Non-Catholics, would you feel comfortable at a CC Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kalt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
schaick said:
Why would a priest assume that only Catholics go to mass?

I do believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ in, under and with the bread and wine. I have been told by people from that same parish that there are many catholics that don’t believe that much about the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Because in an educated sense, they are the only ones who can receive the Eucharist. If a non-Catholic is there he/she is most likely with a Catholic who should inform them of this. everyone says they have been told “by people of the parish that the Mass is awful etc…”, well then prove this. Who are they and what exactly did they say? I seriously doubt that there are “many” Catholics who feel this way, unless they are teenagers or extremely lax, cafeteria Catholics. Well, good luck to them. At least they are in the church Christ established. Only God will judge.
 
AmericanJosiah said:
Sure. It’s very similar to the Lutheran worship service…

I rather vividly remember the first time I ever worshiped in a Catholic Church. I was 11. I was the overnight guest of my new friend from Little League Baseball (we are still very good friends, although he now lives in Spain). This family (like mine) had the expectation that overnight guests joined the family for worship - with permission of the parents. My father (a Protestant minister) granted such.

The service was quite different than the very simple Protestant worship with which I was familiar (I had gone to dozens of churches, but all had relatively similar and largely unliturgical worship). I was mostly overwhelmed by the “choreography” (as I called it - no offense intended) - what we are to do at various points, one cannot sleep through Catholic worship! You gotta stay alert! And I was surprised that the sermon was so short. But OBVIOUSLY I felt drawn to it, because I went back the next Sunday! And almost every Sunday after that for about 5 years (although this first time was a Sunday morning, the Mendez family typically worshipped on Saturday, 5:00 Mass, since the mister found that worked much better with his work schedule and needs).

There were things I never really liked about Catholic worship… The short (and in MY parish, poorly done) sermon, the tendency for people to talk and move about (it IS distracting) the odd tendency of Catholics to just not sing (I did - LOUD) but I quickly became very liturgical (especially as all of it was carefully and fully explained to me) and it was the single biggest factor that drew me to Catholicism (I loved the spirituality of Catholicism, too - my “struggles” were with a handful of dogmas and those were why I left). To this day, I look for pretty formal, liturgical worship and appreciate the ecumenical lectionary, the keeping of the Church Year, the embrace of feast days, etc. I still Cross myself in all the Catholic places (but I now do it the Lutheran way, lol) and when the pastor says, “The peace of the Lord be with you…” Well, you know what comes automatically in response, lol.

Lutheranism’s issue with Catholicism was not about worship (well, the language thing) or customs or Tradition or tradition. It was a FEW teachings (most then not dogmas), and in the areas of eccleiology and epistemology.

When I visited Mark in Spain, we visited several BEAUTIFUL churches and I participated in Mass (in Spanish - which I don’t know, but the liturgy is the liturgy - I knew exactly what was being said). I don’t receive the Eucharist (in respect for Catholic sensitivities there) but otherwise, I fully participated. It’s beautiful and blessed - even in Spanish, lol

🙂 👍

.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter if you didn’t like the Catholic Mass, just knowing that Christ established this church would keep me there.
Furthermore, I’d like to add about your “Glorious Reformer” (that’s what you call him isn’t it?) Luther’s doctrines and teachings have some undesirable side effects which are not usually considered by Protestants. A typical response of Protestants when confronted with these is to deny that they follow Luther’s teachings, but rather follow the bible. But this response is a weak one when you consider that Luthers doctrines form the very basis for Protestanism.
Luther was the FIRST to come up with the following doctrines (although Protestants will typically wrongly ascribe some of them to church fathers as Augustine:
Sola Fide
Sola Scripture
Predestination
Assurance of Salvation
Total Depravity
The Catholic church is apostate
Any believer can correctly interpret Scripture and
Ordained ministers (anyone can be ordained if they believe they are called)
The church is a visible human institution (not a unified institution)
The supreme importance of preaching

If you take these away, there is not much left of Protestanism except those foundational doctrines which were developed in the early church councils.
Not to mention, changing the Word of God from the bible.
Luther even stopped short of calling himself a “prophet”, he didn’t mind comparing himself to the prophets.
"Who knows but that God has called me and raised up? They ought to fear lest they despise God in me."
Luther also suffered from grandiose illusions.
I’ll go even a step further here, there will be no major healing of the Catholic vs. Protestant rift in the Body of Christ until Protestants recognize Luther for what he truly was: A very, very sick man.
 
