Traditionalists, Apostolic zeal and Conversion

[Iotaunum]

Although I do not like the term “traditionalist” I do identify myself as a “traditional Catholic” which I suppose makes me a traditionalist - I believe all Catholics should be traditional. This thread concerns the difference in approach to conversion and the degree of so-called “Apostolic zeal” among the “traditional Catholics” on one hand and “mainstream Catholics” (for want of a better term) on the other. Very recently I have talked about this issue with a number of priests and lay Catholics who are involved in various positions (teaching, bible studies, interfaith groups etc) within different dioceses. I realize this is a hot topic for some and I don’t want to start a debate, but really - like any other issue - when discussed properly with both sides being courteous the discussion can only be profitable.

No doubt from the “mainstream Catholic” side (and again, I really don’t like the terms mainstream and traditionalist - but I assume everyone understands) there has been a whole lot of apologetic material and debates which have doubtless been the cause of many a conversion or re-version. There is unquestionably a large amount of Apostolic zeal and eagerness to expound the truths of Catholicism. This is the case likewise with the “traditionalists”. However, I personally have noticed a difference between both sides. It seems to me as though “traditionalists” are more eager to convert their non-Catholic friends than would be their “mainstream Catholic” neighbour. As a traditional Catholic myself I would not hesitate to tell others (and have done so) that they need to convert to the Catholic Faith - those “traditionalists” I know have done likewise. However, it seems as though every other Catholic (mainstream) I have spoken to (priests and laity) do not place the same necessity on conversion. A relative who is very devout, but not a traditionalist said to me; “I would never think nor dream of telling … (good protestant friend and neighbour) that they need to convert” - and here comes the reason - “as long as they are a good person it doesn’t matter.” After talking to numerous priests from different dioceses I have been given the same response. The bottom line is that “as long as they follow their conscience they will be OK”.

So is my experience correct in general? Is there more of a zeal to convert among traditionalists? Why is this the case?

From my own experience, I would put the blame on the watering down of the dogma: “outside the Church there is no Salvation” - not that this is to be understood in a sense whereby all non-Catholics are automatically damned, but the fact that it is understood in a sense which contradicts its clear meaning i.e.; “Outside the Church there is no Salvation (except for those who are outside the church who don’t know they need to be inside)”

What saddens me more is the fact that most Catholics avoid the issue and treat anyone who speaks of converting the non-Catholics like they were another cult like the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses etc. I don’t understand the fear of discussion, since I would gladly converse with a Mormon or Protestant on the faith. It seem like the very idea of conversion is now taboo.

Are most Catholics simply the victim of political correctness gone overboard? Is there many non-traditionalists with the same zeal to convert? Are there any modern prelates who preach of the necessity of conversion? Perhaps my experience is localized and the situation is different in different areas? Sorry for being long winded.

 

[tlimon]

First off, I think this is a great topic!

We need to get our house in order. A faith not worth dying for is a faith not worth living for. If we take our Catholic faith seriously, the world will see its fruits and want to convert. So, what does this mean? This means a return to traditional Catholicism. We also need to start influencing culture instead of being influenced by culture. Why should we let popular music dictate what music we use during the liturgy? Shouldn’t music made for the liturgy be inspiring popular music? We need musicians, film makers, artists, sculptures, poets, etc who are based in orthodoxy to create our metaphorical stained glass windows so that when God shines his light through them, society will have no other choice but to marvel at the faith.

I was thinking of trying to create a local “Catholic” art festival. I am not talking like outright religiosity necessarily. Johnny Cash made gospel music but he also wrote songs about guilt, sin, redemption that have obvious Christian themes but wouldn’t be classified as “gospel music.” I imagine three days of events throughout the city. There could be “drive-in” style showings up short movies created by local Catholic/Christian filmmakers. We could have art gallories set up around town. Local coffee shops could have poetry jams.

I think Fr. Robert Barron over at** www.wordonfire.org **has it right. We are caught up in what the headlines call “The Catholic Church Denounces X,Y,Z.” Don’t get me wrong, we need to hold the line our social values. However, we also need to proclaim the beauty of the faith. We need to affirm on beliefs and live them out. We need to create art and saints for the world to see. We need to spend EVEN MORE time with the poor. We need to let people know that the heart of Christ and His Church is a “Yes.” This is a “yes” to love, freedom, goodness, and perserverance despite tribulations from outside and the Church and from within.

And this my friend, is my battle cry!

