The Evangelical Nature of Catholicism
A post from Sherry via her trusty, smug, Mac-using minion:
There was a kerfuffle all weekend at Fr. Dwight Longenecker's blog over his post on his experience at the Evangelical Catholic Institute the weekend before. Fr. Mike and I also attended the Evangelical Catholic Institute (I spoke several times) - as did Cardinal Avery Dulles, who gave one of the keynotes.
There seems to be two issues: 1) simply the term "evangelical Catholic" which is perceived by some as off-putting in and of itself; and 2) the fear that focusing on calling Catholics to a personal relationship with Christ, to intentional discipleship, is somehow a rejection and/or minimization of the role of the Church and magisterium. If we lay down our catechism for a moment, we are repudiating doctrine and revelation and the authority of the Church's teaching altogether and becoming Protestant.
What is, alas, no longer surprising for me, is to see clergy and lay people that I know to be devoted to Church teaching and meticulous about teaching with the Church being dismissed as covert dissenters because they are talking about the same thing that Pope Benedict has spoken about so movingly: personally following and entrusting one's life to Christ.
At the Institute and ID, we don't ever use the term "evangelical Catholic" because of its potential in our situation in the Protestant hotbed of the US to be understood as saying that the evangelical is not an intrinsic part of the Catholic faith and has to be borrowed from elsewhere and "tacked on".
But if we are going to be fully Catholic, we have to wrestle with the irreducibly evangelical nature of the Catholic faith - the mission to proclaim Christ to every person, every culture, every society. Protestants didn't invent the evangel or evangelism. They got it from us and then majored in it.
One commenter in the debate mentioned above pointed out this reality: The term "evangelical" is used 482 times in the documents of Vatican II and in papal and material teaching since. No reality spoken of 482 times in authoritative magisterial teaching can be dismissed as marginal, sectarian, or non-Catholic.
For instance, as in the Decree on the Laity, 31, doctrine and the evangelical are not, in any way, seen as opposed.
a) In regard to the apostolate for evangelizing and sanctifying men, the laity must be specially formed to engage in conversation with others, believers or non-believers, in order to manifest Christ's message to all men.(5)
Since in our times different forms of materialism are spread far and wide even among Catholics, the laity should not only learn doctrine more diligently, especially those main points which are the subjects of controversy, but should also exhibit the witness of an evangelical life in contrast to all forms of materialism.
The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 41
"married couples and Christian parents should . . . imbue their offspring, lovingly welcomed as God's gift, with Christian doctrine and the evangelical virtues."
The "evangelical" is also clearly declared to be part of the priestly office (Decree on the Life and Ministry of Priests, 2,
"Their ministry, which begins with the evangelical proclamation, derives its power and force from the sacrifice of Christ."
And a critical part of the Church's mission to the world (from the Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church, 24,:
"By a truly evangelical life, in much patience, in long-suffering, in kindness, in unaffected love (cf. 2 Cor 6:4ff.), he bears witness to his Lord, if need be to the shedding of his blood."
The irony is that in defending ourselves against recent history (to a community that is 2000 years old, the 500 year span of Protestantism is a johnny-come-lately.) we can find ourselves rejecting as "foreign" something that is Catholic to the core, that is absolutely essential to the faith, and dates back to St. Peter's sermon on Pentecost (Acts 2).
"'Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.'
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, 'What are we to do, my brothers?'
Peter (said) to them, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.'"
Labels: evangelism
posted by Fr. Mike, O.P. @ 11:27 AM
21 Comments
21 Comments:
Well said, Sherry.
The thought occurs to me that perhaps those Catholics who demonstrate that sort of allergic reaction to the words "discipleship" or "evangelical" might have developed their oversensitivity in the midst of the trauma of the implementation of Vatican II directives in this country in the '70s-'80s. So many new things were being presented all at once - some which had previously had only Protestant associations for folks. According to friends of mine who went through it, very little explanation was given. And so, not a few react to anything unfamiliar by equating baby with bathwater...
