Why do non-Catholics send missionaries to Hispanic Catholics?

[artist3189]

artist3189 apparently can’t see the difference between saying “there may be Christians in the RCC” and saying “there are no Christians in the RCC,” even though on the face of it those are obviously different statements. JesusforMadrid’s phrasing is a relatively polemical version–more common is “some Catholics are Christians” or “Catholics can be Christians.”

These statements sound offensive because you misunderstand what evangelicals mean by “Christians.” A “Christian” in normal evangelical usage is a person in a state of grace. Translate the above into “some Catholics are in a state of grace” and it is a perfectly accurate, orthodox statement. The Catholic Church does not teach that all Catholics are automatically in a state of grace or that all Catholics will go to heaven. So you have no reason to be offended when evangelicals say that not all Catholics are going to heaven. Even when folks like JesusforMadrid express doubts as to how many Catholics are in a state of grace and put Catholicism at the bottom of the list of churches they’d like to see people join, they are doing no more than conservative Catholics do with regard to Baptists, say.

And there’s no reasonable dispute that Catholicism does on the whole do a rather bad job of “internal evangelism.” Not as bad as evangelicals think (because they judge by their own narrow and culturally limited standards), but bad enough in all conscience. I don’t think the methods evangelical Protestants use to deal with that situation are the right ones, but the plain fact is that many of the people evangelicals convert in Catholic countries are not people who are leading a good Christian life by any standard.

Edwin

Sorry Edwin, the first part of this sounds like gobble-de gook. That’s not the way it’s presented and honestly no matter how you say it, what I have been told, to my face, many times over, is Catholics are not Christians, period, no qualification, no explanation. Also, you say it as if there is some universal Evangelical understanding on this ‘doctrine’. Each congregation is free to teach, believe, state, speak, profess and claim whatever they choose. One Evangelical church across the street from another may have a totally different approach to this subject, but MY experience is as I’ve stated.

I totally agree with your last part, the Church has done a miserable, lousy job of it, we can be our own worst enemy and in many cases, these people may be living far from Christian lives, this is all true, unfortunately.

 

[rr1213]

Please support this statement with citations of specific posts and/or posters. I do not recall ever seeing a single post on this board that claimed that Charles Wesley was in hell or that Billy Graham was on his way there. If you have read such posts, then tell me where to find them (and bear in mind that you said many, so you need to find more than just one or two, though I’m not sure you can even find that). If you haven’t, then you are lying and you need to apologize humbly to the Catholics on this board whom you have slandered.

In Christ,

Edwin

Look at posts 11, 12 and 13 of the following thread. It is pretty close.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=131089

 

[artist3189]

Look at posts 11, 12 and 13 of the following thread. It is pretty close.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=131089

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.

 

[curious35]

Well, we sure got off the topic of missionaries in Hispanic countries.

You guys promise to quit all this RCC - Protestant fuss before He comes back in the sky, right?

Hey, some of my best friends are Catholic. The rest of 'em are Protestant. I don’t know if they’re as stubborn as you guys but I expect to see every one of them in Heaven. Hey, maybe even Barbaro - who knows? I know there’s nothing here in our mortal world that can stop Jesus Christ. As Rick Warren has said, and probably Francis of Asissi, and probably both John Pauls, let’s just fill up heaven with souls before death claims one who could have been saved. If you understand there is a deadline we are rushing against, you’ll find it easier to row together in the same boat.

Come, Lord Jesus!.

 

[artist3189]

Well, we sure got off the topic of missionaries in Hispanic countries.

You guys promise to quit all this RCC - Protestant fuss before He comes back in the sky, right?

Hey, some of my best friends are Catholic. The rest of 'em are Protestant. I don’t know if they’re as stubborn as you guys but I expect to see every one of them in Heaven. Hey, maybe even Barbaro - who knows? I know there’s nothing here in our mortal world that can stop Jesus Christ. As Rick Warren has said, and probably Francis of Asissi, and probably both John Pauls, let’s just fill up heaven with souls before death claims one who could have been saved. If you understand there is a deadline we are rushing against, you’ll find it easier to row together in the same boat.

Come, Lord Jesus!.

That’s really nice, your right, that’s the idea.

