Evangelization--are we too soft on each other?

[aurora77]

As some of you know, I work with two evangelical Christians. We have all kinds of religious discussions. I think that I’m the only Catholic that either of them really know. When we talk about our faiths we try to be respectful of each other. We’ll even say that we’re not trying to convert each other. That lead us to another discussion…

Shouldn’t we be trying to convert one another? Since our immortal souls are at stake, shouldn’t we be actively trying to bring each other to our particular Church’s teaching? We try to avoid being blatantly evangelistic because we have to work closely together and don’t want to harm that relationship.

For the most part, I think we all are of the opinion that we’ll be the best apologists for our faith that we can be and let that and our actions speak for themselves. But, is it possible to go too far in this respect for each other that we unconsciously buy into the idea that all Christian denominations are equal? Anyone else ever thought about this or is this just a sign we’ve been working too hard without other human contact?

For the record, I don’t want to see any discussion of this get into an Catholicism v. Protestantism debate, but want discussion of evangelization of our fellow Christians and non-Christians.

 

[CARose]

Aurora,

I applaud you for keeping your Catholicism up front and center in your work life. This is the best evangelization you could ever do, as it keeps the lines of communication open with your co-workers. Remember, we have the advantage of speaking the Truth in all its fullness, so as you progress, the Truth will ring in their hearts, one note at a time, until they can no longer deny it.

The process of actual conversion is something over which the Holy Spirit presides. It’s not your job to convert others. You simply need to make the Truth available, present it, let them know they are welcome to come with you to Holy Thursday Mass and see how we acknowledge the Last Supper, invite them to Good Friday and the Stations of the Cross. Let them know they are always welcome to participate in how the Catholic Church celebrates the Seasons of the Lord, keeping Him and His life always at the forefront of what we do.

Make the movements of the Church visible to them. Provide them with the answers to the questions that trouble them. Be ever charitable, even if they come to a point where they are having difficulty and perhaps even lash out. Conversion is often a very difficult and personal process, but as you’ve stated, their souls are on the line, so we try to lead with Love always before us and between us.

May God continue to Bless you and your efforts with these friends,

CARose

 

[sadie2723]

aurora77:

As some of you know, I work with two evangelical Christians. We have all kinds of religious discussions. I think that I’m the only Catholic that either of them really know. When we talk about our faiths we try to be respectful of each other. We’ll even say that we’re not trying to convert each other. That lead us to another discussion…

Shouldn’t we be trying to convert one another? Since our immortal souls are at stake, shouldn’t we be actively trying to bring each other to our particular Church’s teaching? We try to avoid being blatantly evangelistic because we have to work closely together and don’t want to harm that relationship.

For the most part, I think we all are of the opinion that we’ll be the best apologists for our faith that we can be and let that and our actions speak for themselves. But, is it possible to go too far in this respect for each other that we unconsciously buy into the idea that all Christian denominations are equal? Anyone else ever thought about this or is this just a sign we’ve been working too hard without other human contact?

For the record, I don’t want to see any discussion of this get into an Catholicism v. Protestantism debate, but want discussion of evangelization of our fellow Christians and non-Christians.

The bottom line is that the Church has determined that all of us are on the same path for the most part. Unless your friends are really screwed up about the fundamental teachings of Christ, there is no need to push for conversion.

That said, I am a strong advocate for the Catholic Church. I will profess the church’s teachings, but I do not force them on people. Doing so is not the way to bring people to Christ. What I do is try to get them to read and study. I am a firm believer that anyone who invests himself in the search for truth will find the Catholic faith all on his own…or her own.

 

[Contarini]

aurora77:

As some of you know, I work with two evangelical Christians. We have all kinds of religious discussions. I think that I’m the only Catholic that either of them really know. When we talk about our faiths we try to be respectful of each other. We’ll even say that we’re not trying to convert each other. That lead us to another discussion…

Shouldn’t we be trying to convert one another? Since our immortal souls are at stake, shouldn’t we be actively trying to bring each other to our particular Church’s teaching? We try to avoid being blatantly evangelistic because we have to work closely together and don’t want to harm that relationship.

