The Birth of an anti-catholic (The laity as evangelists)
Padraic42
I was thinking of naming this thread "The Lay Apostolate" but thought naming
it after the possible results would be more in line with our role as Catholics
in the world.
When a soldier or sailor of the US Armed Forces is overseas, he acts as a
kind of 'ambassador' for the United States. Often they are the 'only'
representative of the US the people in that country will see. So it is
important that they act accordingly.
Likewise, 'we' are the 'representatives' of the Church in a world steeped in
materialism, self centeredness, and other things. It isn't enough that many
religious don't wear their 'uniform' in this world. (Sometimes just the
appearance of a nun or a priest in public can bring the thoughts of others to
God) But many Catholics don't even 'wear their faith' in public, to bring
others thoughts to God.
"What specifically characterizes the laity is their secular nature. It is
true that those in holy orders can at times be engaged in secular activities,
and even have a secular profession. But they are by reason of their particular
vocation especially and professedly ordained to the sacred ministry. Similarly,
by their state in life, religious give splendid and striking testimony that the
world cannot be transformed and offered to God without the spirit of the
beatitudes. But the laity, by their very vocation, seek the kingdom of God by
engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God.
They live in the world, that is, in each and in all of the secular professions
and occupations. They live in the ordinary circumstances of family and social
life, from which the very web of their existence is woven. They are called
there by God that by exercising their proper function and led by the spirit of
the Gospel they may work for the sanctification of the world from within as a
leaven. In this way they may make Christ known to others, especially by the
testimony of a life resplendent in faith, hope and charity." (Vatican II; Lumen
Gentium, Chap. IV, The Laity; #31)
The laity are often the only 'Catholics' others will see, and their actions
often do more to 'define' the Church than those 'religious'. I was partly
struck by this yesterday watching "Caroline in the City". In one scene,
Caroline's friend tells her that even the Pope forgave the guy who shot him.
"Yes, but that's his job!" Caroline answered. That's 'our' job too.
We, the laity, are the 'leaven', the 'yeast' of the Church in a world
increasingly growing cold. In Call To Action's 'referendum', they look to
"GAUDIUM ET SPES" as their 'guide' for the laity in the Church, rather than the
'guide' of the laity in the world.
"1. The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this
age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys
and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ. Indeed, nothing
genuinely human fails to raise an echo in their hearts. For theirs is a
community composed of men. United in Christ, they are led by the Holy Spirit in
their journey to the Kingdom of their Father and they have welcomed the news of
salvation which is meant for every man. That is why this community realizes
that it is truly linked with mankind and its history by the deepest of bonds.
2. Hence this Second Vatican Council, having probed more profoundly into the
mystery of the Church, now addresses itself without hesitation, not only to the
sons of the Church and to all who invoke the name of Christ, but to the whole
of humanity. For the council yearns to explain to everyone how it conceives of
the presence and activity of the Church in the world of today." (Vat. II;
GAUDIUM ET SPES [Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World];
Preface)
After explaining the Church, it's beliefs, it's structure, it's worship,
etc., it relates how THAT Church is the 'leaven' in the world. NOT how that
Church has to 'adapt' to the world.
And in that 'Apostolate', we laity often fail miserably. Often through
indifference, through actions, through words. And too many times this leads
another to a misinterpretation of the Church.
It was no accident that the Confiteor (once said at every Mass) had the
phrase;
"...I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed. Through my fault,
through my fault, through my most grievous fault."
And some think that this 'Apostolate' lies in political, social, or economic
action.
"Christ, to be sure, gave His Church no proper mission in the political,
economic or social order. The purpose which He set before her is a religious
one. But out of this religious mission itself come a function, a light and an
energy which can serve to structure and consolidate the human community
according to the divine law. As a matter of fact, when circumstances of time
and place produce the need, she can and indeed should initiate activities on
behalf of all men, especially those designed for the needy, such as the works
of mercy and similar undertakings."
(Vat. II; GAUDIUM ET SPES; Part I The Church and Man's Calling
Chapter I The Role of the Church in the Modern World; #42)
It isn't that we show our love of God by joining 'political, social, or
economic' action groups, but rather, out of our love of God, we work toward
social, political, and economic order. And how we 'live' our lives, both in
private and public, does much to foster a sense of this order.
