Evangelical worship attracts Hispanic Catholics

[Lepanto]

I’ve a devoted Catholic, but I have attended lots of Protestant services over the years, including pentecostal, charismatic, evangelical, and mainline services. They vary widely in their emotional tone and format, and the notion that they are empty, appealing only to the emotions is simply ignorant or malicious.

Most Protestant services are focused on the sermon, not on the music. Particularly where there is more than one church to pick from, if the preacher is good, people attend. If the preacher is poor, people find another church. My experience is that preaching in Protestant churches tends to be good to excellent. I often don’t agree with the biblical interpretation or theology, but the messages tend to be substantial, well delivered, and pertinent to people’s life situations. Most Catholic sermons I’ve heard (lots of churches, all over the country, from conservative to liberal) are pretty awful.

Lots of evangelical churches, and most mainline denominations, have an emotional tone that doesn’t differ much from most Catholic churches. They sing a few hymns, listen to some prepared music, have a short time of prayer led by a pastor, then it’s on to the sermon, which, as I said, is the real show. No jumping up and down, no shouting or waving of hands.

Even in contemporary pentecostal/charismatic/evangelical churches where there is a big emphasis on high-emotion worship, there is most often a big emphasis on the authentic God-directed, praise and thanksgiving. A mere emotional outpouring is not the goal – the desire is to establish a real, felt contact with God.

Those who favor a quiter, more contemplative approach to worship (which includes a majority of Protestants, by the way) will disdain and dismiss this approach, but I’ve shed my fair share of tears both at quiet, reverent, fully-orthodox Catholic services and at loud, jump and shout evangelical services. In both contexts, God was present and at work in people’s hearts. I’ve been in churches where people just wanted to be entertained and pastors just wanted to fill seats, but those are pretty rare. People want to draw near to God, and pastors and worship leaders want to help them do so. Style matters, but substance matters more.

But do they have the Eucharist?

 

[otjm]

But do they have the Eucharist?

Of course not; in fact they reject our understanding of Eucharist as un-biblical. That they are wrong is obvious to anyone who is Catholic and well trained; but that is how they are trained and they believe they have the truth and we have distorted it.

And the issue might go back to the term “well trained”; altogether too many Catholics are poorly catechized if at all. It is no surprise, when a fervant Protestant hits their door, and what they have seen in the Catholic Church appears to be something other than fervant, that they are swayed.

 

[adowcday]

Of course not; in fact they reject our understanding of Eucharist as un-biblical. That they are wrong is obvious to anyone who is Catholic and well trained; but that is how they are trained and they believe they have the truth and we have distorted it.

And the issue might go back to the term “well trained”; altogether too many Catholics are poorly catechized if at all. It is no surprise, when a fervant Protestant hits their door, and what they have seen in the Catholic Church appears to be something other than fervant, that they are swayed.

Please be careful about who “they” is. Episcopalians/Anglicans and Lutherans believe the eucharist to be biblical and their eucharistic doctrine is close (although not identical) to our own. Luther condemned as heretics those who rejected the Catholic/Lutheran view of the eucharist and instead taught that the bread and wine were merely symbolic of the body and blood of Christ.

My point is not that Evangelical worship is better than Catholic worship. I am, after all, a Catholic and proudly so, and the eucharist is important to me too. However, the Protestant bashing that occurs in these forums is something that I have very little patience for. Issues, doctrines, fine. Bashing, not so much.

I agree that catechesis is of crucial importance. Also importance is leadership. In Latin America and most of the developing world, there is one priest for many thousands of people. Our shortage is their crisis. If the eucharist is the source and summit of our faith, most of the world lacks access to what is supposed to be essential to our life as Catholic Christians. No eucharist, no pastoral care, catechesis, etc. No wonder they leave the Church.

 

[Middleman]

Hispanics are like any other ethnic group that comes to America, has children, and their children become like any other American. There are many Evangelicals whose ancestors came from Catholic countries.

Evangelical groups do excellent jobs of starting ministries to reach out to people. Hispanics in Mexico or other Spanish speaking countries don’t have the options that we do in America. Here in America it’s much easier for people to have freedom of religion because we have so many religions that no one will be socially ostracized for following a different religion. Religion in America is less tied to ones ethic identity, but more an expression of true religious conviction or else social ties and community.

 

[otjm]

Please be careful about who “they” is. Episcopalians/Anglicans and Lutherans believe the eucharist to be biblical and their eucharistic doctrine is close (although not identical) to our own. Luther condemned as heretics those who rejected the Catholic/Lutheran view of the eucharist and instead taught that the bread and wine were merely symbolic of the body and blood of Christ.

My point is not that Evangelical worship is better than Catholic worship. I am, after all, a Catholic and proudly so, and the eucharist is important to me too. However, the Protestant bashing that occurs in these forums is something that I have very little patience for. Issues, doctrines, fine. Bashing, not so much.