Peace and God bless.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Although I do not like the term “traditionalist” I do identify myself as a “traditional Catholic” which I suppose makes me a traditionalist - I believe all Catholics should be traditional. This thread concerns the difference in approach to conversion and the degree of so-called “Apostolic zeal” among the “traditional Catholics” on one hand and “mainstream Catholics” (for want of a better term) on the other. Very recently I have talked about this issue with a number of priests and lay Catholics who are involved in various positions (teaching, bible studies, interfaith groups etc) within different dioceses. I realize this is a hot topic for some and I don’t want to start a debate, but really - like any other issue - when discussed properly with both sides being courteous the discussion can only be profitable.

No doubt from the “mainstream Catholic” side (and again, I really don’t like the terms mainstream and traditionalist - but I assume everyone understands) there has been a whole lot of apologetic material and debates which have doubtless been the cause of many a conversion or re-version. There is unquestionably a large amount of Apostolic zeal and eagerness to expound the truths of Catholicism. This is the case likewise with the “traditionalists”. However, I personally have noticed a difference between both sides. It seems to me as though “traditionalists” are more eager to convert their non-Catholic friends than would be their “mainstream Catholic” neighbour. As a traditional Catholic myself I would not hesitate to tell others (and have done so) that they need to convert to the Catholic Faith - those “traditionalists” I know have done likewise. However, it seems as though every other Catholic (mainstream) I have spoken to (priests and laity) do not place the same necessity on conversion. A relative who is very devout, but not a traditionalist said to me; “I would never think nor dream of telling … (good protestant friend and neighbour) that they need to convert” - and here comes the reason - “as long as they are a good person it doesn’t matter.” After talking to numerous priests from different dioceses I have been given the same response. The bottom line is that “as long as they follow their conscience they will be OK”.

So is my experience correct in general? Is there more of a zeal to convert among traditionalists? Why is this the case?

From my own experience, I would put the blame on the watering down of the dogma: “outside the Church there is no Salvation” - not that this is to be understood in a sense whereby all non-Catholics are automatically damned, but the fact that it is understood in a sense which contradicts its clear meaning i.e.; “Outside the Church there is no Salvation (except for those who are outside the church who don’t know they need to be inside)”

What saddens me more is the fact that most Catholics avoid the issue and treat anyone who speaks of converting the non-Catholics like they were another cult like the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses etc. I don’t understand the fear of discussion, since I would gladly converse with a Mormon or Protestant on the faith. It seem like the very idea of conversion is now taboo.

Are most Catholics simply the victim of political correctness gone overboard? Is there many non-traditionalists with the same zeal to convert? Are there any modern prelates who preach of the necessity of conversion? Perhaps my experience is localized and the situation is different in different areas? Sorry for being long winded.

The ecumenical movement has been a virus within the church and IMO, is indeed a novelty that was not intended at the Second Vatican Counsel, I feel that certain personalities within the church sought to make our liturgy and doctrines more appealing to those who stood outside the body of Christ.

I have been suspended for discussing “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” and it is very possible that I might be reprimanded for using the analogy “virus”, again. Although, I feel that it describes the issue of: the apathy towards the conversion of other Christians to Catholicism, so that they may be within the body of Christ - adequately. The modern Catholic will argue that non-Catholic and non-Christians alike can be saved through the grace and mercy of Christ our Lord, I would agree - with one clause, that being; we should not grow over confidant in the salvation of those “outside” of the body of Christ, so that through our apathy - those souls that we are so confidant are saved… are lost.

 

[Iotaunum]

The ecumenical movement has been a virus within the church and IMO, is indeed a novelty that was not intended at the Second Vatican Counsel, I feel that certain personalities within the church sought to make our liturgy and doctrines more appealing to those who stood outside the body of Christ.

I have been suspended for discussing “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” and it is very possible that I might be reprimanded for using the analogy “virus”, again. Although, I feel that it describes the issue of: the apathy towards the conversion of other Christians to Catholicism, so that they may be within the body of Christ - adequately. The modern Catholic will argue that non-Catholic and non-Christians alike can be saved through the grace and mercy of Christ our Lord, I would agree - with one clause, that being; we should not grow over confidant in the salvation of those “outside” of the body of Christ, so that through our apathy - those souls that we are so confidant are saved… are lost.