When one 'dissents' from the teachings of the Church, is it any wonder that
the Church is seen as 'ineffectual'? If we do not live a life of repentance,
can we expect others to do so?
Is it any wonder that some 'anti-catholics' attack the Church for 'promoting'
drunkeness? Sadly, go to any Catholic University and no doubt you'll find
students being 'poured out' of the student 'Ratskeller' (the John Carroll Univ.
student 'pub') It's not wrong for this to be there, one has to learn to even
drink responsibly.
How difficult is it to see an 'anti-catholic' being born when their child is
molested by a Catholic (religious or lay) or one wears clothes leaving little
to the imagination and their crucifix hanging from their neck. Or sees a
Catholic leave Mass and picks up the latest issue of Playboy, or even worse
literature.
Even in sin, we can be 'evangelists'. In an editorial ("The Good Bad
Catholic; The Catholic World Report; April 96, pg 64) two 'Catholics' are
contrasted. The first was the author's friend who, after reading an article
about another Catholic theologian, threw the paper across the room in disgust.
"I might not 'practice' the Catholic faith very well," (he) confessed. "But I
'believe' it. And I can't stand these phonies." (He) was no hypocrite. He
did not follow his own beliefs , but neither did he adjust those beliefs to
salve his consceince. By his own admission he was a "bad Catholic"....From
time to time I would find him at Sunday Mass, kneeling ('always' kneeling,
never sitting or standing) in a pew near the rear of the church, with his eyes
downcast. Occasionally - perhaps just once or twice a year - I would see him
in line to recieve Communion....when I saw (him) prepared to recieve the
Eucharist, I knew I was - for that moment at least- in the presence of a
saint.....I was quite certain that he would not recieve Holy Communion without
first having made a good confession.
Now I live in a different parish...One prominent member of this new parish
owns a shopping mall, where one large store specializes in X-rated books and
videos. I have urged him to end his lease with the pornographer and find a
more suitable tenant; he is unmoved by my please. I have spoken with the
pastor; he seems to think the issue doesn't concern him. But when I see this
man at Mass, I'm afraid I feel no joy in my communion with him.....
I think of (the friend) and the effort he must have made to prepare himself
for the Eucharist. I think of him too when I stand in line behind adults in
ragged sweatpants, or teenagers in T-shirts that bear obscene slogans. How can
I experiance that thrill of spiritual communion, when all available evidence
suggests that the people who surrounf me feel nothing at all?"
If one can see a disavowing of faith in the people in a Mass, how more so can
non-Catholics see the same thing in our public lives?
As we have seen here far too many times, the actions of the people IN the
Church are used to make a judgement ABOUT the Church. A bishop abuses the
Church's teaching on indulgences and the Church is seen as selling indulgences.
Soldiers of the Crusades rape and ransack a town, and the Church is seen as
advocating violence.
The list could go on and on.
It isn't that we are perfect, but we must remember who we are, what we have
promised. We 'evangelize' every day, wether we know it or not.
The Catholic who 'lives' their faith in the work place and at home does more
to evangelize than a hundred evangelists handing out tracts or going door to
door.
The Catholic who is a 'leader' in the parish who does not 'live' their faith
at home or work does little to bring Christ to the world. They aren't a 'light
to the world', a 'city on a hill top', they're more like a Bic lighter, only
used occasionally and for personal use.
Christ began His ministry in His local temple. Nothing big, no grand
entrance. St. Francis of Assisi began his by merely repairing an old,
forgotten church.
But in both cases, their 'life' for all to see drew men to them to hear what
they had to say. If we 'live' our faith, if we put the teachings of Christ
into action, if we go into the world, without being OF the world, people will
come to us and ask, "What gives you such strenght? Such peace? How can I find
that peace?"
At the end of every Mass, the 'Celebrant' says, "The Mass has ended, go in
peace to love and serve the Lord". If we truly do that, after time, we may
need to build more churches to care for the throngs who come. But sadly, many
of us leave our 'love and service to the Lord' at the church doors.
Many of us do not take the words of St. Paul to heart.
" Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men?
If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ." (Gal.1:10)
We act as though we're ashamed of being Catholic, or worse, as though it
means nothing to be a Catholic.
