It’s already their loss if they haven’t read it. You’ve done your part, and that’s share your Faith with them. If they refuse to hear it or believe in it, then there’s not much we can do. We leave that up to God, that He open their hearts and minds to the Catholic Faith, and with generous hearts realize that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.
Often, witnessing is less about the words which we speak and more about the actions which speak for us.
Thx Catsrus! I hear ya! But being of a passionate nature, I just feel I love and have to share with my family and friends my new-found faith. I feel God is counting on me on this one!!! ONCE that is, I suppose if they reject it, then you get the hint to “let it go”, and let the Holy Spirit take over. I’ve learned not to “try to get a pig to sing opera”- over and over by another poster on another thread, but I do think it doesn’t hurt to try to reach out, at least give it one chance. Don’t you agree?
GREAT response Ignatius! How wise you are. I will do just that!
I am sorry your friend sent back the material with the message that you’re wasting your time and money by sending them. She should have at least showed you some courtesy and explained to why. But you do need to understand the Protestant, evangelical mind (if that’s what she is). Evangelicals witness to people about Christ Himself, salvation through faith in Him alone. You, on the other hand, are witnessing to her about your church. That doesn’t always set well with Evangelicals, anymore than say a Mormon or J.W. knocking on their door with the intention of winning them over to their church. Her response was not necessarily anti-Catholic. You would have gotten the same response if you sent her material to convince her to join a particular Lutheran or Baptist church. Their faith is not about “church” but Christ Himself, the focus of their hope…
I do agree! In my neophyte enthusiasum, I reached out to everyone! I wanted to share my joy so very much and thought that everyone else would be enthusiastic too. Silly me.
I also thinks it shows how the Holy Spirit works and “follows-up” on our efforts. She probably was feeling bad that she responded in such an unChristian way. However, your failure to give up and response with the tender heart of Jesus filled the “opening” the Holy Spirit left in her mind/heart. Good job! Salvation history is a story of people being the instruments through which God’s plan is executed.Thank you friends. I took “Ignatius’ '”’ wise advice and e-mailed her that I was saving the materials for her and if ever she was interested in the Fullness of the Truth and the Fullness of our Christianity that they would be waiting for her. Well, she e-mailed me back today saying “thank you” and how much that meant, and how much she loves me, etc…
This only affirms to me that we Catholics must always take the extra step and perhaps the risk it takes at times, to share our Faith, and the Fullness of our Faith we all know and possess in the Catholic Church. PTL! Praise the Lord! Let’s all keep sharing, keep proclaiming, keep Loving.
Sparkle
I would probably agree with you if she was talking to people who do not know Christ; but the people she’s talking with know Him, so there’s the difference. Since they know Him, what else can she add that’s already not known? Both Catholics and Evangelicals more or less agree to who Christ is, and that He’s our Lord and Saviour. Point of the matter though is that they do not understand why she became Catholic, and what she found in the Church that she did not find in Protestantism. Now that would indeed require an explanation of what the Catholic Church is, and so it is necessary to witness not just about Christ now, but about the Church. It is unfortunate that it would not sit well with the Evangelical crowd, but that is what is witnessing is all about–to give testimony to Christ and His Church.
Were there any “eyewitnesses” (contemporaries) who wrote of Peter being Bishop of Rome?
Actually, the differences are soteriological. And those differences are vast. If there were no theological differences why would “Sparkle” send them literature about the Catholic church in hope they would follow her footsteps?
Evangelicals do not witness about their church since they don’t believe, as Catholics do, that salvation is through the church, but through personal faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ alone. And to them the “Church” is not an ecclesiastical hierarchy headquartered in Rome, but made up of all who are now “in Christ Jesus” (born again).
how come that when I was growing up in the Methodist tradition, I was taught all about how he was martyred there???
tearing at Catholics, where other people were martyred doesn’t make nearly as much difference.
The differences are more perceived than real, in most cases. This is one reason I enjoy thios site so much as a protestant. I get to learn so much about what Christians actually have in common.
Well, I would imagine that she is:yup: very happy, & wants to share her joy with folks who don’t understand what she believes.Seems pretty standard Christian behaviour for 2000 yrs.
You all could have fooled me. I can’t begin to tell you how many Baptists, pentecostals, et al, have wasted my time explaining why
“Methodists aren’t Christians”.The Catholic Church is in Rome…It is hierarchical; for sure it’s
ecclesiastical.(Churches are!)Yes, and?? I mean, this is also what Catholics believe…They don’t believe in OSAS, if that is your point, but neither do I. Does that mean that I’m :bigyikes: not a Christian???
I think one sentence would suffice: “Justified by faith alone.”
Grace.
Then you were taught a “tradition” as fact. I’m not saying he wasn’t martyred in Rome but, truth be, what we’re all taught of the Apostle’s deaths is from tradition. But the question is not if he died in Rome, but if he truly was Bishop of Rome for some 25 years before his death. What historical proof is there? You’d think Luke would have covered this most important part of Peter’s life in his Holy Spirit inspired, historical account, but alas, silence! And if Peter was Bishop of Rome, why did Paul have to instruct the Roman believers on soteriological matters? And why no contemporary writings that speak of it? Yet the whole authority and supremacy of the Roman Papacy is based on this silence. Help me out hereIf St Peter was never in Rome,
Lukes gospel ends shortly after the ressurection. Peter did not go to Rome until around 42AD, so it would not be in the gospel. What makes Peter supreme is not that he was bishop of Rome but that he was the head of the apostles as Christ puts him in Matthew 16, in John19, and in Luke22. It doesn’t matter that he wasn’t in Rome for the first 10 years. The pope was in Avignon, not Rome, in the 14th century. It is not Rome that makes Peter, it is Peter that makes Rome.Then you were taught a “tradition” as fact. I’m not saying he wasn’t martyred in Rome but, truth be, what we’re all taught of the Apostle’s deaths is from tradition. But the question is not if he died in Rome, but if he truly was Bishop of Rome for some 25 years before his death. What historical proof is there? You’d think Luke would have covered this most important part of Peter’s life in his Holy Spirit inspired, historical account, but alas, silence! And if Peter was Bishop of Rome, why did Paul have to instruct the Roman believers on soteriological matters? And why no contemporary writings that speak of it? Yet the whole authority and supremacy of the Roman Papacy is based on this silence. Help me out here