Why Is Catholicism So Unattractive to Evangelicals?

[TC3033]

I don’t suppose it ever occurred to you that just maybe the priest may be respecting boundaries you placed by not being Catholic, that just maybe he didn’t want to come across as pushing Catholicism on you? The same could hold true for “assigning” tasks, when I have a party I don’t assign tasks to the guests I invited them to a party not a work detail.

Nope, it had nothing to do with “boundries”, he just didn’t care for non-Catholics. I’m not the only one that had this same run-in, he made it pretty clear. Actually, later on I found out that many Parrishoners weren’t happy with him due to his position/stance on non-Catholics. It was driving families away from the Church.

The same could hold true for “assigning” tasks, when I have a party I don’t assign tasks to the guests I invited them to a party not a work detail.

Just for clarification, why would I be a guest. I viewed myself as one who would be hosting, since it is the church my family is a member at.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Yes, you are way too esoteric (and Christian, bien sûr) for me I am afraid. And, ironically, I am a Monty Python fan. Go figure.

Well, I do have a weird sense of humor, which doesn’t seem to translate well for many who try it over the internet, without the help of body language.

I blame Tomyris, whose magnificently quirky sense of humor does translate well, as can be seen in its full flowering in the Clubhouse Forum.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Well, I do have a weird sense of humor, which doesn’t seem to translate well for many who try it over the internet, without the help of body language.

I blame Tomyris, whose magnificently quirky sense of humor does translate well, as can be seen in its full flowering in the Clubhouse Forum.

 

[AbideWithMe]

 

[PRmerger]

When I attend a Catholic mass, I expect the priest to wear priestly attire because that is normal for Catholic priests. I also like the symbolism involved.

Yes. The symbolism in his garments is of great import.

I read a while back on CAF where a priest in Chicago routinely wore a Chicago Bears’ jersey under his priestly robe. Did that make him less of a priest?

Not at all. As long as his external attire is in conformity with the rubrics, what he wears underneath is of no concern.

The Catholic Church and his flock matters more than how he is dressed, I would think.

Indeed.

However, there were also many fine and godly priests and ministers who wore similar attire of the clergy which is why it’s not the clothes that make the man of God. It’s what he does that matters most.

Very Catholic, this.

Priestly undergarments are of no concern to us. But what’s underneath the undergarments matters. (And no one here should be thinking anatomy. We are talking ontologically here)

However, his message from the Word of God stands out and is inspiring to the congregation.

I know the sermon is what matters greatly in Evangelical churches.

In the Catholic Liturgy, since He, the Refuge for Sinners, King among all kings, Holy Redeemer, is present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, the homily is not what is the most important thing.

The Lord – through him – helps equip and encourage us to live out the Christian faith in a real and meaningful way in our daily lives in a way that helps us be better Christians and face life’s challenges head on and helps us to love and serve others.

Very Catholic, this!

 

[Tomyris]

Well, I do have a weird sense of humor, which doesn’t seem to translate well for many who try it over the internet, without the help of body language.

I blame Tomyris, whose magnificently quirky sense of humor does translate well, as can be seen in its full flowering in the Clubhouse Forum.

Some of my multiple personalities thank you. But most of them are deep in a bridge tournament inside my head. Or a vole-cooking competition. Or lying on the lawn staring at clouds, thinking they look like coffee cups or maybe voles. Or cream cheese.

As for me, I don’t play bridge, which is why I get to post.

 

[Tomyris]

Fair enough.

Can you tell me what the false choice is between these 2 statements:

The Pope is the vicar of Christ.
The Pope is not the vicar of Christ.

What other choices are there?

:nerd:I have my geek-glasses on.

Sometimes I think programmers are today’s answer to the later scholastics…

Some otther choices (just listing them, not defending, advocating or otherwise addressing them):

the Pope is a vicar of Christ (among other vicars).

the pope is the vicar of Christ conditionally.

the pope is the vicar of Christ and the pope is not the vicar of Christ.This depends on how you define ‘the pope’ and ‘the vicar of Christ’.

The pope is not only the vicar of Christ, but something more that mitigates our understanding of it.

There is no pope,.

There is no vicar of Christ.

The pope of Alexandria is the vicar of Christ, but the pope of Rome is not.