I agree that catechesis is of crucial importance. Also importance is leadership. In Latin America and most of the developing world, there is one priest for many thousands of people. Our shortage is their crisis. If the eucharist is the source and summit of our faith, most of the world lacks access to what is supposed to be essential to our life as Catholic Christians. No eucharist, no pastoral care, catechesis, etc. No wonder they leave the Church.

My bad. You ar right; I intended to reference the fundamental and evangelical parts.

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t get it. Many of the practices described in this article describes much of the trend towards evangelical protestant worship that I see in many of my local parishes (“Praise & Worship” music, clapping, jumping, non-descript church buildings, etc.). Weren’t many of these changes in many Catholic parishes done to prevent people from joining evangelical denominations? I guess it isn’t working.

newsobserver.com/lifestyles/religion/story/1382037.html

I can attest from personal experience that many Hispanics (specifically people from Mexico) are going out of their way to make a point of NOT attending what you’ve described (and well-put by the way) in favor of a reverent Mass, and I can further attest that they’re not coming because the preaching is good.

 

[FrDavid96]

Please be careful about who “they” is. Episcopalians/Anglicans and Lutherans believe the eucharist to be biblical and their eucharistic doctrine is close (although not identical) to our own. Luther condemned as heretics those who rejected the Catholic/Lutheran view of the eucharist and instead taught that the bread and wine were merely symbolic of the body and blood of Christ.

…

Luther’s teachings are incompatible with the Catholic faith of the Eucharist, so there is no such thing as a “Catholic/Lutheran view of the eucharist.”

Neither Episcopalians/Anglicans nor Lutherans have the Eucharist, since neither has a valid priesthood, and neither has a valid understainding of the Eucharist.

 

[otjm]

Luther’s teachings are incompatible with the Catholic faith of the Eucharist, so there is no such thing as a “Catholic/Lutheran view of the eucharist.”

Neither Episcopalians/Anglicans nor Lutherans have the Eucharist, since neither has a valid priesthood, and neither has a valid understainding of the Eucharist.

Considering that was not what was said, perhaps we can say what the poster tried to say, a bit differently? The Anglicans and the Lutherans have a much closer understanding of Eucharist than do, say, the Baptists or the Presbyterians, or the evangelical/fundamental churches.

There most certainly is a Catholic/Lutheran/Epsicopalian/Anglican view of the Eucharist, and while their view differs from ours in specifics (and theirs is not correct), it is a lot closer to the truth than that held by the evangelicals. To say that their view and understanding of True Presence differs from our and is incorrect is a true and factual statement. However, as incorrect as they are, they do believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist and that it is something definitely more than just a symbol.

The poster you critique may not have been elegant in their formulation, but I certainly understood what they were trying to say. Both churches have at least some sense of Sacramental Theology; it may be incorrect, but they have something which the evangelcial/fundamental churches don’t have at all.

 

[plato3]

**We seem to have the best of both at our parish. There is a regular Spanish Mass on Sunday observing all the rubics (Full church) and a weeknight Charismatic Prayer Group (Smaller group) for those who want to come and sing and clap and praise the Lord. **

 

[itsme2]

Many of those Hispanics that deserted the church for Protestantism,were not churchgoers.I am surrounded by them.They are completely ignorant of what the Catholic church teaches.

 

[benedictgal]

Considering that was not what was said, perhaps we can say what the poster tried to say, a bit differently? The Anglicans and the Lutherans have a much closer understanding of Eucharist than do, say, the Baptists or the Presbyterians, or the evangelical/fundamental churches.

There most certainly is a Catholic/Lutheran/Epsicopalian/Anglican view of the Eucharist, and while their view differs from ours in specifics (and theirs is not correct), it is a lot closer to the truth than that held by the evangelicals. To say that their view and understanding of True Presence differs from our and is incorrect is a true and factual statement. However, as incorrect as they are, they do believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist and that it is something definitely more than just a symbol.

The poster you critique may not have been elegant in their formulation, but I certainly understood what they were trying to say. Both churches have at least some sense of Sacramental Theology; it may be incorrect, but they have something which the evangelcial/fundamental churches don’t have at all.

However, this understanding is doctrinally deficient. That is why the Church calls the Anglicans, Lutherans, et al, Protestant Ecclesial Communities, as opposed to Churches. The only Sister Churches that the Church refers to are the Orthodox.

Here is what the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in the landmark document Dominus Iesus:

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him (58). The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches (59). Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church (60).

***On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery (61), are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church ***(62). Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church (63).

People misread this document as Protestant-bashing. But, the primary audience that this document was meant for was the Catholic faithful. Sometimes, we have to call a spade a spade.

 

[Matariel]

Sometimes, we have to call a spade a spade.

You’re right. The only Churches that are technically Churches are the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches (and argueably some Continuing Anglican churches that have regained apostolic succession).

The Protestant sects are more properly called ecclesial communities or ecclesial bodies.