Should we Evangelize Protestants ?

The Catholic Thing ^ | August 9th, 2020 | Casey Chalk

[MurphsLaw]

We should stop trying to evangelize Protestants, some Catholics say. “Let’s get our own house clean first, before we invite our fellow Christians in,” someone commented on a recent article of mine that presented a Catholic rejoinder to a prominent Baptist theologian. Another reader argued that, rather than trying to persuade Protestants to become Catholic, we should “help each other spread God’s love in this world that seems to be falling to pieces before our eyes.” As a convert from Protestantism, actively engaged in ecumenical dialogue, I’ve heard this kind of thinking quite frequently. And it’s dead wrong.

One common argument in favor of scrapping Catholic evangelism towards Protestants is that the Catholic Church, mired in sex-abuse and corruption scandals, liturgical abuses, heretical movements, and uneven catechesis, is such a mess that it is not, at least for the moment, a place suitable for welcoming other Christians.

There are many problems with this. For starters, when has the Church not been plagued by internal crises? In the fourth century, a majority of bishops were deceived by the Arian heresy. The medieval Church suffered under the weight of simony and a lax priesthood, as well as the Avignon Papacy and the Western Schism, culminating in three men claiming, simultaneously, to be pope. The Counter-Reformation, for all its catechetical, missionary and aesthetic glories, was still marred by corruption and heresies (Jansenism). Catholicism has never been able to escape such trials. That didn’t stop St. Martin of Tours, St. Boniface, St. Francis de Sales, St. Ignatius Loyola, or St. Teresa of Calcutta from their missionary efforts.

The “Catholics clean house” argument also undermines our own theology. Is the Eucharist the “source and summit of the Christian life,” as Lumen Gentium preaches, or not? If it is, how could we in good conscience not direct other Christians to its salvific power? Jesus Himself declared: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53) Was our Lord misrepresenting the Eucharist?

Or what of the fact that most Protestant churches allow contraception, a mortal sin? Or that Protestants have no recourse to the sacraments of penance or last rites? To claim Protestants aren’t in need of these essential parts of the Catholic faith is to implicitly suggest we don’t need them either.

* Moreover, in the generations since the Reformation, Rome has been able to win many Protestants back to the fold who have made incalculable contributions to the Church. St. John Henry Newman’s conversion ushered in a Catholic revival in England, and gave us a robust articulation of the concept of doctrinal development. The conversion of French Lutheran pastor Louis Bouyer influenced the teachings of Vatican II. Biblical scholar Scott Hahn’s conversion in the 1980s revitalized lay study of Holy Scripture.

Another popular argument in favor of limiting evangelization of Protestants involves the culture war. Catholics and theologically conservative Protestants, some claim, share significant common ground on various issues: abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, euthanasia, religious freedom, etc. Secularism, the sexual revolution, and anti-religious progressives represent an existential threat to the survival of both Catholics and Protestants, and thus we must work together, not debate one another. “Let’s hold back any criticism of them,” a person commenting on my article wrote. “Believe me, in the times that we are in, we need to all hang together, or we will definitely hang separately on gallows outside our own churches.”

This line of thought certainly has rhetorical force: we don’t have the luxury of debating with Protestants when the progressivists are planning our imminent demise! Ecumenical debate is a distraction from self-preservation. One problem with this argument is that it reduces our Christian witness to a zero-sum game – we have to focus all our efforts on fighting secular progressivism, or we’ll fail. Yet the Church has many missions in the public square – that Catholics invest great energy in the pro-life movement doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also focus our efforts on other important matters: health-care, education, ensuring religious freedom, or fighting poverty and environmental degradation. All of these, in different ways, are a part of human flourishing. Even if we consider some questions more urgent than others, none of them should be ignored.

Besides, there is a vast difference between mere polemics and charitable, fruitful discussions aimed at resolving disagreements. The former can certainly cause bad blood. The latter, however, can actually foster unity and clarity regarding our purposes. Consider how much more fruitful our fight against the devastation of the sexual revolution would be if we persuaded Protestants that they need to reject things like contraception and the more permissive stance towards divorce that they have allowed to seep into their churches. Consider how non-Christians could learn from charitable ecumenical conversations that don’t devolve into name-calling and vilification.

Finally, abandoning or minimizing the evangelizing of Protestants is to fail to recognize how their theological and philosophical premises have contributed to the very problems we now confront. As Brad Gregory’s book The Unintended Reformation demonstrates, the very nature of Protestantism has contributed to the individualism, secularism, and moral relativism of our age. A crucial component to our Catholic witness, then, is helping Protestants to recognize this, since even when they have the best intentions, their very paradigm undermines their contributions to collaborating with us in the culture war.

I for one am very grateful that Catholics – many of them former Protestants – persuaded me to see the problems inherent to Protestantism, and the indisputable truths of Catholicism. My salvation was at stake. I also found and married a devout Catholic woman, and am raising Catholic children. The Catholic tradition taught me how to pray, worship, and think in an entirely different way. It pains me to think what my life would be like if I hadn’t converted to Catholicism.

Why bother to evangelize devout Protestants? Because they are people like me.

[alrea]

Ping

[metmom]

And as well, we reach back to those years immediately following the Crucifixion and we read... The Didache refers to the Eucharist as a thusia, the Greek term for sacrifice: “Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one.