 

[Allweather]

Look at posts 11, 12 and 13 of the following thread. It is pretty close.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=131089

rr, that isn’t even close. That’s all you can find?

 

[Caesar]

This has been brought up in the evangelization category, but I would like to hear from non-Catholics why they send missionaries to do mission work and to evangelize in countries or American neighborhoods that are populated predominantly by Hispanic Catholics. I have my hunches but I prefer to have the facts.

You see, because the Evil One so hates the Church he infects the hearts of the non-Catholics and hardens them to the True Faith so that they may fight against Christ by attacking His Church.

 

[Allweather]

Well, we sure got off the topic of missionaries in Hispanic countries.

You guys promise to quit all this RCC - Protestant fuss before He comes back in the sky, right?

Hey, some of my best friends are Catholic. The rest of 'em are Protestant. I don’t know if they’re as stubborn as you guys but I expect to see every one of them in Heaven. Hey, maybe even Barbaro - who knows? I know there’s nothing here in our mortal world that can stop Jesus Christ. As Rick Warren has said, and probably Francis of Asissi, and probably both John Pauls, let’s just fill up heaven with souls before death claims one who could have been saved. If you understand there is a deadline we are rushing against, you’ll find it easier to row together in the same boat.

Come, Lord Jesus!.

No problem with ecumenism, but in my 20 year convert experience coming from Protestantism, ecumenism among the Protestants usually means Catholics assuming the supine position and keeping their mouths shut. I hope and pray that we are seeing that age come to an end. It is time for muscular Catholics to stand up and preach the reality of Protestantism vs Catholicism. Protestants should be Catholics. The Catholic Church is the only possible vehicle for preaching the Word to an unsaved world. The Protestants are flailing about, arguing with the Mormons and JWs, and amongst themselves over this little theology or that, while the beautiful Chruch that Jesus established upon the Apostles is still going strong, and getting stronger, after all these centuries. We must all submit to this authority, admit that our tainted interpretations of Scripture are faulty, that we don’t know what is up or down in and of ourselves, that God shows Himself to the world through the agency of the Church.

For sure, let’s all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. As Catholics. As Christians, unified under a common authority, we can preach the Word to a world that will never take us seriously as long as we are divided and infested by cults.

 

[PaulDupre]

This sounds so innocuous but is in fact demonstrably false, as evidenced by many posts on Catholic Answers.

Evangelicals, in general, consider the Roman Catholic Church to be in error, but do not deny that there may be Christians within the Roman Catholic Church.

There may be Christians in the Catholic Church? Gee, thanks a lot. So you admit that evangelicals see the Catholic Church as non-Christian, even though there may be the occasional accidental Christian in spite of the Church.

Many on Catholic Answers cite the Roman Church as the “one true faith”

The deposit of faith within the Catholic Church is the “one true faith”. That is so.

and claim that great Evangelical leaders such as Charles Wesley or Billy Graham will burn in hell.

Any catholic who says that ANYONE will burn in hell is in grave error. The Catholic Church has never declared anyone to be in hell, and prays for all people to be saved.

Perhaps I should have said that the Catholic Church, rather than Catholics believe our “separated brethren and sisters” in evangelical churches to be fellow Christians. There are wrong-headed people in every church.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

 

[artist3189]

No problem with ecumenism, but in my 20 year convert experience coming from Protestantism, ecumenism among the Protestants usually means Catholics assuming the supine position and keeping their mouths shut. I hope and pray that we are seeing that age come to an end. It is time for muscular Catholics to stand up and preach the reality of Protestantism vs Catholicism. Protestants should be Catholics. The Catholic Church is the only possible vehicle for preaching the Word to an unsaved world. The Protestants are flailing about, arguing with the Mormons and JWs, and amongst themselves over this little theology or that, while the beautiful Chruch that Jesus established upon the Apostles is still going strong, and getting stronger, after all these centuries. We must all submit to this authority, admit that our tainted interpretations of Scripture are faulty, that we don’t know what is up or down in and of ourselves, that God shows Himself to the world through the agency of the Church.

For sure, let’s all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. As Catholics. As Christians, unified under a common authority, we can preach the Word to a world that will never take us seriously as long as we are divided and infested by cults.

And again.

 

[artist3189]

There may be Christians in the Catholic Church? Gee, thanks a lot. So you admit that evangelicals see the Catholic Church as non-Christian, even though there may be the occasional accidental Christian in spite of the Church.

