Reply
#7
(08-13-2019, 10:12 PM)jack89 Wrote: I returned to the Church a few years ago and noticed the same thing.  I was uncomfortable with ecumenism and interfaith dialogue as well, at least the way it was presented.  I'm also not a fan of the Vatican document that says we shouldn't try to convert Jews, or CCC 841, the Church's relationship with Muslims.  

I much prefer the resolute and uncompromising tone of the Catechism of Saint Pius X.  I also have an old 1950s Missal that is very matter of fact about the Faith.  The contrast between then and now seems pretty profound and I often struggle with that.  I often wonder if the Church of my Grandfather is the same as see nowadays.  

For me, I bring my faith up when I feel it's appropriate and don't compromise or sugar-coat anything to spare feelings.  I pray before meals in public, cross myself when I pass a Catholic Church and so on.

I feel the same way.  The Church of 70 years ago does not seem in step with the Church of today.  The Catholic Answers apologists use to make me dizzy justifying all this stuff.

The old and the current Church just don't harmonize well, and I'm not sure what to do with some of that.  Once you start down the path of ecumenism it turns right in to relativism - well if they believe that it's OK for them, but we don't so it's not OK for us.

Is contraception evil or not?  Almost all protestants approve of it - does that make it OK and not sin for them.  

If total ecumenism is true, one is almost further ahead staying totally ignorant, because as long as you don't know it's wrong you can keep doing it and be OK according to them.
[-] The following 4 users Like Markie Boy's post:
  • antiquarian, jack89, Lonion, OLOTS
Reply
#8
(08-13-2019, 11:12 PM)Markie Boy Wrote: The old and the current Church just don't harmonize well, and I'm not sure what to do with some of that.  Once you start down the path of ecumenism it turns right in to relativism - well if they believe that it's OK for them, but we don't so it's not OK for us.

Is contraception evil or not?  Almost all protestants approve of it - does that make it OK and not sin for them.  

If total ecumenism is true, one is almost further ahead staying totally ignorant, because as long as you don't know it's wrong you can keep doing it and be OK according to them.

1. You're right. The path of ecumenism leads to relativism. But ecumenism is not a dogma. It is a policy, a method. Usually the people who enact the policy are unknowing relativists.

2. Yes, contraception is evil, always and in all cases. Maybe we can argue the culpability of the individual practicing it, but it is an intrinsic evil. Condoms, pills, IUDs, etc., are all evil. They promote sexual immorality, fornication, perversity, they lead the society toward the abortive mentality that we inhabit. Divine revelation is not necessary for this teaching. On a natural law level, this stuff is poison. 

Not all Protestants actually use contraception, interestingly enough, but the vast majority of their congregations consider a non-event. It is just assumed that it is fine. 1900 years of Christian teaching, Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic is just cast aside.
Reply
#9
(08-14-2019, 10:17 AM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote: The path of ecumenism leads to relativism. But ecumenism is not a dogma. It is a policy, a method. Usually the people who enact the policy are unknowing relativists.

This false ecumenism promoted by Vatican II and the people who influenced it were explicitly condemned not even 50 years earlier by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium animos.

The Catholic Church is the unique ark of salvation. One who is culpable for his failure to enter it, or in some way be attached to it will not be saved. Period.

That means that while it might seem "kind" not to try to convert people, it is a severe deficit in true Charity, because by failing to prudently try to win them to the Faith, one is robbing them of their salvation. The key is prudence. We don't go out obsessively harassing people to convert, and most of the best "evangelization" is by living a good and moral life that others can see, but we should do what we can.

(08-14-2019, 10:17 AM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote: Yes, contraception is evil, always and in all cases. Maybe we can argue the culpability of the individual practicing it, but it is an intrinsic evil. Condoms, pills, IUDs, etc., are all evil. They promote sexual immorality, fornication, perversity, they lead the society toward the abortive mentality that we inhabit. Divine revelation is not necessary for this teaching. On a natural law level, this stuff is poison. 

All true, but it is worth mentioning that hormonal contraceptives might do have other effects and could be used in certain cases, but never in the sexually active. For instance in a celibate woman with severe menstrual bleeding which can cause serious health risks who has no intention to marry, and merely means to remain chaste (or even a vowed religious with such a medical problem) the use of such medications when they have no contraceptive effect would be licit.

I know at least one case where a woman who doctors told her because of a medical condition would certainly never survive a pregnancy (and neither the child), but does not have a religious vocation, lives a chaste life, is perhaps one of the most devout people I know, and as a result of her condition has to take hormonal contraceptive pills, but obviously not for any contraceptive effect.

Natural Law condemns their use as contraceptives, because it is the contraceptive aspect (and abortifacient effect) which is immoral, along with what they promote, of course. Even NFP used as a contraceptive is immoral. The contraceptive intention (and effect) is the main issue.

It is however, worth making the distinction.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Alphonse il Segundo, Eric F, OLOTS
Reply
#10
(08-13-2019, 04:51 PM)Markie Boy Wrote: Boy do I get mixed messages from the clergy on this.  The idea that salvation is pretty much the same weather you are Catholic or not seems to be what I hear.

If you are Catholic, great, if you are not, well it's not really a problem either.

What do you guys make of this?

Previously condemned ecumenism was brought forth at Vatican II shamelessly, as if there it had not even been dealt with before.

Indifferentism proceeded to abound.  Most Catholic apologists these days regard the Catholic Church as the full course dinner.  One can get to Heaven though with an appetizer.

While there is much to be suspect about other things Benedict said or implied about this issue, what he stated a few years was a revealing admission:

"The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the [Second Vatican] Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned. The result was a two-sided, deep crisis. Without this attentiveness to the salvation, the Faith loses its foundation."  March 16, 2016  interview (English translation) to Avvenire, the daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops' Conference

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-e...eep-crisis

To be clear, however, Christ only gave the Great Commission to the Apostles, and therefore the burden to evangelize and convert is not to the same degree for bishops and priests, as it is for the laymen.

This is a point greatly confused in the present time.  But certainly laymen do have a duty to provide a Catholic witness.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)