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]

The life is indeed in the blood and we are never to partake of the blood of anything other than Jesus for our eternal life. We do not want to take on the life of any animal or other living thing for they are not our savior. Jesus and Jesus alone is our Savior.

God never made an exception.

Show me the Scriptural support for cannibalism.

[CynicalBear]

>>and have these pagan items blessed for this holy use,<<

I have never seen the rings blessed yet. Do they do that in the Catholic Church or something? It’s weird in either case. So show us where it’s done. Or get off that nonsense.

SoothingDave >> then we can likewise use other tools that pagans used for a holy use.

God >> Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God

Hmmm! Is it any wonder I believe God over SoothingDave?

>> I don't worship my Christmas tree.<<

I don’t recall anyone saying you did. Do you use it to celebrate the birth of Christ?

[SoothingDave]

I am the one pointing out that you can not take the words from one verse and use them to cancel out another.

In the verse you quote Jesus is not talking about his flesh.

To believe so is to make the horrific mashup that you so rightly objected to.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

The Osteen residence is kinda tacky. If I had the money, I’d like a lodge on a mountain or a house by the sea.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"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."

That's true! Oh, wow. You got it!

But they all got it wrong.

That's why Jesus chased after them, crying out, "Wait! Whoa! Verily, it's a metaphor! My flesh and My blood are useless and meaningless! And disgusting, yuck!!"

But everybody STILL got it wrong, so Paul, that wily Semite, set them straight (1 Corinthians 11:27-29): "Anyone who eats this bread or drinks this cup unworthily, it's no biggie, c'mon, it's just a symbol! It's not like it's profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord!"

Right?

But the whole so-called 'Church' still got it wrong (church slogan: "All wrong, All the time") until, oh, the middle of the 16th century, because as Christ said, "Upon some rock or stone, sand, simile, or something or other, I will build my Church, and, big kaboom, it'll collapse and the gates of hell will prevail over it for about a millennium and a half, OK?"

According to the RSV: Reversed Standard Version.

[metmom]

Of course the pope doesn't live in opulence.

[CynicalBear]

>>But sola Scriptura is nowhere to be found in the Bible.<<

So show us where scripture commended someone to go to something other than scripture to see “if these things were so”. If you can’t, Acts 15:11 should suffice to prove where to go as the only source to check.

[Mrs. Don-o]

OK. Which post was that?

[paladinan]

This'll have to be my last one for the day; must get driving home, soon!

metmom wrote:

Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-15.htm The Douay-Rheims Bible is the ONLY one to translate the personal pronoun *he* as *she*.

Some editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible have used that mistranslation, yes; others have not. But since St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate is the official (we say "typical") Church's translation of the Scriptures (and St. Jerome translates it "He shall crush [etc.]"), you'd need to show how THAT is "mistranslated" in any way, in order for the formal teaching of the Church to be in any trouble in that regard. Were you under the impression that the Douay-Rheims (which is an excellent translation, apart from some errors) was the "official" Catholic Bible translation? That is not so.

One note on that point, though: the word "she" (and I do not say that you, or even any Catholic, need use it) would not change anything fundamental; the Blessed Virgin did indeed participate in the crushing of Satan's head, in her free consent to becoming the mother of Jesus (and the Mother of God, thereby).

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. http://biblehub.com/acts/2-38.htm The Catholic church takes the word *repent* and changes it to *do penance*.

Correction: the Douay-Rheims Bible changes it to "do penance"... though honestly: do you see a substantial difference, there? What repentance does not involve doing penance (whether internally or externally)? And what valid penance exists without a repentance to drive it? One might as well object to steam being called "water"! But in any case, the DRB

is not identical with "Catholic Teaching", nor is it even the typical edition of Scripture used by the Church.

For all your criticisms of sola scriptura as not being valid,

...most of which you haven't addressed at ALL, by the way. Have you no answer for the idea that "sola Scriptura" is nowhere in the Bible, and therefore it orders you not to follow itself?

the best Catholicism has to offer is *because we say so*.

Nonsense. Even this thread has plentiful reasons well beyond any simple appeal to authority! If you truly desire to know (and if that statement wasn't simply a complaint), then check out some online, searchable version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

And then try to appeal to a verse or two to support themselves,

...usually when "sola Scriptura" believers insist on Scripture. You do remember that the Catholic Church USES Scripture (She wrote it, put it together, and preserved it from destruction through the ages, after all!), right? Refusing to use "Scripture ALONE" is not a refusal to use SCRIPTURE; it's merely a refusal to follow Luther in his unbiblical mistake.

which is ironic if they consider sola scriptura invalid for the reasons you mentioned.

I think you should be able to see, now, that that's not the case at all, and that you didn't understand my earlier points correctly.

By your reasoning, you did not render sola scriptura invalid, but the word of God itself.

See above.

[Elsie]

You have to realize metaphor when you read it.

SURE you do...

Unless it is a Catholic sacred cow metaphor REALITY...

[editor-surveyor]

>> “But sola Scriptura is nowhere to be found in the Bible.” <<

.
Sola Scriptura is there every time Yeshua says “it is written.”

[metmom]

Nowhere in Scripture is Jesus called God. Through many passages we come to understand that He is indeed God, but nowhere does Scripture call Jesus, God.

The Pharisees certainly understood His claims about Himself. THEY understood it.

Jesus claimed it Himself.

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

[Elsie]

That is what faith is; belief that Jesus is the Son of God and trust that He will deliver all that He promised.

Abraham was praised for his belief.

[SoothingDave]

There is only one church.

[metmom]

Those who believe in Sola Scriptura disagree amongst themselves. They all just read the Bible and get guidance from the Holy Spirit.

And Catholics disagree amongst themselves.

Your point is?

If that invalidates Scripture as the final rule of authority, then the whole Catholic church is invalidated by the disagreeing believes of Catholics.

[Jvette]

*****Show me the Scriptural support for cannibalism.******

The Eucharist is not cannibalism.

[Elsie]

Yes, that's right, and it's an interesting point.

And then you go on like a politician that has just replied, "I'm glad you asked that question."

[metmom]

Apples and oranges.

You are comparing a bedroom with a whole residence.

Do have the integrity to compare like things.

[Elsie]

It appears they all practice YOPIOS.

You are trespassing on narses' schtick now!

[NYer]

So you really think that soldier is asking whatever that gravestone represents to do something for him? Really?

Please ... you tell me, what is the soldier doing in that photo?