Evangelical Catholics?

[Miss_Primrose]

Hi!
I have recently heard about a group of people within the Catholic Church who focus there faith on the Bible and have everything else as secondary, I have been influenced in the past by Protestant Evangelicals as I am not Catholic but a member of the Church of England, and am looking into the Catholic faith, so I wondered…yes the evangelical movement has a place in the Catholic Church, it has a place in any Church, but is it really possible to put Scripture before all else within the Catholic Church without it going against some of the basic teachings of the Church??

or am I wrong, is it possible to be Evangelical because all the teachings of the Catholic Church are found in the Bible??

Any help to clarify this would be appreciated.
Thank you.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m not sure what exactly you are describing here. When I hear the term “Evangelical Catholic”, I think of it in terms of George Weigel’s book Evangelical Catholicism. Some present day Catholic commentators have adopted the term to describe those Catholics who are on fire for their faith and want to live out the Catholic faith in accordance with the teachings of the Magisterium. The “Traditionalist” label doesn’t really apply to them as most of them attend the Ordinary Form of the Mass. The “Progressive” label doesn’t apply because they take as true all the teachings of the Church.

It’s possible that the term is used differently by different people. But I have only heard it used to describe Catholics who are faithful to the Magisterium and have a zeal for the Lord. Indeed, it would probably be the label to use (if we really had to use a label) to describe most of the frequent posters here on this forum.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

Hi!
I have recently heard about a group of people within the Catholic Church who focus there faith on the Bible and have everything else as secondary, I have been influenced in the past by Protestant Evangelicals as I am not Catholic but a member of the Church of England, and am looking into the Catholic faith, so I wondered…yes the evangelical movement has a place in the Catholic Church, it has a place in any Church, but is it really possible to put Scripture before all else within the Catholic Church without it going against some of the basic teachings of the Church??

There certainly are many Catholics who have developed a renewed interest in the Holy Scriptures, and I am seeing more Bible studies in parishes, which is a good thing–we should all be familiar with the Scriptures and develop a love for them.

But it is not possible to be Catholic with a “sola Scriptura” mentality, which is essentially putting one’s own interpretation of the Bible ahead of the Church’s teachings.

or am I wrong, is it possible to be Evangelical because all the teachings of the Catholic Church are found in the Bible??

Any help to clarify this would be appreciated.
Thank you.

I guess you would have to define a little more what you mean by “Evangelical.” If by “Evangelical,” you mean someone who is devoted to spreading the gospel, then all Catholics should be Evangelical.

 

[paulrxp]

Hi!
I have recently heard about a group of people within the Catholic Church who focus there faith on the Bible and have everything else as secondary, I have been influenced in the past by Protestant Evangelicals as I am not Catholic but a member of the Church of England, and am looking into the Catholic faith, so I wondered…yes the evangelical movement has a place in the Catholic Church, it has a place in any Church, but is it really possible to put Scripture before all else within the Catholic Church without it going against some of the basic teachings of the Church??

or am I wrong, is it possible to be Evangelical because all the teachings of the Catholic Church are found in the Bible??

First of all you’re asking the right questions. It’s probably best answered by telling you what differentiates the Catholic Church from protestant ones. It is not that the Catholic Church rejects the authority of the Word of God in the Bible, but it does reject the belief that the Bible alone is the sole authority in understanding the Word of God. It also rejects that the Bible interprets itself

Catholics believe both the Bible and Sacred Tradition matter and are equally important to understanding who God is, and what he taught when he came down from heaven. Tim Staples who was a former Baptist minister who came to the Church put it very beautifully. Catholics usually don’t believe it is ‘either/or’ Either Bible or Tradition. Either Faith or Works. To Catholics we say both matter and both are equally important to understanding and living the faith. The Bible first which may be believed by these Evangelical Catholics would at some point become problematic, I’m almost certain of that.

As I’ve mentioned in my previous post on another thread, if you one day enter the Catholic Church, one of the things you’ll learn later is not only the unity we share in our belief, but that we sacrifice individual beliefs to become one with other Catholics, and One with God. We pray for each other, we pray for those who are living, and those who are dead. Death does not separate Catholics from this life, or the life of the world to come, the love and obedience to God assures this.