For the most part, I think we all are of the opinion that we’ll be the best apologists for our faith that we can be and let that and our actions speak for themselves. But, is it possible to go too far in this respect for each other that we unconsciously buy into the idea that all Christian denominations are equal? Anyone else ever thought about this or is this just a sign we’ve been working too hard without other human contact?

For the record, I don’t want to see any discussion of this get into an Catholicism v. Protestantism debate, but want discussion of evangelization of our fellow Christians and non-Christians.

There are two questions here. One is how (not whether) we ought to evangelize non-believers. I would say that we should see our evangelization in terms of bearing witness rather than of persuading people to convert. Only God can convert someone. It is our job to set a good example and to bear witness (when opportunity arises) to our Faith.

But the other question, pertinent in the example you give, is whether (not just how) we should see our relationship with other Christians in terms of evangelization. Of course the underlying question here is whether the differences among Christians relate to our salvation. There is a spectrum here, from anti-Catholic fundamentalists who think Catholics are “not Christians” and hence should be evangelized like non-believers (it’s sobering to remember that for the first couple centuries of the Protestant-Catholic schism at least, this was the attitude of all Catholics to Protestants and of most Protestants to Catholics), all the way over to moderate/mainline/ecumenical Protestants like myself, who do not regard any Trinitarian Christians as proper objects of conversion or evangelization (in the sense of conversion from one faith to another–obviously Christians of all churches may have “dead faith” and need to be awakened). On the whole, evangelicals share my attitude, but many of them may believe that Catholic doctrine obscures the Gospel and hence that Catholics are more likely to be spiritually “dead” than evangelicals. The Catholic position, of course, is nuanced. Up to Vatican II, the official position was roughly analogous to that of the more nuanced anti-Catholic Protestants–i.e., Protestants could be saved, but only if they had the excuse of “invincible ignorance.” It seems to be a matter of debate among Catholics to what extent Vatican II changed this situation.

This, I think, is the question you have to decide. Do you see your evangelical friends as fellow believers or as non-believers? One of the disturbing aspects of Vatican II from the point of view of evangelical Protestants is its apparent conflation of the situation of non-Catholic Christians with that of non-Christians (more accurately, it sets up a series of concentric circles–certainly baptism marks an important boundary between one circle and another, but not perhaps as clear a boundary as we Protestants might like). Dominus Iesus, for all that it was misrepresented and attacked by many Protestants, did a better job of clarifying this difference, I think (it seems to me that most of the people who resented it didn’t read it, or didn’t read it carefully–statements made about non-Christians were applied by the document’s attackers to non-Catholic Christians). Clearly this is still something Catholics are working through.

All I can contribute to this question is to reiterate my position–I do not believe that any Trinitarian Christian should try to convert any other Trinitarian Christian to a different tradition or affiliation. Ecumenical relationships among Christians should be dealt with on a very different basis from interfaith relationships between Christians and non-Christians.

Edwin

 

[LeahInancsi]

I question that the Catholic Church is being too soft on Catholics. A little more hell fire and brimstone might make a lot of Catholics follow the teachings of the Church more faithfully. Catholicism seems to be getting too easy. Very few people fear damnation. I never hear a homily that strikes any fear in my heart, anymore. It’s all love and flowers. The Church appears to be afraid of offending parishoners.

A friend of who is 65 years old mentioned to me that in high school, she and her friends who attended Catholic high school were scared to death that they were going to hell. Another friend who has school-age children mentioned that she is worried that her children aren’t taking Catholicism seriously enough. She does her best to impress the dangers of sin to them at home, but the Church isn’t backing her up. Attitudes seem to have changed over the years. No wonder so many cradle Catholics leave the Church. They can’t see the Church’s backbone. Perhaps, through fault of their own.

As an adult convert, I appreciate the ability to confess my sins and have a second chance to improve myself because of the love of Jesus Christ. Are young Catholics taking the Church for granted?

