A Random Post-Script
I have thought of one thing in regards to the present Mass and the Latin Mass. There are many of us, myself included, who love the the holiness, sacredness and great beauty of the Latin Mass. It brought the presence of God into the Mass and our selves. However, the issue isn't really Latin versus spoken language of the people. The issue is Paul VI Mass, present Mass, versus the Mass that was said in Latin. The old Missals had English on the left side and Latin on the right. Worshippers could chose to follow the Mass in English or Latin. Immediately after Vatican II the English of the old Latin Mass was used in Mass by priest and people together. Then came Paul VI Mass. It was watered down, weak, wimpy and lacking the silences for prayer, lacking in holiness. It fails to bring the presence of Christ. We have to work at experiencing Jesus. It should never be work but a mutual meeting, coming together of the Lord and His people. I personally love Latin, but if we could only have the old Mass back except in English, as a compromise, I would be happy! I know others who say the same.
Yes, you are right about Pope Benedict. I read his books commenting on that. My grandson, who often attended Latin Masses until they became taboo, has also attended an Ordinariate Rite Mass and says they are beautiful! He is 27, so he is not walking down memory lane longing for the good 'old days'.
I live in Midcoast Maine and have an aunt near Dover. Perhaps I will take a trip! Thanks, Chantal!!!
I need to read this again. Its not clear to me what you are saying or where you stand - left, right or in the middle. It is most likely me. I can be thick. So I will read it again, but if I have questions still, may I ask them.
The beauty of the Catholic Church may attract some people to become Catholic, but correct teaching is required to bring people to Christ.
The charism of Missio Dei is the proclamation of the gospel. So, it is somewhat concerning when the Holy Father does not clearly state what he means by proselytism versus evangelization.
The Holy Father has said, "St. Francis of Assisi told his friars: “Go out to the world, evangelize. And, if necessary, use words, too.” Evangelization is essentially witness. Proselytizing is convincing, but it is all about membership and takes your freedom away. I believe that this distinction can be of great help. "
Historically, Pope Francis is historically and factually wrong about St. Francis. St. Francis never uttered those words & in, fact, went to the caliphate himself to try to convince him the truth of the gospel w/ his words.
The word proselyte is used in the NT (namely Acts) in a postive manner. The words proselytize and evangelize are essentially synonyms. I have noticed some seminary professors on Twitter explain that the terms are different in Spanish, Pope Francis' native language, but they certainly are not in biblical Greek, so that point is moot.
In my experience, studying as an undergrad in the History Department, I took a class on the history of the Soviet Union. And it is with the rise of the secular atheist state from the 1920s to today where the term proselytism takes on a negative connotation & divided from the term evangelization.
So, a difference has emerged between the two terms with proselytism being viewed in the negative versus the positive view of the action of evangelization.
If we're going to operate as if these two words are different than clear definitions need to be hammered out with clear examples of one vs. the other.
Take for example, the Holy Father has said, "“How many times do we see evangelization as involving any number of strategies, tactics, maneuvers, techniques, as if we could convert people on the basis of our own arguments. Today the Lord says to us quite clearly: in the mentality of the Gospel, you do not convince people with arguments, strategies, or tactics. You convince them by simply learning how to welcome them.”
However, the strategies, tactics, maneuvers, etc. were never illuminated, so a problem develops because of the lack of clarity.
Proselytism becomes whatever a person doesn't like and that's what makes it different from evangelization. So, it's important for us when encountering this modern dichotomy to stress to someone who makes the distinction to be clear on the difference & give clear examples of the difference.
I do believe Francis is promoting a Universalist/Unitarian religion, but not Barron. Barron is much the opposite from Francis. I love Barron and have for many, many years. Francis is throwing out the baby with the bathwater in many areas of our Faith. I am still grieving the whole Pachemama episode. This female goddess is a goddess of child sacrifice. AS another god, she doesn't belong in the Catholic Church especially one to whom children were sacrificed. That is a mortal sin. Seeing priests and religious in the Vatican Gardens and in the presence of Francis, bowing, face to the ground to the Pachemama, which in the Catholic Church is THE Most profound worship given only to the one true God, was heart breaking!!!! And then Francis gave approval for this statue to be placed in churches around Rome which was further devastating! I heartily approve of the mission, purpose and changes of Vatican II, but V II has been hijacked by the left and made say and do things it never intended to do! Benedict XVI was a major mover of V II and yet he says the same as I do. In fact it is from him that I have learned these things. We need more Benedict the XVIs in our Church!!