Jesus is not an object for me to sacrifice to God for my sins.

NOBODY is making a sacrifice when they partake fo a ceremony of remembrance.

John 10:17-18 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

[Luircin]

It seems that they all ran away.

Within the week they’ll all be on another thread spouting word-for-word the same talking points.

I have to wonder if they get paid or if they just love the feeling of cognitive dissonance THAT much.

One thing we do know is that they’re in for quite a surprise when face to face with the Lord. Hopefully some of them deep down really do depend on Christ alone for salvation, because otherwise eternity is going to be VERY unpleasant for them.

[metmom]

Maybe they think their defense of the Catholic faith will earn them time off in purgatory points.

[Luircin]

One of the several ironies being that their ‘defense’ is destroying their own cult’s credibility because of all the logical fallacies.

Their fury is hilarious when the catholicanswers and catholicapologetics rote answers that they keep swallowing whole and regurgitating have no effect on us like they have on the strawmen that those sites set up against them.

[metmom]

Anything they put forth that defies logic and makes no sense, and outright contradicts Scripture, is then written off as *a mystery of the faith*. They make it sound like someone is so spiritual because they can somehow reconcile two totally contradictory claims or statements.

IOW, you have to accept their illogic and nonsense as a matter of faith, never minding that God never required anyone to believe in logical fallacies or just on someone’s say so.

When Thomas doubted, Jesus showed him proof, instead of chastising him for his *lack of faith*. The disciples saw and believed and Jesus called them blessed.

[Luircin]

A Christian should be comfortable with mysteries, like the nature of God or what eternity will be like or when Jesus will return.

It’s an entirely different thing to contradict the Word of God and call it a mystery of the faith.

[metmom]

Exactly.

[Mark17]

One thing we do know is that they’re in for quite a surprise when face to face with the Lord. Hopefully some of them deep down really do depend on Christ alone for salvation, because otherwise eternity is going to be VERY unpleasant for them.

You are correct sir. 🔥

[Elsie]

DAMNED good catch!

[Elsie]

Which your own CCC agrees with along with the Peter=rock view, while linguistical debates never end:

 

How the Catechism of the Catholic Church” now describes the “Petrine succession”:

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”

---

Sure different than what Augustine and many OTHER Early Church Fathers taught; isn't it!! 

 

(It's just too bad that so many FR Catholics utterly FAIL to listen to #883 in regards to their current pope!)

[Elsie]

Poorly catechized Alert!!

“The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.”

[Elsie]

Remember the Lord until He comes.

(Not EAT Him!!)

[Elsie]

... but first make confession of your faults...

Ain't nobody got time fo dat!

[Elsie]

I think he may be in his closet; counting his herd of hats.

[Elsie]

I have to wonder if they get paid or if they just love the feeling of cognitive dissonance THAT much.

Well; FWIW; they are VERY convinced of what they so firmly believe.

I'll continue to 'waste my time' here, posting the words of what the RCC used to believe&practice so these folks might; someday; someway; finally see that their chosen religion HAS changed over the years; in spite of what they keep asserting here.

[Elsie]

They make it sound like someone is so spiritual because they can somehow reconcile two totally contradictory claims or statements.

You mean like THIS???

 

 

 

 

 

What's for dinner?

 

D&C 49:18-19  18 And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; 19 For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.

D&C 89:12-13  12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; 13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

 

 

 

It must be tough; being a Mormon.   Having to face Scripture that state two oppossing ideas and somehow managing to believe BOTH of them!  It's no WONDER that Utah leads in Prozac usage!

 

 

 

[daniel1212]

882 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

And which forces TradCaths to relegate Francis to being a invalid pope. If not, they sure do want to hinder him.

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”

Which is one reason the pope cannot be deposed unless he consents to it. And if the bishops cannot do it, much less can the laity. Thus TradCaths are either in schism part of the many sects which disobey the requirements of submission that so many past popes have set down. Such as,

"the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)

[Mom MD]

I find most Romans cherry pick their catechism the same way they cherry pick scripture. Why not? I have been told by our resident priest the catholic catechism is divinely inspired and without error - so they may as well treat it the same way and Scripture

[ADSUM]

Your question: “What??? What did I miss??? What confirms that the wafer is the meat which endures into everlasting life??? “

Jesus told the Apostles and disciples (John 6) and established the Mass and the Sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. “Take, eat; this is my body.” (Matthew 26:26)

Again, if you read the Bible you would know these passages , but you deny Christ’s words and thus reject Christ and reject His Catholic Church. You do not accept that Jesus can do what he says.

Your comment: “You can eat your consecrated wafers all day long and not a single one will reach your heart... “

Another false statement that you can not know the spiritual effect on believers of receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

So you mock and do not believe that Christ comes to his followers and believers in the Catholic Church in the form of bread and wine that mysteriously changes this bread and wine into His Body and Blood. Yes, the Catholic Church named this to help believers understand this mystery. Do you believe that Jesus changed the water into wine at Cana at the request of His Blessed Mother?

Do you have hatred in your heart toward Jesus teaching “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”()John 6: 53-54)

So do you believe the inspired words of Jesus or your own personal opinion?