I think I understand a little better the uphill battle you (and we all) face in trying to explain basic Christian discipleship ideas to Catholics, from a Catholic point of view. I pray for continued strength, wisdom, and patience for all the teachers out there who strive to build up Christ's Body with the conceptual tools needed to fulfill our purpose on the planet.
The Catholic Church has over one billion members. So my qustion is, what is wrong with the missionization that the Church has been doing so far? Name a Protestant ecclesial body that has anywhere near this number. And many of these are badly catechized. Surely, as Pope Benedict has also said, we need to concentrate on these members of the Body of Christ also. Numbers alone are not the solution. I think it is equally important to sustain those already in the Church, rather than simply "evangelize" (which is just advertising, more or less) and bring in more people who are not ready to be Catholic.
Susan
Welcom, Susan;
Yes, practically one out of every six human beings in this world are baptized Catholics. But, as Pope John Paul II observed in his 1979 apostolic exhortation, "Catechesis in Our Time" , many Catholics (practicing or not) are “ still without any explicit personal attachment to Jesus Christ; they only have the capacity to believe placed within them by Baptism and the presence of the Holy Spirit.” (19)
The Second Vatican Council made it very clear that the Church exists to evangelize, and that every Catholic has a duty to evangelize! This is a message most of us Catholics have definitely not yet acknowledged, and post-conciliar documents confirm this message.
For example,
"We wish to confirm once more that the task of evangelizing all people constitutes the essential mission of the Church. …evangelizing is in fact the grace and vocation proper to the Church, her deepest identity. She exists in order to evangelize…For the Christian community is never closed in upon itself…. Thus it is the whole Church that receives the mission to evangelize, and the work of each individual member is important
for the whole." (Paul VI, “Evangelii Nuntiandi,” par. 14-15)
Perhaps some Catholics hope their call to evangelize is fulfilled by an advertisement in the newspaper (or perhaps just the church bulletin). However, Pope Benedict XVI, in an address to the Ecclesial Convention of the Diocese of Rome in June, 2006, said,
"In fact, discovering the beauty and joy of faith is a path that every new generation must take on its own, for all that we have that is most our own and most intimate is staked on faith: our heart, our mind, our freedom, in a deeply personal relationship with the Lord at work within us. ... Dear brothers and sisters, this certitude and this joy of being loved by God must be conveyed in some palpable and practical way to each one of us, and especially to the young generations who are entering the world of faith."
Finally, Susan, what about our love for our neighbor? If my Catholic faith, founded on a relationship with the Lord Jesus, is a source of solace, joy, hope, and personal transformation, why would I want to deny anyone similar experiences?
More importantly, if we are to take Jesus seriously when he says, "no one comes to the Father, except through me," (John 14:6) then isn't it the case that the salvation of people for whom Jesus offered Himself on the cross is at stake?
Of course, but I think the Church has been "welcoming" many neophytes who are not yet really ready to become Catholic. Insufficient evangelization and catechesis create a view of the Church that does not approximate its reality; converts still many times see the "Church" only in institutional terms, whereas it is the Body of Christ. And this is where the difficulty comes in: when you preach only Christ, without His Body, the Church, then the picture is incomplete. In Pope's Bendict's Sacramentum Caritatis, he never discusses Jesus Christ without mentioning the Church. For example, the Pope writes: ". . . they first came to understand the importance of a personal encounter with Jesus (SC #19). He is speaking of the experience of First Holy Communion. Moreover, Pope Benedict reiterates the Trinitarian economy of the Eucharist. Pope Benedict also writes: "The Eucharist is Christ who gives himself to us and continually builds us up as His body (SC #14)." The Pope also writes: "Through the sacrament of the Eucharist Jesus draws the faithful into his "hour;" He shows us the bond that he willed to establish between Himself and us, between his own person and the Church (SC #14)."
So, if in evangelizing, Jesus is separated from His Church or from theology that underlies our understanding of Jesus and the Church, how is this appropriate for evangelization?