To answer the topic of the thread, my mehtod of evangelization is practiced by the way I live my life and the way I treat others. If someone approaches me about the Catholic church, I’ll give them the shirt off my back, but I refuse to cram anything down anyone’s throat. I was brought to the Catholic church by that means by my grandmother (God rest her soul) and other fine Catholics who have come into my life.

 

[CARose]

Interesting post Contarini!

As for attempting to convert a Trinitarian Christian, as Catholics, we understand that within the Catholic Church resides the fullness of the Truth as given by Christ. To deny parts of this Truth is to deny aspects of God Himself. Therefore, it is our responsibility to make these Truths available to even our Trinitarian Believing brethren. For don’t they ultimately desire to know God fully. If we posess knowledge that is efficatious for the salvation of others, we are duty bound to make it available to them.

God is so wonderful, he gave us a Church by which we can validate the Truth. This Church and the Truth within it is for All mankind. We owe it to God to make these Truths available to all, even our closest brothers.

God Bless,

CARose

 

[Archbishop]

aurora77:

For the record, I don’t want to see any discussion of this get into an Catholicism v. Protestantism debate, but want discussion of evangelization of our fellow Christians and non-Christians.

Perhaps the phrase “evangelization of our fellow Christians” is not the correct term to use. Maybe looking at it differently would help you. If these co-workers are truly Christians, even though they are outside the Roman Catholic Church, there is no need to evanglize them. To evangelize means to present the Gospel or the good news of Jesus Christ. Your co-workers have obviously already received the good news and are living it.

You might want to look upon speaking with them as seeking to let them know about the fulness of the Catholic Church and the beauty of being “connected” to the entire history of the Church rather than just a few hundred years of it. In my experience, many evangelicals don’t realize they are missing this connection, but once they see it they begin to desire that connection.

If the subject comes up of recommended reading, you might suggest to your co-workers that they read “Evangelical is Not Enough” by Thomas Howard. It will help them see the beauty of sacramental and liturgical worship written by someone who came from an evangelical background.

Of course we should always seek to share the Gospel with non-Christians and seek their conversion to Christ. This is done infulfillment of the Great Commission (not the Great Suggestion as some seem to think).

May the Holy Spirit empower you and equip you with wisdom as you live the beauty of the Church before your co-workers. May He give you the right words to say at the right time.

 

[CARose]

Archbishop:

May the Holy Spirit empower you and equip you with wisdom as you live the beauty of the Church before your co-workers. May He give you the right words to say at the right time.

Amen!

 

[aurora77]

Contarini:

,
All I can contribute to this question is to reiterate my position–I do not believe that any Trinitarian Christian should try to convert any other Trinitarian Christian to a different tradition or affiliation.

I used to believe this way, and to an extent, I still do, but I’m seriously questioning the validity of not trying to evangelize other Christians.

There are 2 reasons, 2 things that have come up in our discussions that make me question it. I’m not trying to get into a discussion of which perspective is right, just give examples. The first is salvation. Both of the guys I work with believe strongly in once saved, always saved. They both say that after we’re saved, we’ll want to do good works, do the things Jesus commands us (i.e. feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless, etc.), but those things aren’t actually necessary to salvation. The Catholic perspective (in a very simplified way) is that we can lose our salvation and we’d better do as Jesus commands. The other idea is that of the Eucharist. Either Jesus is speaking figuratively in John 6, or He is speaking literally. In my reading of it, it can’t be both. So, one of us is right, one of us is wrong, and we’re all staking our immortal souls on our belief.

These, and other areas of disagreement, are what are making me reconsider my belief that just being a generic Christian is good enough. I do tend to believe in the idea of invincible ignorance. I would hate to see anyone sent to Hell because they have been taught false doctrine (whatever that may be) their entire lives.

Also, Archbishop, I didn’t mean to be offensive in my use of the term “evangelization of our fellow Christians.” I think evangelization is an equal opportunity affair. If someone truly believes in OSAS, they need to do all they can to get the rest of us to believe in it, too. I wasn’t trying to put Catholics higher than protestants in this discussion.

