Why Is Catholicism So Unattractive to Evangelicals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JustaServant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EIF5A said:
Someone mentioned Americanization and democracy in the (American) evangelical church.

The idea that there’s a bishop, priest, and cardinal who wear different outfits to distinguish himself seems to go against the idea that all are equal.

Why don’t they just wear regular suit and tie? Because Mass is heaven on earth. (I don’t perceive it with my eyes, but with a tiny kernel of faith I believe as much as I can.) Holiness and reverence should be reflected. Of course, this doesn’t mean a poor parish with limited resources is automatically “less” holy. But to the extent that the physical senses are elevated to worship and adoration of God, what’s the harm?

Now that I think about it, there seems to be an emphasis on “equality” in the evangelical church. Another example is “All sins are equal in the eyes of God.” I know for a fact the sins I have committed are much, much worse than someone stealing a pack of gum.

The Church leaders are not “better” — God has given them a very specific task to guide souls to holiness, reverence, and awe. But even in the Bible, it is stated that some are earthenware and others are more ornate — all according to God’s design and purpose.

The idea that saints, especially the Blessed Mother of God, are elevated may also seem odd and against the idea of all being equal. (And this is even before discussing the different degrees of perfection of saints.)
Click to expand...
How do we know that the exact garment chosen for Priests best reveres Heaven and its Holiness?

Also I would love your interpretation:

Matthew 11:8 What then did you go out to see? A man { Or b Why then did you go out? To see a man… b } dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses.
 
dronald said:
How do we know that the exact garment chosen for Priests best reveres Heaven and its Holiness?

Also I would love your interpretation:

Matthew 11:8 What then did you go out to see? A man { Or b Why then did you go out? To see a man… b } dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses.
Click to expand...
Are you being serious with that question?
 
EIF5A said:
Someone mentioned Americanization and democracy in the (American) evangelical church.

The idea that there’s a bishop, priest, and cardinal who wear different outfits to distinguish himself seems to go against the idea that all are equal.

Why don’t they just wear regular suit and tie? Because Mass is heaven on earth. (I don’t perceive it with my eyes, but with a tiny kernel of faith I believe as much as I can.) Holiness and reverence should be reflected. Of course, this doesn’t mean a poor parish with limited resources is automatically “less” holy. But to the extent that the physical senses are elevated to worship and adoration of God, what’s the harm?

Now that I think about it, there seems to be an emphasis on “equality” in the evangelical church. Another example is “All sins are equal in the eyes of God.” I know for a fact the sins I have committed are much, much worse than someone stealing a pack of gum.

The Church leaders are not “better” — God has given them a very specific task to guide souls to holiness, reverence, and awe. But even in the Bible, it is stated that some are earthenware and others are more ornate — all according to God’s design and purpose.

The idea that saints, especially the Blessed Mother of God, are elevated may also seem odd and against the idea of all being equal. (And this is even before discussing the different degrees of perfection of saints.)
Click to expand...
Jesus, while clearly a leader and teacher of his disciples, did not “lord” over them in elaborate robes and rituals. My guess is Catholicism does take that from Judaism, more or less. (Jesus actually mocks this in the Pharisees.)

But I am more worried about who is in the robes than the fact that the robes exist. Am I getting guidance in the Catholic Church that is divine, authentic, truth - pure doctrine. For the most part I would say yes, though I concede that there is human failing at all levels. This is the same in any Protestant Church as well. I do think the Protestants get into a little trouble when they just pick up a Bible and set up a “Church building” down the street. They are in essence operating outside of the history and tradition of the Christian Church. Who is regulating the doctrine being preached? Is homosexuality a sin or not? Is contraception wrong or not? Abortion? Are we obligated to help immigrants or not? The poor? Is it a sin to horde wealth when your neighbor is unemployed? Universal healthcare? Divorce? Suicide? The list goes on and on. Are we obligated to treat each other with love and kindness, forgiveness, or not? How does one live as a Christian? What is his responsibility to others, to himself?

Unless you receive good catechism/doctrine (which I believe you can in the Catholic Church) and learn a responsible, traditional, mainstream interpretation of Scripture (Catholic or Classic Protestant) you are bound to wander a little in the dark.

This is a very romantic, appealing version of Christianity, the Protestants in their building: two or three gather together and worship in simplicity - but human will and tendency to error is so strong that you need I think more support from without - the Christian Church provides this throughout history. We need to learn Scripture and tradition - I don’t want to argue about whether they are of equal importance or not. I am fine with placing Scripture higher - just revere and accept both.
 
dronald said:
No, I was just kidding. I like to fool around and ask questions on Catholic answers.
Click to expand...
The topic started because another Protestant brought up why there’s a class of people (e.g., priests) who don’t wear everyday clothes.

