Behavior of average Evangelical vs. Catholic

[JimO]

The more interesting question for my Roman church brothers is: Why are Roman Catholics as a whole less passionate about their faith than Evangelicals are?

For me, if the RC church doesn’t change lives, all your fine apologetics is rather useless, ¿no?

I don’t know what kind of people you encounter on a daily basis, but I know a lot of Catholics who are passionate about their faith and I know a lot of lukewarm Evangelicals. I know devout people and hypocrites in all denominations. One difference might be that many people identify themselves as “Catholic” because they were born into a Catholic family and baptised Catholic. It’s more of a cultural identity than a faith identity. The Church cannot force them to either become passionate or stop identifying themselves as Catholics so that the statistics are accurate. Also, frankly, you will likely find more lukewarm Catholics in church on Sunday than Evangelicals, not because there is a higher percentage of lukewarm Catholics, but because Catholics are brought up with a strong sense that it is a sin to miss Mass on Sunday. Thus, many Catholics who aren’t passionate about their faith will still attend Mass. Lukewarm Evangelicals are less likely to go to church.

Besides, it’s not the Catholic Church that changes lives, it’s the Holy Spirit. And if you have any doubt that the Holy Spirit is changing the lives of Catholic Christians, then you either want to believe that and ignore the evidence or you need to read more on these fora and in other places about what is happening in the lives of Catholic Christians.

Regarding the public demonstration of Christian principles, have you ever attended a pro-life event or been a member of a pro-life group? I do and I am and I am saddened that Catholics make up over 90% of those who are active in the pro-life movement. Where are our Evangelical brothers and sisters? Saying you are pro-life in a poll and demstrating that by taking action are two different things. So, don’t read too much into Gallup polls.

 

[RNRobert]

Regarding the public demonstration of Christian principles, have you ever attended a pro-life event or been a member of a pro-life group? I do and I am and I am saddened that Catholics make up over 90% of those who are active in the pro-life movement. Where are our Evangelical brothers and sisters?

About 10 years or so ago (around the time Clinton vetoed the partial-birth abortion ban, I think) I was listening to James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, and this particular episode dealt with the pro-life movement, and most of the people he talked about were Catholics, which I found ironic coming from an Evangelical program.

 

[lak611]

Regarding the public demonstration of Christian principles, have you ever attended a pro-life event or been a member of a pro-life group? I do and I am and I am saddened that Catholics make up over 90% of those who are active in the pro-life movement. Where are our Evangelical brothers and sisters? Saying you are pro-life in a poll and demstrating that by taking action are two different things. So, don’t read too much into Gallup polls.

There actually is an evangelical church here in the Cleveland suburbs that has a lot of pro-life activities. They always have Catholics involved too.

 

[JimO]

There actually is an evangelical church here in the Cleveland suburbs that has a lot of pro-life activities. They always have Catholics involved too.

I’m glad to hear that. I’m sure that there are many wonderful Protestant brothers and sisters in the pro-life movement. But, the fact is that most pro-life activities in the U.S. are carried out by Catholics. My point to MFD was to give an example refuting his claim that Evangelicals are more passionate about their faith and that do less in the public arena to witness to Christ to the world.

 

[mastda]

JFM-

You are wrong about there not being a decline in Church attendance among mainstream denominations as a whole. I have heard this many times even among Protestant ministers, especially within the Youth Ministry.

christianitytoday.com/outreach/articles/americanchurchcrisis.html
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n26_v113/ai_18720688
ellisonresearch.com/ERPS%20II/Release%204%20Future.htm

I also find it interesting that you choose to not specifically answer or address my posts regarding Truth. That tells me what I need to know. I can tell you know very little about the Catholic Church, regardless of the fact that your wife is RC, so in my mind this thread is of little value.

Good luck JFM. I do appreciate your work and zeal for Jesus, and I hope someday you’ll know Him in the same way I do!!

I pretty well agree with your assesment on JFM. Its too bad as I thought he was going to come on and have resonable discussions because his wife was Catholic. Unfortunatley he is full of generalizations and weak allegations.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I pretty well agree with your assesment on JFM. Its too bad as I thought he was going to come on and have resonable discussions because his wife was Catholic. Unfortunatley he is full of generalizations and weak allegations.