RomanCath379 said:
Doesn’t matter if you didn’t like the Catholic Mass, just knowing that Christ established this church would keep me there.
…I’d like to add about your “Glorious Reformer” (that’s what you call him isn’t it?) Luther’s doctrines and teachings have some undesirable side effects which are not usually considered by Protestants.
…this response is a weak one when you consider that Luthers doctrines form the very basis for Protestanism.
…Not to mention, changing the Word of God from the bible.
…Luther also suffered from grandiose illusions.
…until Protestants recognize Luther for what he truly was: A very, very sick man.
Click to expand...
Your post started off on-topic, but quickly became spiteful and strayed off-topic. I thought this thread was about how non-Catholics felt about attending Mass, not how you felt about Luther. 🤷
 
EmergencyOps said:
Your post started off on-topic, but quickly became spiteful and strayed off-topic. I thought this thread was about how non-Catholics felt about attending Mass, not how you felt about Luther. 🤷
Click to expand...
I was simply quoting the OP’s statement that Luther did nothing to change worship. Reread his post. It is not spiteful, but truth.
 
kalt said:
Do you think you would feel comfortable coming to a Catholic Church for Mass?

If you have come, what is your experience?
Click to expand...
kalt said:
I’m a little afraid to ask what you’re calling the “Judas shuffle”.
Edit - I looked it up. I like it. 😉
Click to expand...
RomanCath379 said:
I was simply quoting the OP’s statement that Luther did nothing to change worship. Reread his post. It is not spiteful, but truth.
Click to expand...
The OP never mentioned Luther in any of their posts. If referring to the poster you replied to (not the OP), they mentioned Luther, but nonetheless this is IMO not an apologetics topic. And yes, it was spiteful. “Doesn’t matter if you didn’t like Catholic Mass…” is a rude way of responding to a poster. One should respect how someone feels about Mass, as it is their experience and their opinion.
 
EmergencyOps said:
The OP never mentioned Luther in any of their posts. If referring to the poster you replied to (not the OP), they mentioned Luther, but nonetheless this is IMO not an apologetics topic. And yes, it was spiteful. “Doesn’t matter if you didn’t like Catholic Mass…” is a rude way of responding to a poster. One should respect how someone feels about Mass, as it is their experience and their opinion.
Click to expand...
No, sorry my Baptist friend. You don’t understand the Mass, nor appreciate the Holiness of it, nor do you understand the reasons why Christ left it behind for us in the church He founded. And being a Protestant (Luther), I do not expect you to. Like I said, the person mentioned Luther and said he did nothing to change worship when in fact he did everything he could in his power to do so. But he failed, and if he was doing God’s work he wouldn’t of failed because God doesn’t fail. And it really doesn’t matter if one doesn’t like the Mass because it was instituted by Jesus Christ who established His church. The Catholic church. 🙂
 
RomanCath379 said:
Doesn’t matter if you didn’t like the Catholic Mass
Click to expand...
You must not have read what you quoted from me in your post…
knowing that Christ established this church would keep me there.
Click to expand...
Christ didn’t found the congregation where I attended and participated. It was founded in the 1980’s - a little too late (1,950 years, approx.) for any immediate founding by Jesus. And I know of no evidence whatsoever that Jesus founded the denomination to which it is legally affiliated. But none of that has a thing to do with the issue of this thread, and I think it’s a rule violation to be “off topic.” So, I’ll need to leave it at that.
I’d like to add about your “Glorious Reformer” (that’s what you call him isn’t it?) Luther’s doctrines and teachings have some undesirable side effects which are not usually considered by Protestants. A typical response of Protestants when confronted with these is to deny that they follow Luther’s teachings, but rather follow the bible. But this response is a weak one when you consider that Luthers doctrines form the very basis for Protestanism.
Luther was the FIRST to come up with the following doctrines (although Protestants will typically wrongly ascribe some of them to church fathers as Augustine:
Sola Fide
Sola Scripture
Predestination
Assurance of Salvation
Total Depravity
The Catholic church is apostate
Any believer can correctly interpret Scripture and
Ordained ministers (anyone can be ordained if they believe they are called)
The church is a visible human institution (not a unified institution)
The supreme importance of preaching
Click to expand...
  1. Sola Fide. Yes, I believe the doctrine of Sola Gratia/ Solus Christus/ Sola Fide is correct. I entirely reject the common Catholic misconception of it, but I do accept the Lutheran teaching of it.
  2. Sola Scriptura isn’t a doctrine, it’s a praxis. And I know why The Catholic Chruch rejects using Scripture as the canon/norma normans, because it alone exempts it alone from accountability, it alone claiming that it alone is infallible and thus unaccountable.
  3. Luther, like St. Augustine and many before him, embraced Sola Gratia - thus that we are not the Savior, Jesus is. If THAT’S what you mean by “predestination,” then yes - I agree with it.
  4. Assurance of Salvation. I’m not sure if you are confusing Luther with Calvin here, but yes - Lutherans do embrace the Gospel of Salvation, and since we are saved by the Savior - there is an assurance there. But Luther did not teach that we cannot fall away.
  5. Total Depravity. While almost entirely associated with Calvin, actually Luther taught this, too. Just like St. Paul.
  6. You seem to have Protestantism confused with Restitutionalism. Take this issue up with the Mormons (the LDS being the major Restitutionist group).
  7. Individual interpretation. Here you seem to have Lutheranism confused with a small segment of American Evangelicalism. Luther strongly denounced this - including for The Catholic Church (CCC 85, etc.). You have this one reversed, it’s Luther that denounced self appointing self as the sole authoritative interpreter and it was The Catholic Church defending it (but ONLY if self is itself).
  8. Again, you must have someone else in mind. Luther taught that only those property called by the church and ordained by a bishop (or his representative) may be ordained.
  9. Again, you have the situation reversed. It’s The Catholic Church that teaches that Christianity is an institutional, denominational, visible, physical, geopolitical entity - and yup, it just happens to be itself. And then it makes a whole, long chain of remarkable claims for it self alone from that (ergo, it must be the sole authority, the sole interpreter, the sole arbiter, infallible, unaccountable, etc., etc., etc.). Luther taught that all Christians are people, thus the oikos, the communion, the community of Christians is people.
.
 