Yes it is hard to discuss some topics which are considered divisive, which is a shame but the rules are there for a reason. Thats why I like having discussions in person with various priests and laity. After years of discusssing various issues with protestants and Catholics I really belive that we should discuss what divides us. Very often we hear that we should concentrate on what we have in common - so we should discuss with protestants how Christ saved us, how we believe in the Trinity etc, and with other Catholics how the Pope has primacy etc. This is all well and good, but my point is the most interesting and fruitfull discussion I have had with protestants and Catholics have been about those isues where we differ. For example, I was talking to a protestant recently who brought up religion an we got into discussing Scripture. We discussed Papal primacy and Sola Fide etc and the person enjoyed the discussion as much as I did. He too was sick of tip toeing around people who abhored honest discussions. He didn’t leave a Catholic, but he said he had more respect for me than those Catholics he had spoken to who simply said - “jesus loves us all” etc. My point is that I find it lamentable that this eagerness to convert and debate the issues which divide us has almost disappeared from site. Whatsmore, it seems frowned upon. Our parish has a Scriptural reading and discussion with non Catholics every week, and I thought it would be a perfect oppertunity to bring those Bible Beliveing protestants to the knowledge that Catholicism in fact is not only Biblical, but the only biblical faith. I was surprised to find out from a friend who attends this meeting how all disagreements are avoided and only issues which both agree on are discussed. Perhaps if we tried harder there would be more converts. It seems against the spirit of the great missionaries in the past who have devoted their life - sometimes to martyrdom- to preach the Gospel to others.

 

[TrueLight]

to all your posts.

In other words, the Church needs to be more evangelical. I think there is a movement to do just that, no?

 

[CB_Catholic]

to all your posts.

In other words, the Church needs to be more evangelical. I think there is a movement to do just that, no?

Yes, and we need to stop being afraid of the word “evangelize”.

 

[christosdavid]

The ecumenical movement has been a virus within the church and IMO, is indeed a novelty that was not intended at the Second Vatican Counsel, I feel that certain personalities within the church sought to make our liturgy and doctrines more appealing to those who stood outside the body of Christ.

I have been suspended for discussing “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” and it is very possible that I might be reprimanded for using the analogy “virus”, again. Although, I feel that it describes the issue of: the apathy towards the conversion of other Christians to Catholicism, so that they may be within the body of Christ - adequately. The modern Catholic will argue that non-Catholic and non-Christians alike can be saved through the grace and mercy of Christ our Lord, I would agree - with one clause, that being; we should not grow over confidant in the salvation of those “outside” of the body of Christ, so that through our apathy - those souls that we are so confidant are saved… are lost.

thanks for recognising that youre use of the word virus is unhelpful at best.

Everyone is still saved by teh grace of God, Vatican II simply realised that God’s grace was being given outside the visible borders of the catholic church. Other churches and ecclesial communions are rightly called Christian. Orthodox churches are clearly Christian and even predate most Roman Chruches. Protestants (of varing depth of error) are also Christian according to the dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium.

Furthermore, God’s grace can work in people outside the Christian faith. The Decree in non-christian religions makes this clear.

What we offer is fullness of understanding and communion with the church founded by Christ, which the Orthodox have always maintained they have been a part of.

The ecumenical movement is a blessing from God. I am glad and proud that the church can get beyond mere polemics to a place of fellowship, because the idea of fellowship is koinonia (communion).

 

[Irish_Polock]

thanks for recognising that youre use of the word virus is unhelpful at best.

“…unhelpful at best” In the environment of this forum it might indeed be less helpful then any other analogy. Although, I feel it describes the issue of “ecumenical dialog” well enough. Stedman’s Medical Dictionary defines “virus” as “an infectious agent which lacks an independent metabolism and is incapable of growth or reproduction apart from living cells” The only purpose of a virus is self-replication…

By this analogy, then, I maintain that certain verbal “viruses” have infected the Mystical Body of Christ. These “viruses” are pseudo-concepts, which, like actual viruses, have minimal informational content. Just as a virus hovers between life and non-life, these pseudo-concepts hover between meaning and non-meaning They seem to mean something, but upon further examination we find no real meaning. As viruses are particles of a host, rather then complete living cells, so are these pseudo-concepts are indeed particles of an idea which do not amount to an intelligible concept. This “virus” within the Mystical Body of Christ, like an actual virus, exist only to reproduce themselves, which they do by infecting the understanding of genuine concepts with precise meaning – namely, the perennial teachings of the Magisterium.

Everyone is still saved by teh grace of God, Vatican II simply realised that God’s grace was being given outside the visible borders of the catholic church. Other churches and ecclesial communions are rightly called Christian. Orthodox churches are clearly Christian and even predate most Roman Chruches. Protestants (of varing depth of error) are also Christian according to the dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium.

