| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 09/09/2020 1:17:58 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childishness, locked Posters, please review your posts to see what is not allowed in the Religion Forum. |
Posted on 08/09/2020 7:46:24 AM PDT by 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.
That’s right.
Actually they think she is higher than Christ because they say Christ has to obey her
LOL, a retroactive sin nature. Now that, is funny. It’s a good question, though. Just my opinion, but I think that every young Jewish girl dreamed of being the mother of the savior. They may not have completely understood it. I don’t think Mary understood it. She had to ask how, since she didn’t “know” a man, sexually.
This so called “choice” idea is bogus. The angel Gabriel, didn’t ask Mary for her permission. He TOLD her what was going to happen. There was no choice involved.
I think you are on to something. It’s pointless to argue with Catholics about Mary. I don’t agree with them, on Mary, but, whatever. 😁
I can't help but believe that all of that is in there for our benefit so that we never think God doesn't care about us or that we must appeal to some mortal human being to be our go-between. That's the kind of faith I know Mary had and she, though a simple Israelite woman, knew she could trust in what God had promised. I may not know why God allows certain things in my life, but I know He loves me and wants what is best for me and that's why I have grown to trust Him more and more.
I don't think some of our Catholic friends really believe that and it's why they lift up Mary and the Saints as their intercessors. They're closer to God, they reason, so maybe He will hear them. Or He's busy with the big stuff, don't "bother" Jesus. How much they are missing!
God bless you, MomMD. Have a great weekend!
You as well! We are all blessed beyond our wildest imagining. I can’t wait for the day we find out just how blessed
I think we should hold onto the celebrations of Christmas and Easter because for now at least the rest of the world still recognizes that they are about Jesus Christ. Perfect opportunities for witnessing to the lost.
Bingo. That is the point I reached in my catholic life. I got so frustrated, struggling against sin, and I was still convinced I was on my way to Hell, and there wasn’t a single, solitary thing I could do about it. Since I was sure, that as a Catholic, I was going to hell anyway, I figured I might as well enjoy the ride, so I began to eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow I died. By then, I was sick of Catholicism, that I was ready to hear the simple truth of the REAL gospel. 😁
A the fact that you recognized there wasn’t a single solitary thing you could do about it showed more wisdom than the entire roman church. There is nothing we can do about it. Only Christ can save us
In post 423 I responded to and refuted ADSUM's response to the statement in the first sentence above, but since I had only quoted the first sentence in her(?) response then she sent me a FReepmail response protesting this since she seems to think someone may think the offering charge was from her.
In response I stated that in hindsight I see that I could and should have put in brackets "Your [Manly Warrior] comment," and would issue a clarification to her reply, though I think the chances of anyone thinking she made the statement she find offensive is small.
Thus to confirm, ADSUM did not make the comment: “All the RCC extra Biblical doctrine of transubstantiation etc. stem from pagan roots of Isis/Osiris Baal and Dagon" and which she protested against, of which protest I later included in my response in post 423.
Of course, you’re right. I’m referring to the people who thought they were Christians, but Jesus said “get away from Me, I never knew you.”
They are irreconcilable, but what if neither belief is necessary for salvation? What if one can have heretical beliefs and still go to Heaven, if you believe in Jesus and His resurrection?
I know when I was younger I was quite confused in many theological beliefs, but I don’t think those errant beliefs disqualified me from Heaven.
I’m quite sure that now, though older, I still have errant beliefs and sins I haven’t seen yet. I also don’t believe they disqualify me from Heaven.
For I believe one thing more than any other: Jesus Christ died to set me free, to raise me up to be with Him in Heaven if I believe in His death and resurrection...which I wholeheartedly do.
I think all else is fluff, chazerai. Though obviously it’s good to have deeper and deeper understanding of Scripture, I just don’t believe it’s necessary for salvation.
Jesus, the Son of God, was sent by the Father to restore the harmony between himself and humanity that had been disrupted by sin. He came to teach and show us love. We are here to know God, accept his Truth and love Him and our neighbor.
Your comment; “Looks like it is you who is making false statements about the Catholic faith as well as contradicting God’s Truth, His Word and your OWN Catechism!”
There was nothing that I said that contradicts the Catholic faith or Catholic Catechism. You make a blanket statement and then quote various parts of the Catholic Catechism.
Looks like Ol' Pete (and others) did a mighty poor job of it; according to the book Rome assembled!
Merely reading the first 3 chapters of Revelation proves the "Catholic Church" couldn't teach SQUAWT!
Didn't I just PROVE this?
Heck; she should have her own comic book since she OBVIOUSLY has Super Powers!
from “Sketch of the Life and Labours of J. N. Darby”
John Nelson Darby on “adoration” — (hyperdulia or dulia)
“’The correctness of a formal and deliberate confession of faith is not always of itself a sufficient safeguard against error, in the habitual impression of the mind. The Romanists flatter themselves that they are safe from idolatry, because they distinctly acknowledge the truth, that GOD only is to be served (namely, with latria), though they allow adoration (hyperdulia and dulia) to the Virgin and their saints, to images, and to relics. To which it has been justly replied, that, supposing this distinction correct in itself, it would be in practice nugatory, since the mass of the people must soon, as experience proves, lose sight of it entirely in their habitual devotions.’
So true!
Just THINK of all the time you’ve saved; being able to do other stuff!
Well; at least SOMEONE addressed what I posted!
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.