There is no meaningful way to connect the idea of ‘pope’ with ‘vicar of Christ’.

Again, fair enough.

Perhaps I misspoke when I said God is either a Trinity or a Unity.

I amend my question to: Can God be both a Trinity and not a Trinity?

The point is, in response to the question, “Why does anyone have to be wrong” (in the context of doctrine/theology), it remains true: sometimes when one denomination makes a doctrinal assertion that is contrary to another denomination’s doctrinal assertions, it MUST BE TRUE that one of them is wrong.

Actually, no. They might both be wrong. Or they might both be speaking parts of a greater truth. Or we may be dealing with something that God, in His wisdom, chose not to reveal and we are using human wits and claiming the results of our (ill)logic are divine revelation. That is not to disparage reasoning. Reason sometimes forces charity to ride in the trunk in the four-door sedan of theology. Paul addresses this in Romans 14, when it is clear we are allowed to disagree about Big Things, like eating food sacrificed to idols. Rather than coming down hard on one side or another, he told people to allow differences and walk in charity with one another. The church is always tempted to step in and rule where the apostle set the example of not ruling except to advocate charity.

To me the implication is clear. We are allowed to disagree, but we are not allowed to lose charity. That is why the splitting of the church after Chalcedon was so hideous IMHO. It set the precedent. Then the Orthodox, then the Protestants.

 

[Tomyris]

Well, I do have a weird sense of humor, which doesn’t seem to translate well for many who try it over the internet, without the help of body language.

I blame Tomyris, whose magnificently quirky sense of humor does translate well, as can be seen in its full flowering in the Clubhouse Forum.

I use a lot of body language when I post. It helps. Humor is really difficult to pull off, which is why I never use it.

Oh, wait, I already answered this. The “me” who answered this before is lying out on the lawn, looking at clouds and muttering something about bagels in the sky.

 

[FollowChrist34]

:nerd:I have my geek-glasses on.

Sometimes I think programmers are today’s answer to the later scholastics…

Actually, no. They might both be wrong. Or they might both be speaking parts of a greater truth. Or we may be dealing with something that God, in His wisdom, chose not to reveal and we are using human wits and claiming the results of our (ill)logic are divine revelation. That is not to disparage reasoning. Reason sometimes forces charity to ride in the trunk in the four-door sedan of theology. Paul addresses this in Romans 14, when it is clear we are allowed to disagree about Big Things, like eating food sacrificed to idols. Rather than coming down hard on one side or another, he told people to allow differences and walk in charity with one another. The church is always tempted to step in and rule where the apostle set the example of not ruling except to advocate charity.

To me the implication is clear. We are allowed to disagree, but we are not allowed to lose charity. That is why the splitting of the church after Chalcedon was so hideous IMHO. It set the precedent. Then the Orthodox, then the Protestants.

I feel compelled to say I agree with some this. I do like the bit about not losing charity and the tragedy of the Church splitting into a thousand different pieces. Reason is a tough one - without it we are lunatics. With it we are lunatics. My approach is to use it with kid gloves and very sparingly. In this context, it serves me pretty well.

Thomas Aquinas:

Christianity’s engagement with non-Christian thought proceeds from the Christian belief that reason and faith are complementary, not oppositional. Thomas Aquinas’ synthesis of Aristotle and Christianity is a vital chapter in this engagement. His interaction with the philosophy of Aristotle demonstrates both the harmony of reason and faith and the oneness of truth, which are both central to the Christian intellectual tradition....

Aquinas felt comfortable undertaking such incorporation because, as he said, “All truth is one.” He argued that what we learn from the natural world through science and philosophy, provided it is unquestionably true, can never contradict that which we learn from revelation, that is, directly from God. He compared Scripture and reason to two books, “the book of revelation” and “the book of nature,” which were both “written” by God and consequently compatible. Therefore, though Aquinas was well educated in the Bible and the writings of earlier theologians, he preferred to base his arguments in logic and philosophical reasoning that could appeal even to nonbelievers. He did so confident in his faith that reason and philosophy would confirm and not contradict the revelation of God.