Unfortunately, I get tired of responding to every post that disagrees with me (which are most!). I have noticed there is a certain “Kill the messenger” mentality on Catholic Answers:

If even relatively unbiased external statistics (e.g. Gallup) don’t agree with your preconceived bias, kill the messenger. The statistics just must be wrong if they cast the RC church in an unfavourable light!

Statistics are by nature general. So What? How can you live without generalisations? You cannot. Every day we generalise: Bring a coat, it is cold in Cleveland in January. Ok, so not this year, but generaly speaking, it is. We do it every day. Get over it.

Most people would not call Gallup statistics “weak allegations”. You, Sir, are not being reasonable.

By the way, please leave my poor, patient wife out of this.

 

[mastda]

Unfortunately, I get tired of responding to every post that disagrees with me (which are most!). I have noticed there is a certain “Kill the messenger” mentality on Catholic Answers:

If even relatively unbiased external statistics (e.g. Gallup) don’t agree with your preconceived bias, kill the messenger. The statistics just must be wrong if they cast the RC church in an unfavourable light!

Statistics are by nature general. So What? How can you live without generalisations? You cannot. Every day we generalise: Bring a coat, it is cold in Cleveland in January. Ok, so not this year, but generaly speaking, it is. We do it every day. Get over it.

Most people would not call Gallup statistics “weak allegations”. You, Sir, are not being reasonable.

By the way, please leave my poor, patient wife out of this.

The mere fact you will not participate in any meaningful discussion is not reasonable. Others and myself are trying to get through to you that you cannot base your faith or beliefs or the validity of a certain faith or belief, on a poll. If you read my above post where I disect the poll you will see that Catholics actually come up ahead. But you have not read it because you have a fixed mind on what you believe.

That is all I was saying, if you are going to come on this forum and generalize by making generalizations about the Catholic Faith (the faith of millions around the world) and compare it to the weather in Cleveland, we cannot even have an intelligent discussion.

In regards to the “Kill the Messenger” you accuse us of, try answering people’s questions when they ask you one. Your lack of courtesy shows me that you have these canned answers on a script somewhere or perhaps you cut and paste from an anti catholic website, and that you cannot answer them on your own.

If you are going to come to website and attack, atleast be man enough to see the battle through. Don’t just come, sucker punch and take off when others start attacking back.

Your wife is a saint for putting up with you and yes I will leave her out of the discussions but remember you involved her in the discussion first and many times after that.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

The mere fact you will not participate in any meaningful discussion is not reasonable. Others and myself are trying to get through to you that you cannot base your faith or beliefs or the validity of a certain faith or belief, on a poll

 

[mtk76]

A better poll would be what group has a better understanding of the history of Christianity and can trace itself back to Christ.

Catholics win in a landslide and Evangelicals who learn history quickly realize their worship and traditions look nothing like what The Apostles learned from Jesus and a lightbulb goes off…

 

[JesusforMadrid]

A better poll would be what group has a better understanding of the history of Christianity and can trace itself back to Christ.

Catholics win in a landslide and Evangelicals who learn history quickly realize their worship and traditions look nothing like what The Apostles learned from Jesus and a lightbulb goes off…

There are a lot of generalisations in this post. You should be careful or the Generalisation Police will rap you on the keyboard.

I agree that Roman Catholics, IN GENERAL, know Roman Catholic history better than Evangelicals. However, Evangelicals, IN GENERAL, know the Bible better than most Catholics (quick, what happened in Acts 2???). And since the book of Acts is the oldest book of church history, Evangelicals IN GENERAL know more ancient church history than Catholics IN GENERAL and they IN GENERAL model their churches after these ancient churches. After about the 1st century, Catholics IN GENERAL gain the edge on church history up until the Reformation.

 

[JimO]

There are a lot of generalisations in this post.

