MegaChurch or Catholic Church?

taylormarshall.com ^ | August 26, 2013 | Dr. Taylor Marshall

[NYer]

Megachurch. Two young ladies. Both had left the Catholic Church. Both were now attending “megachurches.” We had a good chat together. I wanted to understand their reasons for why they left the Catholic Church for a megachurch.

Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Megachurch
43,500 weekly attendance

I was at the bank and somehow I got into a spiritual conversation with two Hispanic executives that worked there.

Why the Megachurch?

When I asked why they exchanged the Catholic Church for the megachurch, they gave me a number of reasons:

1. “My new church has an iPhone app. I can go on my iPhone and get Bible studies, sermons (video and audio). When I travel I can still watch the sermon, either live or later. I feel apart of the community.”
2. “The preaching is dynamic and speaks to my life. I find practical encouragement.”
3. “I felt judged at the Catholic Church.”
4. “People were not friendly or welcoming at the Catholic Church. The first time I went to my new church, I was welcomed by so many people.”
5. “My new church has classes and courses that are interesting and helpful.”
6. “The music is better.”
7. “In the Catholic Church, they use a lot of words that I did not understand.”
8. “People pray for each other and know each other (in the megachurch).”

Although these two ladies didn’t articulate it explicitly to me, I could tell that they were very proud of their new churches. I could also discern in them a surprise that I am so “spiritual” and yet I am very excited about being Catholic. They assumed the “with it” people were leaving Catholicism for the bigger and better and deal.

I asked them what they miss about being Catholic. They replied with two answers:

1. “There are not any crosses in my new church. I know it makes some people feel uncomfortable, but I wish we had crosses.”
2. “What will I do when I die?” They were both unclear about whether they could get anything like Last Rites at the megachurch.

What About the Eucharist?

I asked both about the Eucharist: “Don’t you miss the Eucharist?”

This question didn’t phase them one bit. “Oh we still have communion. They pass out little crackers and cups of juice. I like this better because I thought drinking from one big cup is icky. Spreads germs.”

“But in the Catholic Church,” I replied, “we believe that the Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus?”

I may as well have said, “Don’t you know that there are Martians in my back pocket.” She was unaware that the Catholic Church taught this. No idea.

The Problem

This, my brothers and sisters, is the crux of the problem. These girls were raised as Catholics, but did not know about the Eucharist. They did not know that the Eucharist is God. They did not understand the Holy Eucharist is the center of the Catholic tradition.

So when they compare our ho-hum Catholic music and pedestrian sermons to snazzy well produced musical productions and highly polished bulleted sermons from handsome professional speakers…where are they going to go?

If they had believed that the Holy Eucharist is truly the Lord Jesus Christ, then they would have stayed. This is the task of the New Evangelization if there is going to be one. Can we communicate the mystery of Eucharist. If we fail in that, everyone is leaving the building.

Godspeed,
Taylor

PS: I don’t mean to suggest that having the Holy Eucharist is an excuse for bad music, bad vestments, bad architecture, and bad sermons. The Eucharist is like a precious diamond. It deserves a platinum setting…not a plastic setting. We can’t say, “Well, we have the Eucharist – so you’re forced to stay and have a miserable experience every Sunday.” We can’t keep the sacraments hostage to mediocracy.

PPS: With 1 billion strong, the Catholic Church is the real megachurch!

Pope Francis at Rio de Janeiro
3 million people

[ansel12]

You keep doing this over and over, and I don’t know why.

I posted that 94% of Mexicans have been baptized by Catholics in Mexico, not that 94% of Mexico is Catholic, not only do you keep ignoring my posts, but you even misquote sources that you use for whatever it is that you are talking about, for instance Pew says that while Catholicism is shrinking in Mexico, that today 85% are still Catholic, yet you list it as 84%, just as you listed the CIA numbers as 82% instead of 83%.

All this nonsense over post 52 which pointed out the absurdity of post 34 “”I have yet to meet a single first generation immigrant from Mexico is Catholic.They are evangelical, Jehovah’s Witness, or unchurched.
“”.

In other words, that poster who meets plenty of Mexican immigrants, enough that he knows some who belong to Evangelical Protestant churches, some who are atheists, and some who follow the Jehovah Witness religion, claims that he has never met a Catholic who immigrated from Mexico.

