Christianity Today Article

[BennyBoy89]

In the latest issue of Christianity Today, an evangelical magazine, the featured article is on how evangelicals are trying to recover certain “traditional” aspects of the early church. Many evangelical churches are adopting “monastic” spiritual programs…

Why don’t they see the truth staring them in the face?!

For whatever reason, this has been weighing on my heart since I saw the article earlier tonight. Maybe it’s because I’m a former evangelical that got fed up with man-made spirituality.

Any thoughts?

 

[Lepanto]

In the latest issue of Christianity Today, an evangelical magazine, the featured article is on how evangelicals are trying to recover certain “traditional” aspects of the early church. Many evangelical churches are adopting “monastic” spiritual programs…

Why don’t they see the truth staring them in the face?!

For whatever reason, this has been weighing on my heart since I saw the article earlier tonight. Maybe it’s because I’m a former evangelical that got fed up with man-made spirituality.

Any thoughts?

I read the article too. There seems to be a bias among some Protestants with anything that simply sounds Catholic. That’s why they refuse to call Saint Paul as “Saint Paul” and always call him Apostle Paul.

They will rediscover the ancient Christianity which we’ve had all along, then claim it for themselves without acknowledging the Catholic Church.

 

[BennyBoy89]

The anti-Catholic bias drives me insane. It’s a shield that prevents one from ever admitting that maybe, JUST maybe, what they were taught in Sunday school was wrong…

It’s an Orwellian, 2+2=5 mentality.

 

[khutcheson]

The anti-Catholic bias drives me insane. It’s a shield that prevents one from ever admitting that maybe, JUST maybe, what they were taught in Sunday school was wrong…

It’s an Orwellian, 2+2=5 mentality.

Actually, I don’t remember the Catholic Church coming up much at all during my 18 or so years of Sunday school…

 

[BennyBoy89]

Actually, I don’t remember the Catholic Church coming up much at all during my 18 or so years of Sunday school…

I mean the protestantized, Sunday school version of scripture and Church history. I’m speaking figuratively as well, but I’m sure you understood that. I think many protestants are uncomfortable with the early Church because its beliefs and practices are so foreign to them. It’s easier for many just to label the early Christians and Fathers with “apostasy” and move on, rather than saying “hey wait a minute… maybe we missed something.”

I’m speaking from experience as a former evangelical.

 

[Syele]

Actually, I don’t remember the Catholic Church coming up much at all during my 18 or so years of Sunday school…

Nope never had anything about Catholics mentioned in my Sunday School. Recently my pastor stated that they all (Baptists AND Catholics) probably would beat us to the Cattle Baron…

 

[Harpazo]

I read the article too. There seems to be a bias among some Protestants with anything that simply sounds Catholic. That’s why they refuse to call Saint Paul as “Saint Paul” and always call him Apostle Paul.

They will rediscover the ancient Christianity which we’ve had all along, then claim it for themselves without acknowledging the Catholic Church.

Many do that, as many on here will attest to. They make it look as if they have all that Catholics have and that they are nearly Catholic. The truth is right there…

In some Protestant circles “Saint” is a bad word. Don’t ever use the “S” word!

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[Singinbeauty]

Many do that, as many on here will attest to. They make it look as if they have all that Catholics have and that they are nearly Catholic. The truth is right there…

In some Protestant circles “Saint” is a bad word. Don’t ever use the “S” word!

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

I am ‘protestant’ but I have never heard that the word Saint is a bad word… The bible indicates that we are ALL Saints… How that could be bad, I dunno…

And as much as you all hate anti-catholic behavior and beliefs, so do we hate anti-protestant behavior and beliefs…

 

[BennyBoy89]

And as much as you all hate anti-catholic behavior and beliefs, so do we hate anti-protestant behavior and beliefs…

Anti-Catholic bias certainly does get to me, but what bothers me the most, in all honesty what breaks my heart the most, is the fact that there are so many protestants of good faith, who love Jesus Christ, yet don’t, and in some cases refuse to, accept the fullness of truth.

I also do not consider myself “anti-protestant.” I agree with protestants on all of the issues of faith that they took with them when they left the Church (Triune God, Jesus Christ being fully God and fully Man, inerrancy of Scripture, etc…).

