The CDF, in conjunction with some other folks, has released a new and much-needed document.
For years, particular currents among theologians, priests, and society in general have eroded the basis for evangelization. I’ve seen appeals from allegedly missionary societies and felt compelled to go up to the priest representing them afterwards and say, "Father, did you know that you wouldn’t have had to change one word of your pitch if your organization changed its name to the Society for the Propagation of Decent Medical Care? We need to hear about more than people’s medical needs. We need to hear about their need for Jesus as well."
The new CDF document–which I haven’t had a chance to finish yet, but which is the #1 thing on my reading list–stresses the importance of evangelization and the fact that, just because people in other faiths can be saved that doesn’t mean that we should disobey Jesus and refuse to evangelize them.
The document also forms the third part of a CDF trifecta, starting with Dominus Iesus (stressing the uniqueness of Christ), the Q & A on the Church from last year (stressing the uniqueness of the Catholic Church), and now the new document (stressing the need for evangelization).
So, just to review . . . Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God and the unique Savior of mankind. He started the Catholic Church. And if you want to do Christ’s will, you need to become a Catholic.
Kewl.
GET THE STORY.
“So, just to review . . . Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God and the unique Savior of mankind. He started the Catholic Church. And if you want to do Christ’s will, you need to become a Catholic.”
…and if you want to be a good Catholic, you need to EVANGELIZE!
So, just to review . . . Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God and the unique Savior of mankind. He started the Catholic Church. And if you want to do Christ’s will, you need to become a Catholic.
…and if you want to be a good Catholic, you need to EVANGELIZE!
Yeah, but what about those Charismatic Catholics as well as various liberal Catholics who claim that Protestantism is just as acceptable as Catholicism?
Esau, I think its fair to say that Protestantism is just as acceptable as Catholicism when it comes to teaching about the necessary tools for one’s salvation. They believe in Jesus’s death and resurrection, most even teach perfect contrition, though they don’t call it that.
I know you didn’t mean to say that Protestants were going to hell or something, but to a passer by, your comment read like that.
Esau, I think its fair to say that Protestantism is just as acceptable as Catholicism when it comes to teaching about the necessary tools for one’s salvation.
DJ,
Please remember the Words of Our Lord:
John 6
53 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.
I believe such Catholics tend to overlook such Words from Our Saviour thereby diminishing/diluting the genuine message of the Gospel in such a manner much worse than our separated brethren since these Catholics are supposedly aware of such Catholic Teachings as handed down to us by Our Lord Himself!
Yes, and the more frequently I take the Eucharist, the more I understand that verse, just like all Catholics who aren’t dead in the Faith.
However, its also not fair to say that all Protestants are going hell. Which is not what you said, but it sounded like it. And I can tell you that if I were a Protestant who was earnestly seeking the Truth, that statement would turn me off to Catholicism. I know many Protestants who that’s their issue with Catholics, our judgmentalism toward them.
I do agree with your statement that we can’t be so accepting that we accept Satan into the Church as a saint because he was just misunderstood, but there’s a difference between taking a hard line with your faith and a hard line with your words.
I could be mistaken, but I think the whole point of the letter is that it’s not fair to say that.
I’m pretty sure that Esau did not mean that either, and I certainly don’t. In fact, having greater access to the fullness of Truth, the average Catholic will certainly be held to a higher standard than the average Protestant, and therefore should (in the proper context) be even more afraid of going to hell.
DJ,
I think its fair to say that Protestantism is just as acceptable as Catholicism when it comes to teaching about the necessary tools for one’s salvation.
I’m sorry, but that is simply not true.
It is necessary for salvation that one be baptized, yet much of modern Protestantism has left baptism as an individual choice to “make public” one’s salvation.
It is necessary for salvation to participate in the death and resurrection of Christ by receiving the Eucharist, yet none of Protestantism offers a valid Eucharist.
It is necessary for salvation to be free from mortal sin, yet Protestantism does not offer a readily-available means to receive absolution.
One cannot say that Protestantism is “just as acceptable” as Catholicism when it comes to teaching about the means to reach salvation.
Note: I am a former Protestant, and I do believe it is possible for a Protestant to go to heaven. However, like the Church, I see that as God working outside the boundaries He has set up for us to follow, not as a “just as good” means to heaven. As Catholics, we have a duty to evangelize that the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church, and as such, the best and most sure-fire way to be saved. Protestantism is not “just as acceptable”.
Esquire,
Thanks as usual.
Francis,
Thank you for that post!
Esau, Esquire and francis… AMEN!
I’m going to bow out of this, as I don’t want to get embroiled in something I didn’t intend to get into.
My original point was one more of diplomacy and understanding of the other side. I have no intention of diluting the Church’s teaching, and by continuing trying to say what I originally intended I feel that that’s what I may be presenting, so I’ll just shut up.