And then I responded.

And then you asked your question, the first part that I perceived as being trollish. Sorry about that – I got oversensitive. I’m sure it wasn’t your intent.

Are the priests wearing them to be luxurious and live a life of ease? I’m sure some have flaunted their status, but we all know what Jesus thinks about people walking around as if their priestly status entitles them to consider others beneath them.

There’s nothing shameful about beautiful, ornate things, as long as the heart is not corrupted.
 
EIF5A said:
The topic started because another Protestant brought up why there’s a class of people (e.g., priests) who don’t wear everyday clothes.

And then I responded.

And then you asked your question, the first part that I perceived as being trollish. Sorry about that – I got oversensitive. I’m sure it wasn’t your intent.

Are the priests wearing them to be luxurious and live a life of ease? I’m sure some have flaunted their status, but we all know what Jesus thinks about people walking around as if their priestly status entitles them to consider others beneath them.

There’s nothing shameful about beautiful, ornate things, as long as the heart is not corrupted.
Click to expand...
You are right about nothing being wrong with beautiful ornate things, as long as the heart is not corrupted. But hearts can be corrupt when wearing simple things, too.

There’s a lot of symbolism in what a priest wears, and what bishops and even popes wear. I’ve forgotten what many of those symbols are, exactly, but it doesn’t have anything to do with lording it over others, as some here may believe.

For instance, when a Pope wears red shoes, it’s not for show. It’s a reminder of the blood of the martyrs, and especially the martyr Popes, who gave their lives for our Lord and his church.

I’ve told this story a few times, but it seems appropriate to tell it again. When St. John Marie Vianney was pastor in France just after the French Revolution, he lived a life of simple poverty, but he wanted ornate things for his parish church, because he believed that nothing was too good for God. Beautiful things are for the glory of God, not humans. As an example, a gold chalice is best to hold the Precious Blood of our Lord. It shows love, respect, and honor toward Him who is our Redeemer.
 
Denise1957 said:
I’ve told this story a few times, but it seems appropriate to tell it again. When St. John Marie Vianney was pastor in France just after the French Revolution, he lived a life of simple poverty, but he wanted ornate things for his parish church, because he believed that nothing was too good for God. Beautiful things are for the glory of God, not humans. As an example, a gold chalice is best to hold the Precious Blood of our Lord. It shows love, respect, and honor toward Him who is our Redeemer.
Click to expand...
I actually agree with you. But I have no problem whatsoever with pointing out the simple (true) fact that Jesus honored his Father in quite a different way. I am ok with wondering what Jesus would think of elaborate ritual and worship, given his take on the Pharisees. I think excessive preoccupation with ritual and display can be problematic, not so much the ritual or display itself.

Outsiders see worshipers of the Catholic Church, not necessarily worshipers of Jesus Christ. We don’t want a distinction here. If you ask me that is a recipe for going to hell.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
I actually agree with you. But I have no problem whatsoever with pointing out the simple (true) fact that Jesus honored his Father in quite a different way. I am ok with wondering what Jesus would think of elaborate ritual and worship, given his take on the Pharisees. I think excessive preoccupation with ritual and display can be problematic, not so much the ritual or display itself.
Click to expand...
Our Lord used a method of Jewish liturgy when he instituted the sacrament of Holy Eucharist with His apostles. He was very precise in how he did it, so as not to confuse. When we mere humans give honor and glory to God in the liturgy, the priest is following the example that our Lord gave.

Even though Jesus is the head of the Church, He left it in the hands of mere humans to maintain and develop it as best they could, depending on Him and the Holy Ghost, of course for help.
 
Denise1957 said:
You are right about nothing being wrong with beautiful ornate things, as long as the heart is not corrupted. But hearts can be corrupt when wearing simple things, too.

There’s a lot of symbolism in what a priest wears, and what bishops and even popes wear. I’ve forgotten what many of those symbols are, exactly, but it doesn’t have anything to do with lording it over others, as some here may believe.

For instance, when a Pope wears red shoes, it’s not for show. It’s a reminder of the blood of the martyrs, and especially the martyr Popes, who gave their lives for our Lord and his church.

I’ve told this story a few times, but it seems appropriate to tell it again. When St. John Marie Vianney was pastor in France just after the French Revolution, he lived a life of simple poverty, but he wanted ornate things for his parish church, because he believed that nothing was too good for God. Beautiful things are for the glory of God, not humans. As an example, a gold chalice is best to hold the Precious Blood of our Lord. It shows love, respect, and honor toward Him who is our Redeemer.
Click to expand...
The priests vestments are not not an indication he is better than us!
 
