What are ways that Catholic and Evangelicals can have better and more respectful dialogue?

[anon65111186]

Take one thing at a time, and be open to speaking about them each in a logical and consistent way, treat your most dearly held beliefs the same as any other article of faith, for either Protestants or Catholics. Keep a truly open mind to the truth, and pray about it. Without prayer nothing will happen.

 

[ShowersofRoses]

Then you will probably have very little success in helping them understand that 2+2=4 if you’re completely unwilling to understand why they believe 2+2=5.

And of course, that’s a gross simplification, because the reason non-Christians or Protestant Christians believe what they do is much more complex and multi-faceted.

Dialogue is the only way to peer through all those complex layers and try to shine some light on their perceived errors or false beliefs about what the Church actually teaches.

Your two posts just now seem to show little desire to help evangelize non-Catholics. Just yelling the truth at them without listening to them won’t help at all. Loving them includes listening.

 

[Eddie18]

There is a difference between conversion and dialogue. Before Vatican II Catholics only spoke of conversion. Then when ecumenism was introduced at Vatican II, people started talking about “dialogue” instead, as if both Catholics and non-Catholics have good to contribute to the salvation of souls. I’m interested in converting souls to Catholicism, not dialogue as if we are on equal playing grounds. We are not - Catholics told the truth and everyone else therefore does not.

 

[ShowersofRoses]

I don’t think this thread is talking about dialogue to see what both sides can bring to the table.

The OP wants to know if Catholicism has the Truth, because right now he thinks it doesn’t, but he’s wondering if he’s wrong.

All of his talk about dialogue seems to me to be the kind of dialogue that is searching for the Truth…no matter who has it, the kind of dialogue that leads to conversion. He’s looking for ways to improve that kind of dialogue.

Your definition of dialogue in ecumenical, cooperative discussions is not what he’s referring to, I think.

 

[on_the_hill]

I have a friend who is E Free. We talk every day without any problem at all. The trick is to not discuss religion.

More seriously, we sometimes do ask each other questions about our faiths, like “What is an E Free service like?” but have never asked questions about our personal beliefs or theology.

 

[GrantKlentzman]

I think that the best way to describe dialogue is to be able respectfully disagree and interact graciously. There is no need to become confrontational even if we have disagreements on fundamental aspects of faith. I have seen respectful and friendly dialogue between people who completely disagree. Our conversations should result in a greater understanding of one another.

 

[GrantKlentzman]

Catholics believe that you attain salvation by faith, baptism, and observance of the commandments (CCC 2068). Whereas Evangelicals believe that salvation is received by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone apart from works. We can’t both be right. Therefore, we should respectfully dialogue about topics like these.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think it varies from place to place and group to group. The great majority where I live are evangelicals, and yet evangelicals and Catholics get along very well. A good part of that is due to prolife attitudes and activities of both. Both know they have no other allies in that struggle than each other.

When it comes to religious tenets, the two are really not as far apart as some would suppose.

But politics can enter into it. Right here on CAF you see Catholic Democrats attack evangelicals as if they were devils. That’s not because of religion. It’s because of politics. I think a good part of the time people do not properly distinguish.

 

[MT1926]

Catholics believe that you attain salvation by faith, baptism, and observance of the commandments (CCC 2068). Whereas Evangelicals believe that salvation is received by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone apart from works. We can’t both be right. Therefore, we should respectfully dialogue about topics like these.

I would say this is a perfect example of what you are looking for in how we should NOT dialogue. You made a concrete definitive claim. “We can’t both be right.” If you would have added in… “based on our differences in defining terms.” Sure I would agree. But you did not which now puts the other on a defensive position.

Catholics totally agree we are saved by Grace Alone through Christ Alone period. There is absolutely no amount of work we can do to EARN our salvation. There is also no amount of faith you can have to EARN your salvation either. See this is a difference, from a Catholic perspective we see faith, which originates from Christ, also as an act of our will, which means we are doing something, so even faith on our end is a “work”. Evangelicals obviously must have a different definition, depending on which denomination they are from.

Finding out these differences in definitions would be KEY to dialogue before making definite statements like “We can’t both be right”.

Just my 2 cents.

God Bless

 

[Wannano]

GrantKlentzman:

Catholics believe that you attain salvation by faith, baptism, and observance of the commandments (CCC 2068). Whereas Evangelicals believe that salvation is received by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone apart from works. We can’t both be right. Therefore, we should respectfully dialogue about topics like these.

