Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Megachurch
43,500 weekly attendance
Posted on 08/27/2013 11:53:37 AM PDT by 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.
When I asked why they exchanged the Catholic Church for the megachurch, they gave me a number of reasons:
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:
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.
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
Indeed, (Acts 17:11) as doctrine must be formally or materially evidenced, with the degree of Scriptural substantiation determining the validity and degree of assurance. But which is contrary to Rome, for which actual Scriptural substantiation is not needed for her doctrines, nor the degree of which for assurance, only that they do not contradict Scripture, but which is according to the interpretation of Rome, who has infallibly declared herself infallible, and that only her interpretation has authority.
sola Scriptura is nowhere to be found in the Bible.
That is false, as Scripture is abundantly evidenced to be the transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the assured wholly inspired Word of God, unlike all the church will teach.
Moreover, it , materially provides for a canon by evidencing that writing's were progressively established as being from God, like as men of God were, due to their unique Scriptural substantiation in Divine qualities, attestation and conflation with had been written (Moses was the first writer, being first affirmed by supernatural means and holiness confirmatory of the faith of Abraham). Like the Divine incense, there is none like unto it. Thus in principle it provides for recognition of a body of inspired writings and lack of any more.
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.
Which polemic presumes the RCC of today is what it claism, but even then, it presumes that being the steward of Divine revelation and inheritor of promises of God's presence and preservation, and having historical descent requires or means such is infallible, and that those iot rejects have no valid authority, which is simply false.
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,
But which (2Mac. 12) only teaches that prayers and sacrifices for the dead are efficacious, perhaps that God would have mercy on them on judgment day, and supports praying for dead idolaters, who were slain for being so , which is a mortal sin according to Rome, for which there is no purgatory. Thus it "proves" more than you want, and forces RC apologists to engage in special pleading.
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.
Indeed, there much a Catholic would be surprised to read, if laymen could engage in objective examination to determine the validity of RC doctrine, which they are not to do (and at one time were forbidden to engage in debates as this) One of the surprises would be that there simply was not infallible, indisputable canon for Luther to dissent from. Thus in his debate with "There is no proof of Purgatory in any portion of sacred Scripture, for the book of Maccabees not being in the Canon, is of weight with the faithful, but avails nothing with the obstinate"
As James Swan, whose extensive work on Luther and the canon is the place you ought to study, comments , "Luther was heavily schooled with the Glossa ordinaria. When commenting on the apocryphal books, this work prefixes this introduction to them: Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc. ...he followed a tradition which denied the Deuterocanonicals authority to establish doctrine.
And as has been extensively substantiated many times here in refuting the Catholic canard that the canon was settled until a maverick named Luther dissented from it, the fact is that despite early local councils affirming the canon of Trent (possibly with one exception), scholarly doubt and dissent regarding apocryphal books continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent, which provided the first indisputable canon after Luther died (1546).
As for Luther and James, Luther did include it in his Bible, but separately following an ancient tradition for questionable books, and Luther was not teaching as a pope, but as CFs did (sometimes differing with each others or perhaps even themselves in developing their views), he was giving his present judgement, yet he also wrote that he cannot include James among his “chief books though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. ”
And while many RCs cannot seem to comprehend how we cannot follow Luther as a pope, the fact is that we do not, and thus includes James. As for why, and where the "table of contents" comes from, or results from, the answer to that question is found in the answer to who writings became established as Scripture before Rome presumed it alone had the power to authoritatively determine what Scripture consists of, and its meaning, thus effectively making herself the supreme and autocratic authority.
Do you know? Have you looked? The answer might surprise you. And if an infallible Rome is necessary to determine what truth is, then how could souls have assurance prior to that?
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.
Which actually describes Rome, which is the epitome of individual assertion of veracity, with Popes leading their flock on the primrose path to hell, while hastening some to Heaven by teaching torture and killing of theological non-conformists is right, even if contradicted by later individual popes.
Meanwhile, SS does not reject the need for the magisterium, but that as seen in Scripture, they do not posses assuredly infallibility, but establishment of truth is based upon Scriptural substantiation. This does result in competing claims, but requires truth to overcome evil with good, as seen in Scripture. However, if the Roman model is right, then no one who dissents from its formal judgment can be right or have authority. Which is Scripturally untenable.
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 they differ from you, while still using "sola Scriptura", just as you do?
I do not believe that because it is not what the New Covenant collectively teaches, but they esp. - fundamentalist SDA's - typically do because like Rome, their movement is the result of thinking of men (or a women) above that which is written, and essentially making their writings equal in authority to Rome. And the more SDA's marginalize Ellen and reject the elitist spirit behind her writings and humble themselves before Scripture, then the less likely they are to make this a salvific issue, and even respect evangelicals. Nor do i make the day one worships a salvific issue, though i have contended against it and the spirit that often drives it.
Their position is backed up by Scripture; is yours?