“My original point was one more of diplomacy and understanding of the other side. I have no intention of diluting the Church’s teaching, and by continuing trying to say what I originally intended I feel that that’s what I may be presenting, so I’ll just shut up.”
DJ, when you swim with sharks you had better get used to being bitten. A lot of people draw false conclusions without burdening themselves with all the facts.
Well, even this die-hard advocate of civility can’t find fault with the suggestion that Protestantism is not “just as acceptable” as Catholicism. If you can’t say even that, how on Earth is any kind of evangelism or apologetics ever going to happen?
Brian,
I could be mistaken, but it appears you have done exactly that. (Of course, appearances aren’t always what they seem to be.)
Thanks yet again, Esquire.
In a nutshell, I think francis 03 puts it best:
…Protestantism is not “just as acceptable” as Catholicism. If you can’t say even that, how on Earth is any kind of evangelism or apologetics ever going to happen?
Obviously we are required to evangelize, but how do we do it effectively? For me the coming on strong approach backfires. Any ideas?
Brian,
A lot of people draw false conclusions without burdening themselves with all the facts.
I could be mistaken, but it appears you have done exactly that. (Of course, appearances aren’t always what they seem to be.)
Thank you, Esquire. My faith is restored…you didn’t assume that you understood me but rather asked me whether you did or not. Good for you!
I was addressing this comment to DJ.
…Protestantism is not “just as acceptable” as Catholicism. Of course! That’s the point of the CDF document!
Obviously we are required to evangelize, but how do we do it effectively? For me the coming on strong approach backfires. Any ideas?
Jimmy has a good approach in the way he writes. So does Carl Olson and Mark Brumley. For the average person, nothing beats being a good Catholic who loves Jesus. That is very attractive!
Great post, Tim!!! (someone had to say it!)
“Obviously we are required to evangelize, but how do we do it effectively? For me the coming on strong approach backfires. Any ideas?”
Mark Brumley wrote a book called the “How Not To Share Your Faith – the Seven Deadly Sins of Catholic Apologetics and Evangelization”. Not a long read, but concise and precise on the common pitfalls and traps to avoid when sharing your faith. In fact, I ought to read it again. And again. And again. After reading the new CDF document of course. Hope this helps.
Obviously we are required to evangelize, but how do we do it effectively? For me the coming on strong approach backfires. Any ideas?
Don’t assume that everyone is the same in how they react to various evangelization methods. I was actually brought into the Church by an obnoxious, opinionated Catholic. He and I had many debates that ended up in yelling matches (we were only college students at the time, so our maturity level was a bit low, I admit), but in the end, I was able to understand the Catholic Faith as I had not before debating him, and decided to become Catholic.
The key is building a relationship with the person if possible so that you know what their questions are and what means to answering them are most effective.
For people you’re going to have a lot of contact with (e.g., co-workers, etc.), you don’t need to do too much. Just resist the (for me) natural urge to hide the fact that your faith is important to you. Once they realize that you go to Mass every Sunday (and on Holy Days of Obligation), have real problems voting for pro-choice political candidates (or just plain refuse to do so), give things up for Lent and don’t eat meat on Fridays, etc., etc., they’ll start coming to you when they have questions about what Catholics think. That’s your chance to give your very best account of the faith.
I know that’s a passive approach, but it has the advantage of being usable most of the time for most people. Whether to be more forthright is a case-by-case judgment, I think, depending on how well you know the person as well as all the circumstances. I suppose there will also be situations where it’s better to let people get to know you before springing your religious convictions on them, to avoid getting labeled as some kind of nut.
Excellent Francis that is my situation, thank you.
Francis 03, your patron saint agreed with you.
“Preach the Gospel always–when necessary, use words.”
I’d say you’re in pretty good company.
DJ,
Perhaps paragaph 12 of the CDF Note, which addresses ecumenical implications of evangelization, expresses something of what you were trying to say (and also relates to Memphis Aggies’ question):
In other words, evangelization in the context of non-Catholic Christians involves: (1) listening (note what comes first), (2) rational discussion about the faith, (3) personal witness, and (4) emphasis on common foundational elements.
“Obviously we are required to evangelize, but how do we do it effectively?”
I think there are probably many means of evangelization that Catholics can do, and I like to think of the Lord’s saying “What you have been given, give also to others”.
I think we are probably all experts in our own conversion story, and what might have worked for us in our own lives of faith, will probably also work for others too.
Since I was converted primarily by reading the ‘Lives of the Saints’, and with little other Catholic input… I have always encouraged others to do likewise, and read many bokks written by, or on the Lives of, Saints. As a result I have gotten at least a few to join, or return to, the faith in this way. I have also strengthened some who are already Catholics to be better Catholics from giving them such “holy books”.