And there is nothing more generalized that a Gallup poll. Polls are rarely objective since the form of the questions can affect the results significantly, even without any intent on the part of the pollster. For example, if you asked a thousand Evangelicals if they were saved, the response would probably be high. If you asked Catholics, it would be mixed because we don’t use the same terminology and we have a different understanding of salvation. So, in evaluating the behavior of Catholics versus Evangelicals (which is the primary topic of this thread), you cannot generalize based on polls or even your own personal experience. Maybe you are correct regarding Spain, but your assertions regarding the U.S. are based solely on polls and you are disregarding the personal experiences of people in the U.S. As far as other countries go, unless you have spent time there, you can only offer statistical information and church numbers provided by others. Often, numbers have nothing to say about devotion or behavior.

I grant that in your personal experience you have observed less devotion and enthusiasm in Catholics than in Evangelicals and trust that you are being truthful in relating your experiences, but then you must give equal weight to my personal experiences and trust that mine are as truthful, if we are to have a meaningful discussion.

Please allow me one last point. Devotion is measured differently in different churches due to worship style, culture, etc. Charismatics and Pentecostals measure devotion very differently than Baptists, which measure it very differently than Anglicans, than Catholics, etc. I have Charismatic friends who know how to do some serious praise and worship, which is great. I have Baptist friends who can quote most of the New Testament, which is also great. I know little-old Catholic ladies who can barely walk and who do serious spiritual battle in prayer. Is one better than the other? Not necessarily. Maybe all are equally devout in the eyes of God. After all, devotion essentially consists of our love for Jesus; it is in the heart and cannot, therefore, be measured by man. The problem is that we judge one anothers’ devotions, which makes the Baptist think that satan is causing the Pentecostal to pray in tongues and both think that the Pope is the antichrist and then the Catholic lady thinks the Pentecostals are too noisy and the Baptist doesn’t know the fullness of the faith, and on, and on, and on. Meanwhile, satan rejoices.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Please allow me one last point. Devotion is measured differently in different churches due to worship style, culture, etc. Charismatics and Pentecostals measure devotion very differently than Baptists, which measure it very differently than Anglicans, than Catholics, etc. I have Charismatic friends who know how to do some serious praise and worship, which is great. I have Baptist friends who can quote most of the New Testament, which is also great. I know little-old Catholic ladies who can barely walk and who do serious spiritual battle in prayer. Is one better than the other? Not necessarily. Maybe all are equally devout in the eyes of God. After all, devotion essentially consists of our love for Jesus; it is in the heart and cannot, therefore, be measured by man. The problem is that we judge one anothers’ devotions, which makes the Baptist think that satan is causing the Pentecostal to pray in tongues and both think that the Pope is the antichrist and then the Catholic lady thinks the Pentecostals are too noisy and the Baptist doesn’t know the fullness of the faith, and on, and on, and on. Meanwhile, satan rejoices.

Amen!

 

[MariaG]

However, Evangelicals, IN GENERAL, know the Bible better than most Catholics (quick, what happened in Acts 2???).

Pentecost.

Oh yeah, I guessed correctly before I looked it up

But then, I am a former Evangelical

Just a note though, many Catholics will know the stories from the bible, they just do not memorize WHERE it is in scripture.

If you start out a conversation with them like, “Well you know in Acts 2…” They will usually say, no.

But frequently when you get to the end of the story, and the message of the story, they will say, “oh yeah, I remember Father talking about that.” Or in this case, it would probably be “Oh you are talking about the birth of the Church, right?”

It does not mean they do not read the bible on their own. But they usually don’t study scripture with an end result of knowing where all the information is located. In this respect, I think Catholics do not, in general , see the power of scripture being a sword. Evangelicals, see the power of God’s word in both defense against Satan as well as in sharing the faith.

Different focus.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[Della]

There are a lot of generalisations in this post. You should be careful or the Generalisation Police will rap you on the keyboard.

I agree that Roman Catholics, IN GENERAL, know Roman Catholic history better than Evangelicals. However, Evangelicals, IN GENERAL, know the Bible better than most Catholics (quick, what happened in Acts 2???).

Evangelicals believe the Bible to be supreme, so it is no surprise that they read it more–that is read those passages/books they care to read. But Catholics who attend Mass every Sunday/read the daily Mass readings (as many now do, including me) go through nearly every book of the Bible in a 3 year cycle. How many Evangelical churches/individual members do that?