Indeed , for Scriptural reasons, which was behind the ruling of Acts 15, and not because some authority of Rome has infallible authority. Likewise we contend for many core doctrines Rome also affirms, because they are Scriptural.
The fact is that the Lord and His church established its claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) not on the premise of a infallible magisterium, but in dissent from those, who, like Rome, presumed a level of veracity above that which is written. (Mk. 7:2-16; 11:27-33)
So; all logic MUST conclude the the women, going to the tomb, early Easter morn, were hungry for a snack.
Some will take UMBRAGE!!! at what I just typed; others will be appalled that I'd even THINK such dastardly thoughts; let ALONE write them out to let the world know how TWISTED my brain is.
 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' |
“If you break the LEAST of these...”
Or maybe, just standing in front of the place with a bloody, graphic picture of what is happening inside.
Don't be surprised; but I agree with you!
There are a LOT more hoops to jump thru!
Except none of those are preachers and none of what you showed is worship.
Nice try though.
you could have fooled me.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Right; Annalex?
Are we back to the "bodily present" wording? The word is "body" isn't it?
How about "materially present" (in the Mass). Yes or no? There is one of your number here who says the RCC never taught that, but that some believed that.
How about "pneumatically present"? Can you see how that can closely enough parallel the description of Christ said to being present "under the forms" of the bread and wine?
It's like saying much the same things (or ended at the same or similar understanding) using different words and terminology to get there...
What I have been concerned with, is due to the language commonly used to describe transubstantiation, many Roman Catholics appear to me to believe in transmaterialization. And no thank you --- I don't need any more "instruction" or lectures or links to "what the church teaches". I've had about a gutfull of that sort of thing, long before you (Heart-Rest) ever joined FR, so spare me. I may know RC apologetic nearly as well as you do...
As far as the term "transmaterialization" is concerned, Mad Dawg knows what I'm talking about. Perhaps you could send him too some "instruction" and thus dodge facing the the admittedly difficult question, followed up with a freepmail, privately chewing him out over the issue, as you did me? Or maybe just maybe, carefully consider what it is he was talking about, here?
Of yes, that can only be it. Kind of like blaming "poor catechises for the liberalism which Rome effectually fosters. I can however, speak for myself, as one who was raised devout RC and remained in the RCC for 6 years after i was manifestly born again and was very sincere, seeking to serve God as a lector and CC teacher, and believed in the "Real Presence" which i received regularly, but by which i realized no known effects, while hearing the word by evangelical preachers greatly did. You may say your mileage is different, but in Scripture it is the latter that souls gained life in themselves by, not by any literal eating.
Well, I’m one of those Crazy Evangelicals so I’m not sure how credible I am to worshipers in a Catholic context, but calling directly on Jesus or the Father to be exalted in a situation is something I’ve found to be amazingly effective. Expand your vision a bit... think of what the best outcome would be. For those folks to repent (or leave if they won’t repent) and it becomes a crisis pregnancy support center. Be bold; ask the Lord directly for this. Don’t be satisfied with seeing the shutdown of an abortion facility and that’s it. Jesus is the Conqueror. He can take away resources that Satan had dominated and bless them right in Satan’s face, and that is the grace of God to the maximum.
You stayed in the church for 6 years after you were baptized?
I think you fooled yourself. I didn’t do it.
Perhaps you should try reading back over the preceding posts related to that post, so you'll understand the context of the post.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm
Here is a start. It is at the very least evidence of an attempt to understand the mystery. To battle heresy.
A pastor once told me that whatever we say about God, He is more unlike that than He is like it. Our very best imaginable is infintesimal compared to God.
But we should try. And we can point towards the truth with our words, or we can point in the wrong direction.
I may not be able to explain the moon, but if I point to a streetlight instead of the moon, I am in error.
Hey folks can we cut out the cattiness.
Yes there is a theological disagreement between the two communions as to exactly what the communion elements are. Symbols that keep their original essence (whatever spiritual activity takes place in their vicinity) or things that are miraculously transformed in their essence as they sit there while the officiant blesses them. The arguments from both sides reference the bible and our best understandings of the milieu.
But we all agree on the Cross, and because of the Cross we can refrain from getting cross! And I hope we can all recognize that Jesus is the boss! (And that He can even bless stubborn or ignorant people who do believe on Him but whose world views are even badly flawed, along the way He leads them to a better enlightenment.)
Hey, can we agree on “agape’ing” one another in this difficult journey? No matter where we are? Cut out the cattiness, turn on the love. Love which comes from God. I’m a Crazy Evangelical and I make it clear my theological “bias” but I also recognize the need for love, so this does not become a big ego stroking fest. That just blocks the grace of God.
I hate to be a wet towel but...
...what about the times when what you advocate just doesn’t work? Then what? Satan won?
Well I think one stark fact has to be recognized in the middle of our controversies...
That BOTH the evangelical AND the Roman Catholic AND the Orthodox communions have Christ visibly working in them.
I think this ought to move us to humility on the way to trying to understand....
God blesses even failed attempts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.