But, for others, there might be very different means which will be effective! Those who were converted through logic and apologetics, might want to evangelize primarily in this way. Others, who were impressed by the inspiring devotion of other practicing Catholics, might find it beneficial to bring newcomers to Mass, and/or Eucharistic Adoration…or to other holy places… like monasteries. (I have had 2 friends who became priests because of such means…they were brought into contact with very holy Nuns, in a monastery of Perpetual Adoration, and after some time, were impressed enough to devote their lives to the Church!)
So..there are really many good ways to try to bring people to Christ and His Church!
And I agree whole-heartedly with Brian Schuettler’s comment: “For the average person, nothing beats being a good Catholic who loves Jesus. That is very attractive!”
That’s right on!
And I agree whole-heartedly with Brian Schuettler’s comment: “For the average person, nothing beats being a good Catholic who loves Jesus. That is very attractive!”
If your criteria of a good Catholic is one who loves Jesus, I can point you to many Protestants who do the same!
A good Catholic should be one who not only practices the Catholic Faith faithfully but also one who evangelizes.
Esau,
Good point, but evangelizing is not something added to the practice of the Catholic Faith; practicing the Catholic Faith faithfully is evangelizing.
I also think your re-characterization of Brian’s point, reiterated by A. Williams, may have altered its meaning. I don’t think either of them was using “love Jesus” as the criteria for determining a “good” Catholic. I read them to be saying, in essence, what St. Thomas Aquinas said long ago: “the good is diffusive.” A Catholic who practices his Faith, and whose love for Jesus is apparent, will naturally cause non-Catholics to be attracted to the Faith. Stated another way, a Catholic who practices his so-called Faith, but whose love for Jesus is not apparent, will naturally be an obstacle to the Faith for non-Catholics (and Catholics).
(I’m certain from reading your posts that you don’t disagree with any of that; I just think you may have misread a tiny bit what Brian was saying.)
Esquire,
Good point, but evangelizing is not something added to the practice of the Catholic Faith
You forget — God “wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4).
How else can they come to the knowledge of the truth unless Catholics evangelize? Thus, this may be considered part of the Corporal Works of Mercy as in “Instructing the Ignorant”.
A Catholic who practices his Faith, and whose love for Jesus is apparent, will naturally cause non-Catholics to be attracted to the Faith.
Yes, but like I said, Protestants similarly demonstrate their love for Jesus, which is why they influence a lot of conversions to protestantism.
Catholics merely practicing the Faith isn’t enough.
They need to evangelize!
Esau,
I’m not sure what you think I forgot. You seem to be missing my point.
A Catholic who is not evangelizing is not practicing the Faith.
In that context, your statement — “Catholics merely practicing the Faith isn’t enough. They need to evangelize!” — is nonsensical.
Again, evangelization is not something added to the practice of the Catholic Faith (as though it were exterior to that Faith); it is part of (or interior to, if you prefer) the practice of the Catholic Faith.
To your larger point, however, I am in complete agreement (at least as I understand it), and I think you can find it expressed quite well at the end of paragraph 11 of the CDF Note:
Esau, Esquire is agreeing with you: loving Jesus and evangelizing are inextricably connected; you can’t really have either without the other. Both are also of course essential parts of Catholicism.
What he said.
My bad! ;^)
Typepad will not let me post, except may short sentences! It thinks I am a spammer. How does one reset the spam system?
The Chicken
It seems that I must evangelize with single sentences 🙂
Esau,
The statement was very clear and simple:
1. Nothing beats a good Catholic
2. who loves Jesus.
3. That is very attractive
A good Catholic encompasses all of the virtues that we should like to find in a Catholic…thus the emphasis on the adjective ‘good’. This is a far cry from “many Protestants who do the same”..i.e. All those millions of Protestants out there who love Jesus. And, also, the subject matter is Catholic evangelization…not Protestant evangelization.
And thanks Esquire, for the good job of clarifying the other parts!
Typepad will not let me post, except may short sentences! It thinks I am a spammer. How does one reset the spam system?
The Chicken
Can anybody help The Chicken to ‘cross the road’?
There’s a new way to evangelize fundamentalists on catholicfundamentalism.com There, God is defined as “The Unprogrammed Programmer”, and He, Who has the ability to program in three dimensions, programmed particles, compiled them into structures and beings and had them move through time.
He programmed all the details, fossils, seams of coal, etc. to give each one of us free will. So far, no one has been able to disprove the thesis, and there’s a free book to download, plus some funny essays.
Angels, according to the theory, are Sub-Programmers. Interesting, and new.
Chicken, if you have to type in random letters to let it know you’re a real person, I think that’s something Jimmy turns on at times.
How else can they come to the knowledge of the truth unless Catholics evangelize? Thus, this may be considered part of the Corporal Works of Mercy as in “Instructing the Ignorant”.
