If pope is Peter's succesor why didn't he call the UN to Christ?

I am seeing this on many evangelical blogs after the Pope’s recently finished address to the UN.

A perfect opportunity. Peter would have done it - as one Protestant blogger said - why didn’t Benedict?!

His life was not in threat. He would not lose the vatican palace.

Why didn’t he preach Christ to the UN?

And that he didn’t - those of you who have doubts - this will reaffirm them. Others - i think this will plant the seeds.

And is anyone surprised at the recent Pew report - Catholics leaving their church for evangelical Christianity in great numbers.

South and central America embracing evangelicalism in growing numbers.

Is the shephard of Chrits supposed to preach “green” or illegal immagration? Or is he supposed to preach the Gospel.

This trip is in my opinion turning into a disaster.

And it seems, despite how EWTN is trying to whitewash things, that orthodox Catholics ain’t too happy.

There is a time and place for everything. Preaching when you are supposed to be addressing something else means strained ties. Actions speak louder than words and in this case common sense.

If he started preaching at the UN, what would other world leaders think? They would not start to take him as seriously and he may have to try harder to get their attention the next time around when something needs to be done. JPII handled governments well, and I hope Benedict does the same.

Do you see Catholic physics teachers preaching the gospel when they are giving a lecture on special relativity?

Come on. Did Jesus or peter ever think what the leaders of their time would have thought at thier words?

Do you think a Muslim or Mormon would soft=peddle things? They beleive they have the triuth!! Lord, if Benedict beleived this he would have taken this opportunity to preach it!!. I am not catholic and for good reason. This Papal visit confirms my beleif that catholics at the highest level really don’t beleive. Forget the lowest level. My Catholic co-workers joke about Lent and giving up candy or wine. The latter far harder. It really is a joke affirmed in my opinion by a politically correct not radically Christian visit by Pope Benedict…

My departure from the Catholic church is reaffirmed by the political correctness, pro-green, pro-illegal immigrant sense of Benedict’s visit.

He said he was coming to confirm the faithful. Where is that? He has just re-affirmed the politically correct zeitgist from what I’ve seen. And that is listening to EWTN. Forget MSNBC.

Jesus and Peter did care what others thought about them, because they cared about the people. They also had common sense, when they preached they went out with the SOLE intention of preaching.

Benedict’s speech to the UN was on a different matter, Benedict wasn’t out to preach. It is unfair to others when you come and say you are going to address something but then you go ahead and do something else.

How would you like it if someone of another religion was supposed to be addressing something but instead started preaching his religion? The Papal visit confirms that the Pope has done what he was supposed to do, if he went and preached it would mean he lied to the UN and didn’t do what he was supposed to do and took advantage of the meeting. That’s known as a sin. That’s what you are propagating here.

Shame on you.

It is also perhaps a reason why the Popes still have influence over the world and can change things for the better or not, JPII did precisely that. If Benedict does something stupid, he will strain his ties, and later when his influence is needed for perhaps swaying away leaders from making a decision on war, it would be in vain because he lost all credibility by doing something when he was meant to be doing something else.

They are in a seat of power and authority, they have to use their common sense and not be swayed by what a protestant blogger thinks or what the local pastor thinks.

If you are expecting evangelical blogs to be giving the Pope rave reviews, you’re fishing in a polluted lake. (so to speak, no disrespect of their beliefs)

I saw some film footage of his UN visit, to me, he was preaching and teaching Christ. To paraphrase St Francis of Assissi: “Preach the gospel everywhere - use words if you must”

IMHO, most people who leave the Catholic church, were never fully chatechized to understand that we have (IMHO) the fullness of truth.

Sounds like talk radio…I think he points out what he must as guided by the gospels, the Holy Spirit, along with 2000 years of tradition. and literally millions of people praying for him. Maybe, he’s not doing anything wrong at all. Maybe he just hit some political nerve that bothered you.

But I think you made your mind up long before the Pope got on that plane didn’t you? You’ve already left the Catholic Church as you stated above.

On the other hand, I believe this trip is inspiring alot of people.

How do you know? Are THEY posting on evangelical blogs now?


By the way, if you’ve already left the church, why do care what the Pope is doing???


The Popes of the 20th century have done a great deal. Pius XII with helping so many Jews and quotes from various Jewish leaders at the time prove this. Despite some slandering going on today.

John XXIII, John Paul II, I’m sorry, no other leader has come anywhere close to accomplishing what these popes have done.

Come on. Stop making excuses. When it is ever “unfair” to preach the “truth”. Osn’t that what the succesor of peter should be doing. Chritst as the only way. An if he is not doing that - as benedict clrearly isn’t - well that should raise red red flags to you.

This trip is turning into a disaster, because of its plolitcal correctness and almost total lack of a Gospel message. The secularits are loving it more each day. Christians - orthodox catholic or evangelical - seem to be being turned off more each day. Its funny to listen to EWTN trying to spin what is obviously turning a major disappointment.

I was under the impression that the Pope was addressing the UN as a Head of State, not as a circuit-riding preacher. His message has always been the Gospel, yet there is a time and a place for everything.