To fulfill the 'lay apostolate' Vatican II called for, to be a 'light unto
the nations' we have to "... walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires
of the flesh." (Gal. 5:16)
" Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity,
licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger,
selfishness, dissension, party spirit, 21 envy, * drunkenness, carousing, and
the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things
shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love,
joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness,
self-control; against such there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ
Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." (Gal. 5:19-24)
When we live by the works of the flesh we not only do not 'bring the light
of Christ into the world', we in fact help bring about new anti-catholics who
can point to our lives as poor of the Church's 'lies'.
When we live by the works of the Spirit, we 'evangalize' the Church, bring
the light of Christ to those seeking the light, and disarm the anti-catholic.
In this way, all they can say is "See how they love one another."
"Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a
tender heart and a humble mind. 9 Do not return evil for evil or reviling for
reviling; but on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called, that you
may obtain a blessing. 10* For "He that would love life and see good days, let
him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking guile; 11 let him turn
away from evil and do right; let him seek peace and pursue it. 12 For the eyes
of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But
the face of the Lord is against those that do evil." (1 Peter 3:8-12)
"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If any one loves the
world, love for the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the
lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the
Father but is of the world. 17 And the world passes away, and the lust of it;
but he who does the will of God abides for ever." (1 Jn. 2:15-17)
Pax Christi, Pat
I\
I/ "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his
cross and
_I_ follow me" (Matt. 16:24)
I
Mark Johnson
padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
[e-mailed and ng posted (having trouble with my ISP)]
> After explaining the Church, it's beliefs, it's structure, it's worship,
>etc., it relates how THAT Church is the 'leaven' in the world. NOT how that
>Church has to 'adapt' to the world.
I'm afraid you misread the 'spirit of Vatican II'. That is the unholy
spirit, the heresy which is afoot. And Gaudium is not free from error,
I would guess, either. But then it's not supposed to be.
> It was no accident that the Confiteor (once said at every Mass) had the
>phrase;
> "...I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed. Through my fault,
>through my fault, through my most grievous fault."
But you miss the point, again. It was "no accident" that the priest
confessed silently, and that the servers confessed also to him. If
said at all, which is rare, what passes for the Act of Contrition in
'new order' is the confession of the priest, but never the confession
of the faithful.
And yet - you defend 'new order'. I just don't understand.
> Now I live in a different parish...One prominent member of this new parish
>owns a shopping mall, where one large store specializes in X-rated books and
>videos. I have urged him to end his lease with the pornographer and find a
>more suitable tenant; he is unmoved by my pleas. I have spoken with the
>pastor; he seems to think the issue doesn't concern him. But when I see this
>man at Mass, I'm afraid I feel no joy in my communion with him.....
a) why should a trendy pastor care about anything but himself, and the
few people he capriciously deigns to help, as a good deed (cause even
scoudrels will help certain people in need, if they fit some
'profile'). The pastor isn't Catholic. He doesn't believe. In the past
you may have had pastors who made bad decisions, or who were not
bright - though many had to be. But the situation today is even worse
than that.
b) the 'communion' is either an act of forgiveness and prayer for
conversion and repentance, or an objective fact that one either is or
is not in communion with another based on whether they believe and act
on - what Catholics believe - and were validily Baptized and
Confirmed.
> I think of (the friend) and the effort he must have made to prepare himself
>for the Eucharist. I think of him too when I stand in line behind adults in
>ragged sweatpants, or teenagers in T-shirts that bear obscene slogans. How can
>I experiance that thrill of spiritual communion, when all available evidence
>suggests that the people who surrounf me feel nothing at all?"
Well, again, to whoever you're quoting, here, I'd say that they _do_
feel something. That's the whole point. They watch Oprah. They cry on
cue. And they may also be vicious bastards. That's what you get from
superficial emotion. They do 'feel'. They are passionate. They have
little self-control, and are driven by their passions, not by humility
or reason. They serve the devil. Sad but true. And that's why they are
there, rather than at Holy Mass, or one of the Eastern Catholic rites.
> As we have seen here far too many times, the actions of the people IN the
>Church are used to make a judgement ABOUT the Church.
Yeah, exactly. Check out the book I quote from, below, and tell me
what example a Catholic can set.
