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. Lets 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 Gods love in this world that seems to be falling to pieces before our eyes. As a convert from Protestantism, actively engaged in ecumenical dialogue, Ive heard this kind of thinking quite frequently. And its 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 didnt 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 arent in need of these essential parts of the Catholic faith is to implicitly suggest we dont 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 Newmans 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 Hahns 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. Lets 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 dont 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 well fail. Yet the Church has many missions in the public square that Catholics invest great energy in the pro-life movement doesnt mean we shouldnt 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 dont 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 Gregorys 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 hadnt converted to Catholicism.
Why bother to evangelize devout Protestants? Because they are people like me.
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the following Early Church Fathers promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1:
Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.. Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
For all bear the surname rock who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II):
Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
Even IF y'all "clean" your own house, there's no way I would ever rejoin. I'm a better, more genuine Christian now than I ever was as a cradle Catholic. Here's a thought...why don't you evangelize the real lost souls after that house cleaning gets done? Perhaps with the TRUE gospel this time.
The same way you explain how Judas betrayed Jesus, who is God incarnate.
People do bad things. And the church is composed of these sinners.
That statement alone shows why Protestants need evangelizing.
So do you call Paul a heretic for saying that is right that his disciples should call him father?
So how does one accept God if they do no fully believe in His Word and ignores what He tell us?
Heres the key:
What you claim the passages mean, and what they mean, are different.
Ergo, it is simple to believe what God inspired.
There are plenty of tares among the wheat.
Exactly why all Catholics, orthodox, and every other denominations members should be evangelized.
may as well but u likely to do much . I try to introduce Romans to the Gospel of Grace every chance I get.
AMEN!
It was passed down to Catholics through Sacred Tradition before Scriptures were written
Yet never in writing before 100 ad... not in scripture, secular writings, contemporary art, etc.
Peculiar, if it were true.
That rebellious priest returned to the Gospel of Grace preached by Paul and the apostles 1500 years earlier shedding the tortuous middle of works and made up rules that the Romans try to impose on people. Ill take the Truth of the Bible over the lies and idolatry of Rome every day
Basically I was agreeing with you.
Im not interpreting Scripture because I am reading what it says and not trying to make Scripture mean something it doesnt say.
*Do this in remembrance of me,* means remembrance, not participation.
Thought so after I reread it, mea culpa sister.
And, most scholars, theological and secular pretty much agree that the NT in its entirety was written and likely widely disseminated by 100 AD or so. There are some 10000 copies and fragments of copies in hand today. More than any other important writing from antiquity, to include OT, Plato etc.
No problem....
Romans 2:16 tells us we are all going to be judged by that Gospel.
“In the day that God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ ACCORDING to MY GOSPEL.”
That is the gospel that was given by Jesus Christ to Paul for us. That’s why Paul refers to it as “my gospel”.
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.