Nothing wrong with the personal relationship evangelicals always say they have with Christ, but Catholics believe what’s even better than a relationship with God is being part of Christs’ Body through Communion. Christ is One with the Father, we the Body are One with Christ by the Holy Spirit of Truth, so we’re all One with God. That’s way better than just a personal/individual relationship. This unity Catholics share under God is what I’ve always loved about this faith. God first, and then the rest of us faithful united under Him. To be Catholic is to remember to put God before yourself. He’ll take care of the rest, believe it God Bless in your spiritual journey.

 

[fnr]

Hi!
I have recently heard about a group of people within the Catholic Church who focus there faith on the Bible and have everything else as secondary, I have been influenced in the past by Protestant Evangelicals as I am not Catholic but a member of the Church of England, and am looking into the Catholic faith, so I wondered…yes the evangelical movement has a place in the Catholic Church, it has a place in any Church, but is it really possible to put Scripture before all else within the Catholic Church without it going against some of the basic teachings of the Church??

or am I wrong, is it possible to be Evangelical because all the teachings of the Catholic Church are found in the Bible??

Any help to clarify this would be appreciated.
Thank you.

I am an “evangelical Catholic.” I know my Bible well. Better than most Protestants. And it’s not that “everything else is secondary.” Put scripture first, and you will find you way to the Catholic Church.

The oldest scripture we have is hearsay, in a sense. Not that it’s not inspired, but it’s not the written word. It’s holy Tradition.

Critical Biblical scholars – evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox, Catholic, and atheist – universally agree that among the oldest text in the Bible is 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. It’s in a letter of St. Paul, so yes, it’s written. How scholars know it’s the oldest? Well, look at how it starts:

For I hand**ed **on to you as of first importance what I also received

The parts I bolded are really important. First, St. Paul says, in the past tense, that he handed on something to the Corinthians. When did he do that? During the visit he paid them, which is described in both 1 and 2 Corinthians and in Acts 18. Acts 18 tells us that he was in Corinth for about a 18 months, and that he faced accusations in front of Gallio. Turns out, archaeologists have uncovered an inscription confirming that Gallio was in office, just as Acts says, in 50-52 AD. From this, we know two other things: that 1 Corithians was written after 50-52 AD, and that what Paul “handed on” to the Corinthians is older than 50-52.

The second bolded section of the quote above is that Paul “also received” what he’s about to tell them. That means that Paul didn’t write it, it’s that someone taught it to him, Paul, in the past.

What is the material of “first importance” that Paul handed on? The verses that follow are translated into English as such:

that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures;
that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;
that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

According to most critical Bible scholars, this is probably a very early creed used to teach illiterate people the basic tenets of the faith. How do scholars know this? Because in the Greek in which it’s originally written, the language is highly stylized and rhythmic, written in a way that would be easy for someone who can’t read to memorize the text.

So when did Paul get this material? Look again at Acts. If you back-track from where he visited Corinth in Acts 18, you see that he was on his second missionary journey. That journey took him all through Syria, modern day Turkey, the Aegean coast, and eventually back to Jerusalem. And if you look at Acts 15, you see that it also started in Jerusalem. It turns out that that visit to Jerusalem is also described by Paul in Galatians 2. There, Paul says,

I presented to them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles—but privately to those of repute—so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain.

In other words, Paul wanted to make sure that the gospel he was preaching to the Gentiles was in accord with the teachings of the Apostles who had been with Jesus Christ personally. And also according to Paul,

But from those who were reputed to be important (what they once were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those of repute made me add nothing.

So at Paul’s visit to Jerusalem between his first and second missionary journeys, he was teaching the complete gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[fnr]

But still, we don’t see where he “received” it, as he says in 1 Corinthians 15:3.

We see the answer to that in Galatians 1. Prior to the visit to Jerusalem described in Acts 15 and Galatians 2, 14 years earlier Paul had been in Jerusalem as well. We hear what happened there in Galatians 1:18-20

I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 (As to what I am writing to you, behold, before God, I am not lying.)