> At the end of every Mass, the 'Celebrant' says, "The Mass has ended, go in
>peace to love and serve the Lord". If we truly do that, after time, we may
>need to build more churches to care for the throngs who come. But sadly, many
>of us leave our 'love and service to the Lord' at the church doors.
It's the Protestant way, perhaps - though it didn't always used to be
(witness all the Protestant legislation over the centuries when
Protestants were 'true believers', and tyrants).
> We act as though we're ashamed of being Catholic, or worse, as though it
>means nothing to be a Catholic.
It doesn't. A 'we are church', 'changing church catholic' is a
Protestant, a pagan, an undefined faith, but certainly not one to
defend. Catholics stand for - what Catholics believe. These people
you, or whoever here, refers to basically aren't Catholic. Maybe a few
are, in the pews, wondering what's going on, a few new converts
disgusted by what they see. But largely, they're not Catholic. They
don't confess the Faith. They don't believe - what Catholics believe.
Read the quote, below. It's _them_.
>Pax Christi, Pat
Peace.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nations wandered blindly, and unceasingly proclaimed
that their aimless circlings and uneasy spiralings
meant progress, while materially and morally they meant
only incessant change of direction. . . history shows
that a nation that barters its soul for material ideals
is a nation that is doomed.
[Lockington, The Soul of Ireland,
http://abbey.apana.org.au/Other/Ireland/Ireland.txt ]
Mark Johnson
padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
[e-mailed and ng posted (having trouble with my ISP)]
> After explaining the Church, it's beliefs, it's structure, it's worship,
>etc., it relates how THAT Church is the 'leaven' in the world. NOT how that
>Church has to 'adapt' to the world.
I'm afraid you misread the 'spirit of Vatican II'. That is the unholy
spirit, the heresy which is afoot. And Gaudium is not free from error,
I would guess, either. But then it's not supposed to be.
> It was no accident that the Confiteor (once said at every Mass) had the
>phrase;
> "...I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed. Through my fault,
>through my fault, through my most grievous fault."
But you miss the point, again. It was "no accident" that the priest
confessed silently, and that the servers confessed also to him. If
said at all, which is rare, what passes for the Act of Contrition in
'new order' is the confession of the priest, but never the confession
of the faithful.
And yet - you defend 'new order'. I just don't understand.
> Now I live in a different parish...One prominent member of this new parish
>owns a shopping mall, where one large store specializes in X-rated books and
>videos. I have urged him to end his lease with the pornographer and find a
>more suitable tenant; he is unmoved by my pleas. I have spoken with the
>pastor; he seems to think the issue doesn't concern him. But when I see this
>man at Mass, I'm afraid I feel no joy in my communion with him.....
a) why should a trendy pastor care about anything but himself, and the
few people he capriciously deigns to help, as a good deed (cause even
scoudrels will help certain people in need, if they fit some
'profile'). The pastor isn't Catholic. He doesn't believe. In the past
you may have had pastors who made bad decisions, or who were not
bright - though many had to be. But the situation today is even worse
than that.
b) the 'communion' is either an act of forgiveness and prayer for
conversion and repentance, or an objective fact that one either is or
is not in communion with another based on whether they believe and act
on - what Catholics believe - and were validily Baptized and
Confirmed.
> I think of (the friend) and the effort he must have made to prepare himself
>for the Eucharist. I think of him too when I stand in line behind adults in
>ragged sweatpants, or teenagers in T-shirts that bear obscene slogans. How can
>I experiance that thrill of spiritual communion, when all available evidence
>suggests that the people who surrounf me feel nothing at all?"
Well, again, to whoever you're quoting, here, I'd say that they _do_
feel something. That's the whole point. They watch Oprah. They cry on
cue. And they may also be vicious bastards. That's what you get from
superficial emotion. They do 'feel'. They are passionate. They have
little self-control, and are driven by their passions, not by humility
or reason. They serve the devil. Sad but true. And that's why they are
there, rather than at Holy Mass, or one of the Eastern Catholic rites.
> As we have seen here far too many times, the actions of the people IN the
>Church are used to make a judgement ABOUT the Church.
Yeah, exactly. Check out the book I quote from, below, and tell me
what example a Catholic can set.
> At the end of every Mass, the 'Celebrant' says, "The Mass has ended, go in
>peace to love and serve the Lord". If we truly do that, after time, we may
>need to build more churches to care for the throngs who come. But sadly, many
>of us leave our 'love and service to the Lord' at the church doors.