According to DI 17 (which refers to LG’s use of the term subsistit), the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church but is also “present and operative” in the Orthodox Churches as true particular churches, even though they lack “full communion” with the Catholic Church. This goes even beyond what is said of Protestant sects – i.e., that they possess “ecclesial elements”, though they are not proper churches. But if you have read Humani Generis 27, you might already know that Pope Pius XII taught that the Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ are identical:

---

”…Some say they are not bound bythe doctrine, explained in our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, (Mystici Corporis) and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teach that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing {quae quidem docet corpus Christi mysticum et Ecclesiam Catholicam Romanam unum idemque esse}

---

Furthermore, God’s grace can work in people outside the Christian faith. The Decree in non-christian religions makes this clear.

What is this unanimous decree that non-Christians have, that somehow clarifies this case for you? I seem to be ignorant of any such decree amongst non-Christians. Please clarify your statement.

What we offer is fullness of understanding and communion with the church founded by Christ, which the Orthodox have always maintained they have been a part of.

The fact that the Orthodox are in schism with the Mystical Body of Christ is self-explanatory. They may “maintain” that they have always been a part of it, but would you expect anything less from them? The facts and the Magisterium tell us a different truth then what we hear from the Orthodox.

The ecumenical movement is a blessing from God. I am glad and proud that the church can get beyond mere polemics to a place of fellowship, because the idea of fellowship is koinonia (communion).

And I will maintain that these churches MUST return to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. We should not settle with “well, at least they possess some “ecclesial elements”, imo, we should preach the dogmatic truth of “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” without reservation.

God be with you.

 

[christosdavid]

the conciliar documents clearly speak of other churches and ecclesial communions. That they have valid baptisms and are rightly called Christian. graces of the Holy Spirit are working in them and they have some kind of imperfect communion with the mystical body that is the catholic church.

The appropriate excommunications have been lifted from the Greek churches and Protestant bodies are recognised as being Christian. How do you explain this is they are so abbhorant as you seem to be implying.

Of course we should keep working towards full unity (John 17) but before then we can recognise on account of the name Christian that we serve the same God. Father Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[Irish_Polock]

the conciliar documents clearly speak of other churches and ecclesial communions. That they have valid baptisms and are rightly called Christian. graces of the Holy Spirit are working in them and they have some kind of imperfect communion with the mystical body that is the catholic church.

The appropriate excommunications have been lifted from the Greek churches and Protestant bodies are recognised as being Christian. How do you explain this is they are so abbhorant as you seem to be implying.

Of course we should keep working towards full unity (John 17) but before then we can recognise on account of the name Christian that we serve the same God. Father Son and Holy Spirit.

Just so that there is little confusion on this matter, I will offer the text I believe to be in question:

17 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

«The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection – divided, yet in some way one – of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach".64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

58. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 1: AAS 65 (1973), 396 - 398.
59. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree UR 14-15; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Communionis notio, 17: AAS 85 (1993), 848.
60. Cf. First Vatican Council, Constitution Pastor aeternus: DS 3053-3064; Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution LG 22.
61. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree UR 22.
62. Cf. ibid., UR 3.
63. Cf. ibid., UR 22.
64. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 1.
65. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter UUS 14.
66. Second Vatican Council, Decree UR 3.
67. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Communionis notio, 17; cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree UR 4 **(Dominus Iesus EN 17)
**

It might be possible to better explain your argument with this reference,

 

[christosdavid]

Just so that there is little confusion on this matter, I will offer the text I believe to be in question:

17 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

«The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection – divided, yet in some way one – of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach".64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

58. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 1: AAS 65 (1973), 396 - 398.
59. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree UR 14-15; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Communionis notio, 17: AAS 85 (1993), 848.
60. Cf. First Vatican Council, Constitution Pastor aeternus: DS 3053-3064; Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution LG 22.
61. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree UR 22.
62. Cf. ibid., UR 3.
63. Cf. ibid., UR 22.
64. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 1.
65. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter UUS 14.
66. Second Vatican Council, Decree UR 3.
67. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Communionis notio, 17; cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree UR 4 **(Dominus Iesus EN 17)
**

It might be possible to better explain your argument with this reference,

Further, after addressing the faithful in Lumen Gentium:

#15 The church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptised, are honoured with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honour Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and of action, and who show a true religius zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, Son of God and Saviour. They are consectrated by baptism, through which they are united with Christ. They also recognise and receive other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesial communities.

plus to the end of that section which continues on to say that we are in some real way are joined with us in the Holy Spirit and we ought to desire to be united because we are of the same flock under one shephard.

