non-catholic christian language: definitions needed

[Cat]

I think some of you need to drop the attitude.

Sarcasm or superiority has no place when you are talking to non-Catholic Christians and defending Catholicism. With that attitude, you will close doors and give scandal to the Catholic Church around evangelical Protestants.

I commend the OP for attempting to understand his friends rather than condemn them. I recommend that the OP ask his/her friends directly to please define the terms they are using and to show him/her from the Bible where those terms come from. They will be happy to do so. Do not condemn and do not attempt to argue with them. Just listen and/or write everything down.

Take what they show you in the Bible to a PROTESTANT CONVERT, preferably a convert from evangelical Protestantism, in your parish and ask that person to talk about these things and how Catholics should respond. A LOT of those terms are terms that Catholics can agree with, even though we don’t use those terms in our conversation or in our liturgy.

E.g., several people above snidely implied that “man-made religion” means that you have authority issues. That’s not true at all. As Catholics, we are opposed to “man-made religion.” Our religion comes from the apostles, who are guided by Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church. Our religion is based in history and Scripture. It is NOT man-made. We are opposed to man creating a religion.

Keep in mind that to evangelical Protestants (especially Pentecostal denominations), “religion” is something bad. To them, it is man trying to work his way to heaven. As Catholics, we don’t believe in salvation by works either, so we should not criticize evangelical Protestants for this belief! As Catholics, we have a different understanding of what “religion” is (IMO, the Catholic understanding is more Biblical; e.g. James 1: 27). It is a question of semantics. We use the terms differently.

The Essential Doctrines were a set of fundamental doctrines of the faith. This movement started in 1910-1915, when a set of twelve small books were published with the purpose of defending the fundamental Christian truths. Lyman Stewart was a wealthy oilman from Southern California who was convinced that something was needed to help re-affirm Christian truths because of the theological liberalism and criticism of tradition and the BIble that was rampant during this time in our history.

So Stewart worked with Rev. Amzi C. Dixon to publish The Fundamentals. Sixty-four authors wrote articles for these books (so much for the incorrect claim that Protestants don’t work together).

The Five Fundamentals of the Faith are:

1. Inerrancy of the Scriptures.
2. The Virgin Birth and Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ
3. Substitutionary atonement by God’s grace through faith.
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ
5. Authenticity of the Miracles of Jesus
   or (depending on denomination)
6. The Second Coming of the Lord Jesus.

Now, then, fellow Catholics–do you see anything in that list that Catholics are opposed to? I don’t.

I wish I had more time, but you get the idea. The attitude needs to go. When speaking with evangelical Protestants, we should have an attitude of confidence but not superiority. Those who are unfamiliar with their terms should seek understanding, and always, alway, strive to keep the lines of communication flowing . THIS is actually in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[Soldier_X]

Cat, if I may (speaking as one who was formerly Evangelical and is not currently Catholic ), I agree that attitude can be unhelpful. Something that might be beneficial for all involved, though, is to remember that there is a difference between Evangelical beliefs and Evangelical culture. The beliefs are (or at least ought to be) grounded in a serious concern for one’s soul. The culture, on the other hand, can have its own brand of superiority and condescension. There’s often an assumption, for example, that spiritual growth leads one away from liturgy and towards a specific type of worship style and lingo and grassroots political involvement. Those of us who are liturgical, in the eyes of some, are not growing. If one isn’t growing, one must not have true faith, etc etc. This attitude isn’t necessarily expressed in words, but it’s “in the air” more often that not.

I, for one, do not mean to poke fun at anyone. I do admit that I’m not thrilled with “Constantine invented liturgy” or “Don’t read the Church Fathers because they’re too Catholic” or “the Church Councils are nothing but man-made religion” or other similar things. These sorts of statements come from the culture of Evangelicalism, not necessarily from the doctrinal beliefs (although they can become belief).

All that to say this: it can become a vicious cycle of one-upping the other side when certain attitudes of superiority are entrenched. I grant you that. But there’s no denying that there is some peculiar lingo in certain Evangelical circles, and some of it is not exactly easy to understand. Been there and most certainly done that. We’re just having some fun here.

 

[Soldier_X]

No. Probably don’t think I do, either, or I would “leave Methodism for Christianity”. Someone actually told a former pastor of mine this.

I hate it when this happens.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

E.g., several people above snidely implied that “man-made religion” means that you have authority issues. That’s not true at all. As Catholics, we are opposed to “man-made religion.” Our religion comes from the apostles, who are guided by Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church. Our religion is based in history and Scripture. It is NOT man-made. We are opposed to man creating a religion.

I assure you, I was not being snide at all. I apologize if my post seemed to be so. I am a convert from Evangelical Christianity, and most of what is being asked about here are objections that I myself struggled with before I became Catholic. And it is true, that at the heart of most people’s (not ALL!) objections to any type of organized religion is a problem with ecclesiastic authority. Once I had the authority issue settled, every other objection I had to Catholicism melted away.

 

[OneAugustKnight]

Okay, here is something else I don’t understand. When I hear the word doctrine, as in Christian doctrine, I think of something like “Jesus’ teachings on how to love him, ourselves, and one another,” or “Jesus’ rules for following him.” So why are people always saying things like “doctrine doesn’t matter”? Does doctrine mean something different than what I think?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Okay, here is something else I don’t understand. When I hear the word doctrine, as in Christian doctrine, I think of something like “Jesus’ teachings on how to love him, ourselves, and one another,” or “Jesus’ rules for following him.” So why are people always saying things like “doctrine doesn’t matter”? Does doctrine mean something different than what I think?

I think in the context you’re hearing, they’re defining doctrine as “This is what we believe, or our church teaches/believes” and so they believe that as long as we all love and serve Jesus, the rest is irrelevant. It’s a very ecumenical thought, but does nothing to answer the prayer of Jesus that we “all be one.” It’s pretty clear in the NT that doctrine very much mattered! For example, in Titus 1:

7For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain,

8but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled,

9holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.