I definitely agree with everyone that our primary means of evangelization (whatever your religious affiliation) is through pleasant discussion and a good example. I also agree that I can do nothing to bring others to believe in Christ or His Church–it is only through Him and the promptings of the Holy Spririt that anything can happen. I just pray everyday that I’ll be an instrument of the Lord in all things.

 

[Contarini]

CARose:

Interesting post Contarini!

As for attempting to convert a Trinitarian Christian, as Catholics, we understand that within the Catholic Church resides the fullness of the Truth as given by Christ. To deny parts of this Truth is to deny aspects of God Himself. Therefore, it is our responsibility to make these Truths available to even our Trinitarian Believing brethren. For don’t they ultimately desire to know God fully. If we posess knowledge that is efficatious for the salvation of others, we are duty bound to make it available to them.

I know that. And obviously I would agree up to a point. When I talk to a Baptist, for instance, I try to give reasons why a sacramental piety is important in order to live the fullness of the Christian faith. Indeed, I’m very proud of having convinced one Baptist that baptism was more than just a symbol (although he continued to believe that this was only true of believers’ baptism). However, I would never try to persuade a Baptist (or anyone else) to become Episcopalian. (Granted, that’s partly because I’m always on the verge of leaving ECUSA–but that’s not the only reason!) My goal in talking to a Baptist (I pick Baptists because among Trinitarian Christians they are about as far away from my theological perspective as you can get, though ironically I was baptized by a Baptist pastor) is to promote the reform of the Baptist tradition from within, not to persuade Baptists to stop being Baptists. I believe that Baptists do have the essentials of the Faith, and that they have insights into certain issues (like the centrality of the local congregation and the priesthood of all believers) that the rest of us sometimes miss.

As I said, I recognize that the Catholic position is different from mine, and also that it is very complex and still being debated within the Catholic tradition. Vatican II has not yet been fully digested–surely we can all agree on that (no matter how we think it *ought *to be interpreted)!

Edwin

 

[CARose]

Aurora,

Continue in your prayers for your friends and all others in need of enlightenment. Prayer is your greatest tool in saving souls.

God Bless,

CARoes

 

[CARose]

Contarini,

I’d like to start by saying Thank You. Your posts, while holding a differing opinion, emit an aura of Charity, which makes the discussion at hand most likely to contain the Truth as inspired by the Holy Spirit, for where the Holy Spirit resides, there is Love.

I wonder why it is that you are always on the verge of leaving your Episcopal affiliation? When one feels the urgings of the Holy Spirit calling them to question the authority which one follows, is it not possible that you are meant to question where you reside spiritually? I recognize your name from posts here, yet I must admit, I don’t have a firm impression of your stance on various issues. But you’ve obviously spent a considerable amount of time learning what the Catholic Church teaches.

Is it possible you are being called to change your affiliation? Is this perhaps why you do NOT seek to draw others into a tradition you see as lacking in some aspect of the fullness that Christ has given us?

I ask these questions in Charity, which I understand the written word does not always convey adequately.

May God Bless you greatly,

CARose

 

[Contarini]

aurora77:

I used to believe this way, and to an extent, I still do, but I’m seriously questioning the validity of not trying to evangelize other Christians.

There are 2 reasons, 2 things that have come up in our discussions that make me question it. I’m not trying to get into a discussion of which perspective is right, just give examples. The first is salvation. Both of the guys I work with believe strongly in once saved, always saved. They both say that after we’re saved, we’ll want to do good works, do the things Jesus commands us (i.e. feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless, etc.), but those things aren’t actually necessary to salvation. The Catholic perspective (in a very simplified way) is that we can lose our salvation and we’d better do as Jesus commands. The other idea is that of the Eucharist. Either Jesus is speaking figuratively in John 6, or He is speaking literally. In my reading of it, it can’t be both. So, one of us is right, one of us is wrong, and we’re all staking our immortal souls on our belief.