So this is in the Dogmatic Constitution on the church as well as the decree on Ecumanism.

 

[christosdavid]

The section which would also profit our communication on this topic would be On Ecumenism #3

“…The Catholic Church accepts them in respect and affection as brothers…Nevertheless, all those justfied by faith through baptism are incorporated into Christ. They therefore have the right to be honoured by the title of Christian, and are properly regared as brothers in the Lord by the sons of the Catholic Church…can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church…and can rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of Salvation.”

So theyre Christian, united to Christ, our brothers in the Lord and their communities are capable of providing access to salvation.

seems clear to me, whats puzzling you? There were no Protestants when Cyprian wrote those lines. Protestants are united to Christ by the same Holy Spirit as us and “belong by right to the one Church of Christ.”

 

[Veritatis3]

Although I do not like the term “traditionalist” I do identify myself as a “traditional Catholic” which I suppose makes me a traditionalist - I believe all Catholics should be traditional. This thread concerns the difference in approach to conversion and the degree of so-called “Apostolic zeal” among the “traditional Catholics” on one hand and “mainstream Catholics” (for want of a better term) on the other. Very recently I have talked about this issue with a number of priests and lay Catholics who are involved in various positions (teaching, bible studies, interfaith groups etc) within different dioceses. I realize this is a hot topic for some and I don’t want to start a debate, but really - like any other issue - when discussed properly with both sides being courteous the discussion can only be profitable.

No doubt from the “mainstream Catholic” side (and again, I really don’t like the terms mainstream and traditionalist - but I assume everyone understands) there has been a whole lot of apologetic material and debates which have doubtless been the cause of many a conversion or re-version. There is unquestionably a large amount of Apostolic zeal and eagerness to expound the truths of Catholicism. This is the case likewise with the “traditionalists”. However, I personally have noticed a difference between both sides. It seems to me as though “traditionalists” are more eager to convert their non-Catholic friends than would be their “mainstream Catholic” neighbour. As a traditional Catholic myself I would not hesitate to tell others (and have done so) that they need to convert to the Catholic Faith - those “traditionalists” I know have done likewise. However, it seems as though every other Catholic (mainstream) I have spoken to (priests and laity) do not place the same necessity on conversion. A relative who is very devout, but not a traditionalist said to me; “I would never think nor dream of telling … (good protestant friend and neighbour) that they need to convert” - and here comes the reason - “as long as they are a good person it doesn’t matter.” After talking to numerous priests from different dioceses I have been given the same response. The bottom line is that “as long as they follow their conscience they will be OK”.

So is my experience correct in general? Is there more of a zeal to convert among traditionalists? Why is this the case?

From my own experience, I would put the blame on the watering down of the dogma: “outside the Church there is no Salvation” - not that this is to be understood in a sense whereby all non-Catholics are automatically damned, but the fact that it is understood in a sense which contradicts its clear meaning i.e.; “Outside the Church there is no Salvation (except for those who are outside the church who don’t know they need to be inside)”

What saddens me more is the fact that most Catholics avoid the issue and treat anyone who speaks of converting the non-Catholics like they were another cult like the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses etc. I don’t understand the fear of discussion, since I would gladly converse with a Mormon or Protestant on the faith. It seem like the very idea of conversion is now taboo.

Are most Catholics simply the victim of political correctness gone overboard? Is there many non-traditionalists with the same zeal to convert? Are there any modern prelates who preach of the necessity of conversion? Perhaps my experience is localized and the situation is different in different areas? Sorry for being long winded.

Great post.

 

[Cat]

I am a convert to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism.

My husband and I came out of one of the really good evangelical churches in the U.S. John Ortberg grew up with us. If you are an evangelical Protestant, that name makes you sit up and take notice, just as Pope Benedict XVI makes Catholics sit up and pay attention.

My husband and I were actually kicked out of the last evangelical Protestant church that we were members of (not our childhood church). It was a nightmare experience. I won’t go into that whole story in this thread, but the gist of it is that we eventually found our way to the Catholic Church.

We live down the street from a very modern Catholic church (built in 1971). We attended a few Masses, and then visited the priest because we had no clue what was going on in the Masses, and we wanted to know exactly what Protestants were supposed to do during Mass.

The priest walked through the Mass with us, and then suggested that we join the parish’s Apologetics class to learn more about Catholicism.

