Why do non-Catholics send missionaries to Hispanic Catholics?

[Contarini]

rtconstant, with your knowledge and past experiences, I consider your lucid comments to be quite insightful. There are probably as many answers to the topic as there are non-Catholic missions.

As a Catholic working as a musician at a Presbyterian church, I feel I’m a bit in a quandry. First let me say that I have absolute respect for the members of this particular congregation and I see love in action every day that I come into contact with them. I am caught between wanting to know and not wanting to know who they target in their medical/spiritual mission to the Dominican Republic.

“Mainline” Protestant denominations such as PCUSA often engage in humanitarian missions without trying to proselytize (in fact only the most evangelical churches within these denominations would do any other kind of mission work). Also bear in mind that there are (for better or worse) Protestant churches already existing in these countries. So I wouldn’t assume that because they are going to the DR therefore they are trying to make people Protestants.

With regard to Hispanic ministries in this country–this has been something that has really bothered me. In North Carolina, the Episcopal Church set up a parish for Hispanics led by an ex-Catholic priest (who had worked under Archbishop Romero). There was some controversy with the local Catholic parishes because allegedly the Episcopalians were presenting themselves as Catholic (bear in mind that many Anglicans do sincerely believe that we are just as Catholic as you are, and since I don’t know the exact wording at issue I don’t know if it was actually deceptive or not). I felt very uncomfortable with all of this, but on the other side the fact was that the local Catholics were having all sorts of trouble reaching the Hispanic immigrants. Initially they went to a largely African-American parish, but controversy broke out (I think over the number of Spanish-language Masses to be offered) and the Latinos took the picture of Our Lady of Guadelupe and marched out. They went in a body to Immaculate Conception (the parish where I attended RCIA), together with the picture of Our Lady, and they are still there to this day. But IC (at least in my day) had only one priest who could say Mass in Spanish, and apparently his Spanish wasn’t very good (I don’t know Spanish so I’m no judge, though I decided shortly before dropping out of RCIA that if I went through with it I would attend the bilingual Mass–the music was so much better, for one thing!).

The argument other Episcopalians (and my Methodist friends who were doing the same thing) made to me was that if Latinos aren’t being reached by the Catholic Church and the alternative is that they are unchurched, then other denominations need to jump in. Allegedly we were making efforts to avoid sheep-stealing, only reaching out to people who didn’t have a “church home” (although they might be baptized Catholics). It is a tricky issue.

Similarly, in NJ the custodian of the Methodist church was a South American immigrant and decided to join the church. He had attended the Catholic parish when he first immigrated, but he found it almost completely alien. Don’t argue with me–this is what he said. The Methodist church made him feel welcome, and from his perspective theology was less important. I felt particularly guilty about this because the fact that I was going there and clearly agreed with a lot of Catholic doctrines probably made him feel more comfortable in the Methodist church. (A further irony is that he had attended seminary back in Ecuador, though he had never been ordained.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

’Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."

"Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

“As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”

You do realize, don’t you, that I (and also rr, if I’m not mistaken) believe that I *do *receive Christ’s Body and Blood sacramentally in the Episcopal Church (or in rr’s case the LCMS, if I remember rightly)?

 

[Contarini]

Contarini, Allweather, Artist3189,

Regarding your comments above regarding my comments about wcknight’s posts regarding John Wesley… You folks are slicing this one a bit too thin. Let’s take a closer look.

Note first that I did not say that wcknight said that Wesley was in hell, I said that it was “pretty close.”

No, you said that the three posts you cited were pretty close to justifying Jesusfor Madrid’s claim that “many” held this view. You found one post that arguably came “pretty close” (though I think you’re still misinterpreting it–bear in mind that Catholics are very slow to pronounce that anyone is certainly in heaven or hell, so “may be” is a very long way indeed from “is”), and one that didn’t really say anything about the subject. That did not come “pretty close” to justifying JesusforMadrid’s claim.

I’m not being pedantic here, I’m just defending truth. JesusforMadrid made an utterly irresponsible statement.

It does appear that Caesar holds the view that all non-Catholics are damned. I will grant that.

I think one problem here is that when evangelicals hear a phrase like “X is a good person but not a saint” they hear “X is not really a Christian.” That is not what that phrase means for Catholics. It means “X is probably in heaven but you can’t be sure, and no doubt he had to do a stint in purgatory first.”

But I’ll let the Catholics speak for themselves. So far none of them have spoken up to admit that they hold the view attributed to them by JfM. So I stand by *my *claim that JfM was being reckless with the truth in order to make a polemical point.