I would say this is a perfect example of what you are looking for in how we should NOT dialogue. You made a concrete definitive claim. “We can’t both be right.” If you would have added in… “based on our differences in defining terms.” Sure I would agree. But you did not which now puts the other on a defensive position.

Catholics totally agree we are saved by Grace Alone through Christ Alone period. There is absolutely no amount of work we can do to EARN our salvation. There is also no amount of faith you can have to EARN your salvation either. See this is a difference, from a Catholic perspective we see faith, which originates from Christ, also as an act of our will, which means we are doing something, so even faith on our end is a “work”. Evangelicals obviously must have a different definition, depending on which denomination they are from.

Finding out these differences in definitions would be KEY to dialogue before making definite statements like “We can’t both be right”.

Just my 2 cents.

God Bless

I think you have observed and raised a very good point. If in the definition of our terms we are willing to admit we might have something a little bit wrong then we may be able to see how the other has something a little bit right.

 

[GrantKlentzman]

I think I made a valid definitive claim. One, I quoted the Catechism (which is an official Roman Catholic source) and I also stated what most evangelicals believe. Believing that salvation is by faith alone in Christ Alone and believing that you have to do good works in order to be saved seem to me to be logically contradictory and therefore cannot both be right. As a result, we should respectfully dialogue and discover which way leads to salvation. Please keep this dialogue on topic. I have already said in the original post that this discussion is not to discuss whether or not Catholicism or Evangelicalism is true but rather to see how we can better dialogue. Thank you

 

[DarkLight]

We are using two separate languages. Since the 1500s in Europe, terms have widely diverged in meaning. Understanding the other’s terms is crucial. Peruse Hugh (David) Macdonald’s site, whose motto is “Building Bridges - Healing Division” . He is bridging the gap - much of which is convincing bible Christians that Catholics are indeed Christian, of all crazy things.

Besides trying to understand what the other side actually believes, I think giving a taste of culture helps. For example, inviting an Evangelical to a Catholic house blessing. They can see Catholics in a religious setting, albeit informal, hear their conversations, eat good food, and see a priest in person outside a church engaging in casual conversation! When I was still in the process of converting, priests and religious seemed a bit out there. Sure, they’re people just like you and me, but… they’re priests and nuns! Seeing them with their hair down, in a manner of speaking, chatting, laughing, and having a good meal really helped humanize them in a way.

I think these are both important.

I’m a baptist turned catholic. Language can be a major issue - often when similar words are used for very different concepts it causes confusion. For example, I tend to avoid the phrase “praying to saints” around protestants, because I know that to them prayer specifically and only refers to worship. I’m likely to say something like “asking the saints to pray for us.” The question of “are you saved?” from evangelicals is another one. To most evangelicals, the options are either that someone is “saved” via something akin to the sinner’s prayer, or that they do not believe in the necessity of Christ’s sacrifice for salvation at all. I might respond with something like “I believe my salvation comes through the death of Christ and I trust in him.”

Many people also get confused by the differences in ceremony and ritual. And much of it is not that vital, internet arguments aside. (It may be meaningful and important, but not vital.) While I find vestments beautiful, for example, it’s not like the Mass would become invalid if the priest wore a suit and tie like a baptist minister. Similarly, I think many Catholics find it hard to understand how a protestant could be reverent in the circumstances of their services.

I am reminded in the latter somewhat of a grandparent who found a perfectly Christian hymn to be “pagan”, simply because it was performed in an African language and style. It was in no way pagan, but merely culturally unfamiliar. But on both sides I think that which is merely unfamiliar can be mistaken.

 

[kainosktisis]

This is something I’ve noticed in such discussions. People make assumptions about others & their beliefs <Sometimes guilty myself as charged - raising hand sheepishly>. We already know we hold different beliefs about things, but it doesn’t do any good to be open to offense when someone’s beliefs don’t mesh with our own. Sometimes it’s better to politely bite your tongue & gently correct or ask for clarification of things.

Once when at church, someone in our group suggested that I & another lady invite our spouses (both Protestants) come to do the Rosary with us. We had to explain to him that while our husband’s may respect the BVM as Christ’s mother, they do not hold a Catholic view of her. Also since they have no understanding of the communion of saints as we do, they would take offense at reciting the Hail Mary (Many Protestants would look at if as idol worship, making the BVM into a goddess of sorts, breaking the commandment against worship of other gods, etc. - even as necromancy). I am a former Protestant so I get where they’re coming from. Anyways, he got the point that they wouldn’t approve of nor feel comfortable doing the Rosary.

Many Protestants no longer have any crosses in churches. Some will wear crosses but no crucifixes.