So it was in Jerusalem that Paul received the rhythmic Greek words he wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, and he received it from Peter (Cephas) himself. Paul received an apostolic teaching directly from Peter, in what we in the Catholic Church call Holy Tradition. This was not written scripture, and 1 Corinthians 15 confirms that Paul was preaching it before he wrote it down there. It was an oral creed, designed to be easily memorized by people who could not read. And Paul received that teaching from Peter.

From the dates we’ve already discussed, we can put an extremely early date on these events. We know from Acts 18 and 1 Corinthians, along with the archaeological evidence, that Paul was in Corinth from 50-52 AD. There was 14 years between his first and second visits, so that puts Paul’s first visit to Peter and James between 36 and 38 AD (50-14 = 36, 52-14 = 38). However, we know that Paul’s visit to Corinth took place rather late in his second missionary journey, so the visit to Peter is likely to be at least a year earlier… 35-37 AD.

Paul’s faith came to him through a revelation from God, and Galatians 1 tells us that it took place at least three years prior to his 15-day visit to Peter in Jerusalem, which he spent “in Arabia” – probably with the Nabatean Arabs around Damascus.

The bottom line is that the oldest statements of belief in the Bible come from oral tradition, a tradition that arose with Peter in Jerusalem.

Jesus Christ gave Peter his name, in Matthew 16:18-19, and there he said,

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus Christ founded one Church, the Catholic Church, and he promised that it would not fail. Ever!

I encourage you to be a Bible-believing Christian. And if you read all the Bible, not just a selective reading of Galatians and Romans 3-5, you will see that the Bible points to the Catholic Church as the mystical body of Christ.

I promise you that I love Jesus Christ with all my heart, and that I proclaim his death and resurrection to the world. And that love of Christ roots me in Catholicism.

 

[RedFox0456]

Certainly Scripture should be the driving force behind everything we believe. And nothing we believe from Tradition or from the Magisterium should be contradictory to Scripture. So, I could see people having a particular attraction to that element of our faith. I mean, we do have Lectio Divina, for instance. Now, if people are focusing so much on Scripture that they are choosing to disregard Tradition of the Magisterium then I would certainly say there is an issue.

 

[EvagrianBridge]

I have heard members of the LCMS refer to themselves as “Evangelical Catholics” - might be something for the OP to consider.

 

[Miss_Primrose]

Thank you for your comments they have been very interesting, I wondered though, if Scripture comes first and tradition and church teaching plays an important part as well why does the church teaching go against some of scripture for example the church say’s priests should remain celibate but the bible say’s that they can marry?

 

[Joe_5859]

Thank you for your comments they have been very interesting, I wondered though, if Scripture comes first and tradition and church teaching plays an important part as well why does the church teaching go against some of scripture for example the church say’s priests should remain celibate but the bible say’s that they can marry?

Scripture doesn’t say they must marry, though. So it is inaccurate to say that it runs contrary to Scripture.

Clerical celibacy is a discipline. It could change. It’s not part of the deposit of faith that priests must be unmarried. Indeed, even today there are married priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches and even some married Latin rite priests (usually they are Anglican/Episcopalian priest converts from Anglicanism who have received permission and a dispensation to be ordained as Catholic priests).

You might read the Second Vatican Council’s document on Divine Revelation. It’s not too long and it spells out how the Church views Revelation, Scripture, and Tradition. As Pope Benedict said, we are not a religion “of the Book” but a religion “of the Word.” And that Word (in Greek, Logos) is Jesus. And He is revealed through both Scripture and Tradition, which is interpreted through the teaching office of the Church (the Magisterium). Those are sort of the three legs that support the stool (though the Magisterium is obviously subordinate to Scripture and Tradition).

 

[Nita]

Thank you for your comments they have been very interesting, I wondered though, if Scripture comes first and tradition and church teaching plays an important part as well why does the church teaching go against some of scripture for example the church say’s priests should remain celibate but the bible say’s that they can marry?