And from a Catholic perspective you may well be right. For you belief in the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence really is an essential of the Faith. I don’t agree that Jesus must be speaking either figuratively or literally, by the way (I think He’s clearly not speaking “literally” in the sense that eating Him is no different from eating a steak or a loaf of literal bread). I don’t think that dichotomy is helpful at all. But I recognize that you don’t want to get into a discussion of the issue itself! My own view (which I don’t expect a Catholic to share) is that while Baptists et al are seriously wrong about the Eucharist, the important thing is to practice the Eucharist rather than to have the right theology about it. On OSAS I agree with you, although I don’t think it’s an essential matter. I think OSAS (in its non-Calvinist form) is one of the sillier doctrines thought up by Christians. But as long as they make the caveat your friends make (that a “real Christian” will do good works) I think the harm it does is fairly limited.

But here’s the point I’d really like you to think about. What if you succeeded in persuading your evangelical friends that Christ was present in the Eucharist and that OSAS was wrong, without persuading them to abandon their Protestant congregations. After all, they don’t think their traditions are infallible. In principle, they surely would claim something like this: “We hold only to the Bible, not to human traditions, and we are willing to be convinced that we are wrong on the basis of the Word of God.” What if we saw a growth of Eucharistic piety among evangelicals? What if more and more evangelical Christians came to believe that Catholics were not so far off on soteriology after all? That might have a much more far-reaching effect than individual conversions.

Of course a pragmatic matter like this should not be the main consideration (apart from the fact that the scenario I’m describing is rather unlikely). My point is simply that you can try to persuade other Christians that they are wrong on specific points without trying to convert them to Catholicism. Whether you, as a Catholic, ought to do one or the other is not for me to say. But they are distinct things.

These, and other areas of disagreement, are what are making me reconsider my belief that just being a generic Christian is good enough.

I don’t think being a “generic Christian” is good enough. The only thing that is good enough is our entire sanctification in body, soul, and spirit, in intellect and will. From my perspective as an ecumenical Protestant, we are all on a journey to the fullness of the Faith. My disagreement with Catholicism is not that you think we don’t have the fullness of the Faith (I would cheerfully agree) but that you think that you do. Each specific Christian tradition, in my view, has particular gifts that it can offer to other Christians, and it has particular needs that other Christians can supply. That does not mean that all Christian traditions are equal, only that none are without gifts or without failings.

I think your questions are very good ones for us all to be asking. Thanks for a good discussion!

Edwin

 

[Veritas41]

I’ve been asked by cradle Catholics, as a convert from Protestantism, if Catholics should try to convert Protestants to the Catholic faith. I have to respond with an enthusiastic “YES!” Because a Catholic took the time to boldly and lovingly explain the Catholic faith to me (without being pushy or disrespectful), I am a Catholic today. And the way I see it, I want my Protestant friends to have the same things I have as a Catholic. It’s not a matter of questioning whether they’re really “saved” or not, but offering them the fullness of truth and grace Christ has for them.

However, it is very important to approach all evangelism prayerfully, fully depending upon the Holy Spirit to do the leading and convicting, not us. Through my own personal experience with a friend, I found her open to hearing about the Catholic faith, but her husband was adamantly against her learning any more about it because of his own anti-Catholic prejudice as a result of misinformation received from their own church and friends. Protestants you evangelize may be dealing with fear of how family members and friends may react if they discover they’re even learning about the Catholic faith, not to mention if they actually contemplate becoming Catholic. It is important to be aware of the possibility of that situation and to respond with prudence, wisdom and charity.

 

[aurora77]

Edwin, you’ve given me some good things to consider. This is a whole new area of thought for me, the idea of evangelization, so that’s why I wanted to talk about it. Thank you!

 

[Contarini]

CARose,

Thanks for your kind words!

CARose:

I wonder why it is that you are always on the verge of leaving your Episcopal affiliation?