Aquinas, however, thought that crucial parts of reality transcend natural human reason. Humans can only know these things through the revelation of God’s divine acts in history, as recounted in scripture, most crucially the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, and through the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. God’s revelation, thus conceived, was historically inaccessible to Aristotle, but Aquinas so admired Aristotle’s philosophical position (achieved through natural reason alone) that he believed it, too, to be a gift of God.

In short, Thomas Aquinas demonstrated that a natural harmony exists between Christian faith and reason. This was Thomas’ great achievement. In that moment of a clash between two cultures — a moment in which it seemed that faith would have to capitulate to reason — Thomas demonstrated that the two go together: what seemed to be reason incompatible with faith was not reason, and what seemed to be faith was not faith insofar as it was opposed to true rationality. Thus, he created a new synthesis, which shaped culture throughout the following centuries.

This harmony of faith and reason, in my view, was undone by many, special mention to the later scholastics. This did great harm to the Church in that it distorted and overemphasized theology (“man-made doctrines” and practices) and downplayed meaningful adherence to basic Christian doctrine and the role of personal faith. I don’t think the problem was Aquinas himself or how argued reason should be used with respect to faith. (However, I do admire the mystery of the Orthodox - they tend to be kind “theology-light” and a little less “pro-reason” which has its up and down side.)

And I actually believe Luther (good Catholic that he was) had a just cause on many levels, not the least of which was re-emphasizing the primary role of faith in the revelation of Christ in the life of the Christian. This has served us all very well.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

Likewise, FollowChrist34. By the way, I deeply admire Pope Francis. I think he embodies much of what is good in Catholicism and the Christian faith.

I agree! I was not a fan of St. JPII or Benedict. I really like Pope Francis. Down to earth and interested in issues that matter (children, poor, homeless, etc.)

 

[PRmerger]

:nerd:I have my geek-glasses on.

Sometimes I think programmers are today’s answer to the later scholastics…

Some otther choices (just listing them, not defending, advocating or otherwise addressing them):

the Pope is a vicar of Christ (among other vicars).

the pope is the vicar of Christ conditionally.

the pope is the vicar of Christ and the pope is not the vicar of Christ.This depends on how you define ‘the pope’ and ‘the vicar of Christ’.

The pope is not only the vicar of Christ, but something more that mitigates our understanding of it.

There is no pope,.

There is no vicar of Christ.

The pope of Alexandria is the vicar of Christ, but the pope of Rome is not.

There is no meaningful way to connect the idea of ‘pope’ with ‘vicar of Christ’.

:hypno:

No, Tomi.

Put it in the context of this discussion.

It was originally posited that there need not be someone who is “wrong” theologically, when looking at the multitude of Christian denominations.

So let’s take the Catholic teaching that the Pope is the vicar of Christ.

Either he is, and the Catholic Church is correct.

Or he is not, and the Catholic Church is wrong.

There can be no other options.

 

[Peter_J]

Again, what are you bringing to the table? How is it good fruit? Is this what Protestantism amounts to - is that what we are to conclude? (my view of it is sinking by the minute…)

I’m not really sure what part of AbideWithMe’s post this is in response to, but let me tell you what I’ve told JonNC and other Protestant posters who-knows-how-many-times (only in reverse):

No bunch of apples is homogenous. It makes no sense to arbitrarily take something that one Protestant [resp. Catholic] says and treat it as representative of Protestants [resp. Catholics] in general.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

I’m not really sure what part of AbideWithMe’s post this is in response to, but let me tell you what I’ve told JonNC and other Protestant posters who-knows-how-many-times (only in reverse):

No bunch of apples is homogenous. It makes no sense to arbitrarily take something that one Protestant [resp. Catholic] says and treat it as representative of Protestants [resp. Catholics] in general.

Exactly!

 

[Peter_J]

Thank you.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

:hypno:

No, Tomi.

Put it in the context of this discussion.

It was originally posited that there need not be someone who is “wrong” theologically, when looking at the multitude of Christian denominations.

So let’s take the Catholic teaching that the Pope is the vicar of Christ.

Either he is, and the Catholic Church is correct.

Or he is not, and the Catholic Church is wrong.

There can be no other options.

he gave you plenty of options , and there is only a few churches, not multitudes .

 

[PRmerger]

he gave you plenty of options , and there is only a few churches, not multitudes .