My responding to that absurdity has sent you into a flurry of irrelevant and confusing posts with wrong numbers and misdirected counters, it is bizarre.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"If Mary is divine, she requires worship."

I believe neither that she is divine, nor that she requires worship.

If she is called "the divine mother" by the abbot you quoted, he did not mean that she was a goddess, but that she is the mother of a divine Son. It's like calling the court comedian the "the royal jester" --- it doesn't mean the jester is the king, it means he serves the king.

Divine has a range of references:

• God Himself ("His Divine Majesty");
• things pertaining to Him ("Divine Providence");
• things which He has given ("the Divine gift of salvation");
• things associated with His worship ("the Divine Service"); people associated with His worship (Puritan clergy were called "Divines". The Puritans, by the way, did not worship their clergy.)

Mary is related to her Divine son as mother. That makes her the Divine Mother. Just like Obama's Portuguese bow-wow is the Presidential Dog. It doesn't mean the dog is President --- though that sounds like a good topic for a panel discussion :o)

[Mrs. Don-o]

Two people divided by a common language!

[DannyTN]

"In other words we all DESERVE to be judged when we sin."

We deserve to be judged but not by fellow sinners but by God. And thus guilt is a natural consequence of sin.

God has taken our sins, past, present and future and hung them on the cross. They're paid for. But there are still consequences in this life of sin. And there is still guilt until we take it to the Lord and ask for His forgiveness.

[ansel12]

No, it appears that you wanted to defend someone’c bizarre claim that he is meeting plenty of immigrants from Mexico, but has never met a Catholic one, judging from all the useless posts you have sent my way in defense of that poster’s absurd claim, his claim seems to serve some purpose.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I refuted "that bizarre claim" in my very first post! Ya could look it up!

YMMV!

[Truth2012]

Well, that might be why so much is lost in your understanding. You refuse to give any historical context to what you are reading.

If you read the Bible, you will see that Jesus makes many references to a Jewish Marriage, the proposal process and the traditions he observed for the wedding day and for the marriage. He did this so we would be comforted and understand. We also need to get to know our Savior. He is a real man.

If you blow that off, and refuse to look at the context of His life- you are going to miss a great depth of his character and love for us.

The wedding ring is a very important part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ- and not at all pagan.

Matthew 22:1-14

[SoothingDave]

#1, you apparently did not get my humor
#2, the Scripture you cite does not include any mention of a wedding ring.

[Iscool]

I think you are misunderstanding what “Divine Mother” means, just like many misunderstand what is meant by “Mother of God.”

I know exactly what Divine Mother of God means...And so does the author of the article I linked to...And God says it is anathema...

[SoothingDave]

Is the Queen Mother the Queen?

[Iscool]

WHY would a group of people who just before wanted to crown Him king suddenly leave Him because He started speaking in metaphors? HE TAUGHT BEFORE IN PARABLES AND NO ONE LEFT HIM THEN!

What??? Tons of people left him over the parables...That's why he used the parables, to weed out the unbelievers, Just as he did in John...

You can't just make stuff up to justify your religion...

[Iscool]

If she is called "the divine mother" by the abbot you quoted, he did not mean that she was a goddess, but that she is the mother of a divine Son. It's like calling the court comedian the "the royal jester" --- it doesn't mean the jester is the king, it means he serves the king.

Oh c'mon now...She is given half of the kingdom of God...She is to be served...She is in charge of all mercy...Not to mention everything else that is in the article...

This guy meant what he said...

[Iscool]

Is the Queen Mother the Queen?

Maybe in England...God has no mother...And there is no queen in heaven...

[SoothingDave]

There reaches a point where you are convinced that you know what others believe — even when they tell you otherwise.

At that point, dialogue is useless.

[FourtySeven]

First of all, I don’t know where we read of so many leaving Jesus because of any one thing he said, parable or not. We’re talking about thousands of people in this instance.

Secondly, my point is not that people may or may not have left Him because of what was taught in a parable, but that a parable was used in the first place, and no one left Him because He used parables. They left (or rejected) Him because of what he taught IN the parables.

My point is that even at that time, people had an understanding of what parables are or even, what should and should not be taken literally, and when.

The point remains that you can’t escape from: if you believe the Jews in John 6 left Jesus because they were wrongly taking Him literally, then John 6:63 can’t mean what you say it means. It can’t mean “Don’t worry guys, I’m not REALLY saying you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood. I only mean that metaphorically”.