It's not that Catholics are not evangelizers or that they do not have a relationship with Jesus Christ. But it's of a very different sort from that practiced in the Protestant ecclesial bodies. And that's what makes me leery of evangelizing only about the Person of Jesus. How is He discussed without also discussing the Church and is this sufficient in the case of Catholic "evangelists?"
Susan
I also think that Roman Catholics are by nature more contemplative, even in their missionization and catechesis. This has a history, from Augustine, through the Victorines, etc. It does not mean that Catholics do not practice outreach to others or that their contemplation is only for itself. But it is nurtured within the Churh as is our knowledge of Jesus Christ and everything comes out of that. Even prayer and spiritual reading are fostered within the Church because we are the Body of Christ. There cannot be a separation, if you take St. Paul seriously.
Susan
Of course you can't have Christ without the Church, His Body! That's one of the beautiful things I have seen within Catholics who have encountered Jesus in their prayer, the sacraments, the community, and the Word. They desire union and fellowship with others, they desire to learn more of the teachings of the Church, they worship with greater devotion. They want more of what the Church has to offer, which is, fundamentally, real encounters with Christ!
The whole point of the Church is to witness to Christ and to help us meet Him in a variety of ways so that each of us can have the opportunity to respond wholeheartedly to the invitation to "come, follow me."
Yes, we will follow in our own unique way - some will be more contemplative, some active. We have different spiritual gifts that direct us outward towards others by definition. Some will be called by God to work among the poor, others to write works of beauty that move the human heart, others to envision new, more just ways of dealing with urban development, others who will find their niche healing the sick.
The remarkable thing about them, and what will set them apart from a purely secular social worker, writer, city planner or physician, is that their work will be seen as their vocation, a way of serving their brothers and sisters made in the image and likeness of God. Their desks and operating tables will become like altars upon which they offer God a sacrifice of praise.
The danger that I believe we need to avoid, and that the quote from Pope John Paul II addresses, I believe, is the possibility of having some kind of relationship with the Church, but not with Christ. This is an aberration, to be sure, but consider members of the mafia who show up periodically to Mass - perhaps even dutifully so. Are they cooperating with the grace being offered them in the Mass? Or, in a less dramatic situation, a Catholic who attends Mass but has no intention of changing anything about their life as a consequence of what they hear or experience there, who has no intention of allowing Jesus' teachings to inform his or her political or social life?
I have met many people like that, and I was like that for many years. I was "good" in that I was polite, kind, and generally pretty nice by secular standards. I didn't swear (at least not in front of anyone), drink, do drugs, or engage in sex. I treated people rather well, because I didn't want to upset them, not because I bore any love or generosity towards them. I received my sacraments, and in public life I was a success. I passed in the externals for a good Catholic.
But in my list of priorities, knowing Christ more deeply, and allowing His will to dictate my life's choices were pretty far down the list. Even my prayer was desultory and lacked fervor. I related to the Church in a way similar to the way people relate to a club to which they belong. I attended Masses in which I stood next to people who didn't know my name, and whose names I wasn't interested in knowing. So yes, there was a relationship of sorts. Yet no one ever challenged me to "go out into the deep." Externally I fit the model of a good Catholic, and I had a kind of relationship with the Church. Thus I had some kind of relationship with Christ, but it wasn't what I'd call personal.
Yesterday's Gospel concluded with Jesus' three-fold questioning of Simon Peter: "Do you love me?" It is a question I have to answer, too. Today. Every day.
Why? Because love, especially the graced love known as charity, changes our behavior, our attitudes, our priorities. I talk about the people I love. I desire others to come to know the people I love. Love, especially the love that is a response to God's grace, draws me out of myself and into the mystery - sometimes heartbreaking, sometimes ecstatic - of relationship.
Susan, I have tried to express why I am so insistent upon the intentional nature of our relationship with Christ, and I have alluded to why I believe it is so important to speak of that relationship with others. I do not wish to appear to deny the importance of the Church. It was through the people who make up Christ's Body that I at least knew to be "good." And it is recently through God's grace working through specific members of Christ's Body that I am seeing the possibility of a much deeper relationship with Him. For their witness, I hope to be eternally grateful.
