Catholics: Do you want Protestants on the Mission Field?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sgt_Sweaters
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sgt_Sweaters

Guest
To all the Catholics who are the least bit interested in the Great Commission (“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,” etc.):

Do you think that it would be advantageous (for the souls of the unbelievers) for there to be no religious missions, however they may call themselves Christian, to the world, except for those of the Catholic faith?

I wonder if it would be better if Catholics should be the first Christian missionaries to meet new and unchurched people, so that we don’t have to “de-program” them, as it were? That is, would you rather meet a straight-up pagan, or someone whose idea of Christianity has been coloured by something like Calvinism (no offense to any Calvinists. It’s just that the theology lacks something [namely, Truth {;)} ]).

I’m not looking for comments on how realistic or unrealistic this is (e.g., “you can’t look at this in a vacuum. So many people have some idea of Christianity,” etc.). That’s not my point.

I’m also not looking for comments by non-Catholics. I’m making you all your own poll. 🙂

God bless.

+Joel
 
I posted “Certainly not!” Actually come to think of it, I’d rather pagans become Protestant Christians than remain pagan. The only thing that annoys me is Protestantism brings all of its competing sects into the mission field and that makes Christianity look bad. But being Christian is better than being pagan, no matter what type of Christian they are. I think it would be better if they were Arminians than some brand of Calvinism, but if Protestants are in the mission field you’ll wind up with about 40 Arminian sects and 40 Calvinist sects, and 80 sects that aren’t Arminian or Calvinist. And that’s just initially, think of the sects the natives themselves will create after the missionaries have founded their churches.
I don’t think of it as “deprogramming” them as much as filling them in on what they’re missing.
 
Anima Christi:
I don’t think of it as “deprogramming” them as much as filling them in on what they’re missing.
Click to expand...
I disagree with you on this point. At least in part.

One coming from Protestantism to Catholicism is both converting and completing. Converting those beliefs that are contrary to the Church, and completing that which is in line with the Church, yet lacks the fullness of Truth.

God bless.

+Joel
 
I said they should keep on mission-ing. I’m fine with them evangelizing non-Christians (some Jesus is better than no Jesus), but I have a problem with them “evangelizing” Catholics, which tends to go on A LOT in Latin America.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
I said they should keep on mission-ing. I’m fine with them evangelizing non-Christians (some Jesus is better than no Jesus), but I have a problem with them “evangelizing” Catholics, which tends to go on A LOT in Latin America.
Click to expand...
:amen:
 
When I went to Mexico City I spend plenty of time with different Christians, some with very very different interpretations of the Gospel.

It is amazing what Sola Scriptura produces in other cultures you think imagination and different interpretations produce a whole lot of variation here in the United States, just watch what happens when you present Sola Scriptura to other cultures, things you never thought could be thought of come out as beliefs.

Has anyone heard of Para de Sufrir by Obispo Macedo?

It is a real shame what you see, here is a good link to illustrate what happens.
envoymagazine.com/backissues/0.1/solved.htm
(what’s nice is, he came home to the Church)

So my answer is yes only if they are evangelizing pagans and not Catholic countries, which unfortunately isn’t the case. I am meeting a missionary Monday who just came back from Peru. He believes that Catholics need to be saved, which saddens me.

God Bless
Scylla
 
I didn’t vote because I have not yet thought the question through. I have seen the results of Baptist two week mission trips in the US. For a change of scenery and lack of better sense, I drove a twisting mountain road full of road-hog coal trucks for five hours to go 120 miles. Every few miles I would see a Baptist church with something added to the name, before and/or after the “Baptist”. usually indicating some variation the local preacher though was important. The missionaries would come in, repair a few houses, hold a few services, pass out a few Bibles, get a volunteer preacher, then leave the poor people to their own devices. I really wonder what kind of belief system they have. Oh well, as a previous poster stated, I guess a little Jesus is better than no Jesus.
 
I think it creates a problem. A lot of these people that are being converted by the Protestants have spent their whole lives beleiving in one particular thing. Then the Protestants come along and get them to see Jesus. Suddenly these Catholics come along and tell them something else? This creates problems. It could make these people lose faith completely. Think about it. First someone comes along and tells them about Christ. Next somebody comes along talking about something “else.” What’s next, they must ask? They also develop a strong trust in the Protestant missionaries. It just creates a myriad of problems.
 
Protestant is a bit better then pegan - I guess.:rolleyes:

I would rather Protestants not lead sheep astray. However, if you mean they would ‘save’ a soul not able to be reaced by a Catholic missionary then it is better to be Protestant then dammed outright.