Celibacy is a regulation/discipline in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. Some of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church allow married men to be priests.

Celibacy regulations are not doctrinal (faith/moral) teachings and therefore can be changed. As an example, consider some of the following regulations from Scripture which most Christian denominations have changed:
**1 Corinthians **
11:4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
11:5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head – it is the same as if her head were shaven.
11:6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.
…
14:33b As in all the churches of the saints,
14:34 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
14:35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

**1 Timothy **
2::11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.
2:12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

​

(Occasionally I wish they would reenact some of those regulations — and I’m a woman!!!)

3:2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, …
(Altho not an issue in Catholicism, I think there are many Christian denominations that no longer have this as a regulation; that is, they allow widowed or divorced bishops to remarry.)​

As stated above, non-doctrinal regulations can be changed.
Doctrines cannot be changed; they can be further developed, understood, explained and defined, but these “developments” can never contradict or negate the original doctrine

 

[jonathan_hili]

An interesting question. Here is a link to a discussion on the issue with Francis Beckwith:
biblicalcatholic.com/BeckwithGeorgeEvangelicalCatholic.mp3

 

[PJM]

=Miss Primrose;12252343]Hi!
I have recently heard about a group of people within the Catholic Church who focus there faith on the Bible and have everything else as secondary, I have been influenced in the past by Protestant Evangelicals as I am not Catholic but a member of the Church of England, and am looking into the Catholic faith, so I wondered…yes the evangelical movement has a place in the Catholic Church, it has a place in any Church, but is it really possible to put Scripture before all else within the Catholic Church without it going against some of the basic teachings of the Church??

or am I wrong, is it possible to be Evangelical because all the teachings of the Catholic Church are found in the Bible??

Any help to clarify this would be appreciated.
Thank you.

My dear friend IN CHRIST,

NO! It is not possible.

While the Catholic Church birthed the bible and relies heavily on it’s TOTAL Teaching,
the bible alone is insufficient to learn the Catholic Faith.

As a FYI

I’m a trained and now retired Catechist who taught RCIA for 3 years

I offer
A TOTALLY FREE OF ALL COST home study course
Lessons e-mailed
Contact me at
patrickmiron66@hotmail.com if I can be of help

God Bless you,
Patrick
'PJM here on CAF

 

[2birds1stone]

the teachings are simplified-- by the following over view–

and you can see why scripture alone - as the basis is – not able to be used exclusively

ul 4, '14, 7:48 am
Mike Dye
Regular Member Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 3,646
Religion: Catholic

Re: Your experiences in facilitating RCIA

---

First of all thanks for being willing to share our faith. I have been involved with RCIA for over 30 years.
For the past 10-20 years I have been the director and chief catechist in our parish program. As others have said each class is different and will have a different dynamic.
1

…I insist on completely orthodox teaching in our program…

. I use four main sources when developing a lesson plan…

1…Holy Scripture…

2.The Catechism…

3…The teaching of the early Church Fathers (to show a continuity of belief from the very beginning)…

4…and finally my personal experience as living as a Catholic for the past 65 years. Trust me when I say that people are hungry for the truth…don’t water down our beliefs.

I spend a lot of time with topics that protestants have a hard time accepting…

1…The Papacy…

2…The Real Presence…

3…Saints…

4…Sola Scriptura…

5…especially devotion to Mary.

Take your time , learn your material and explain it well and you should do just fine.
God Bless you in your efforts.

 

[Kindness]

OP you might be interested in exploring the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. It is a movement of the Holy Spirit in the church and I came in contact with the church and ultimately Jesus through a Charismatic youth prayer group. I was an atheist and because of their prayer and witness was baptised Catholic and am still here in the Catholic church 26 years later. The group I met were led by members of a Catholic Charismatic Lay Community - the community were/are very devout and believe everything the Magisterium teaches as well as being avid lovers of traditional devotions and prayers. They also have a huge devotion to Jesus in the blessed sacrament.