We did so, and learned a lot. We attended the class for several years. The class was taught by a former Baptist pastor/college professor from my childhood church who had converted to Catholicism a few years before. It was excellent.

During all the time we were in that class, no one ever said, “You need to convert to Catholicism.”

They didn’t NEED to say that. By telling us about the Catholic Church, they were evangelizing us. The Holy Spirit was able to take all the information that we learned in that class, as well as the Masses that we were attending, and work in our hearts to get us to a place where we knew that we should convert to Catholicism.

I think that if the Catholics had said, “You need to convert to Catholicism,” we would have been out of there. I think that’s true of a lot of evangelical Protestants. I can’t speak for mainline Protestants. I think that a lot of the fundamental Protestants would never walk through the doors of a Catholic Church, so Catholics won’t get that opportunity to say, “You should convert to Catholicism.” But if a Catholic DID have a friendship or acquaintanceship with a fundamentalist Protestant, and say, “You should convert to Catholicism,” I think that most fundamentalist Protestants would never speak to that Catholic again.

I’m not sure what kind of “evangelism” the OP is expecting from “modern” (mainstream) Catholics. Evangelism is all about opening doors. I think the best way to open a door is to open slowly and carefully.

Our modern parish has all kinds of evangelistic outreaches, but they don’t force any doors open . VBS just finished a few weeks ago–this is an evangelistic outreach. The parish school is another evangelistic outreach–there are non-Catholic families who attend our Catholic school to avoid attending the wretched public schools in our city.

The various pro-life actitivities of the parish are evangelistic outreaches. So are the various Bible studies, and in the fall, we will be showing Father Barron’s new film series, and my Protestant father-in-law will be there because he enjoys learning about the Bible and church history. He has attended several other Bible studies and study groups with our parish and knows several of the elderly people in the parish!

Interestingly, I am involved (on the fringe) with the Latin Mass parish in our city. I would not call them zealous in their evangelistic outreach. If anything, I would say that they are rather insular compared to the “modern” parishes. However, that’s really not fair of me to say because they do evangelism differently than the modern parishes. They have a school that is attracting non-Catholics because of the good academics. They also do some of the great classical works of music, and this attracts non-Catholics.

Again, I’m not sure what the OP expects Catholic evangelism to look like. It is my strong opinion as a convert that an aggressive “turn or burn” approach to evangelism would do more harm than good. I think that the best way for Catholics to evangelize is to live their faith in public fearlessly and joyfully, do not fall into sin and give a bad testimony to non-Christians and non-Catholics (e.g., don’t be co-habiting, or don’t swear, or don’t get drunk), and whenever there is opportunity, be ready and eager to explain correctly and in a positive way what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[Cat]

I would also like to make a few comments about how different parishes, specifically modern vs. traditional, do evangelism.

There is no “right way” for Catholics to evangelize.

In my post above, I described how my modern parish offers various classes and studies that attract non-Catholics and non-Christians.

I also described how the traditional Latin Mass parish offers music and a good school.

Both of these parishes have a different approach, but the Holy Spirit can and does use all of our attempts to reach out to non-Catholics.

I firmly believe that one of the best “tools” that all Catholics have to evangelize is pro-life work. Many Protestants who are pro-life get to know Catholics while they are battling alongside them in the trenches of pro-life work. I’m going to tell you all a little inside secret about evangelical Protestants–they admire Catholic pro-life work. I’ve heard Protestant pastors from their pulpits praise the Catholic Church and say, “Shame on us Protestants for not doing our share of the pro-life work!”

So this is an opportunity that all Catholics, traditional and modern, have to reach out to non-Catholic Christians. The Catholics don’t have to say a word. They just have to live out their faith and demonstrate the love of Jesus for those caught up in the evil of abortion.
This will speak volumes to the non-Catholic Christian, and be used in a mighty way by the Holy Spirit to bring those non-Catholic Christians into the Catholic Church.

I think that every Catholic parish will find a way to evangelize that is right for their “neighborhood.” The Italian parish in our city has a massive St. Joseph’s Altar, and several thousand people from that very poor neighborhood attend and eat a delicious home-made meal. This is a wonderful evangelistic outreach. The parish does this kind of thing all year long. Their neighborhood is poor, and so Bible studies and classes and film series aren’t really very effective. What works in that parish is giving food, and Italians love to give food!

Other parishes in our city have had success with various family activities because their neighborhood is filled with young families. They do movie nights and dinners.