AmericanJosiah said:
You must not have read what you quoted from me in your post…

Christ didn’t found the congregation where I attended and participated. It was founded in the 1980’s - a little too late (1,950 years, approx.) for any immediate founding by Jesus. And I know of no evidence whatsoever that Jesus founded the denomination to which it is legally affiliated. But none of that has a thing to do with the issue of this thread, and I think it’s a rule violation to be “off topic.” So, I’ll need to leave it at that.
  1. Sola Fide. Yes, I believe the doctrine of Sola Gratia/ Solus Christus/ Sola Fide is correct. I entirely reject the common Catholic misconception of it, but I do accept the Lutheran teaching of it.
  2. Sola Scriptura isn’t a doctrine, it’s a praxis. And I know why The Catholic Chruch rejects using Scripture as the canon/norma normans, because it alone exempts it alone from accountability, it alone claiming that it alone is infallible and thus unaccountable.
  3. Luther, like St. Augustine and many before him, embraced Sola Gratia - thus that we are not the Savior, Jesus is. If THAT’S what you mean by “predestination,” then yes - I agree with it.
  4. Assurance of Salvation. I’m not sure if you are confusing Luther with Calvin here, but yes - Lutherans do embrace the Gospel of Salvation, and since we are saved by the Savior - there is an assurance there. But Luther did not teach that we cannot fall away.
  5. Total Depravity. While almost entirely associated with Calvin, actually Luther taught this, too. Just like St. Paul.
  6. You seem to have Protestantism confused with Restitutionalism. Take this issue up with the Mormons (the LDS being the major Restitutionist group).
  7. Individual interpretation. Here you seem to have Lutheranism confused with a small segment of American Evangelicalism. Luther strongly denounced this - including for The Catholic Church (CCC 85, etc.). You have this one reversed, it’s Luther that denounced self appointing self as the sole authoritative interpreter and it was The Catholic Church defending it (but ONLY if self is itself).
  8. Again, you must have someone else in mind. Luther taught that only those property called by the church and ordained by a bishop (or his representative) may be ordained.
  9. Again, you have the situation reversed. It’s The Catholic Church that teaches that Christianity is an institutional, denominational, visible, physical, geopolitical entity - and yup, it just happens to be itself. And then it makes a whole, long chain of remarkable claims for it self alone from that (ergo, it must be the sole authority, the sole interpreter, the sole arbiter, infallible, unaccountable, etc., etc., etc.). Luther taught that all Christians are people, thus the oikos, the communion, the community of Christians is people.
.
Click to expand...
No, the Catholic church did not “invent” any doctrine, but took it out of Scripture in whole. The CC never ever would change the Word of God, but Luther did. Heck, he even said:
"Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you–or even an angel from heaven–to judge my teaching or examine it…whoever does not accept my teaching shall not be saved—for it is God’s and not mine." (Luthers Works Vol 39).
These quotes from Luther all indicate that he considered himself to be some sort of infallible, unquestionable, spiritual/theological guide or authority. but you see, lots of people have claimed this, why should Luther have been regarded differently from any other self proclaimed prophets? I think this is a perfectly legitimate and highly important question that Protestants would be well to ponder.
 