Well, I’m far too quick to inflict the story of my ecclesiastical wanderings on other people, so I’ll try to be concise (those who know me know to flee when they hear these words, because when they come back two hours later, I’ll probably still be talking!). I come from the “holiness” or “Wesleyan” tradition–basically my family left the Methodist Episcopal Church (now part of the United Methodist Church) about 100 years ago and founded a small, very strict denomination of their own. They were somewhat like Pentecostals but without the speaking in tongues. By the time I came along we were non-denominational and didn’t think much of any institutional church (we took the “invisible Church” idea about as far as anyone). I became interested in church history (partly because my family published devotional books and many of them were basically saints’ lives dealing with figures from the past), and this led me to question the idea that tradition and historical continuity don’t matter. I went to grad school and got to know some very devout Catholics (one of whom, Tim Gray, does a Bible study on EWTN–you may have seen him). I was in and out of RCIA for years.

I became Episcopalian in the middle of this process, because I felt the need to belong to some kind of Christian community and at that point did not feel ready to accept Catholicism. I didn’t intend to rule out the possibility of becoming Catholic in the future (I now think that this was a frivolous attitude to take to the Episcopal Church, as if it was a half-way point–but of course many evangelicals on their way to Catholicism have stopped off in Anglicanism, and it seemed logical at the time), and in fact my most serious stint in RCIA came *after *my confirmation as an Episcopalian. Anglicanism gave me much of what I valued in Catholicism (liturgy, sacramental piety, and at least the claim of apostolic succession, though I know that you guys don’t recognize our Orders!), without breaking my links with my own tradition (since John and Charles Wesley never left the Church of England, I argued that I was in fact being faithful to my “Wesleyan” heritage).

But I’ve always been uneasy with the Episcopal Church as an institution, and obviously the events of the past few years haven’t helped. Right now one of the main things keeping me Episcopalian (other than my ties to my local congregation, which I think are extremely important theologically as well as psychologically) is that I’m drawn in two different directions. I’m married to a Methodist and my parents have now become Methodists, and if I’m really going to remain within my tradition but work to make it more Catholic, the UMC is a more logical place to be than ECUSA. But at the same time, becoming Methodist would be a move away from Catholicism in important ways (particularly the fact that the UMC doesn’t even claim episcopal succession). And against a move in either direction (Methodist or Catholic), there’s my sense that I should honor my past choices even if I think they were not the best ones (the analogy here is marriage–it’s immoral to go around questioning if you married the right person–the fact that you have taken vows makes whoever you married the right person).

You’re absolutely right that if I were Catholic I’d be much happier about calling people into my communion, because I would not become Catholic unless I believed that the Catholic Church indeed had the fullness of the Faith. As it stands, I find it very hard to believe that any existing Christian body has the fullness of the Faith.

The main pull toward Catholicism is that it would be wonderful if Catholicism were true. But at this point it looks as if there is too much evidence in the other direction. If Catholicism really had the fullness of the Faith, that would be expressed in more than just official dogmas. The fact that Protestants clearly grasp some aspects of the Faith better than Catholics (and of course the reverse is true as well!) constitutes in my mind a refutation of the claim that Catholicism has the fullness of the Faith. You can only make such a claim because you limit it to matters of official dogma which are unverifiable. I have problems with papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception and so on, but those are not the big issues for me, because ultimately how on earth would I know one way or the other? But by the only test I know how to make–practical fruit–it seems clear that no Christian church currently existing has the fullness of the Faith.

Please don’t take offense at this–I’m not here to attack Catholicism, but you asked, so I answered.

Edwin

 

[LatinCat]

sadie2723:

The bottom line is that the Church has determined that all of us are on the same path for the most part. Unless your friends are really screwed up about the fundamental teachings of Christ, there is no need to push for conversion.

That said, I am a strong advocate for the Catholic Church. I will profess the church’s teachings, but I do not force them on people. Doing so is not the way to bring people to Christ. What I do is try to get them to read and study. I am a firm believer that anyone who invests himself in the search for truth will find the Catholic faith all on his own…or her own.