FollowChrist34 said:
Outsiders see worshipers of the Catholic Church, not necessarily worshipers of Jesus Christ. We don’t want a distinction here. If you ask me that is a recipe for going to hell.
Click to expand...
I never saw anyone (Catholic) who worshipped the Church when I was a Protestant. But then I wasn’t spending time looking for those Catholics who supposedly worship the Church. Where are these Catholics who supposedly worship the Church?

And…it’s obvious that the liturgy is focused on God, for the most part.
 
Denise1957 said:
I never saw anyone (Catholic) who worshipped the Church when I was a Protestant. But then I wasn’t spending time looking for those Catholics who supposedly worship the Church. It’s obvious that the liturgy is focused on God, for the most part.
Click to expand...
I am with you on the beauty and holiness of the liturgy. I do also believe though that it is just one facet of being a Christian - and definitely not the most important one. The effects of the liturgy in you are what matters, Christ dwelling in you, transforming you into a reflection of Him. This is the most important part.

I am equally skeptical of the Protestant argument that just because everything is super simple they are somehow closer to God - I agree with you on that. I think often they are just closer to themselves and what that particular group of individuals has decided is their version of the teachings of Jesus Christ (whoever is leading the organization plays a HUGE role in determining all of this). But I allow that it is possible for someone in this setting to connect with and grow in Christ. God can do anything. Otherwise, how do you explain the forgiveness of the Baptists in that mass killing by the white supremacist. Martin Luther King, etc., etc., etc. The list goes on and on.
 
theropod said:
christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/march-web-only/argentine-evangelicals-say-bergoglio-as-pope-francis-is-ans.html

I wonder if Pope Francis told his Anglican friend to stop playing church.
Click to expand...
Whoa, friend. You’ve got to be patient. He has had so little time since becoming Pope – heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if his weekly hours-on-CAF have declined to the single digits. :o But surely he’ll give them the stop-playing-church speech once he learns that he’s supposed to.
 
Kidding. (Felt I should get that in before the ripe fruit starts heading my way. :p)
 
Peter_J said:
Kidding. (Felt I should get that in before the ripe fruit starts heading my way. :p)
Click to expand...
I think ripe fruit throwing has its place in religion, don’t you? Better than indifference. If you are not alienating the dark side, you are not doing your job. Besides, it is a great, great Christian tradition - rotten tomato throwing - metaphorically and literally. 😉 Just don’t set anybody on fire or put them in jail.
 
I have noticed to everyone who knows what the church teaches the biggest obstacle is they love sin more that Jesus this can be said for catholics and non catholics
 
FollowChrist34 said:
I think ripe fruit throwing has its place in religion, don’t you?
Click to expand...
It has it’s place, yes, but the important thing is which direction it’s going. (See my earlier comment that I don’t participate on Evangelical forums.) 🙂 :cool:
 
Marty100 said:
Evangelical Christianity is simplistic.

Easy to understand. The Model is the New Testament Church.

The church is the congregation not the building.

The Local church is the center of worship and Christ is their King.

Their earthly authority is the Gospel. Their churches are simple not ornate, no statues or gold.

Their ministers are ordinary people who wear ordinary clothes and often have ordinary jobs.

All believers are equal in the sight of God. No one places themselves above others.

Never perfect, but always seeking the mind of Christ.

The Catholic Church is Big, Ornate, and complicated. The Ministers of the Church are set apart by lifestyle and dress.
Click to expand...
Great job hitting on every stereotype of the Catholic Church. It’s all garbage of course, but whey let that get in the way of rhetoric?
Are you Donald Trump in disguise?
:cool:
 
Another question I have is what about the seeming schism between the “Evangelicals” and the more mainstream Protestants - Lutherans and Anglicans, etc. Orthodox and liberal Catholics duke it out, no question - rotten tomatoes and all - but we are still under the same roof…at least for now.

Why is it that these groups never dialogue? Or do they?
 
FollowChrist34 said:
Another question I have is what about the seeming schism between the “Evangelicals” and the more mainstream Protestants - Lutherans and Anglicans, etc. Orthodox and liberal Catholics duke it out, no question - rotten tomatoes and all - but we are still under the same roof…at least for now.

Why is it that these groups never dialogue? Or do they?
Click to expand...
I would say that evangelicals tend to not think there’s much to dialog about. In many evangelical’s ecclesiology, there’s no real authority beyond the local church, and as a result, they view all believers as part of the universal church, simply a different expression of it. That is why you may have 4 different evangelical churches on the same block, and they’ll look at you funny if you call that division.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top