The deposit of faith within the Catholic Church is the “one true faith”. That is so.

Any catholic who says that ANYONE will burn in hell is in grave error. The Catholic Church has never declared anyone to be in hell, and prays for all people to be saved.

Perhaps I should have said that the Catholic Church, rather than Catholics believe our “separated brethren and sisters” in evangelical churches to be fellow Christians. There are wrong-headed people in every church.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

And you too.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

rr, that isn’t even close. That’s all you can find?

You might try any post by Caesar. Here is one from this thread:

You see, because the Evil One so hates the Church he infects the hearts of the non-Catholics and hardens them to the True Faith so that they may fight against Christ…

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Look at posts 11, 12 and 13 of the following thread. It is pretty close.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=131089

I am obviously not lying and therefore do not need to make an apology, I think.

 

[Contarini]

Look at posts 11, 12 and 13 of the following thread. It is pretty close.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=131089

If that’s your idea of pretty close, then you’d make a popular teacher–it would be hard not to get an A in a class governed by such principles.

What you have on that thread is one Catholic who said that it is *possible *that Wesley was damned, and another who said that Wesley and Graham are/were “good people” but not particularly saintly, without passing judgment on their salvation.

You are seriously claiming that this is “pretty close” to “many” people saying that Wesley and Graham are/will be damned?

Wow!

Both sides are overstating their case (as usual). The view of Protestants held by Catholics on this board is fairly equivalent to the view of Catholics held by evangelicals in general–i.e., the other side can be saved, but they lack some of the graces found in one’s own tradition.

However, the Catholics on this board are much more conservative than the average Catholic today, and evangelicals are more conservative than most other Protestants today.

If we take the proposition “members of the ‘other’ group can be saved but it is a much more dubious proposition than for members of our group,” and we assign it to a scale of 0-10, where 0 means “believed by almost no one” and 10 means “believed by almost everyone,”

then

For evangelicals with regard to Catholics, this proposition would be about a 4;

For mainline Protestants (including most evangelical mainliners) with regard to Catholics, it would be a 0;

For Catholics in general, it would probably be a 2 with regard to Protestants;

For Catholics on this board, it would probably be a 4 or 5.

The proposition “all members of the other group are damned” would be a 1 for evangelicals (at least if we count fundamentalists as a subset of evangelicals) and a 0 for Catholics (at least if we exclude the ultra-trad schismatics).

For fundamentalists, the first proposition (at least in the negative form “it is very hard for Catholics to be saved”) would be a 10, and the second would be 8 or 9.

The more moderate proposition “members of the other group lack some of the graces available to us, and we do not lack any significant graces available to them” would be a 6 or 7 for Catholics as a whole, a 10 for Catholic-Answers Catholics (i.e., not everyone on this forum but those who are in agreement with the form of Catholicism promulgated by CA), an 8 or 9 for evangelicals, and perhaps a 3 for mainliners.

The most ecumenical view of all, namely “there is no significant difference between the availability of grace to us and you, or if there is it works both ways–i.e., you have some advantages and we have others,” is probably a 3 or 4 among Catholics as a whole, a 0 among Catholic-Answers Catholics, a 2 or 3 among evangelicals, and an 8 for mainliners.

OK, these numbers are somewhat arbitrary, but hopefully they will provoke some discussion!

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[artist3189]

You might try any post by Caesar. Here is one from this thread:

That doesn’t say Charles Wesley is condemned to hell or anyone else, it simply states a position. It has always been understood that the “Church” is under attack, from within and without, and it is some peoples belief that this attack against the true faith has been on-going since the Reformation. That the splintering of the Christian Church weakens it, and this the Evil One knows. This poster is stating a viewpoint to this affect. If that’s offensive, I don’t know what to tell you. Catholics that see other ‘Christians’ re-evangelizing other Catholics will see it as an ‘attack’ on the True Faith by people who’s aim, as one poster here said, “wished everyone was Evangelical”, thus causing the downfall of the Church, no? That’s an attack. Any member of any denomination would conclude that.

 

[Contarini]

I am obviously not lying and therefore do not need to make an apology, I think.

