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

[metmom]

Her body. As my body will be even though my spirit is there already.

[NYer]

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.

Joel Osteen the prosperity preacher from Houston has just moved up from his $2m mansion to a $10m mansion.

Protestants will beat up on Catholics for having a highly exalted infallible leader who is treated like a celebrity. Duh. The problem with them is not that they don’t have a Pope, but that they have 30,000 popes. Every pastor a pope, and Pope Osteen is just one among many. Joel Osteen and Pope Francis

Reading through the comments on this thread, that number needs to be bumped up. It appears they all practice YOPIOS.

[SoothingDave]

Now tell us how wedding rings are used in serving or worshipping God?

You don't think marriage is a sacrament? The rings are a symbol of the sacrament.

The point, long since lost, is that we are not to worship anything except the One True God. We all agree on that.

It is the insistence by some that using similar material items as a reminder is therefore worship.

That simply does not follow.

If we can use a pagan symbol to remind us of our marriage vows, and have these pagan items blessed for this holy use, then we can likewise use other tools that pagans used for a holy use.

I don't worship my Christmas tree. God knows that.

[SoothingDave]

my spirit is there already.

I am truly glad that we can agree on that. If you are truly destined for Heaven and Heaven is outside of time and unchanging, then you must already be there.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Right. But this law does not extend to every image, only those used for idolatrous purposes.

This can be seen in the Bible. For instance, the carved cherubim in the Temple are "images" of beings "in heaven above," but were not forbidden; they were in fact commanded. Almost all coins were stamped with the visages of persons (Jesus noted that the Roman coins bore the image of Caesar) but the use of coinage was not prohibited.

So you obviously have to ask "What kind of image, and for what purpose?"

If it means any kind of image, then all those gravestones with carved flowers or doves or angels or Jesus the Good Shepherd are prohibited, all sculpture, all Nativity figurines, (all Christmas cards, while we're at it), all crosses, virtually all the decorative furnishings not only of churches, but of anyplace anywhere, all mosaics, frescoes, and paintings, and of course any images made of pixels that appear on your computer screen.

So I'm sure you don't mean "all images."

[Mrs. Don-o]

Fasting from fish on Friday was, at one time, a required penitential practice in canon law --- not a preparation for anything.

It's now listed, in the present canon law, as an optional discipline, but one which is very much recommended. I have to confess my weakness here, because I rarely observe this abstinence. But what you're dealing with here, is a person who is not a very good Catholic.

[paladinan]

(Sorry if I'm answering this out of order; this thread is going to Mars and back!)

metmom wrote:

The Catholic church has mistranslated some passages of Scripture.

Such as? And can you tell me HOW you know they're "MIS-translated" (and not simply translated in a way you and/or your pastor happen not to like)? Such a charge needs to be proven.

Therefore, you cannot use them right?

(??) I'm not following your reasoning, here. First, you'd need to prove (not merely claim) that "the Church" has both mistranslated portions of Scripture AND said that those "MIStranslations" are infallibly true (as opposed to some well-meaning Catholic theologian who happens to get something wrong while translating). Second, you'll have to explain what "them" means; do you mean "the mistranslated verses"? If so, then yes... no one should use mistranslated verses. If you mean ANY verses, then you'd have to explain why not.

If sola scriptura is invalidated because there may an inaccuracy in the translation of a word,

That wasn't what I said. Sola Scriptura is invalid because it is self-contradictory, and therefore provably false (i.e. it violates itself while trying to prove itself). I said that ANOTHER flaw of sola Scriptura was its inability to be sure that they had the correct Scriptures in the FIRST place.

then that invalidates anything the Catholic church has to say when they deliberately mistranslate a word.

I think you mean to say, "If the Church isn't infallible in Her teaching, then there's no reason to trust Her teaching." That's correct; if She can err in Her formal teaching, then there's no reason to prefer Her to any other Christian group. But you've not yet shown that She (the Church) *has* "mistranslated" Scripture (and taught that mistranslation as a doctrine). Can you?

[BipolarBob]

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Jesus called the cup *the fruit of the vine*"

He also called Himself "the true Vine."

Moreover, He said it was His blood. You have to conclude that it was, unless He had very poor command of the language, and thought that "This is My Blood, the blood of the Covenant, which is to be poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" meant "This is NOT My Blood."

And He said the same would be "poured out" for the forgiveness of sins, and that's Blood --- not wine.

[paladinan]

Maybe I can summarize my points, for the sake of clarity (and for the sake of not having to wade through 400 posts to get to it!)...

Sola Scriptura claims that "if something isn't in the Bible, then don't trust it with matters of salvation". But sola Scriptura is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Therefore, sola Scriptura insists that we not trust sola Scriptura. As Chesterton says, "the idea has killed itself in three sentences." That's the biggest (and utterly fatal) problem with sola Scriptura: the fact that it's logical nonsense, and it cannot possible be true.