It's the Protestant way, perhaps - though it didn't always used to be
(witness all the Protestant legislation over the centuries when
Protestants were 'true believers', and tyrants).
> We act as though we're ashamed of being Catholic, or worse, as though it
>means nothing to be a Catholic.
It doesn't. A 'we are church', 'changing church catholic' is a
Padraic42
In article <35625a41...@news.pacbell.net>, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
Johnson) writes:
>
>[e-mailed and ng posted (having trouble with my ISP)]
>
>> After explaining the Church, it's beliefs, it's structure, it's worship,
>>etc., it relates how THAT Church is the 'leaven' in the world. NOT how that
>>Church has to 'adapt' to the world.
>
>I'm afraid you misread the 'spirit of Vatican II'. That is the unholy
>spirit, the heresy which is afoot. And Gaudium is not free from error,
>I would guess, either. But then it's not supposed to be.
Mark misread my post. I am NOT defending Call to Action, or other 'spirit of
Vatican II' teachings. In fact, I am giving what Vatican II actually teaches
in regard to the role of the laity, their 'Apostolate'.
Basically, that taking their teachings from the Church's teaching authority,
they go into the world (but not part of the world) to bring to it the light of
Christ.
Not to 'adapt', or change the light to make it fit the world view.
The 'anti-catholic' is created when people 'professing' to be Catholic act in
ways contrary to the teachings of the Church. Or use Church teaching to
'justify' an error.
For example, the 'Catholic' who holds only part of the Church teaching, and
begins beating up a homosexual while quoting Leviticus, Romans, etc, is NOT
giving a true example of what the Church teaches.
Hence, it's little wonder that a homosexual, seeing this, may conclude that
the Church advocates violence aganst homosexuals.
Or a member of the Church, using the notion of tithes used in ALL churches,
uses these to line his own pockets rather than them going to the Church or
parish as intended.
It can lead to some seeing the Church as merely wanting to get rich at the
expense of others.
THAT was the intent of the post. WE are the Church's 'ambassador's' in the
world.
We don't 'change' ourselves or the Church to make it more 'palatable' to the
world, but try to show the Light of Christ to a world engulfed in darkness.
THAT was the teaching of Gaudium.
If Mark ever paid attention, or actually read my posts, he'd know I am the
last one who would defend relativism, modernism, or "defend (the) 'new order'".
Mark Johnson
padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
>In article <35625a41...@news.pacbell.net>, 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
>Johnson) writes:
>>> After explaining the Church, it's beliefs, it's structure, it's worship,
>>>etc., it relates how THAT Church is the 'leaven' in the world. NOT how that
>>>Church has to 'adapt' to the world.
>>I'm afraid you misread the 'spirit of Vatican II'. That is the unholy
>>spirit, the heresy which is afoot. And Gaudium is not free from error,
>>I would guess, either. But then it's not supposed to be.
> Mark misread my post. I am NOT defending Call to Action, or other 'spirit of
>Vatican II' teachings. In fact, I am giving what Vatican II actually teaches
>in regard to the role of the laity, their 'Apostolate'.
I'm saying Gaudium may not be free from error.
> The 'anti-catholic' is created when people 'professing' to be Catholic act in
>ways contrary to the teachings of the Church. Or use Church teaching to
>'justify' an error.
But in the case of 'new order', we two seem to be at odds over exactly
what the Church teaches. Davies insists the institution could never
promulgate an illegal, invalid liturgy. He says the horse is not
fallen in the ditch because horses don't fall in ditches. And it
happened likely only because he made the horse get around and push.
> If Mark ever paid attention, or actually read my posts, he'd know I am the
>last one who would defend relativism, modernism, or "defend (the) 'new order'".
I didn't say that. You just jumped across that bridge on your own,
leaving the horse in the dust, I think. I know what you've written. I
know what you have consistently written. I don't even imagine that you
would knowingly defend the 'better way'. And yet - 'new order'. What
do you think of 'new order'? even in its pristine 1967 or 1969 form,
of which all those Englishman, and bishops and priests and the rest
disapproved for very good reason. I do read what you quote, and what
you write. Maybe, you oughta read _my_ posts, more carefully.
From before:
Peace.