Protestants are Christian too. I hope to see them all in heaven with all us Catholics.
 
Brief hijack:Every time somebody says “separated brethren”, I wonder if I am a “separated;) sistern”…(OK, couldn’t resist).

**Seriously: As a child in the 50s, I can remember a dear friend of my mother’s coming to visit us. She was a missionary nurse in Southern Africa. My mother asked her if she ever got lonely for other Christians–she was in a fairly isolated area. She said, oh no, she had the most wonderful times with the Catholic nuns who were also in Africa as missionary nurses. One of the things that she found difficult when she retired, was living in a country (yeah, America!), where there was less camaraderie between Catholic & Protestant Christians. **
There was no sense of “competition”. Just a common commitment to Jesus Christ.
God bless.
 
I voted for #2 (prefer no prior influence, but some flavours are better than others).

I’m rather surprised by the majority of people who voted for “keep on preaching, separated brethren!” Seems they’ve been infected with religious indifference. You should get that checked out, it’s a heresy.

Anywho, it’d help a great deal if Catholics weren’t terrified to share their faith with others. I gotta hand it to the evangelicals: they’re not ashamed of Jesus Christ. We Catholics on the other hand, it seems we’re more prone to thinking that Jesus is offensive so it’s “nicer” to not bring Him up. I suppose that’s why the majority voted for the Protestants to keep on preaching; that way they don’t have to do any work.

Wake up, fellow Catholics. Time to evangelize!
 
40.png
Genesis315:
I said they should keep on mission-ing. I’m fine with them evangelizing non-Christians (some Jesus is better than no Jesus), but I have a problem with them “evangelizing” Catholics, which tends to go on A LOT in Latin America.
Click to expand...
Agree with that
 
40.png
UKcatholicGuy:
I voted for #2 (prefer no prior influence, but some flavours are better than others).

I’m rather surprised by the majority of people who voted for “keep on preaching, separated brethren!” Seems they’ve been infected with religious indifference. You should get that checked out, it’s a heresy.
Click to expand...
I’m rather surprised by those who prefer no prior influence…it’s called being a small minded idiot. You should get that checked out.
 
40.png
cleopa:
I’m rather surprised by those who prefer no prior influence…it’s called being a small minded idiot. You should get that checked out.
Click to expand...
Oh, come now, you needn’t get nasty. I think all he was saying was that he’d rather pagans get the full Truth (i.e., from orthodox Catholics) than a corrupted Truth (i.e., from any other Christian). His point is understandable, at least.

Personally I disagree with that stance as well. When I voted, I voted for the second option, “prefer no prior influence,” but have since reconsidered. Catholics need to fulfill their mission to reach every corner of the globe with the fullness of the Word of God, Our Lord Christ Jesus. But before we get there, I don’t think it necessarily bad for Protestants to have gotten there first. I stand by the second clause of the second option: “some flavours are better than others.”

But, as Chesterton has pointed out, “if something is worth doing, then it is worth doing badly.” Protestants by necessity do it badly because they lack a certain Truth in their message. But the natives can hardly be held accountable for that, can they? They are culpable if and when Catholics *do *show up and they (the natives) don’t listen to them (the Catholics).

A bit of Christ is better than no Christ; Protestant missionaries, however, have access to the whole of Christ. Whether or not they impart the fullness of Christ to the natives is up to them.

So, while I do not actively encourage Protestant missions, neither do I actively discourage them. They will be held accountable for what they teach to those whom they evangelize. God have mercy.

God bless.

+Joel
 
“John answered him, saying: Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, who followeth not us, and we forbade him. But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a miracle in my name, and can soon speak ill of me. For he that is not against you is for you.”

St. Mark 9:37-39 (Douay Rheims Version)
 
cleopa said:
“John answered him, saying: Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, who followeth not us, and we forbade him. But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a miracle in my name, and can soon speak ill of me. For he that is not against you is for you.”
St. Mark 9:37-39 (Douay Rheims Version)
Click to expand...

Umm, a lot of Protestants ARE against us, Cleopa :mad:
 
“Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”

The Epistle of St James 3:1 (English Standard Version)

That’s all I was saying.

God bless.

+Joel
 
40.png
cleopa:
I’m rather surprised by those who prefer no prior influence…it’s called being a small minded idiot. You should get that checked out.
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose if it’s small-minded to prefer that non-Christians not be indoctrinated with an incorrect view of Christ-- as One they can simply “accept” through the sinner’s prayer and then never ammend their life-- then small-minded I am.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top