So which is it? Is the Catholic Church correct and the pope is the vicar of Christ?

Or is he not the vicar of Christ.

There are only 2 options here.

Tomi is a woman, BTW.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I’m not really sure what part of AbideWithMe’s post this is in response to, but let me tell you what I’ve told JonNC and other Protestant posters who-knows-how-many-times (only in reverse):

No bunch of apples is homogenous. It makes no sense to arbitrarily take something that one Protestant [resp. Catholic] says and treat it as representative of Protestants [resp. Catholics] in general.

Yes, indeed. That was kind of what I was trying to get across. I have been critical earlier in the thread of stand-offishness and negativity in some Catholic posts (“Protestants drink coffee during services,” etc.). The same responsibility to charity, however, applies to Protestant posts. And this did come up on the thread like a week ago. How important it is not to be one of those offenders. It can do a lot of harm for your “side”. (I address this advice to myself also, of course.) If you slip up, catch it and try and fix it asap - IMHO.

 

[rinnie]

That’s…a little simplistic.
I grew up with and around nominal Catholics who had no interest in spiritual matters, no morality and no interest in following what the Church taught. It did indeed, as a young guy in his twenties appear very much dead and ‘going through the motions’.
On the other hand, walking into an evangelical church was like walking into a different world, and appeared to have everything I believed lacking in the Catholic Church.
Now, years after coming back to the Church I can see much of my reaction was youthful exuberance and ignorance. But that doesn’t mean the negative things I saw should be easily dismissed. Evangelicals don’t see a Catholic spiritual life lived out, celebrated, and wholeheartedly embraced.
But being evangelical all those years, make me a better Catholic today.
And Catholics solve nothing by denying what Evangelicals see.
There’s an old saying that sometimes it’s more fruitful to listen to your enemy rather than your friend. Because your friend will not identify your faults because he does not want to hurt your feelings. But your enemy will point out your faults no problem.

But would it not be more productive instead of what they see, for them to seek the truth that Christ taught.

Its like how Peter was human, yet he was the Vicar of Christ. Did Peter screw up on a human level? Yep all the time. That’s what made him human.

But what about what he did on a Divine Level. That’s what we are there to learn.

Its like saying God Peter did not want you to die, and the devil didn’t want you to die either.

Peter did not want God to die, because on a human level he loved God and wanted to see him here forever.

The devil did not want God to die, because he knew by his death he took away death and gave us life.

So okay your neighbor does not live out the truth that he has, but what, that makes the truth he has untrue, so you choose not to seek it out? Or because he chooses to not live out the truth he knows, then it gives you an excuse to deny it? I do not understand??

Because we as Catholic’s do not scream out day after day this personal relationship we have with Christ, were we not taught that’s a no no. That you don’t do that, you go into your room, shut the door, and then alone with Christ you pray and on a one on one level receive the peace and love you can only get on this personal level with Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

he gave you plenty of options , and there is only a few churches, not multitudes .

Can you list what these few churches are, plus your source?

And can you make sure that this list includes this church:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=20805&d=1411060938

As well as this church:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
.
They are not related. They don’t have any central authority. They can teach what they want. They are independent churches.

So make sure you count them in your list.

And all churches that are independent and answer to no one else save their pastor who started this church.

Thanks.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Can you list what these few churches are, plus your source?

And can you make sure that this list includes this church:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=20805&d=1411060938

As well as this church:

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/1344975466-storefrontchurch-01-528x427.jpg
.
They are not related. They don’t have any central authority. They can teach what they want. They are independent churches.

So make sure you count them in your list.

And all churches that are independent and answer to no one else save their pastor who started this church.

Thanks.

I am with you on this, PRMerger. We do need to get some sort of clarity on what the “Church” believes with respect to Sacred Scripture and tradition. Is abortion acceptable or not? If you can say yes and no to that question (just the tip of the iceberg I might add) and be in the Church, then the Church is little more than a yoga class - relaxing and positive and above all, self-affirming.

Is there a hell? Is there a heaven? Are we responsible for trying to witness Christ, the truth and eternal life to our brethren or not? What role does accepting and believing the “truth” play in your salvation? Don’t multiple truths get a little problematic on Judgment Day?