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

[fwdude]

Sorry, but Catholic doctrine and practice contradicts scripture in numerous ways. Case in point: "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (including Mary.)

I'll stick with scripture, thanks.

[paladinan]

bkaycee wrote:

TETZEL. Paying for Masses said for the dead.

Johann Tetzel was a preacher who grossly exaggerated and distorted the true Catholic teaching on indulgences... as even 30 seconds' reading of history on the matter will make clear. Google "Cardinal Cajetan" and "Tetzel", and you may see what I mean. Or, failing that, do follow this link to the Catholic Encyclopedia to see what the Church actually teaches on him, and on the issue. It'd be much better than having you make something up, yes?

Do think this through reasonably! If the Catholic Church actually taught the "sale" of indulgences (and--forgive me--I've met few Catholics, very few Protestants, and NO anti-Catholic Protestants who have any good understanding of what indulgences really are), don't you think they'd be CHAMPIONING Brother Tetzel? Wouldn't the "sale of indulgences" be found readily in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Bosh!

As concerns "paying for Masses for the Dead": Masses cannot be bought or sold, nor can any holy thing (it's a sin known as "simony", and the Catholic Church has condemned it since the time of St. Peter--see the Catechism, numbers 2121 and 2122. If someone is poor and still requests a Mass for the repose of the soul of a deceased loved one (or for any other good intention), the priest is to offer it, eve if the person cannot contribute anything (see the Code of Canon Law, #945ff>. The voluntary donation is for the benefit of the GIVER, mainly... since it's more salutary to give a gift which costs you something (cf. Luke 21:1-4).

[paladinan]

BipolarBob wrote:

but does your Church not refer to Mary as "Mother of God" or Queen of Heaven"?

Yes, She (the Church) does.

1) Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God. Sinple, yes? No, we don't say (nor do we need to say) that Mary was the mother of Jesus' Divinity... but unless you (personally) deny that Jesus was fully God AND fully Man, then you really do need to admit that Mary is the mother of God.

2) To better understand the "Queen of Heaven" title, check out 1 Kings 2:11-25, and also check out this blog piece; the blog article isn't academically rigourous, but it's very sweet... and it's written by a former evangelical Protestant who once had difficulty with the "Mother of God" idea.

[metmom]

How about you acknowledge her role in salvation history by calling Mary the Mother of God.

Nope. Calling her *the mother of GOD* is a man-made invention.

The Holy Spirit calls her *the mother of JESUS.

YOU tell Him he's wrong. I'm not going there.

In Scripture, the Holy Spirit calls her *mother of Jesus*.

John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.

John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”

Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

Scripture is clear in calling her *mother of Jesus* not *mother of God*. *mother of God* is not found anywhere in the Bible.

[metmom]

See how the Bible tells us to be saved?

Acts 16:29-31 And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

[metmom]

And even after all that, there are no Catholics certain of going to heaven when they die.

Catholicism has made salvation WAY too complicated.

[metmom]

Appalling.....

Scripture tells us not to be a respecter of person's, that its' a sin. Right out of the book of James, the Catholics favorite book of the Bible.

James 2:1-11 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?

8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

Making people saints and *venerating* them is the epitome of respecting individuals.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The author you have linked and quoted from at some length is Fr. William Wagner, ORC -- I'd ever heard of him before. Mousing around a bit, I see he's evidently not Catholic, but a member of a schismatic group called "Old Roman Catholic,"(ORC*) founded in England in 1910, and is here writing for an Anglican Benedictine website. Please don't hold me answerable to explain or justify the doctrines and devotions of the dear schismatics.

Skimming through this stuff, though, I find it is mostly a particular kind of devotional, not doctrinal, writing. I'd have to parse it line by line to see where it was on target and where overshooting the mark --- something I'd do if I had a couple weeks with a broken leg, but don't care to do now.

If you want ornate courtly poetry, by all means go to the Anglicans. For Catholic doctrine, go to the Catechism (Link)

(I keep saying that, and nobody ever takes me up on it. That's unfortunate. It would save you a lot of brow-furrowing and foot-stomping, and me, too.)