When in doubt, ask politely & respectfully. It doesn’t help matters to accuse someone of twisting Scripture (They may actually understand it a certain way or have been taught it that way), or saying their beliefs are false, or telling someone they’re hellbound, or whatever. Put yourself in their shoes, & consider how you’d feel or react if treated likewise.

Even if you disagree on matters, they’ll remember what you say & maybe even take it to heart if you treat them respectfully. Love God & love one another as He loves us.

 

[kainosktisis]

But as a Catholic where does the New Evangelization fit in then?

 

[DarkLight]

I would say this is a perfect example of what you are looking for in how we should NOT dialogue. You made a concrete definitive claim. “We can’t both be right.” If you would have added in… “based on our differences in defining terms.” Sure I would agree. But you did not which now puts the other on a defensive position.

Honestly I think this is more of a modern problem sometimes, and it can impede dialogue.

If we both attempted to solve a math problem, and you obtained one number and I another, it would not be an insult to say one of us must be wrong. It’s the first step of working things out. But we also have to be willing to say, being wrong does not make you bad.

 

[GrantKlentzman]

I do agree that there can be barriers between Catholics and Evangelicals. I also think that being polite and respectful is vital. The Roman Catholic view of Mary is very offensive to some Evangelicals. However, I think that you shouldn’t be ashamed of what you believe about Mary. You may just have to be wise in how you talk about mary to Protestants. I also think that Evangelicals should almost never criticize moral failings, the liturgy, or any other things that are not essential differences. You made some great points. I do have a follow-up question though. The question is “would it ever be ok for someone to tell someone else that if they continue to believe the way that they do, then that will result in eternal separation from God?”

 

[kainosktisis]

Honestly I wouldnt even focus on the wrong. Focus on what you have in common - shared beliefs, & as the differences come up, explain why you believe/practice as you do.

 

[kainosktisis]

:grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes::+1:t3:It’s much politer than the helfire & brimstone approaches from some in my family would do in the past. I think if you know the person well enough, yeah. But that assumes that they have some understanding of salvation & eternity.

 

[kainosktisis]

you shouldn’t be ashamed of what you believe about Mary.

This is a valid point.

My hubby was having a difficult time understanding the Catholic view of the BVM until I began to explain Biblically about the communion of saints & the BVM as the Ark of the New Covenant. Most Protestants LOVE the Scriptures, so if you speak to them through the Scriptures, you are meeting them where they are. My hubby’s reaction after I’d done this was, “I’ve never heard it that way before…” He took it in, & it gave him much to think about.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Catholics believe that you attain salvation by faith, baptism, and observance of the commandments (CCC 2068). Whereas Evangelicals believe that salvation is received by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone apart from works. We can’t both be right. Therefore, we should respectfully dialogue about topics like these.

And…this is an example of how not to dialogue. You claimed that “Catholics and Protestants cannot both be Christians,” and since you’re Protestant, that obviously gives the implication to Catholics that we aren’t Christian. Once digging in, though, it becomes obvious that you don’t fully understand the Catholic position. Part of what I meant when saying that we should understand each others’ positions is to avoid reducing the others’ position, and you should especially avoid making such offensive claims unless you are 100% sure that you fully understand their position.

But to delve a bit deeper: Bear in mind that Catholics have a lot more to say about justification, grace, and merit than one paragraph in the CCC that quotes Vatican II. For instance, we recognize that “no man can inherit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification” (CCC 2010) and that we can never merit God’s favor on our own but that it is God’s desire to associate His works and merit with us (CCC 2006-2010). Furthermore, God’s grace is entirely free of anything we do (CCC 1996) and even our move to receive it is an act of grace on His part (CCC 2001), and this includes sacraments like baptism (CCC 2003).

Basically, we would agree in “grace alone…in Christ alone”. If you want to get down into nuances, we may even agree on “apart from works”, in that we agree that we cannot perform any work to merit God’s grace. The major hangup, and where we would disagree with “faith alone”, is that we believe man must respond to God’s grace (CCC 2002), because God won’t force grace on anyone. While the actual preparation to receive this is itself an act of grace (CCC 2001), our need to act - or work - cannot be ignored. However, you should not, as so many Protestants claim, see this as us trying to get God to give us His grace. He’s already offering it and pouring it out for all to receive whether they choose to receive it or not. Works only come into play when we are talking about our need to freely receive this grace already being offered. It’s less working for a wage and more receiving a gift rather than throwing it away.

Sure, this still leaves open dialogue about the merits (pun not intended) of sola fide. But I think this covers a bit of why you shouldn’t be reductionistic, because you can get way off of what the each side actually believes.