If you are claiming that the posts cited say that Wesley and Graham are damned, then you are extremely careless with the truth. I could charitably suppose that you have not read the posts in question carefully, but you are responsible for reading posts carefully before making claims about what they say.

I repeat: one poster suggested that Wesley *might *be damned, and another said that he seemed a “good person” rather than clearly holy. Neither of them said that Wesley was damned, and two are not “many” by any definition. (Never mind that they said John, not Charles, a point in favor of the theory that you haven’t bothered to read the posts with any care.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You might try any post by Caesar. Here is one from this thread:

Nothing about Wesley or Graham in what you quote.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Sorry Edwin, the first part of this sounds like gobble-de gook.

Because you don’t understand the theological assumptions behind it, and you are so hurt and angry that you don’t want to understand.

I repeat: for evangelicals (as a whole) being a “Christian” is a matter of one’s individual relationship with Christ.

That’s not the way it’s presented

By whom? I have known a lot of evangelicals. They are all over the map on this. I assure you that most evangelicals I’ve known–and I’ve known all sorts–would say “Catholics can be Christians, but because there is erroneous teaching and too much human tradition in the Catholic Church many Catholics are not Christians.”

and honestly no matter how you say it, what I have been told, to my face, many times over, is Catholics are not Christians, period, no qualification, no explanation.

I’m not denying that a lot of people–very noisy people too–believe this. But it is not the universal, or even the majority evangelical view. Billy Graham is as close as you get to a typical evangelical, and he clearly believes nothing of the sort–he has had the policy for years of telling Catholics who make a decision in his crusades to go back to their parish church.

Also, you say it as if there is some universal Evangelical understanding on this ‘doctrine’.

Only because I was responding to a post that made a blanket claim about evangelicals. I know I’m generalizing. I was not claiming that no evangelicals (counting fundamentalists as evangelicals, which I think is the more sensible approach) teach that Catholicism is non-Christian. A significant minority do. In my opinion it’s one of the distinctive markers of the fundamentalist subgroup. Where I generalized most was in speaking of the evangelical use of “Christian.” But that is practically universal among evangelicals. Not completely universal if I count as an evangelical (which I would claim to do). But I share the evangelical imperative to promote a personal relationship with Christ among those who call themselves Christians.

Each congregation is free to teach, believe, state, speak, profess and claim whatever they choose.

That’s not true, since many evangelical churches belong to denominations that exercise a good deal of control over what specific churches can teach. Of course, many other evangelicals are non-denominational and your statement is correct with regard to them.

One Evangelical church across the street from another may have a totally different approach to this subject, but MY experience is as I’ve stated.

I don’t question your experience. Rather, I’m providing a corrective to your experience.

Do you read Christianity Today or any other mainstream evangelical periodical? Have you hung out with evangelicals in different parts of the country or world? Have you interacted with them in a setting where they had not sought you out to try to convert you (which obviously self-selects for those who think you need converting)? Have you tried witnessing to your relationship with Christ as you experience it in the Catholic Church? (I’m not saying that you have to do this, only that doing it would provide a test of whether they think Catholics “can be Christians” or not–if they have only encountered Catholics who speak in terms that seem to them hopelessly ritualistic and external, then they will probably tend to dismiss all Catholics, just as you unfairly generalize about all evangelicals on the basis of *your *limited experience. )

I totally agree with your last part, the Church has done a miserable, lousy job of it, we can be our own worst enemy and in many cases, these people may be living far from Christian lives, this is all true, unfortunately.

Well, that’s the part of my post I felt bad about. It’s true, but it’s true of all Christian churches to some extent (even evangelicals, zealous as they are, generally fail to promote certain vitally important aspects of the Christian life). It’s unseemly to speak of the shortcomings of another Christian communion, but given the importance of Catholicism and the nature of its claims it’s hard to avoid doing something of the sort. . . . I’m afraid that’s the price you pay for being the center of the Christian world (in every possible way). Still, we all have enough to be ashamed of that we should be slow to point out the flaws of others, both individually and collectively. And your last two Popes (not putting down earlier ones, but these are the two whose pontificates I have experienced personally) are (in very different ways) among the greatest proclaimers of the Gospel in recent church history. Every time I hear BXVI preach it’s as if the Gospel were coming to life before my eyes. Now if only this evangelistic ability would trickle down to more Catholic parishes!