Wowl. this is completely wrong. The Church teaches that she is the universal ark of salvation and that their is no salvation outside the Church. Thus conversion is necessary. Futhermore, since the Church possess the fullness of Truth, all of Revelation, and the Divine Lord present in the Holy Eucharist, it is absolutely necessary that we evangelize all people about this wonderful truth. This includes pagans, jews, muslims, buhdists, hindus, protestants, eastern orthodox christians, and those Catholics who do not accept the entirety of the Catholic faith.

 

[CARose]

Contarini,

I in no way take offense at anything you have posted here. I can see your dilema, even as I disagree with your conclusions. Some things that I think are worth taking to prayer are the fact that Jesus himself established a Church, not churches. He assured us that the Church would be the pillar and foundation (or bulwarks) of truth and that if we had a dispute, we were ultimately to take it to the church for resolution. If The Church can err on matters of importance, how are we to turn to it for the final word on issues? Jesus promised that the gates of the netherworld would not prevail against the Church, and he also told the parable of the weeds and the wheat, whereby the weeds were not to be pulled, for fear of disturbing the roots of the neighboring wheat. They are to be seperated at the threshing, in the final judgement, after harvest.

We have also been told that Jesus came to minister to the sick, to the sinners, not the righteous. Certainly the Church fits that bill. We don’t give up on Christ because of Judas, an Apostle chosen by Christ himself. Why, then, would we give up on the Church because of the bad acts of some of her Children.

Certainly the Church has a long history of “good fruit” if you study the lives of the Saints. One of the interesting things I’ve found in each of their stories is that each of them were tempted to leave the Church, in that they each encountered a time in their lives when the Church mistreated them, and did so agrieviously. And yet, these Saints continued to submit to the Authority of the Church who was their mother, and the Body of Christ. We are each tested to see if we are willing to truly submit to the authority of God, as he presents himself in our lives.

How we choose to respond matters.

Ultimately, we are forming ourselves in Holiness, preparing ourselves for Union with the Father in heaven.

God bless you as you continue to ponder where Christ desires you to serve him while on earth,

CARose

 

[Archbishop]

aurora77:

Archbishop, I didn’t mean to be offensive in my use of the term “evangelization of our fellow Christians.” I think evangelization is an equal opportunity affair. If someone truly believes in OSAS, they need to do all they can to get the rest of us to believe in it, too. I wasn’t trying to put Catholics higher than protestants in this discussion.

No offense was taken at all and I certainly understood the spirit in which you were posing the questions. I was only trying to perhaps reword the approach to how we view discussing the Catholic Church with other professing Christians. No offense taken at all. I think you posted a very good thread.

I am probably going to step ono some toes here with some posters but I hope everyone understands the spirit in which I say the following:

Salvation is through Jesus Christ. I agree that the Church has been given the fulness of the truth of salvation but the Church did not die on the cross to redeem the elect and to pay the sin debt. Only Jesus did that. It is through the Church that the message of salvation comes and it is in the sacraments of the Church that the graces of salvation are dispensed. It is the Church which re-presents the sacrifice of Calvary at each Mass so that all may find themselves at the foot of the cross wherever they are ini time-space history. It is to ++Peter and his successors that the keys have been given and the powers to bind and loose.

A person can be a Catholic in name and culture and still know nothing about salvation. There must be a union with Jesus Christ. If a union with Christ exists, then salvation exists because the Holy Spirit must if necessity be present in that person. So it is entirely possible for non-ROman Catholics to be Christians and the Catholic Church plainly teaches this as a truth.

This is why I replied to the OP that we should consider rewording how we are approaching professing Christians (at least those who are giving the outward evidence of fruit bearing in their lives - in other words those who are walking the talk). As some others have said here, what they need to see is the beauty and fulness of the Church; the necessity of sacramental and liturgical worship; and the need to be connected to their true roots.

And to see this, they need to have people like aurora77 who can compassionately, wisely, softly, and yet earnestly, defend the truths of the Church.