There is a difference between saying “Catholics must evangelize” and “Every Catholic must personally evangelize.” We all have our different vocations, and our different faculties.
There is a difference between saying “Catholics must evangelize” and “Every Catholic must personally evangelize.” We all have our different vocations, and our different faculties.
Mary,
You have a very good point here; however, if the Laity doesn’t engage in evangelization, who is supposed to do it?
I remember in the protestant church I attended as well as organizations where even ordinary youth, young adult, adult and senior groups passed out pamphlets, leaflets, etc. in order to spread the Gospel and convert people to Christ (of course, this often meant attending their church).
I don’t see why ordinary Catholics can’t do the same.
“Yeah, but what about those Charismatic Catholics as well as various liberal Catholics who claim that Protestantism is just as acceptable as Catholicism?”
Careful about painting with too broad a brush there Esau. Charismatic does not equal liberal.
Protestantism is not as acceptable as Catholicism. Neither are modern Protestants equivalent to Luther or Calvin or others who at one time accepted, or were at least baptized as Catholic and left the Church in a fit of the sin of pride. Such do exist even today, and their souls are in peril. Most Protestants have never heard the authentic message of the Catholic Church, which is why we must evangelize.
Do not mistake the acceptance by some Charismatics of music composed by Protestants as acceptance of their theology. A song which contains authentic truth can originate from any Christian source. The Protestant groups, or as they were referred to by the the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Christian Communities contain truth only so far as they accept the Teachings of the Church. Use of a song which contains an authentic truth is not an endorsement of any other belief of the composer.
Personally we can’t say that any particular Protestant will go to Hell any more than we can know that a particular Catholic will go to Hell. That is in God’s hands, but I can tell you that adherence to the teachings of the Church, handed down through Scripture and Apostolic Tradition is the surest way I know to get into Heaven. Failure to make every effort to convey that fact to our Protestant brothers and sisters is failure to follow the teachings of the Church.
TerryC,
Charismatic does not equal liberal.
That’s why I specifically stated the 2 — “…those Charismatic Catholics as well as various liberal Catholics”
Careful about painting with too broad a brush there Esau.
Also, I was citing not all charismatics, but “those Charismatic Catholics” that do.
“Also, I was citing not all charismatics, but “those Charismatic Catholics” that do.”
Fair enough.
I think it’s important to mention, in reference to Esau and Mary’s recent comments, the idea that evangelization does not necessarily mean talking to people, handing out pamphlets, or so much as mentioning Christ.
Cloistered nuns are probably the best evangelists in the world, yet they never speak to a soul. Of course there is the famous saying attributed to St. Francis in which he is said to have encouraged the brothers to preach the gospel at all times, sometimes using words.
I can speak from personal experience that I was evangelized and brought into the Church by those who never spoke a word to me about Christ far, far more than by those who did. The people who evangelized me did it by living their faith in a way that allowed their lights to shine before men, most notably, in this case, myself.
In fact, unless I’m badly mistaken, this is one of the more traditional Catholic means of evangelization, as opposed to the method more commonly found in Protestantism of approaching people and speaking to them about different things. The Jesuit missionaries converted the Americas in this way, after all. They didn’t just show up and start preaching the gospel. They showed up and got to know the native peoples, built trust, and so forth. They showed them Christ – they didn’t tell them about Him (until later).
So certainly all Catholics are called to evangelize – but not necessarily in the way that we might tend to think of it being done.
The way I look at it, not only must we ‘be’ Christ to others, we have to ‘see’ Christ in others. That’s why the soapbox street corner evangelists are rarely if ever effective. Preaching alone is useless – but if we’re genuinely loving our neighbor out of love of God, then that opens the door for the Holy Spirit to begin the conversion process.
Would I be on track in saying that before one can effectively perform the Spiritual Works of Mercy, the Corporal Works of Mercy have to be firmly rooted? Does one necessarily precede the other? Do the CWM’s support the SWM’s in such a way so as to improve evangelization?
St. Josemaria: Many years ago, as I reflected upon Our Lord’s way of doing things, I came to the conclusion that the apostolate, of whatever kind it be, must be an overflow of the interior life.
And, mind you, St. Josemaria was not one to put down apologetics, explaining doctrine, etc. Far from it. But he realized that for any of these external activities of evangelization to bear real fruit, it had to spring from a deep personal relationship with Christ.
As a collage student my way to evangelize is to attend ‘protestant on-campus bible study’ after familerizing myself with Catholic justification for our doctrines and to constently challange their misconceptions about the Church. You see nearly every protestant i’ve met dosn’t hate the Church, only what they think the Church is.
Jack, Bishop Fulton Sheen said it well:
“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing.”
“As a collage student…”
What kind of courses do you take? 😉
Thank y’all for the advice and quotations. I think the consensus is that the best methods of evangelization were demonstrated by the Saints. A very challenging answer, but a satisfying one. Good thread.