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

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.” Wcknight used innuendo to make his point.

This is the original exchange:

Originally Posted by wcknight:
“There are some protestants who are better Christians than some Catholics.
Although, I have yet to hear of a protestant who is “saintly”. I believe there is a level of piety and holiness (aka sanctity) that is not attainable as long as the person remains detached from the true faith.”

Originally Posted by rr1213:
“John Wesley”

Originally Posted by wcknight:
“[T]hat’s debatable, as a heretic, he could be toast.”

So, what does this exchange indicate? What is wcknight trying to say?

Did wcknight say “John Wesley is in hell.” No, he did not explicitly say that. Nonetheless, his comments strongly suggest that.

First, wcknight says that it is “debatable” that Wesley is “saintly.” By definition, a saint is not in hell. Wcknight thinks that it is questionable that Wesley is a saint.

Second, wcknight affirmatively states that Wesley is “a heretic”. The Church says that heresy is a grave sin. Many Catholics on these boards simplify the Church’s teaching on the subject and believe that an unrepentent heretic is inavoidably hell-bound. From his various posts, Wcknight appears that he may be one of the Catholics who so believe.

Third, wcknight states that Wesley, since he is a heretic, “could be toast.” This is an idiom meaning “finished” or one who is “doomed, in trouble, or unworthy of further consideration”. A fitting description for someone who is in hell, yes?. On a different level it could also be a reference to browned or burnt bread, a vulgar but perhaps appropriate analogy for what will happen to a soul who is exposed to the fires of hell.

So, what do we take from all of this? Wcknight did not explicitly say Wesley is in hell, but he strongly suggested it. And what did I say? That wcknight’s comments were “pretty close”. I’ll stand by that statement.

rr1213

 

[rtconstant]

Having been an evangelical (Southern Baptist) before I crossed the Tiber, I can speak to what my experiences where in terms of evangelical assumptions about Catholicism. I think that some evangelicals are kind of confused about Catholicism’s place in Christianity. According to what most evangelical’s are taught about the beliefs of The Church I think they can find it hard on an intellectual level to accept that many if not most Catholics can be “saved”. Yet on a personal level many evangelicals know Catholics whom they admire and consider good Christians.

I know that when I was a Baptist these Catholics seemed like a paradox to me. I realized that they obviously loved Jesus and I certainly didn’t want to judge them yet to my knowledge it was hard to reconcile this with my assumption that they worshiped Mary, the Pope and could buy their way into heaven and were of course idolaters. It was almost like some sort of fluke. I know that many of my fellow members in my church felt the same. We knew that some Catholics were Christian but yet how could they be?

Now I had the benefit of having my mind opened by actually knowing Catholics. Yet when I got older and went to seminary I met fellow Baptists (mostly Independent Baptists) who only had the basic assumptions about Catholic beliefs and practice that we were taught. These had not seen or experienced first hand knowledge of Catholics so they pretty much considered Catholicism just this side of pagan.

I can tell you for a fact that large segments of certain denominations do in fact consider Catholics to not be Christians. Yet it also true that many evangelicals don’t think that way at all. Like most situations of prejudice a great deal of bigotry is based on inadequate knowledge. Personal experience and interaction though seems to alleviate that.

On the up side I do think things are getting better. I know that when Pope John Paul II died most of my evangelical friends seemed every bit as saddened by it as I. I think in our modern era of mass information and literacy more and more evangelicals are wanting to like and accept Catholics as brothers.

All of that being said I think that when we consider evangelical missions we have keep in mind certain things. First every denomination indeed every individual evangelist can have very different motivations in the mission field. Some are number crunchers they’re looking to get people in the pews no matter how underhanded they have to be. Some see all denominations as simple extensions of the “Church Invisible” and as such will seek any and everybody because to them it doesn’t matter which church the person is going to as long as their going to church. If a former catholic happens to like their worship style then great no harm done. Some do honestly see Catholics as non-Christians and so a legitimate mission field.

To be a little tongue and cheek here evangelicals can range from “love everybody tree huggers” to spiteful hate-mongers, and everything that falls in between. Within 33.000 denominations there is a great deal of variety. That can make it very confusing and frustrating to Catholics as it seems we have a constantly moving target when debating Protestants.