And since the book of Acts is the oldest book of church history, Evangelicals IN GENERAL know more ancient church history than Catholics IN GENERAL and they IN GENERAL model their churches after these ancient churches. After about the 1st century, Catholics IN GENERAL gain the edge on church history up until the Reformation.

You are only assuming that Acts is the oldest book of the NT. Recent discoveries have shown that Matthew was the first book written.

Evangelicals model their churches after what they think was the early Church model based on their reading of Acts. However, they ignore/reject Sacred Tradition and know next to nothing about the history of the early Church, which means they do not have the correct model, but one of their own making.

 

[MariaG]

And since the book of Acts is the oldest book of church history, Evangelicals IN GENERAL know more ancient church history than Catholics IN GENERAL and they IN GENERAL model their churches after these ancient churches. After about the 1st century, Catholics IN GENERAL gain the edge on church history up until the Reformation.

Respectfully, I disagree with you as to your INTERPRETATION of scripture. One can see in acts the birth of the Church. The roots of the Catholic Church structure are seen in acts.

What the churches today try to do is to go back in time and set up a model of what was talked about instead of acknowledging that as the Church grew, so did the structure that is seen in acts in order to properly deal with the same issues that are seen in acts, with a larger number of people.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Evangelicals believe the Bible to be supreme, so it is no surprise that they read it more–that is read those passages/books they care to read. But Catholics who attend Mass every Sunday/read the daily Mass readings (as many now do, including me) go through nearly every book of the Bible in a 3 year cycle. How many Evangelical churches/individual members do that?

I have heard Catholics hear 80% of the Bible in that three year rotation. Not bad, I think, but then most Catholics don’t attend every day. In my experience, those who do attend every day know their Bibles very well, although it is also true that they often cannot tell you where in the Bible a particular story is found.

I have actually found few Evangelicals who have read the Bible entirely. The American President John Adams used to read it every year.

You are only assuming that Acts is the oldest book of the NT. Recent discoveries have shown that Matthew was the first book written.

I said oldest history book of the church. Actually, I think Mark was the first NT book written.

Evangelicals model their churches after what they think was the early Church model based on their reading of Acts. However, they ignore/reject Sacred Tradition and know next to nothing about the history of the early Church, which means they do not have the correct model, but one of their own making.

This is a somewhat jaded subject. Often when Roman Catholics say that the Church Fathers support the modern Roman Catholic church, they cite many post Nicene authors.

I, as an Evangelical, want a church today that is as similar as possible to the church of the apostles, the church in Acts. When I read the first and second century documents such as the Didache or I Clement, I certainly don’t find anything that would offend or contradict modern Evangelical Christianity (except no David Crowder and Third Day).

Meanwhile, I also do not find support for many RC church beliefs and practices in these documents: infant baptism, transubstantiation, perpetual virginity, sinlessnes of Mary, the assumption, immaculate conception, co-mediatrix, the Papacy, vestiments, incense, images. Substantial support for these doctrines and practices came much after the pre-nicene period.

So, yes, I think Evangelical church is rather more similar to the first century church than the current RC church.

This is not an easy topic, since it involves reading many, often contradictory sources. I like the Penguin classic on the Early Church Fathers. You could also check out:

“The Early Church (Hist of the Church)”, by Henry Chadwick or “Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today’s Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity” by David W. Bercot

 

[Jennifer123]

I have heard Catholics hear 80% of the Bible in that three year rotation. Not bad, I think, but then most Catholics don’t attend every day. In my experience, those who do attend every day know their Bibles very well, although it is also true that they often cannot tell you where in the Bible a particular story is found.

I have actually found few Evangelicals who have read the Bible entirely. The American President John Adams used to read it every year.

I said oldest history book of the church. Actually, I think Mark was the first NT book written.

This is a somewhat jaded subject. Often when Roman Catholics say that the Church Fathers support the modern Roman Catholic church, they cite many post Nicene authors.

I, as an Evangelical, want a church today that is as similar as possible to the church of the apostles, the church in Acts. When I read the first and second century documents such as the Didache or I Clement, I certainly don’t find anything that would offend or contradict modern Evangelical Christianity (except no David Crowder and Third Day).