But I had a relationship of sorts with Christ's Body for years that was much less connected to the Head than it should have been.
I know all about the example of the mafia members who go to Church. They really don't have a relationship with the Church, as the Body of Christ, either. You can have ritualism in anything. That's not the Church, that's the people who putatively belong to Her.
So tell me, how do you preach Christ without mentioning the Church or by asking if one has a relationship with the Church, but not with Christ? I think it's the wrong question. You cannot have Christ without His Church and vice versa. What's operative is a faulty definition of the Church, but also a faulty definition of Christ. I guess that's what I miss here is an explicit definition of what you're about. I don't see how one can evangelize about Christ WITHOUT also evangelizing about His Church, unless one is presenting a generic Christ, without the added definition that His Church provides (sacramental knowledge of Christ, which as Pope Benedict writes in Sacramentum caritatis: "Our faith and the eucharistic liturgy both have their source in the same event: Christ's gift of Himself in the Paschal Mystery (SC #34)."
It should also be noted that we only know Jesus and how to pray to Jesus through the Church, through which we received the canonical Scriptures and the earliest forms of worship, both of which attest to who Jesus is and what His effect has been and continues to be. So unless there is a twofold missionization that prioritizes both Christ and the Church, I'm rather perplexed about how that would result in Catholic evangelization.
Susan
I take it that your missionization is not sola Scriptura. But tell me exactly how you evangelize about Jesus Christ that is different from what other people do.
Susan
Susan:
As Fr. Cantelamessa put it in his Advent, 2005 retreat for Pope Benedict and the curia, the basic kerygma that awakens initial faith and the teaching (didache) are two different, if deeply related, things.
2. Kerygma and Didache
All the authors of the New Testament show that they presupposed the existence and knowledge, on the part of readers, of a common tradition (paradosis) which goes back to the earthly Jesus.
This tradition presents two aspects, or two components: a component called "preaching," or announcement (kerygma) which proclaims what God has wrought in Jesus of Nazareth, and a component called "teaching" (didache) which presents ethical norms for correct conduct on the part of believers.[2]
Several Pauline letters reflect this distribution, because they contain a kerygmatic first part, from which a second part derives of a parenetic or practical character.
The preaching, or kerygma, is called the "gospel"[3]; the teaching, or didache, instead is called the "law," or the commandment of Christ that is summarized in charity.[4]
These two things, the first -- the kerygma, or gospel -- is what gives origin to the Church; the second -- the law, or the charity that springs from the first, is what draws for the Church an ideal of moral life, which "forms" the faith of the Church.
In this connection, the Apostle distinguishes before the Corinthians his work of "father" in the faith from that of the "pedagogues" who came after him. He says: "For it is I, through the Gospel, who has begotten you in Christ Jesus" (1 Corinthians 4:15).
Therefore, faith as such flowers only in the presence of the kerygma, or the announcement. "How are they to believe -- writes the Apostle speaking of faith in Christ -- in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?" Literally, "without some one who proclaims the kerygma" (choris keryssontos). And he concludes: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Romans 10:17), where by "preaching" the same thing is understood, that is, the "gospel" or kerygma.
This more concrete nucleus is the exclamation: "Jesus is the Lord!" pronounced and accepted in the wonder of a "statu nascenti" faith, namely, in the very act of being born. The mystery of this word is such that it cannot be pronounced "except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:3).
It alone can bring one to salvation who believes in his resurrection: "because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9).
"Like the wake of a ship," Charles Péguy would say, "it enlarges until it disappears and is lost, but it begins with a point that is the point of the ship itself," so -- I add -- the preaching of the Church goes enlarging itself, until it is an immense doctrinal edifice, but it begins with a point and that point is the kerygma: "Jesus is the Lord!"