“As a collage student…” gives new meaning to the words “cut and paste” .
:^) at Mike Melendez
Part of the problem of evangelizing in the modern era may be that there is almost no sense of sin and hence, it is hard to explain to some people exactly from what they are being saved. Any thoughts?
The Chicken
[Still mad at typepad – I typed the letters/number. It still thinks I’m spam, so have limited posting to stay under the radar]
Part of the problem of evangelizing in the modern era may be that there is almost no sense of sin and hence, it is hard to explain to some people exactly from what they are being saved. Any thoughts?
The Chicken
[Still mad at typepad – I typed the letters/number. It still thinks I’m spam, so have limited posting to stay under the radar]
Masked Chicken –
That’s the thing… a person can’t really begin to grasp the Good News if they have no concept of the Bad News.
Original Sin has made a sinking ship of our world. The Gospel is the Hope of rescue – of life. But, like the complacent and ignorant passengers on the Titanic, many – perhaps most – can’t see the problem. They’re comfy, they have been told repeatedly that the ship is unsinkable (or even that it’s the only ship in the world) and they aren’t going to go to a lot of trouble until they notice the water is up to their ankles.
Agreed, Chicken. You can’t spread a message of salvation to people who don’t think there’s anything they need saving from. This, in my opinion, is why Christians are often thought of by modern people as gloomy and negative– we have to convince modern people of the bad news in order for the good to make sense. But humans have created so many distractions for themselves in recent times that they’re able to ignore their fundamental problems and unhappiness for most of their lives. This makes it hard for the Gospel to get its foot in the door.
Cross posted. I’m honored to echo Tim.
How does one go about helping someone see that they need a savior? Practical advice that will not sound too condemnatory (fire and brimstone) or triumphalist (you, too, can be saved)?
The Chicken
How does one go about helping someone see that they need a savior?
Yeah, but protestants already have a saviour — Jesus; so why would they need to become Catholic?
Good point, Esau. To specify, what about a Catholic’s view of salvation is different than a Protestants, such that notions of sin and truth can be brought forth to make a distinction? Some Protestants think that once they accept Jesus they can no longer sin and that once they accept Jesus they know all that they need to know. How to convince them, otherwise?
The Chicken
[I have a much longer post on a different aspect of evangelization I might try to sneak past typepad, later]
“Some Protestants think that once they accept Jesus they can no longer sin and that once they accept Jesus they know all that they need to know.”
Boy…!.
I wonder what you guys (or this Chicken)consider “protestant”.
Boy…!.
I wonder what you guys (or this Chicken)consider “protestant”.
You mean protestants don’t really believe in the “Once Saved, Always Saved” doctrine?
That’s funny, because that’s what they taught in my protestant church.
Also, there are several other denominations who believe and preach this — baptists, for instance.
Not to mention, the reformers who actually initiated this particular notion that is disctinctly novel from what the early Christian church taught.
Sorry— that was my posting—-
The eternal security of the believer ( which I do not hold to)- is not based on the notion that you cannot sin !.
“Not to mention, the reformers who actually initiated this particular notion that is disctinctly novel from what the early Christian church taught.”
Care to document?— say….1st century—or perhaps 2nd?.
Some Protestants think that once they accept Jesus they can no longer sin and that once they accept Jesus they know all that they need to know. How to convince them, otherwise?
Having them study their Bible would be a good place to start, since all of the doctrines you just identified can be easily refuted with a reasonable understanding of Sacred Scripture.
Having them study the early Church would be another good place, since none of those doctrines can be squared with the beliefs and practices of the earliest Christians.
Having them study Lumen Gentium may be fruitful, because that is one of the most recent and most authoritative magisterial documents as to what the Church believes about herself. No Protestant will join the Church if they don’t see a need for it, and seeing a need for it turns, at least in part, on seeing it correctly. (To turn it around, no Protestant will remain outside the Church if they understand it as Christ’s Church, and not merely some human institution.)
To repeat a common refrain, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question about the necessity of the Church. (Except, of course, that it is necessary.)
Before we deviate from the thrust of my argument—-I do not hold to the “Once saved always saved” doctrine— however you are categorically mistaken that this security is based on the fact that they cannot sin once they convert.
If this is what you believe—then you are guilty of the same things you accuse those who post here and mis-represent Catholicism.
Sorry— that was my posting—-
As if I didn’t know.
however you are categorically mistaken that this security is based on the fact that they cannot sin once they convert.
Just where in my comments did I say this?
You are just as guilty as your fellow protestants who misrepresent Catholicism by misrepresenting my own comments.
Here, this is what I said:
“You mean protestants don’t really believe in the “Once Saved, Always Saved” doctrine?
That’s funny, because that’s what they taught in my protestant church.