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

You do realize, don’t you, that I (and also rr, if I’m not mistaken) believe that I *do *receive Christ’s Body and Blood sacramentally in the Episcopal Church (or in rr’s case the LCMS, if I remember rightly)?

Yes.

 

[artist3189]

You do realize, don’t you, that I (and also rr, if I’m not mistaken) believe that I *do *receive Christ’s Body and Blood sacramentally in the Episcopal Church (or in rr’s case the LCMS, if I remember rightly)?

For you, yes I understand, for rr, he says’ 'Protestant/**Former **Episcopal Church;… The Church does not recognize all Protestant denominational sacraments, if they have them, as valid. Just trying to keep it in plain sight…

 

[rr1213]

For you, yes I understand, for rr, he says’ 'Protestant/**Former **Episcopal Church;… The Church does not recognize all Protestant denominational sacraments, if they have them, as valid. Just trying to keep it in plain sight…

To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of the Eucharist in the Episcopal Church or in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

 

[artist3189]

claim.

I’m not being pedantic here, I’m just defending truth. JesusforMadrid made an utterly irresponsible statement.

It does appear that Caesar holds the view that all non-Catholics are damned. I will grant that.

But I’ll let the Catholics speak for themselves. So far none of them have spoken up to admit that they hold the view attributed to them by JfM. So I stand by *my *claim that JfM was being reckless with the truth in order to make a polemical point.

Edwin

Edwin, this is a former post of mine on this.

One persons opinion, of ‘he could be toast’, and that’s it? The Church believes that if you are out of communion with her, split from Rome, then that can condemn you, so why be surprised that someone would say 'could be,… but to what extent, or if anyone is in hell, or who they are, or if they may have been saved by some other form of sanctifying grace, has been stated many times by the Church. The Catechism clearly states it’s position on hell. Not a post on a web site.

What’s you thought on this?

 

[rtconstant]

While I’m not sure of what all has been said here I do know that when I was going through RCIA that it was hammered into me that we DO NOT declare who is damned. It really was a highly stressed point. I remember once doing a worksheet in RCIA that actually tried to get us to say that certain people were damned just so they instructor could nail us again on the issue. So while I’m sure there may be Catholics who think this way it does seem that the Church works hard to instruct us not too. I digress though.

As to the issue of preaching quality within Catholic Church we do have some good preachers out there, and I think we will get more. All indications seem to point to a more conservative priesthood in the wings, and in my experience in both protestant and Catholic circles that usually means better preaching. If you look at all the preachers of note either protestant or Catholic they are almost exclusively conservative.

People come to church to be instructed. People seek God for wisdom and guidance. While we may not always like what we hear an honest Christian knows that we do need to be told right from wrong. I know that for myself when I leave Church feeling convicted I usually consider it a good sermon. Conviction may not always be a good feeling but it’s a necessary one and I appreciate my pastor and my God caring enough to tell it to me strait.

I’ve listened to tapes of sermons from priests back in the 40’s and 50’s and honestly it is hard to tell them from the fieriest evangelical ministers. I forget his name but I used to have a set of sermons by a priest who even did tent revivals. Also lets not forget men like Archbishop Sheen.

Anyway, I’m pulling us off topic and I apologize.

 

[artist3189]

To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of the Eucharist in the Episcopal Church or in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

You may be right, but I KNOW for a fact that a Catholic Priest can give communion to a Episcopal Church member in dire need, and it is ‘understood’, that the Episcopal member already recognizes and understands that they are receiving the ‘Real Presence’. That is not the case for other Prot’s. It is assumed that they DON’T understand it to be the real presence. So, whatever you can derive from that.

 

[rr1213]

You may be right, but I KNOW for a fact that a Catholic Priest can give communion to a Episcopal Church member in dire need, and it is ‘understood’, that the Episcopal member already recognizes and understands that they are receiving the ‘Real Presence’. That is not the case for other Prot’s. It is assumed that they DON’T understand it to be the real presence. So, whatever you can derive from that.

Interesting. On a percentage basis, I’d say that more LCMS parishioners believe in the Real Presence than do Episcopal parishioners.

The reason for this would be that the Episcopal Church’s stance on the Real Presence is ambiguous, as is the language set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. This is purposeful and there are historical reasons for it. So, as a result, those in the Episcopal Church who tend towards the Anglo-Catholic would believe in the Real Presence and would understand the BCP liturgy in that fashion while those in the Episcopal Church who are evangelical in their outlook may very well consider the Eucharist to be symbolic in accordance with widely held thought in the evangelical world.