Still other parishes do well with weekly bingo games and dances! Non-Catholics love to play bingo and dance, too!

And just like parishes have their own “evangelistic personality,” so do individual Catholics. There are Catholics like Tim Staples who have been gifted by the Holy Spirit to be able to use an aggressive evangelism approach. He could stand up and say, “YOU should become Catholic!” and it would work.

But there are other Catholics like the Poor Clare sisters in our city who are never even seen in public, yet through their prayers, they evangelize.

All of us have a unique personality, and that personality can be used by the Holy Spirit to evangelize. For some Catholics, their “evangelism personality” will lead them to bake cookies for and visit their next door neighbors and friends. They may never say a word about Catholicism, but the neighbors know that their kindness is done out of their faith.

Still other Catholics will get involved with evangelism by teaching an apologetics class or leading a Bible study.

Others will speak up in work conservations, and always have wise and peaceful things to say when discussions get “heated.”

One of the women I know in the Latin Mass parish is involved in several of the classical music organizations in our community. She is highly intellectual, and she attracts others who are highly intellectual. That’s HER evangelism method.

I hope that I am explaining this well. Just because someone doesn’t say, “You should become Catholic” doesn’t mean that they are failing to evangelize. We all must be faithful to use the gifts that we are given by God.

 

[Joannm]

IAgain, I’m not sure what the OP expects Catholic evangelism to look like. It is my strong opinion as a convert that an aggressive “turn or burn” approach to evangelism would do more harm than good. I think that the best way for Catholics to evangelize is to live their faith in public fearlessly and joyfully, do not fall into sin and give a bad testimony to non-Christians and non-Catholics (e.g., don’t be co-habiting, or don’t swear, or don’t get drunk), and whenever there is opportunity, be ready and eager to explain correctly and in a positive way what the Catholic Church teaches.

Isn’t this the way some Protestant churches evangelise Catholics (being agressive). I recall someone telling me thta as a Catholic I was not Christian and if I didn’t convert to Christ (their version of it), I was going to hell. That approach didn’t work for me and I am sure if Cathoilcs approached Protestants with that same line of thought it would be a turn off and keep them away from Catholicism. I think your approach is very good. Just live our Catholic faith as best we can and be ready to explain our faith to others in a positive way, not a condemning way.

 

[christosdavid]

I think it helps if you recognise that you arnt (often) converting them to Christ as if theyve never served Jesus for many years, probably even in apologetics themselves.

There was another thread on why Evangelicals in particular converted to the Church and it suggested among the causes that they saw themselves coming to a fullness of the faith.

Ive always been connected with the High Church, sung the Latin Mass and much more, in fact, my conversion was through Catholics merely making sure I was comfortable in the service (they didnt realise I probably knew the service better than they did).

discern the background of each person differently, if you make assumptions then you may bury someone under a label, which if accepted may end up keeping them away from the Church.

 

[Iotaunum]

I’m not sure what kind of “evangelism” the OP is expecting from “modern” (mainstream) Catholics. Evangelism is all about opening doors. I think the best way to open a door is to open slowly and carefully.
…

Again, I’m not sure what the OP expects Catholic evangelism to look like. It is my strong opinion as a convert that an aggressive “turn or burn” approach to evangelism would do more harm than good. I think that the best way for Catholics to evangelize is to live their faith in public fearlessly and joyfully, do not fall into sin and give a bad testimony to non-Christians and non-Catholics (e.g., don’t be co-habiting, or don’t swear, or don’t get drunk), and whenever there is opportunity, be ready and eager to explain correctly and in a positive way what the Catholic Church teaches.

Firstly, I am glad to hear of your conversion to Catholicism. I will try to clarify what I would expect Catholic evangelism to look like, although my post was not only concerning evangelism. Have you ever read the lives of the Saints? Their stories are filled with examples of some of the greatest missionaries and evangelists ever to have lived. They converted millions of pagans, Jews and heretics back to the Catholic faith. They baptized millions between them. I would expect modern evangelism to continue in the same vein - nothing different. Just like the Apostles in Acts and our Lord Himself in the Gospels. But, and this is not only true of Catholics, in recent times there has been a sort of political correctness/avoid all controversy “spirit” which has invaded the Church. In fact that time has come when a protestant - like Scott Hahn said - goes to a Catholic Priest asking how to convert, the priest tells them that they need not convert so long as they love Jesus. This unfortunately is by no means an exceptional case. In fact, should a priest be in contact with a protestant minister or lay protestant he would probably avoid mentioning that they need to convert. This is not true of all of course. The reason, from my own analysis, is that a large amount of Catholics no longer believe themselves that the Catholic faith is necessary. Why, therefore, would they attempt to tell their good protestant friend that it is necessary. You can see how this relates to a watering down of Extra ecclesia nulla salus - a dogma of the faith. That is not to say that an eroneous interpretation (either way) should be given to this dogma, but that it should not be contradicted so boldly as to go against its clear meaning. In fact the thought of many (clerics alike I can assure you) is that it would be wonderful if this dogma did not exist, or if Unam sanctam were never written. It is an embarrassment to many who should in fact admire its clarity and truth.