The kerygma, which gives birth to initial faith, is always about Christ. Note what the decree on justification from the Council of Trent, which outlines in great detail exactly what constitutes proper pre-baptismal disposition for an adult, says:
Moved to initial faith by hearing the kerygma
Move freely toward God
Believe revelation
Especially that we are justified by God’s grace through the redemption in Jesus Christ
Know ourselves to be a sinner
Trust in the mercy and love of God for Christ’s sake
Repent of our sins
Resolve to receive baptism
Begin a new life
Obey the commandments of God (the obedience of faith)
I should also make it clear that any genuinely good thing that we ever do is made possible through our cooperation with God's efficacious grace. Upon re-reading my earlier post, I realize I could sound semi-Pelagian or Pelagian.
Sherry,
I know the components of kerygma and didache as well as their connection to Jesus Christ. But that kerygma is given through the Church (previously to the people of Israel in the Shema, i.e., part of the Temple liturgy). Of course, it is always about Christ, but it is delivered within the Body of Christ or the Church. I'm not saying that Christ is subordinate to the Church, but that He is always with His Church and the Church is always with and in His presence. And, while it seems that in your exegesis (or Cantalamessa's) the Church on earth is accounted for, we must always start with the post-Resurrection accounts and then Pentecost. And it does not account for the pre-existence of the Church in the mind of God. This is not an abstraction, but an invisible entity. And both the kerygma and teachings derive ultimately from baptismal formulae, which are Trinitarian in nature and come from the Church, not from individuals or particular churches (and, of course, are the foundation for subsequent doctrinal elaboration, as you said).
But the Universal Church (or the Heavenly Jerusalem) is prior to every earthly instance of kerygma or teaching or the Church on earth (in the same manner that Israel or the Torah were considered pre-existent by Second Temple Judaism, Philo, etc.). This heavenly Church has always been the companion of the Word of God, even before the advent of His Incarnation, because it is part of God's design for creation. So the Universal Church precedes any earthly manifestation of it and is always accompanied by the Word of God. Moreover, we speak about the Church when we speak about God because the Church is always part of His design.
As Joseph Ratzinger said (2000): "Here the starting point of communio is brought to the fore: the encounter with the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who comes to men and women through the Church's proclamation. . . . In the Eucharist Christ, present in the bread and wine and giving himself ever anew, builds the Church as his body and through his risen body unites us to the Triune God and to one another."
I found your outline of the steps toward conversion interesting, but I still don't see a place for the Church. Even the last point, on obeying the commandments, doesn't mention the Church. So where does it come in? According to Gal. 4.26, the Church precedes us, so it's not a negligible issue.
Susan
Challenge: Name a saint who did NOT have a very personal relationship with Jesus. Who did not speak of Jesus with great love?
Some terms of endearment and evidence of deep, deep relationships:
O my Beloved, for love of you, I accept not seeing here below the gentleness of your Look nor feeling the ineffable kiss of your Mouth, but I beg you to inflame me with your love so that it may consume me rapidly and soon bring me into your presence: Therese of the Holy Face.” (ET 104)
Thomas Aquinas:
"Lord Jesus Christ, I pray that the fiery and honey-sweet power of Thy love may detach my soul from everything under heaven, so that I may. die from love of Thy love, Who, out of love for. mine, did'st die upon the tree of the Cross. Amen."
"Lord, take me from myself and give me to yourself." St Catherine of Siena
0 GOD, I love thee, I love thee-
Not out of hope of heaven for me
Nor fearing not to love and be
In the everlasting burning.
Thou, thou, my Jesus, after me
Didst reach thine arms out dying,
For my sake sufferedst nails, and lance,
Mocked and marred countenance,
Sorrows passing number,
Sweat and care and cumber,
Yea and death, and this for me,
And thou couldst see me sinning:
Then I, why should not I love thee,
Jesu, so much in love with me?
Not for heaven's sake;
not to be out of hell by loving thee;
Not for any gains I see;
But just the way that thou didst me
I do love and I will love thee:
What must I love thee, Lord, for then?
For being my king and God. Amen.
St. Francis Xavier
Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore,
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.
Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived:
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there's nothing true.