Also, there are several other denominations who believe and preach this — baptists, for instance.
Not to mention, the reformers who actually initiated this particular notion that is disctinctly novel from what the early Christian church taught.”
No!— You seemed to agree with the Chickens assesment that some protestants belive they cannot sin…
If this is not what happened then— sorry
My bad!.
erick,
I agree with you that the traditional “once saved, always saved” position is not dependent on an inability to sin. Although that is a possible reading of what the Chicken intended, it is not the only reading.
I have run into Christians who did essentially believe that they could not sin once they accepted Christ, and all the Chicken said is that “some Protestants” think this. His statement is true as far as it goes, but your point is still a worthwhile clarification.
That “some protestants” believe this is precisely my contention!.
I know of not one Protestant denomination that teaches this!.
I know of pseudo-christians who believe this— but they are a far cry from “Protestants”.
Painting with one stroke as protestant any religion that pays lip service to “jesus” and is not Catholic—is mis-representation. However, I do not think I will win that argument here!—even from a Chicken.
That “some protestants” believe this is precisely my contention!.
I know of not one Protestant denomination that teaches this!.
You should visit some baptist churches, speak to my former congregation, and/or talk to some ministers.
The fact that you are ignorant of what some of your protestant denominations believe does not necessarily mean it is not true.
esau
Your deficiency and ignorance on this matter is once again incredible!.
YOU may categorize as “protestant” these “churches” and “pastors”….but thats only because it serves your argument( straw man at that).
Esquire— for example says he has ran into “cristians” who believe this!.
You cannot be a true Cristian and hold to this view—I john 1:8-10 is explicit.
YOU may categorize as “protestant” these “churches” and “pastors”….but thats only because it serves your argument( straw man at that).
Oh, so protestants are only those denominations that you consider protestant?
People such as the baptists don’t count?
Your deficiency and ignorance on this matter is once again incredible!.
YOUR deficiency and ignorance is apparant —
Most likely, the only protestant denomination that you know the beliefs of is yours!
You have accused at least some Baptists of believing they cannot sin….
very well then….which Baptists?………..!
You seem to contradict yourself by first denying you are in agreement with the Chicken— and then you come out with the fact that you know Baptists that teach they cannot sin!….which is it?.
Never mind.
If the “once saved always saved” doctrine is taught within Catholicism as believing in the inability to sin…then you are wrong!…Just like Jack Chick is wrong!
I hope that most informed Catholics do not believe this.
Again I john 1:8-10.
You have accused at least some Baptists of believing they cannot sin….
Thank you for putting words into my mouth yet again.
Did you even read what I wrote?
Here is my original post yet again:
Boy…!.
I wonder what you guys (or this Chicken)consider “protestant”.
You mean protestants don’t really believe in the “Once Saved, Always Saved” doctrine?
That’s funny, because that’s what they taught in my protestant church.
Also, there are several other denominations who believe and preach this — baptists, for instance.
Not to mention, the reformers who actually initiated this particular notion that is disctinctly novel from what the early Christian church taught.
Okay, okay.
Esau, I for one did think you were equating OSAS with the impossibility of sin.
Erick, you’ve made your point: impossibility of sin is well outside the Protestant maintstream. Chicken’s original question didn’t say anything different– as a matter of fact the context makes me suspect he was thinking of some specific person or people he knows. Rather than saying that no Christian believes that and then later clarifying that that’s because Christians by definition don’t believe that, you should just say that anyone who believes that by definition isn’t Christian, even though some of them think they are.
Presumably Lumen Gentium hasn’t been repealed.
Separated bretheran and their ecclesial communities are separated *brethren& and *ecclesial* communities.
As to points two and three, all of the other apostle-founded churches disagree most strenuously, reducing the matter to “I say I’m most important and in charge, and the reason it is true is because I say so.” That is not a persuasive argument.
Shane “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”(Galatians) Words -are- necessary for evangelization.
Chicken, indeed, we must strive to communicate the plausibility of both the Law and the Gospel, and to do so, we must learn the language and the thought-forms of the people we are trying to reach. And we most certainly must pray.
Esau, recall the first step previously posted by others. Listening. You need to do that a whole lot more. Some protestants believe in eternal security. Others do not. And there are significant shades of distinction. There is as much theological diversity among the separated brethren as there is within the Catholic Church. If you don’t want to seem like a jerk and an idiot, you will have to listen to the individual and see what -they- think.
As you presumably would know, Esau, some Baptists are Calvinists, some are Arminians, some are simultaneously Dispensationalists. NONE hold to a doctrine of sinless perfection in this mortal phase. NONE. That is not a teaching of either the SBC, or the GRBC, or even of the liberal American Baptists. There are -some- Wesleyans who believe that *with a second act of grace* they no longer ‘sin’, but rather ‘make mistakes’. I find that absurd, and contrary to Scripture, but even they are far from the teaching that first you claimed all protestants believed, and now are simply claiming that all Baptists believe.
labrialumn,
You have summarized Protestant diversity quite well. Sometimes I think that about all they can agree on is that Catholics are wrong. That is an exageration but it is true that the wider you cast the net the narrower the common elements.