The bottom line is this: Our Lord only founded one Church - the Catholic Church. It is imperative that all become members of His mystical body (the Church) and hold that same faith he delivered to the Apostles. Thus we see the importance of the Gospel message to convert all to the true faith. Their salvation depends on it. Unfortunately this fact, this truth for which the saints and martyrs gave thier lives has now become obscure to even those who should have the clearest grasp of its importance. Very often Catholics are wont to treat the faith of Jesus Christ as thought it was merely another denomination. As if we had a product which merely “helps” a person to reach heaven more easily. So a Catholic may say, this faith is the product we have - may we interest you in it? Here are some benefits, although your product is good too - just not as good as ours. Perhaps you may be interested? If this was how the missionaries acted, and the Saints evangelized, then I think the entire Church would be no larger than Vatican City. Fortunately there was more zeal to be found. Nuns walking into protestant worship halls, St Francis de Sales pushing apologetic notes though doors, Cardinals debating publicly with heretics, Saints threatening eternal damnation as a punishment for heresy etc. This is not a turn or burn idea, but an idea of true Christian Charity. The saints of old held more strictly to the dogmas and really feared for the souls of their protestant neighbours. When understood properly we can see how truly charitable they were, and how many souls they saved.

I guess my ultimate point is that this zeal seems lost today, and its consequences I fear is the loss of so many who may have died in the true faith in the state of grace had one of the saints or lay Catholics who were alive years ago had told them the truth in a more matter of factly way. Truth is the Truth. I would want a doctor to tell me if I was doing something hazardous to my health, and I would expect also that Catholics tell others in Charity when they are in danger of their eternal souls.

 

[TrueLight]

. Very often Catholics are wont to treat the faith of Jesus Christ as thought it was merely another denomination. As if we had a product which merely “helps” a person to reach heaven more easily. So a Catholic may say, this faith is the product we have - may we interest you in it? Here are some benefits, although your product is good too - just not as good as ours. Perhaps you may be interested? If this was how the missionaries acted, and the Saints evangelized, then I think the entire Church would be no larger than Vatican City.

:clapping:

Amen!

Even coming from Protestantism I see the importance of spreading the word that the Catholic Church is the One True Church founded by Christ.

Otherwise, why should I bother? “For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required.”

I’m making things harder for myself and it should be for a very good reason!

 

[fred_conty]

Hi Iotaunum,
I’ve thought about what you’ve said years ago that we should do more directly with other Christians to help them. Why haven’t I? Timidity of pushing them away some more. I could take the spit if that should happen. It’s about damage control, making things worse and making them all the more angry and antagonistic.

It also takes the approval of the pastor. Some clergy are good but as you pointed out, not particularly interested in this direct type of evangelization. Others have too much on their plate right now. But as you will know from your own study, it may be the clergy who need more zeal in this area, not to mention the people. I do think that there are ever so many
catholic laity who would be willing to do this work if they knew what to say and do.

Rather than a blizkrieg attact, how about a soft swiss cheeze direct approach.

More parishes have RCIA. Copy the info and have designated parishoners put them on the door knobs in the blocks where they live. Pizza people do it with success. And we still like in Pizza.

Have people go door to door taking a parish census. A good way to make contact with former catholics and to personnally invite them to the church and offer them a blessed miraculous medal. Lot’s of good there. Others in the household may want the blessed medal as well. First the seed is thrown then later the harvest comes.

Maybe printing a 3 x 5 with important one liner things Catholics believe on one side, and what they don’t believe on the other.

You mentioned St. Phillip was it? that put short arguments under the doors of the homes. How about printed short 3 x 5 explainations on one thing: saints, Mary, Eucharist, etc. with an invite. Under windshield wipers parked on street.

I think what you are saying is right. But the devil is in the details and the devil never stays the same.​

“However far you run from me, I will be there waiting for you.” Hymn