I’ve been to mass several times…as well as a few funeral masses. I was as “comfortable” as I was when visiting a Lutheran or Episcopal liturgy, which is to say it was very non-threatening. It was an education for me. I had attended a Methodist church for a time when a Friend’s Meeting wasn’t available and was impressed that most of the liturgical traditions are very similar in format.
 
I am happy I don’t have to jump around in different churches, that God had planted me in the church He established. I was baptized in the Catholic church, and will die in one.
 
RomanCath379 said:
I am happy I don’t have to jump around in different churches, that God had planted me in the church He established. I was baptized in the Catholic church, and will die in one.
Click to expand...
The only time I’ve seen anyone “jump around in different churches” was when I visited a Pentacostal service with my aunt.🙂
 
I’ve always wanted to go to a 5:30 Evening Mass in my area but have never gone. I’ll watch the Daily Mass on EWTN every once in a while. I don’t think I would feel totally uncomfortable since I’m used to the more traditional Lutheran liturgy which is similar in many ways to what Roman Catholics practice. I think if I had a friend who was a practicing RC sit with me and/or someone at the perish spent 15 min to walk through things, I would be less uneasy about going.

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod practices Closed Communion and I’m a firm believer in it, so that aspect wouldn’t bother me.

Of course, I could just be a good Lutheran and sit in the back! 🙂
 
4Squarebaby said:
That little thing about the closed communion leads to feelings of being a bit less then an honored guest. i will admit its not as bad as some faiths were a visitor needs an official escort or can’t enter into a temple or some other special Holy place.
Click to expand...
the reason there’s closed Communion is for the* visitor’s *sake. We believe it’s really the Body and Blood of Christ, and we can’t receive the Eucharist without confessing our sins. If we let a Protestant receive Communion, that would be dangerous for their soul, because they might not believe in the Real Presence and they don’t have Confession. Also, Communion is a sign of unity, and Protestants and Catholics don’t have the same beliefs.

hope that helps

God bless
 
jessep28 said:
I’ve always wanted to go to a 5:30 Evening Mass in my area but have never gone. I’ll watch the Daily Mass on EWTN every once in a while. I don’t think I would feel totally uncomfortable since I’m used to the more traditional Lutheran liturgy which is similar in many ways to what Roman Catholics practice. I think if I had a friend who was a practicing RC sit with me and/or someone at the perish spent 15 min to walk through things, I would be less uneasy about going.

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod practices Closed Communion and I’m a firm believer in it, so that aspect wouldn’t bother me.

Of course, I could just be a good Lutheran and sit in the back! 🙂
Click to expand...
jessep,
Does your Lutheran Church have 12 back rows like mine does? 😃
Jon
 
JonNC said:
You’re forgiven. There was a Catholic Church I visited in Texas years ago with a similar looking nave.

Jon
Click to expand...
One thing I wouldn’t trade for anything, is the Holiness of the Catholic Mass. Jesus Christ is there, you can feel His presence. The Catholic churches, some dating back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries, are the most beautiful there are. If these people built them as so, then one could understand that was how one worshipped. In Holiness with Christ. It just seems that a Protestant church is emptiness. Nothing Holy. Nothing Sacred.
 
RomanCath379 said:
One thing I wouldn’t trade for anything, is the Holiness of the Catholic Mass. Jesus Christ is there, you can feel His presence. The Catholic churches, some dating back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries, are the most beautiful there are. If these people built them as so, then one could understand that was how one worshipped. In Holiness with Christ. It just seems that a Protestant church is emptiness. Nothing Holy. Nothing Sacred.
Click to expand...
For me, the ONLY thing that makes the meetinghouse “holy” ARE the people in it…otherwise it’s just a structure made of wood, stone and plaster. The Presence is realized where two or three are gathered in His Name. His Presence fills the earth.
 
RomanCath379 said:
One thing I wouldn’t trade for anything, is the Holiness of the Catholic Mass. Jesus Christ is there, you can feel His presence. The Catholic churches, some dating back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries, are the most beautiful there are. If these people built them as so, then one could understand that was how one worshipped. In Holiness with Christ. It just seems that a Protestant church is emptiness. Nothing Holy. Nothing Sacred.
Click to expand...
I have been to Catholic Mass, and the Holy Spirit is truly present there. I attended one on a Catholic college campus here in NC, but you didn’t have to wait to feel His presence - just go on campus. It was and is truly a moving place. I had been on a Lutheran campus in Nebraska some weeks earlier. Same thing.
That you see nothing holy or sacred in other sanctuaries is, frankly, more of a reflection on you, not on the presence or lack thereof of the Holy Spirit.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top