There are also some who we might categorize as Protestant who will tell you that they are not a part or branch of any Reformation lineage and so technically not Protestant. They will tell you that they are a line that goes back to Apostolic times, a remnant of true believers if you will.
Masked Chicken, perhaps you should type that spam is not poultry.
Erick,
no I don’t think most informed Catholics believe this. As a matter of fact this is the first time I’ve heard any Catholic claim what I’ve read in this combox.
You are right that we can’t expect others to correctly state Catholic beliefs if we can’t be honest and truthful about theirs… That’s why the first step in any dialog is to listen right?
Some people need to listen more and talk less in my opinion (of course that’s just my opinion and doesn’t mean much).
“Some people need to listen more and talk less ”
Amen!.
labrialumn,
I very much appreciate the spirit in which you’ve written your comments.
After having read the subsequent comments of others here, I wished ‘Catholics’ were as passionate about defending the Catholic Faith as they are in defending Protestant faiths.
There was a time when Catholics believed that what protestants held to was heresy.
It would seem now, just as sky’s comments would seem to suggest, their beliefs are to be embraced with reverence and affection.
Although I may respect my separated brethren, I cannot but subscribe to the one Faith alone given to me by my Lord and Savour.
If you all would condemn me for that, so be it!
This has been a thoughtful and informative thread on an important topic. I think what some people are trying to say is that it is possible to be charitable without watering down the truth. Just a thought.
DJ, I know you already went through this, but Protestantism is NOT just as acceptable as Catholicism when it comes to teaching about the necessary tools for one’s salvation. Some Protestant sects believed we are pre-ordained to be saved, while others gnostically believe salvation can only be obtained with the “special formula” of their own brand of teaching.
That being said, anyone who says ANYONE is in hell is dilluded and not following Catholic doctrine. However, this does not mean we as Catholics should be shamed into never using the “h” word…heresy. Protestants are heretics and do practice heresy. And heresy may (note: MAY) lead to the eternal damnation of one’s immortal soul. These are the theological facts. In our modernistic PC culture, people don’t like to be “labeled” as hard-nosed, fanatic or negative. But avoiding reality doesn’t change facts.
LJ, you said, “Sometimes I think that about all they can agree on is that Catholics are wrong.” Actually, that’s not such an exageration, since the term Protestant simply means those who Protest the teachings of the Catholic church. Various sects protested for different reasons, which doesn’t presuppose they had anything in common other than the objection.
Similarly, if you go to any “anti” groups (i.e. those termed as “hate groups”) whose sole reason for being is to Protest something, be it a race, religion, government etc, you will invariably find cross sections of people who have nothing in common other than their distaste. White supremecists are a good example. They usually splinter off into sub-groups, then sub-sub-groups because hate is simply not a good cohesive device for very long.
I agree with deusdonat—
We were labeled as heretics then—and now are labeled as “separated bretheren” ( whatever that means).
Political correctness has gotten a hold of Roman Catholicism ( as well as many courts of Protestantism)-to where we are trying to reconcile a 2000 year old problem.
This is futile!.
deusdonat—thanks for your straight-forwardness!.
I agree with deusdonat—
We were labeled as heretics then—and now are labeled as “separated bretheren” ( whatever that means).
Political correctness has gotten a hold of Roman Catholicism ( as well as many courts of Protestantism)-to where we are trying to reconcile a 2000 year old problem.
This is futile!.
deusdonat—thanks for your straight-forwardness!.
Okay — allow me the opportunity to be straightforward as well:
You’re a heretic.
esau-
Grow up!…..please.
Erick:
Roman Catholicism
Read rule 23 of “DA RULZ”.
erick –
The term “separated brethren” is correct, and more charitable than other terms that might be used.
The Church has not changed her position… “separated” is not a good state to be in, and the Church maintains, as ever, that you are on the wrong side of the separation.
But you are also a brother in Christ. The fundamental disobedience and rebelliousness of Protestantism was much more a live issue back in Luther’s day than it is now. Most Protestants today have no more idea of why they are Protestant than most Catholics have of why they are Catholic. In fact, most people are not that good at sincerely questioning their deepest beliefs.
So, forgive me if I continue to think of you as “separated brethren”.
Tim, hello, and forgive me as I do not mean to sound confrontational here. But on what ground do you base your statement, “Most Protestants today have no more idea of why they are Protestant than most Catholics have of why they are Catholic. In fact, most people are not that good at sincerely questioning their deepest beliefs.” ? I am wondering if this is true or not but don’t have any basis to form an opinion one way or another. Any facts or observations you want to share?