In contrast, the LCMS is a (fairly) conservative Lutheran Church and, as such, it clearly follows Luther’s insistance that the Eucharist is real–that Christ’s body and blood are truly “in, with and under” the elements–and not symbolic. Different from transubstantiation, yes, but also very different from those who say that the Eucharist is a mere symbol or memorial service.

 

[artist3189]

Interesting. On a percentage basis, I’d say that more LCMS parishioners believe in the Real Presence than do Episcopal parishioners.

The reason for this would be that the Episcopal Church’s stance on the Real Presence is ambiguous, as is the language set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. This is purposeful and there are historical reasons for it. So, as a result, those in the Episcopal Church who tend towards the Anglo-Catholic would believe in the Real Presence and would understand the BCP liturgy in that fashion while those in the Episcopal Church who are evangelical in their outlook may very well consider the Eucharist to be symbolic in accordance with widely held thought in the evangelical world.

In contrast, the LCMS is a (fairly) conservative Lutheran Church and, as such, it clearly follows Luther’s insistance that the Eucharist is real–that Christ’s body and blood are truly “in, with and under” the elements–and not symbolic. Different from transubstantiation, yes, but also very different from those who say that the Eucharist is a mere symbol or memorial service.

I find this very interesting. I have to look into this more.

 

[Contarini]

For you, yes I understand, for rr, he says’ 'Protestant/**Former **Episcopal Church;… The Church does not recognize all Protestant denominational sacraments, if they have them, as valid. Just trying to keep it in plain sight…

The Catholic Church doesn’t recognize Anglican sacraments any more than Lutheran ones. RR is right that the LCMS is more explicit in its faith in the Real Presence than the Episcopal Church is. In my experience, most Episcopalians do believe in the Real Presence, but we do not teach it as clearly and explicitly as Lutherans. Our Reformed roots still haunt us in that respect.

This has nothing to do with what your Church thinks about ours. It’s about what we believe. Simply appealing to the need to receive Christ sacramentally isn’t going to move us as long as we think that’s what we are doing already.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[artist3189]

The Catholic Church doesn’t recognize Anglican sacraments any more than Lutheran ones. RR is right that the LCMS is more explicit in its faith in the Real Presence than the Episcopal Church is. In my experience, most Episcopalians do believe in the Real Presence, but we do not teach it as clearly and explicitly as Lutherans. Our Reformed roots still haunt us in that respect.

This has nothing to do with what your Church thinks about ours. It’s about what we believe. Simply appealing to the need to receive Christ sacramentally isn’t going to move us as long as we think that’s what we are doing already.

In Christ,

Edwin

Well I guess after reading the two posts, my answer to your last line is, maybe you should re-think that position.

 

[rr1213]

Well I guess after reading the two posts, my answer to your last line is, maybe you should re-think that position.

I would suspect that both of us have given plenty of thought to the matter and continue to do so.

 

[artist3189]

I would suspect that both of us have given plenty of thought to the matter and continue to do so.

That’s all anyone can ask…

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I don’t have any particular problem with the quote you provided from Caesar. In fact, I agree with him.

This proves my point from my previous post, which to remind you all, was merely this:

Many on Catholic Answers cite the Roman Church as the “one true faith” and claim that great Evangelical leaders such as Charles Wesley or Billy Graham will burn in hell.

Come on, many of you claim that the Roman Chuch is the “one true faith”, not just Caesar. And there is a whole thread regarding Billy Graham and whether he is a Christian and going to heaven, so you can go back and view those comments. I stand by my claim and I am not being uncharitable. And as you can see from my thread, I think this is fair enough. I think my church is the one true church; if there were a “truer Church”, I would go there. So ease up: there is a bit too much hair splitting in this thread.

As a resident of a hispanic and traditionally Roman Catholic country, I am personally delighted that there are Evangelical missionaries in this country. I know many of them, who have given up the comforts of their (mostly American) towns to come to an extremely hostile environment such as Spain. They have renounced comforts to serve God and follow Jesus. I pray that I could say the same.

The only thing more difficult than being an Evangelical missionary in Spain is being a Roman Catholic one, so I have great sympathy for my Roman Catholic brothers here who are doing a similarly difficult work.

Frankly, I cannot imagine anything better than bombarding my town with Christian missonaries of all stripes. What a great day it would be if Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Baptists and Assembly of God were knocking on the same doors sharing the gospel! I have great faith that the Holy Spirit will guide people to the right church.