Jesus also said not to cast pearls before swine.

Depending on where you fall on the political spectrum, giving a homily to the UN might fall into that category. :rolleyes:

Why doesn’t this surprise me? These are probably the same people who think Mother Teresa was a failure because she decided to live the gospel rather than stand up and preach it.

A perfect opportunity. Peter would have done it - as one Protestant blogger said - why didn’t Benedict?!

“Christ our Hope.” That is the theme of his visit. Have you listened to the Pope at all since he’s been visiting the states?

Doesn’t scripture make it clear that we are ALL to preach the Gospel? Or was it only Peter? Did you fail to preach the gospel to every person you had the opportunity to today? Because if you did, you missed a perfect opportunity.

His life was not in threat.

Was yours?

Why didn’t he preach Christ to the UN?

As the shepard of over a billion people, the Pope has more responsibilities than just preaching the Gospel. That being said, I’m sure you heard him preach Christ during his homily yesterday, just as you will when you listen to him preach on Sunday.

*“Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words.” *

                                     St. Francis of Assisi

You need to point how how I am making ‘excuses’ you are telling me implicitly that lying to the UN is a good thing.

So that’s that.

The bolded bits need to be proved, you can’t make statements and expect us to take it seriously without proof

I would argue that he DID call the UN to Christ. It doesn’t have to be done in the way that an evangelical would proselytize. Instead, he appealed to their consciences on the level that they can immediately relate. Not unlike Paul the Apostle. He spoke of where faith is not in contradiction to human concerns. He, indeed, offered an incarnational evangelization, showing how Christ crosses paths with the interests of every man.

We must also remember that the pope was not appearing first and foremost in this context as the leader of the Catholic Church, but as a head of state who happens to be the successor of Peter. So how something is approached is dependent upon context which is available.

Precisely, the OP is rather clueless. One has to preach the gospel where appropriate and when appropriate.

What would have Peter done given the opportunity? I suspect in your heart you know the answer and/but are not willing to confront it. It is not about protocol - Jesus was never about that. I think the good thing here is that more will come to see the Catholic church for what it is really not. Not the truth certainly. It had it once IMO but has long since given in to the powers, secular, that be.

I can tell you evangelicals were expecting Benedict to procalim Christ as Lord at the UN. Unfortunately Catholics judging from EWTN, always suspect, were not expecting that. Why not. It’s true isn’t it? If you believe it. He suposedly does. He could even have added IMO. Do you doubt for a minute that Billy Graham would have not decalred/affirmed Jeus as Lord and Savious if ever have given a chance to address the UN?

That even you, I assume a believing Catholic, are willing to compromise in such an historic moment. Well that says it all.

If you have the supposed truth, but are unwilling to proclaim it, then others can honestly question if you have the truth at all.

I don’t know what Peter would have done, neither do you. If you do, provide me evidence.

If the Pope decided to give a homily that would pretty much be the end of the Vatican’s ties with the UN until the next pope. They wouldn’t take him seriously and would be the one they would last call when universal decisions are being made.

I think this conversation is over. So instead of wasting time with us ‘believing catholics’ go preach the gospel somewhere, see you are not doing as Peter and Jesus instructed, you are compromising, wasting time. How evil. Hypocrite.

Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.

It is a matter of prudence in approach and understanding your audience. Conversions were not likely to be made by banging the Bible over ambassadors’ heads. But in offering the kind of respectful, insightful speech which he did, along with his gracious presence, he certainly did a lot to attract them to Christ.

And he did. Just not how an evangelical would have liked. After all he isn’t an evangelical and shouldn’t be held to their standards.

The real shame is if some evangelicals can’t see what he DID do to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to the UN.

You certainly are a person full of assumptions.:eek:

If your shephard is not willing to publicly procalim Christ as Saviour before the world - which defacto the UN is today - then I don’t think you have as shephard as understood at the time of Jesus.

Compromise, being lukewarm. Read the Gospel.

Instead of giving me a lecture on the gospel, or people here, or criticizing the pope, go do something else, perhaps practicing what you preach and preaching it to some unbelievers. That is all I have to say.

If you can’t discern when the ‘right time’ is I suggest you re-read the gospel before preaching.

Firstly, people have to understand what it means to preach in Christ’s name and what exactly the message is.

Christ’s message is of peace, warmth, generosity, and also something that leads to the conscience being examined. That is what the Pope did.

Preaching Christ’s message is not necessarily quoting scripture. Given that half the people in the UN aren’t going to take it seriously if they don’t believe in Christ in the first place. It’s as useless as quoting the Qu’ran here because no one believes in it.

If you want people to TRULY believe in Christ, you would do ‘actions’ instead of rambling on. So many people didn’t take Christ seriously when he spoke, even the Jews at the temple didn’t believe him when he quoted sometimes from the OT. What makes you think the people at the UN who don’t believe in Christianity are going to embrace the Pope quoting scripture. Instead he was smart about it.

Show me what the Pope said that was un-Christian. Did he preach violence, hatred, sexism or anything of that kind? If no, you don’t have a case here.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.