 

[Harpazo]

I am ‘protestant’ but I have never heard that the word Saint is a bad word… The bible indicates that we are ALL Saints… How that could be bad, I dunno…

And as much as you all hate anti-catholic behavior and beliefs, so do we hate anti-protestant behavior and beliefs…

I wholeheartedly agree. Prejudice of any type is horrible no matter who does it, yet notice how I used the word “some.” That does not mean"all" as I’m sure you already know.

The Protestants that do shudder at the word do so in reference to those Saints in Heaven, such as St. Mary, St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John the Forerunner, etc.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[Jeanette_L]

I mean the protestantized, Sunday school version of scripture and Church history. I’m speaking figuratively as well, but I’m sure you understood that. I think many protestants are uncomfortable with the early Church because it’s beliefs and practices are so foreign to them. It’s easier for many just to label the early Christians and Fathers with “apostasy” and move on, rather than saying “hey wait a minute… maybe we missed something.”

My experience in the Fundamentalist/Evangelical churches was more a consistent framing of certain scriptures and interpretations that lead you to think that the Catholic Church believed and practiced things that were “clearly” against the scriptures. Of course nobody bothered to really study what the Church actually taught and believed and why, so the stories tended to get more and more extreme and twisted.

What didn’t help was that a lot of former Catholics never knew the difference either, having never bothered to learn their own faith before abandoning it, very poor catechesis has wreaked havoc on more than one generation of Catholics.

Even now I find it extremely difficult to have open and honest discussion, free of emotionalism, about what the Catholic Church really teaches and why.

But I think the article in Christianity Today shows what those of us who have become Catholic already know, there is something crucial missing in today’s over simplistic version of the Christian life as taught by the overwhelming majority of the modern Evangelical world.

People are hungry for the deeper spiritual life that could be found in the ancient Church, who called itself the Catholic Church. This tried and true spirituality is continuing to this day, and it’s still the Catholic Church. There is a rich treasury of spiritual wisdom and direction found in the writings of great Catholics throughout the ages, an amazing find for anyone who looks. It’s a good thing.

 

[khutcheson]

The Protestants that do shudder at the word do so in reference to those Saints in Heaven, such as St. Mary, St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John the Forerunner, etc.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

I’m one of those Protestants that shudder at the word saint.

As I understand it, a saint refers to someone who has, or certainly will make it to Heaven. I have no trouble believing that most (if not all) of those individuals designated as a saint by the Catholic Church will make it to Heaven if they’re not there already. However, it seems to me that Catholics presume to know what’s inside someone’s heart when they declare someone a saint and I don’t know how you can do that. (You can guess, you can assume, but can you ever really know?) It seems to me that only God knows who is a saint and who is not. Hence, when the Church elevates someone to sainthood, it seems to me that the Church is presuming knowledge truly known only to God.

 

[Harpazo]

I’m one of those Protestants that shudder at the word saint.

As I understand it, a saint refers to someone who has, or certainly will make it to Heaven. I have no trouble believing that most (if not all) of those individuals designated as a saint by the Catholic Church will make it to Heaven if they’re not there already. However, it seems to me that Catholics presume to know what’s inside someone’s heart when they declare someone a saint and I don’t know how you can do that. (You can guess, you can assume, but can you ever really know?) It seems to me that only God knows who is a saint and who is not. Hence, when the Church elevates someone to sainthood, it seems to me that the Church is presuming knowledge truly known only to God.

Could it be because God’s spirit has confirmed this knowledge? There’s no presuming about it. I strongly urge you to look at the process it takes for canonization. It’s not a willy nilly thing either.

Either the Catholic Church is who she claims to be, or she is completely diabolical. No gray area at all.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[Jeanette_L]

I’m one of those Protestants that shudder at the word saint.

As I understand it, a saint refers to someone who has, or certainly will make it to Heaven. I have no trouble believing that most (if not all) of those individuals designated as a saint by the Catholic Church will make it to Heaven if they’re not there already. However, it seems to me that Catholics presume to know what’s inside someone’s heart when they declare someone a saint and I don’t know how you can do that. (You can guess, you can assume, but can you ever really know?) It seems to me that only God knows who is a saint and who is not. Hence, when the Church elevates someone to sainthood, it seems to me that the Church is presuming knowledge truly known only to God.