On the cross thy godhead made no sign to men,
Here thy very manhood steals from human ken:
Both are my confession, both are my belief,
And I pray the prayer of the dying thief.
I am not like Thomas, wounds I cannot see,
But can plainly call thee Lord and God as he;
Let me to a deeper faith daily nearer move,
Daily make me harder hope and dearer love.
O thou our reminder of Christ crucified,
Living Bread, the life of us for whom he died,
Lend this life to me then: feed and feast my mind,
There be thou the sweetness man was meant to find.
Bring the tender tale true of the Pelican;
Bathe me, Jesu Lord, in what thy bosom ran---
Blood whereof a single drop has power to win
All the world forgiveness of its world of sin.
Jesu, whom I look at shrouded here below,
I beseech thee send me what I thirst for so,
Some day to gaze on thee face to face in light
And be blest for ever with thy glory's sight. Amen.
St Thomas....
See..these are FRIENDS, NO LOVERS of Jesus. Can't get more of a personal relationship than this! And out of Love of Jesus we Love his people, His CHURCH. We serve even as we are served.
Once again it is BOTH and AND. We should not be entertaining a false choice: personal relationship with Jesus or His Church. We love Jesus; and so we love His Body--the Church.
PS challenge number 2 -- find evidence of more intimate relationships than the saints amongst our evangelical friends. Maybe as intimate but I doubt one could find More intimate.
I understand that evangelization as defined by the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the proclamation of Christ, but the definition of the Church in the Catechism is this: "The Church was made manifest to the world on the day of Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The gift of the Spirit ushers in a new era in the "dispensation of the mystery" the age of the Church, during which Christ manifests, makes present, and communicates his work of salvation through the liturgy of his Church, "until he comes." In this age of the Church Christ now lives and acts in and with his Church, in a new way appropriate to this new age. He acts through the sacraments in what the common Tradition of the East and the West calls "the sacramental economy"; this is the communication (or "dispensation") of the fruits of Christ's Paschal mystery in the celebration of the Church's "sacramental" liturgy (CCC #1076)."
This would indicate that one cannot proclaim Christ without proclaiming the Church. In fact, the Catechism states:
Christ and his Church thus together make up the "whole Christ" (Christus totus). The Church is one with Christ. The saints are acutely aware of this unity:
Let us rejoice then and give thanks that we have become not only Christians, but Christ himself. Do you understand and grasp, brethren, God's grace toward us? Marvel and rejoice: we have become Christ. For if he is the head, we are the members; he and we together are the whole man. . . . The fullness of Christ then is the head and the members. But what does "head and members" mean? Christ and the Church.
Our redeemer has shown himself to be one person with the holy Church whom he has taken to himself.
Head and members form as it were one and the same mystical person.
A reply of St. Joan of Arc to her judges sums up the faith of the holy doctors and the good sense of the believer: "About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they're just one thing, and we shouldn't complicate the matter (CCC #795)."
So how does one proclaim Christ without also at the same time proclaiming His Church? This would appear to be the fully Catholic way of missionization.
Susan
Also, the Council of Trent did post those "pre-baptismal" dispositions you posted. But one also needs to read the Canons from the 6th Session, i.e., canon 19, 20 (on the commandments of God AND of the Churh), 23 (on those who believe that one can sin no more after "justification").
Susan
Susan:
As outlined so clearly by the Council of Trent above, the *first, initial proclamation* of the Gospel that awakens *initial faith* (as opposed to the fullness of the faith), is the kerygma, and is always about Christ, the head, God incarnate, The presence of the Body is implied (hence believing revelation, baptism) but the object of first proclamation and of initial faith is not the Church, but the Head of the Church. We trust the Church because she is the Bride of Christ.
The proclamation of Christ is the permanent priority, foundation, center, summit of evangelization. Mission of the Redeemer, 44. Proclaiming Christ is a matter of people’s salvation. (Evangelization in the Modern World, 5)
What St. Peter proclaimed on the day of Pentecost is exactly what the Church still holds to be the kerygma which is clearly distinguished in the General Directory of Catechesis from “initiatory catechesis” which follows the awakening of initial faith through initial proclamation. So we really are talking about two different things that are both part of the same overall formation process.