“But you are also a brother in Christ”
As always Tim— I wish more were as lucid as you.
I echo Tim’s well-put sentiments. When one uses the word “heretic”, it should not be seen as a finger pointing zealot with a papal seal in one hand and a match in the other standing in front of a pyre. It is a theological distinction to show the difference in belief systems which must be overcome (NOT simply overlooked) before we can once again be one under the True Church which Our Lord gave to us as a precious gift.
Incidentally, it really chaps my hide when I hear people say they are “proud to be Catholic”. Catholicism is a gift from God. None of us earned it. We either accept the gift or reject it. Nothing to be proud of there.
“But you are also a brother in Christ”
As always Tim— I wish more were as lucid as you. Posted by: erick | Dec 20, 2007 12:17:29 PM
Clearly —
Unlike some who takes offense at “separated brethren” but then, all of a sudden, contradicts himself with a subsequent post by actually embracing what is essentially but another form of the ‘label’.
In addition, such a one who takes offense for folks not being straightforward; but when they are, that a one suddenly contradicts their previous statement by vehemently detesting a person’s straightforwardness.
deusdonat,
I echo Tim’s well-put sentiments.
If it was well put, why then your query:
“Tim, hello, and forgive me as I do not mean to sound confrontational here. But on what ground do you base your statement, “Most Protestants today have no more idea of why they are Protestant than most Catholics have of why they are Catholic.”
Quit being so melodramatic lol… Where do you get that? I find it mostly uncharitable of you to claim to know my intentions, even more when a previous post of mine makes it clear that I don’t just accept Protestants’ beliefs…
What has happened to charity and understanding? Since when respect for the accuracy of somebody else’s beliefs is tacit approval and agreement of them?
I expect people to respect my beliefs and intelligent as much as they expect the same… Isn’t that something a Catholic should strive to?
Sky,
The Pope, just today, talked on the very subject:
Evangelization comes first, Pope tells Curia
Vatican, Dec. 21, 2007 (CWNews.com) – Pope Benedict XVI (bio – news) emphasized the duty of all Christians to evangelize in his Christmas message to the Roman Curia.
“The disciple of Christ must also be a ‘missionary,’ a messenger of the Gospel,” the Holy Father said during his December 21 meeting with leaders of the Curia.
The Pope acknowledged that the duty to spread the Gospel is questioned today, with skeptics asking “whether it is still legitimate to evangelize today.” He expressed the position of the skeptics: “Should not all the religions and philosophies of the world coexist peacefully and together seek what is best for humanity, each in its own way?”
In his lengthy address, the Pope answered those questions in the context of a review of memorable events from the past year. He began by recalling his trip to Brazil. There, he said, he had been moved by “the profound communion which spontaneously arose” between the successor to Peter and the people of the world’s most heavily populated Catholic nation. The excitement of the crowd, he said, was not merely a passing emotion, but “a source of strength for accepting life in a new way.”
In Brazil, the Pope continued, the bishops of Latin America were meeting to discuss their role as missionaries and disciples of Christ. Turning to his main theme, he noted that some people felt that theme was “perhaps excessively concentrated on interior life at a time in which the great challenges of history” require a more active response.
But in fact, the Pope argued, the proper responses to historical crises require a commitment that can only come from interior life in Christ.
Pope Benedict said that all believers of all religions should learn to love and respect each other. Thus, he said, he was pleased to respond to the 138 Muslim leaders who called for greater inter-religious dialogue. However, he observed, those who truly love and respect their neighbors wish to share the Good News with them.
“Those who have recognized a great truth, those who have discovered a great joy, must pass it on, they cannot keep it to themselves,” the Pope said. “And this is what happens in the Christian mission.”
Returning to the connection between interior life and public activity, the Pope said that “the renewed into interior life.” This, he explained, “is because the renewed encounter with Jesus Christ and his Gospel– and only that – revives the forces that make us capable of giving the right response to the challenges of our time.”
Drawing the attention of his Vatican aides to one country where the task of evangelization is particularly difficult, the Pope mentioned his message to the Church in China. The Vatican, he says, wants to engage in “a serene and constructive dialogue with the civil authorities,” in an effort to expand the freedom of the Church to conduct her mission there.
Referring briefly to his short trips around Europe, Pope Benedict said that the Church must recognized the mounting power of secularism “and the pressure of ideological presumption.” The trend toward dismissing religion is a strong one, he said, and cannot be dismissed as a short-term phenomenon.
Still the Pope concluded his Christmas talk to the Curia by reminding the prelates that Christians should take heart in the message of the Gospel and the presence of the Lord. “We also know that the Lord maintains his promise,” he said: “Remember I am with you always, to the end of the age.”