Some Catholics can be wary of Charismatics if they think they reject Catholic teaching in any way or emphasise emotionalism over traditional Catholic practice. I personally have only known extremely devout and on fire with the Holy Spirit Charismatics so although I see this criticism as valid I haven’t met any Charismatic Catholics who would concern me.

Pope Francis was recently at a Charismatic event in Italy where he spoke and thousands of people were present. The Catholic Charismatic Renewal has offices at the Vatican and full support of the church. In most countries there is a national Catholic Charismatic Renewal Leadership Council which is approved of by the Catholic Bishops. You can contact them or ask at the offices of your local Catholic Diocese about groups in your area. Catholic Charismatics still belong to a local parish like everyone else and are not separate from the rest of the church but integrated. The group I belonged to produced many vocations to the priesthood and religious life as well as strong marriages and devout Catholics in all walks of life.

Although no longer active in Charismatic Renewal myself I still am eternally grateful for how I was introduced to the Catholic church through them as I have an ongoing understanding of our need for discipleship, conversion and a deep and abiding relationship with Jesus. None of this of course is in opposition to Catholic tradition and the church has a constant steam of people responding to the Holy Sport in a dynamic way St. Francis being a great example.

Here is a link laici.va/content/laici/en/sezioni/associazioni/repertorio/serv-rinnovamentocarismatico.html

 

[Miss_Primrose]

Thank you everyone for the help, your advice and opinions have been very helpful and interesting.

Celibacy is a regulation/discipline in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. Some of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church allow married men to be priests.

Celibacy regulations are not doctrinal (faith/moral) teachings and therefore can be changed. As an example, consider some of the following regulations from Scripture which most Christian denominations have changed:
**1 Corinthians **
11:4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
11:5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head – it is the same as if her head were shaven.
11:6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.
…
14:33b As in all the churches of the saints,
14:34 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
14:35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

**1 Timothy **
2::11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.
2:12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

​

(Occasionally I wish they would reenact some of those regulations — and I’m a woman!!!)

3:2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, …
(Altho not an issue in Catholicism, I think there are many Christian denominations that no longer have this as a regulation; that is, they allow widowed or divorced bishops to remarry.)​

As stated above, non-doctrinal regulations can be changed.
Doctrines cannot be changed; they can be further developed, understood, explained and defined, but these “developments” can never contradict or negate the original doctrine

Nita, your comments made me smile, as a woman I too have thought on occasion that some of these things could be made useful.

 

[PJM]

=Miss Primrose;12302392]Thank you everyone for the help, your advice and opinions have been very helpful and interesting.

Nita, your comments made me smile, as a woman I too have thought on occasion that some of these things could be made useful.

Pope [now Saint] John Paul II in his encyclical of male only priesthood gives three significant and indisputable reasons for a “Male On;y” Priesthood

1. Ordicaton is a Sacrament Ordained and Created by God; there only GOD can change it
2. Sacred Tradition going back to the Moses and Arron have had exclusively a “Male Priesthood” thus it cannot be changed
3. A Male Priesthood is essential to the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist; the “sum and summit of our Faith as it IS God Himself”

Because God choose to be a man, a MAN MUST be a priest i order to make Christ {a MAN} “Truly, Really and Substantially present to and FOR us.” A women cannot accomplish this:

“THIS is MY is BODY & THIS is MY BLOOD”

As too the issue of Celibacy: this is the wise, prudent and INSPIRED by the HS conclusion of the Fathers, who tried the married priesthood and found it to be NOT as effective and the single life. One cannot serve TWO masters and give gue justice to both.

1st. Cor 7: 37-40
“For he that hath determined being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will; and hath judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, doth well. Therefore, both he that giveth his virgin in marriage, doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better. A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty: let her marry to whom she will; only in the Lord. But more blessed shall she be, if she so remain, according to my counsel; and I think that I also have the spirit of God.”

God CALLS whom it pleases HIM to the Priesthood and gives [offers] them the necessary grace for this Ministry., which is {1} a freewill choice and {2} known before the necessary commitment of the priest.

While it COULD be change, it most likely will NOT because what Paul taught is the better way.

God Bless you,
Patrick