Secondly: anti-Catholic Protestants who appeal to "sola Scriptura" already have the Bible... but from where? They inherited it from the very Catholic Church Whom they attack and malign. Riddle me this: you say, for example, that the Second Book of Maccabees (which praises prayers for the dead, and is the clearest Scriptural proof for the idea of Purgatory, though they don't call it that by name--see 2 Macc 12:39-45) is NOT inspired Scripture, and that it doesn't belong in the Bible. Why not? And why does the Book of James (which Martin Luther despised as "an epistle of straw, without the character of true Scripture") BELONG in the Bible? From where did the "table of contents" come? Do you know? Have you looked? The answer might surprise you.

Third: sola Scriptura leaves all (I'll borrow the acronym from NYer!) "YOPIOS" (Your Own Personal Interpretation Of Scripture) users without any final guide for knowing whether their interpretation is RIGHT or not. A pastor might be misinterpreting this-or-that passage of Scripture and leading his flock on the primrose path to hell, for all he knows... and he will be answerable to God for it.

Think about this: Seventh Day Adventists teach that all sincere Protestants (evangelical or otherwise) who worship on Sunday are headed for hell, for violating the Third Commandment (i.e. observing Sunday, rather than the actual Sabbath, which was Saturday). Do you believe that? If not, WHY not? Why do you feel that you're not hell-bound for worshipping (at a mega-church or otherwise) on Sunday? Their position is backed up by Scripture; is yours? How would you ever know? Will you claim that they're evil, or "not led by the Spirit", or ignorant, or stupid, or not prayerful? Why do they differ from you, while still using "sola Scriptura", just as you do?

[Jvette]

I’m guessing you have Scriptures to back up this claim?

Where does it say that Mary has turned to dust?

All of us? What about Elijah and Elisha and Moses and all those who rose when Jesus died? Where are they?

What did Jesus say when asked about John in John 21:23?

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

Jesus is God. It is His call and through His Church He has let us know that His mother is with Him. What is that to you?

[paladinan]

BipolarBob wrote:

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

Therefore, BipolarBob doesn't get it.

There. You see how un-useful that comment was? It was simple bigotry and emotionalism... not reasonable or convincing; it says nothing of substance, whatever, and either side could use that sort of playground taunt against the other, with equal lack of substance.

If you claim a point, you ARE on to prove it... whether you find it difficult, or not.

[smvoice]

One question: How long are you all going to let that poor, beaten, starving, mangy dog hunt? The one named “the catholic church gave us the Bible”. If you gave it to us, why don't you use it? Why gather together and dust off a table of “wise” magistrates to tell you what God meant to say? Don't you think God gave you enough sense to understand what He is saying?

[SoothingDave]

Remember, He also apparently said something like “this is my body, true flesh which will profit nothing”.

[CynicalBear]

>> and if "sola Scriptura" is not in the Bible (which it isn't), then "sola Scriptura" says not to trust "sola Scriptura". Right?<<

Your statement fails the smell test. You see, it has been answered by scripture itself how we are to check on whether those who hold to tradition are telling us the truth or not.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Looks to me like we need to “search the scriptures daily” to see if what the Catholics teach is true or not. I don’t see any other source mentioned for checking to see “whether those things were so”. That leaves us with only (Sola) scripture as our source to check doesn’t it. That is unless you can find scripture that tells us to check something else of course. Would love Book, chapter and verse if you have it.

So... if you're a student of logic, unless you can show from scripture where it teaches any other source, then scripture indeed teaches Sola Scriptura and not other sources. Unless you can show where scripture teaches us to look at something else or maybe Jesus said something other than “it is written” you may want to drop that sarcasm about Sola Scriptura like a hot potatoe. Since it's insane to believe in a self-contradiction, did scripture teach to use scripture to tell if what someone teaches is truth or something else?

[SoothingDave]

Your argument is attested to by the lack of division amongst Christians who just use their God-given sense to understand the Bible.

[Mrs. Don-o]

HA!

[CynicalBear]

>> You bring a pagan thing into your church and ask for God to bless it, then you wear it on your finger every day.<<

Would you show us who uses a wedding asking for a blessing on the ring please. I’ve never seen it. Be specific since I would like to do some research on that.

[SoothingDave]

The church is called the pillar of truth.

It is odd indeed to read a New Testament that chronicles the early days of the establishment of a teaching church to disavow any role for such a church.

Answer me this. Where is the letter from the Corinthians to St. Paul?

[CynicalBear]

>>and that is why so many of them took offense and stopped following Him.<<

No it wasn’t. It was because they were taking Jesus words literally to mean they had to eat His literal human flesh just like the Catholics do now. It’s just that the Catholics don’t care. All the others understood it was a spiritual thing not physical.