Competition for souls, albeit a crass concept, actually is good for the Church universal, since it challenges everyone to reexamine their beliefs, Christian and non-Christiain alike. It is no coincidence that in the US, where you have many competing denominations, you have incredibly high church attendance.

Would that Spanish Catholics, from a “Roman Catholic country”, were as committed Christians as Roman Catholics from “Protestant America”.

 

[Beno]

Come on, many of you claim that the Roman Chuch is the “one true faith”, not just Caesar.

JesusforMadrid, this is off-topic but I take this opportunity to once again refer you to post #64 about the term “Roman Catholics”. Thanks in advance.

 

[Beno]

Competition for souls, albeit a crass concept, actually is good for the Church universal, since it challenges everyone to reexamine their beliefs, Christian and non-Christiain alike.

I respectfully disagree. Competition may be good for business, but competition for souls is not what I think Jesus had in mind when he founded His Church on earth. He desired and prayed for unity and I don’t believe that he ever spoke in favor of dissension as an aid to solidifying religious belief particularly as it pertained to His bride, the Church. How can a groom approve of such behavior aimed at His bride, and then declare it to be good for the bride in the long run. This is like saying divorce and the resulting child custody battles are good for each individual in the family because it challenges everyone to examine what marriage is for. As many churches as have come into existance through separation since the Middle Ages and since the time of the Protestant Reformation would not make Jesus proud.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I respectfully disagree. Competition may be good for business, but competition for souls is not what I think Jesus had in mind when he founded His Church on earth. He desired and prayed for unity and I don’t believe that he ever spoke in favor of dissension as an aid to solidifying religious belief particularly as it pertained to His bride, the Church. How can a groom approve of such behavior aimed at His bride, and then declare it to be good for the bride in the long run. This is like saying divorce and the resulting child custody battles are good for each individual in the family because it challenges everyone to examine what marriage is for. As many churches as have come into existance through separation since the Middle Ages and since the time of the Protestant Reformation would not make Jesus proud.

Quarreling amongst churches is as old as the church itself:

I Cor 3
1Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men?
5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building

There should be unity amongst Christians, but it is unity in mission. God is making the Evangelical church grow. God is making the Roman Catholic church grow. Sometimes Roman Catholics plant and Evangelicals harvest. Sometimes this is reversed. So what?

As for competition, or rivalry, as HBS professor of business Michael Porter called it, look at what St. Paul says in Philippians:

15It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains.[c] 18But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

We should indeed rejoice when different Christians from different denominations with different motives send missionaries. This “rivalry”, as St. Paul calls it, is healty and we should follow him in “rejoicing”.

 

[artist3189]

I respectfully disagree. Competition may be good for business, but competition for souls is not what I think Jesus had in mind when he founded His Church on earth. He desired and prayed for unity and I don’t believe that he ever spoke in favor of dissension as an aid to solidifying religious belief particularly as it pertained to His bride, the Church. How can a groom approve of such behavior aimed at His bride, and then declare it to be good for the bride in the long run. This is like saying divorce and the resulting child custody battles are good for each individual in the family because it challenges everyone to examine what marriage is for. As many churches as have come into existance through separation since the Middle Ages and since the time of the Protestant Reformation would not make Jesus proud.

I agree with this. Competition ‘for souls’ CAN NOT be what Jesus had planned for his Church. And yes, of course posters on a CATHOLIC WEB SITE, believe the Catholic Church is the One True Church, how can we believe otherwise? But as far as 'working toward making peoples lives better, improving the conditions of others, this is the responsibility of ALL Christians, of ALL peoples for that matter. Paul’s real point is NOT that competition is GOOD, but that it is unnecessary and pointless since both serve the same purpose. I agree that in service of God toward our fellow man, this is absolutely correct. But in a higher spiritual sense, I believe that Jesus founded his Church, The Roman Catholic Church to fulfill his mission, to gather all under one ‘shepherd’, and to advance endless avenues of grace to it’s people on their journey through life toward life eternal. I believe that all Christians possess some elements of this grace, certainly God loving Evangelicals do, but the fullness of Gods grace is only found on the Rock of Peter. Today is a day of multiple significance on the Catholic calender. It is the feast of the ‘Presentation of the Lord’, also the 'Purification of Mary" and ‘Candlemas Day’. All three serve to remind us of our journey with Christ. Mary, Mother of God, pray for us.