Using the search feature of the Catechism should help you cut through a lot of the overgrown verbal kudzu.

---

*The letters "ORC"' can also represent membership in Catholic movement, which in English would be Order of Canons Regular, which I understand has members in Portugal and Brazil. I suspect this guy is an Anglican rather than a Portuguese, since he's writing at an Anglican website.

If I'm wrong, let me know.

[metmom]

If you mean "Obeying her commands," the only direct command I know of is, with reference to her divine Son, "Do whatever He tells you."

And that was only directed to the servants at the wedding.

Besides... We need MARY to tell us to obey God? God telling us isn't good enough?

[Mrs. Don-o]

OK. You're right. Now I see. 70% is the same as zero. Therefore I didn't refute him, I agreed with him.

(::::sigh:::)

Let's just leave it alone now, shall we?

[metmom]

Exactly. Exactly! And that's what makes it so striking--- no, stunning, shocking --- when Jesus says, "Eat my body, drink my blood." Not just once, but at least half a dozen times. And when people start to object, He doubles down on it. (Ref: John 6, toward the end of all three Synoptics, and Corinthians).

And that's what makes it IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to command anyone to break the Law.

He CAN'T do that.

He came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it. Until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away. His word is established forever in heaven.

It would be impossible for Jesus to command people to break the Law He handed down at Mt.Sinai.

[SoothingDave]

You don’t believe in eternal life?

Or you don’t believe eternity has started yet?

[ansel12]

Very confusing, all of your posts since you jumped in to challenge my post 52, have been confusing and confused.

I guess we’ll never learn what your point in doing so was about.

[metmom]

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!

It's not a flaw of sola scriptura.

And you know what? The Catholic church isn't going to tell you when it mistranslates something either. So much for depending on men and tradition.

[Jvette]

Very good answer. I asked the question because it seems to me that when I hear protestants pray, it is always to God, the Father, in the name of Jesus and never directly to Jesus or to the Holy Spirit.

Catholics have many prayers to Jesus, to the Father and to the Holy Spirit.

The question was asked not from ignorance but the desire to learn more about someone’s understanding of faith and prayer.

It is telling that the automatic assumption was that I didn’t know or that Catholics don’t pray to Jesus.

[BipolarBob]

You don’t believe in eternal life?

Yes, I do believe in eternal life. It hasn't started yet for me or you, though.

[SoothingDave]

What does “yet” mean when talking about an existence outside of time?

Isn’t eternity unchanging?

[paladinan]

Pagan is pagan. You bring a pagan thing into your church and ask for God to bless it, then you wear it on your finger every day. That’s pagan.

Hm. So... if an actual, living pagan comes into the Church, commits to Christ and is baptized, you think he's still a pagan, no patter what? There's no chance that he might become something "non-pagan"?

My point is that "previously pagan" things *can* be "baptized" (literally or figuratively), you know.

[exPBRrat]

As a cradle catholic it amazes me that good folks, esp Catholics, will buy into that tickle your ear prosperity gospel that the Paul warns us about.

And the Osteen’s have got to be the swarmyest couple ever I just can’t believe there and ounce of sincerity in them. The enjoyment value of DTV has cratered to such an extent that I admittedly watch the Osteens for amusement purposes only.

[paladinan]

Elsie wrote:

SAVED! by Faith. kept by works

Er... I'll need to ask you to clarify: when you say "kept" by works, do you mean to imply that one can lose one's salvation after first gaining it? (I.e. Do you reject the idea of "once saved, always saved" [OSAS]?) The reason I ask is that there are many OSAS believers on this thread alone (some of whom I'm debating), and it'll get very confusing very quickly to have two "camps" of Protestants--one OSAS, one non-OSAS--trying to refute the Catholic position with two contradictory sets of arguments!

But as to your point... have you read the Epistle of St. James? "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24) Unless you're somehow suggesting that one can be saved without being justified, I think you've made a mistake, here.