We routinely quote the St. Augustine quote on the church that you mention above in Making Disciples but it still does not change the content of initial proclamation which is our concern in this discussion.
Many Catholics, practicing or not, have never heard the initial proclamation of Christ in a way that that awakens initial faith. They have been inserted into the Body but have no conscious relationship with the Head of that Body.
And the Council of Trent’s teaching on justification makes it very clear that conscious, intentional faith filled with hope and love *in Christ* is a non-negotiable foundation for anyone who has reached the age of reason to receive sanctifying grace. Without it, we are not justified. We receive the sacramental character but not the grace.
We are not separating Christ from the Church. We are trying to make sure that Catholics have truly encountered the Head of the Church as well as his Body. And that’s as Catholic as it gets.
I’ve got to get to work now on exactly this topic, so can’t post anymore on the topic
My question is: how exactly do you make Christ known? Is it through the Scriptures? Through prayer? Through Eucharistic adoration? I guess my question is what is the context in which you make Christ better known?
Susan
Briefly:
All of the above. (You'll be happy to know that we explicitly talk about the impact of Eucharistic Adoration in this area).
For post-moderns, its a process and different things will speak to different people.
So also just being a good friend, asking thought-provoking questions, inviting them to tell you about their lived relationship to God, simply telling the story of what Christ has done in your life, giving seekers an experience of genuine Christian community, exposing them to the Church's ministry to the poor, etc. And Scripture, prayer, Eucharistic Adoration, books and media if they are those kind of people.
I know I am entering the fray rather late and I've posted a much more detailed response here.
I am not going to pass judgment on the Evangelical Catholic Institute. I will say that including speakers that publicly oppose the Magisterium does not encourage me to utilize their services. There are many other groups that are completely and unquestionably loyal to the Magisterium for me to waste my time sifting through their materials double-checking their orthodoxy.
I never like descriptive adjectives to precede the label Catholic. We are Catholic—period. Evangelical Catholic sounds like it is something new and different. We have been called to evangelize since the time of the Apostles. Perhaps this group would stir less controversy if they emphasized their Catholicity more. If they were called the Catholic Evangelization Institute they would be less vague about their mission: to spread the message of Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and teach others how to do it as well.
Actually, most of us are Roman Catholics. There are Easter Rite Catholics in union with the Holy Father known as Melkite Catholics, Ruthenian Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, Maronite Catholics, etc.
The Paulists have a Catholic Evangelization Institute at St. Paul's in Washington, DC, so that name is taken.
I appreciate the concern for fidelity to the magisterium, and I would be concerned about the Evangelical Catholic if they had asked Fr. Bacik to speak on women's ordination or artificial means of birth control. My understanding is he gave a small workshop on campus ministry, his area of expertise and the setting in which EC has traditionally worked, at a larger EC meeting.
If you take a look at the members of their Board of Directors, you get a sense that they are serious about being in the heart of the Roman Catholic Church. Avery Cardinal Dulles unorthodox? Monsignor Stuart Swetland? You may not have heard of him, but he currently serves as Director of Homiletics and Pre-Theology at Mount St. Mary's Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland. He also currently serves as Theological Advisor to the Catholic Conference of Illinois and is the Executive Secretary for the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars. Msgr. Swetland was named a Prelate of Honor in 2000 by His Holiness John Paul II.
I certainly am not questioning the orthodoxy of the Board of Directors of the EC Institute. However, they do not get a pass because Fr. Bacik was not asked to speak on women's ordination. Just as a Catholic University or school should not provide a position of honor or a platform for pro-abortion politicians, a truly Catholic institute should not endorse a speaker who is openly defiant of the Magisterium, even if the topic he is officially addressing is unrelated to his topic of dissent. If he is willing to blatantly ignore the Magisterium in one area, there is no reason to believe he won't reject it in another area as well. Humble obedience to Church teaching is the mark of true conversion.
Post a Comment
<< Home