By their fruit will they be known. Now, where does that come from?

The Catholic Church takes declaring someone a Saint - definitively - very serious. Their fruit has to be clear, unmistakable. The Church does not say that someone who is not officially declared a Saint isn’t one, only that we don’t have a clear witness to their life and the fruit of it. But those whose lives were unmistakable in what was produced in virtue and holiness…are declared as such.

It’s scriptural you know, the fruit part. And the binding and loosing part too.

But, I guess the Catholic Church is the ONLY church who isn’t allowed to interpret scripture different from what everyone else does. I’m just sayin.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Actually, I don’t remember the Catholic Church coming up much at all during my 18 or so years of Sunday school…

]

Touche to his point, khutcheson.

There are books published which purport to give the truth on “How We Got the Bible” and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not mentioned.

Amazing how it fell out of the sky with all those variations among the early churches as to number of books and which manuscripts were used (which version of Saint Mark’s Gospel do you prefer?)

Hooray Zondervan:banghead:

Robert

 

[khutcheson]

]

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

QUOTE=khutcheson;3322568]

You might have a point. There’s no way of telling though since you didn’t identify a single book we can examine to see if the Catholic Church is treated unfairly.

I will have the book for you on Tuesday: school is out for the holiday. It is on the desk of one of my colleagues. I will PM you on the title and publication data.

As to St Mark: there are TWO endings. The shorter ending (at verse 8 of Chapter 16) is found in 4 7th to 9th century Greek manuscripts and in one Old Latin one. The longer ending was defined as canonical by the Council of Trent. Some ECFs believe it to be written around the 2nd century in a style as different from St Mark as Shakespeare would be from Trollope.

Robert

 

[khutcheson]

I will have the book for you on Tuesday: school is out for the holiday. It is on the desk of one of my colleagues. I will PM you on the title and publication data.

As to St Mark: there are TWO endings. The shorter ending (at verse 8 of Chapter 16) is found in 4 7th to 9th century Greek manuscripts and in one Old Latin one. The longer ending was defined as canonical by the Council of Trent. Some ECFs believe it to be written around the 2nd century in a style as different from St Mark as Shakespeare would be from Trollope.

Robert

My ESV containeds verses 9-20 in parenthesis with a footnote indicating that some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 9-20.

My NASB includes verses 9-20 in parenthesis with a footnote indicating that “Serious doubt exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8 or its orignial ending has been lost.”

Your point?

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Your point?

The newer translations of PROTESTANT bibles are based upon manuscripts OTHER than the “Textus Receptus” of the rabbis of Jamnia (90 AD et seq.). Thus you see the RSV and the RSV-CA.

That is good. Amazing in fact. Since many of the ‘Dead Sea’ fragments from the Essene community verify the Septuagint which is the Catholic basis for the Vulgate and our OT translations.

Not learning about the Catholic Church in Protestant Sunday School is NOT learning about the history of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

It means, dear brother, that Protestants are johnny-come-latelies in the ‘tradition’ game and due to many reasons think that acting like Catholics have always acted (to put it popularly) and calling their pastor-personality generated churches (Orthodox Christian Church, of Riverside, CA, for example) by names which IMPLY a continuity (as the Bible talks about throughout the NT) via the Apostles when it fact (here’s the point):

It doesn’t exist

Robert

 

[AutumnSakura]

I too get frustrated with these sorts of things. I read an article a couple of months ago about a Calvary Chapel in California that started having a “vespers” service, complete with subdued lighting and candles. What is up with that? I also have a frustrated chuckle when I hear non-liturgical Protestant churches use words like “sacraments”, without fully appreciating or agreeing with the true meaning of the word.
God Bless them for trying, but really, how many people are you going to attract long-term to your faux liturgies, when there are Orthodox churches just around the corner? Evangelicals are converting to Orthodoxy in droves. I should know, I did! And so did most of my friends, including my priest and most other priests I know!
I can also recall a CT article about the Didache, which was interesting, given the Protestant inclination towards Sola Scriptura. Talking about Tradition derived from the Didache seems almost heretical!