Meanwhile, I also do not find support for many RC church beliefs and practices in these documents: infant baptism, transubstantiation, perpetual virginity, sinlessnes of Mary, the assumption, immaculate conception, co-mediatrix, the Papacy, vestiments, incense, images. Substantial support for these doctrines and practices came much after the pre-nicene period.

So, yes, I think Evangelical church is rather more similar to the first century church than the current RC church.

This is not an easy topic, since it involves reading many, often contradictory sources. I like the Penguin classic on the Early Church Fathers. You could also check out:

“The Early Church (Hist of the Church)”, by Henry Chadwick or “Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today’s Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity” by David W. Bercot

The leading Evangelical church today, at least for the American church, Willow Creek in Illinois, doesn’t even have a cross in its Sanctuary.

Why re-invent the wheel literally every Sunday? This growth, especially within the “Megachurch” movement, is an illusion.

Anyway, with regards to RC “practices” you have to understand we believe in Scripture AND Tradition, 2Tim3:14-15, 2Thess2:15. “Trinity” isn’t explicitly stated in scripture either, but thanks to the Catholic Church and its Magisterial teachings, we now know it to be an essential part of Christian faith.

But then again we get into the issue of Truth. But I think this is another instance where you’ll again ignore my posts.

 

[deb1]

I have heard Catholics hear 80% of the Bible in that three year rotation. Not bad, I think, but then most Catholics don’t attend every day. In my experience, those who do attend every day know their Bibles very well, although it is also true that they often cannot tell you where in the Bible a particular story is found.

I ,

When I was in college I was never once quized on the location of a particular subject in a book. Instead we had to know the subject itself. It would have seemed silly if the chemistry teacher had tested us on the page numbers instead of the actual periodic table.

The same is true of the bible. It doesn’t matter if a person knows what happened in Acts 2, as long as they understand the story of the birth of the early church.

By the way, I am using the daily Church readings to work through my bible. It will take me about three years.I have tried many times to read the bible in a year but I always got bogged down. There are just too many passage that need to be contemplated and studied for me to hurry through the bible. A year is too fast to read and absorb something as deep and wonderful as the bible.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

The leading Evangelical church today, at least for the American church, Willow Creek in Illinois, doesn’t even have a cross in its Sanctuary.

Why re-invent the wheel literally every Sunday? This growth, especially within the “Megachurch” movement, is an illusion.

Anyway, with regards to RC “practices” you have to understand we believe in Scripture AND Tradition, 2Tim3:14-15, 2Thess2:15. “Trinity” isn’t explicitly stated in scripture either, but thanks to the Catholic Church and its Magisterial teachings, we now know it to be an essential part of Christian faith.

But then again we get into the issue of Truth. But I think this is another instance where you’ll again ignore my posts.

Perfect. Tradition tells us that the first churches didn’t have crosses either. We have some good archeological evidence of the first century churches: no crosses, no drawings, statues or paintings of Mary or the “saints” (all believers in the Way were considered “Saints”, by the way). The only images: A fish on the front door with the Greek symbols IXOYE which means, Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior. Evangelicals still use this symbol on their cars, homes, etc.

So I would say if Bill Hybels and Willow Creek don’t have a cross, that is actually rather first century Christian of them!

 

[AlegreFe]

I agree that Roman Catholics, IN GENERAL, know Roman Catholic history better than Evangelicals. However, Evangelicals, IN GENERAL, know the Bible better than most Catholics.

Wrong. A well learned Catholic knows the bible better than any Evangelical, no matter how well the Evangelical thinks he knows the bible. The Bible is only part of Divine Revelation. We (Catholic Church) have the correct understanding when it comes to interpreting the Word of God. The Bible belongs to the Catholic Church so how could the Church not know the bible better than any Evangelical?

Even if there are Catholics who do not know the bible, that does not mean that Evangelicals know the bible better than Catholics in general. Since the bible is not for personal interpretation than you can’t say that Evangelicals know the bible better than Catholics no matter the numbers (how many Catholics vs how many Evangelicals “know” the bible).