That can’t mean what John 6:63 means or else the Jews that were clamoring earlier wouldn’t have left Him. Or perhaps you could explain to me why a group of people would reject a guy only a few minutes before they wanted to make king? Why would they do that, if He even “explained” in John 6:63 that He was speaking metaphorically?

[paladinan]

BipolarBob wrote, in reply to my post:

2 Timothy 3:16,17 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly unto all good works.

Bad translation, I'm afraid; the Greek word for "perfect" (teleios) is nowhere to be found in that sentence. Even in the classical definition of "perfect" (i.e. "per factus" = "complete, made it to the end"), which definitely doesn't carry the modern connotation of "utterly flawless" (which the word didn't always originally imply), it doesn't quite work. The word which your translation renders "perfect" is actually "artios", meaning "equipped". In other words, the translation should be:

"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

That's yet another flaw in "sola Scriptura", by the way: it can't tell you whether the original (Greek or Hebrew) "Scriptura" was translated properly, or mistranslated/mangled!

So while Catholics cling to their traditions

Right... we "cling/hold fast to" them, since we obey St. Paul (2 Thes 2:14); don't you want to do that?

and the doctrines of Rome,

The doctrines of the Church established by Jesus Christ, whose mother diocese happens to be Rome, you mean.

that may not be the best course.

You haven't given any reasons that it wouldn't be, friend. I, for one, believe that the best course is to follow the Church WHom Jesus instituted, rather than an ecclecial communion formed by someone who divorced himself from that Church (though the current members of that communion might be innocent and sincere, and ignorant of their position).

Gal. 1-8 but even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

Right, indeed! So... how, exactly, do you determine that your "gospel" is not one of the counterfeits condemned by St. Paul?

Not many Hail Marys, rosary beads or Holy Fathers in their recorded conversations.

Well... the "Hail, Mary" is an almost direct quote of Luke 1:28 and Luke 1:42-43; and rosary beads are not strictly necessary (one can pray the Rosary mentally, if one has a good head for counting, or one can pray on one's fingers, for that matter; the beads simply make it easier and less distracting); and St. Peter was certainly the first holy father (i.e. the first Pope)--see Matthew 16:18-20 and Isaiah 22:21ff. St. Paul, in fact, also called himself a "father" of the converts he made (1 Cor 4:15), though that's a separate issue (just in case you believed the mistaken notion that Matthew 23:9, etc., forbade anyone from calling priests "father"--you didn't believe that, did you?).

[paladinan]

fwdude wrote:

And the Bereans were praised by Paul for searching diligently in Scripture to see if everything he was telling them was true.

And why shouldn't they have been praised? Are you somehow under the impression that Catholics say NOT to read the Bible? No... we object only to the man-made, self-contradictory, unbiblical idea of "SOLA Scrptura"... not to "Scriptura", which is good and necessary! Scripture is absolutely necessary and essential; it was simply not designed to be used ALONE... and the early Christians knew that.

[BipolarBob]

The “Hail Mary” was made when she was actually being hailed. She ain’t here to hail anymore. She’s dead. Dust-to-dust and all of that.

[BipolarBob]

"and the doctrines of Rome,"

I'm speaking, of course, of the contra-Biblical doctrines. Such as infant baptism, use of statues (graven images), forbidding of priests to marry, and Marian worship (under any label).

[ansel12]

Wow, this is crazy, you didn’t refute anything, you tried to defend his bizarre claim, and you started with a fake number, claiming that 70% of Mexican immigrants are Catholic when they leave Mexico.

To: ansel12; nickcarraway
“In real life,” 70% of them arrive Catholic. How many of the ones that a person has met, who are Catholic, may differ regionally or neighborhood by neighborhood.
Your Mexicans May Vary.
90 posted on 8/27/2013 1:49:26 PM by Mrs. Don-o

I corrected you. “”but on your numbers you confused the percentage of foreign born Hispanics currently being Catholic in the United States, with what percentage they were on the day they left Mexico””.

Why such a determined fight for the bizarre claim of post 34, and why try so hard that you post so many inaccuracies to do it, in so many useless posts?

Remember the claim of post 34, “”I have yet to meet a single first generation immigrant from Mexico is Catholic.They are evangelical, Jehovah’s Witness, or unchurched.
“”.