Why Is Catholicism So Unattractive to Evangelicals?

[PRmerger]

You can sum up in one word why Catholicism is unattractive to evangelicals: Constantine. That’s why.

This.

I can’t even.

 

[PRmerger]

But some evangelical churches overdo the friendliness to the point of phoniness or feeling like you will be roped into something if you show up.

While I have always criticized Catholics for our generally unwelcome culture, you bring up a good point.

 

[PRmerger]

1 Timothy 3, New International Version. I have bolded the qualifications that indicate marriage is normative:

I don’t see where it says “normative”.

If you want to assert that these are rules for being a priest then, as already stated, Jesus wouldn’t have been able to be a priest in his own Church.

 

[PRmerger]

You touch on something else, and that is the idea that ministers (my deliberate word choice) are priests (Catholic/Lutheran/Orthodox term). A discussion as to why Evangelicals find the term unattractive might be profitable. But I gotta go.

A minister is a person who ministers to a flock. It is a job and a vocation. And a profoundly beautiful and noble job it is.

A priest is something else. Totally different than a minister. At the moment of his ordination, the universe is changed forever. What existed 10 seconds prior exists no more. He is no longer a man, but a priest. Changed forever. Ontologically.

That’s why I don’t have a problem with women being ministers. Because women, it must be said, can probably manage a parish office, counsel the disconsolate, advise the worn and struggling, often much better than a man.

However, no woman can ontologically become a priest.

#cantbedone

 

[PRmerger]

A minister is a person who ministers to a flock. It is a job and a vocation. And a profoundly beautiful and noble job it is.

A priest is something else. Totally different than a minister. At the moment of his ordination, the universe is changed forever. What existed 10 seconds prior exists no more. He is no longer a man, but a priest. Changed forever. Ontologically.

That’s why I don’t have a problem with women being ministers. Because women, it must be said, can probably manage a parish office, counsel the disconsolate, advise the worn and struggling, often much better than a man.

However, no woman can ontologically become a priest.

#cantbedone

I will also add that this prompts a parallel.

Bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ at the Divine Liturgy.

Bread and wine are simply lovely. But they are not the same thing as the Body and Blood of Christ.

Similarly, a minister is not the same thing as a priest.

Minister : bread and wine
Priest : Body and Blood

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Yes, I have noticed Catholic parishes are less friendly than Evangelical ones. The very first parish I attended basically no one would talk to me. I then moved into a “friendly” parish and what a difference that made. But I find you can attend Mass at a different parish for several weekends and no one basically cares you are there. At an Evangelical Church someone would have taken pains to greet you and probably sign you up for a ministry.

I think having several thousand parishioners in one parish is a factor, as is having parishioners who have been attending for decades. But at least at the start this lack of friendliness can have an impact on a shy introvert such as myself.

I have been to many churches over the past couple of years searching for the place I feel God wants me to be. While at first the evangelical “friendliness” was a positive, it actually soon turned into a negative. Some days I want to go to church…just to talk to and worship God and I think that’s something evangelical churches miss. I grew tired of being pounced on the minute I entered the church. While it would be nice to have a “chat” with someone at mass…it was lovely to be able to focus on God. As an outsider perspective the one thing Catholics have that evangelicals don’t is reverence. They don’t go to church for a social club, they go to worship God. Also the amount of churches I have been too…I have learned that the “pounce on every new comer” typesbdon’t want to know as soon as you decide their church isn’t for you, even if you have built friendships.

Now I’m confident I don’t agree with the doctrines of evangelical churches. The only thing I do love about them is the modern worship songs…but I can listen to those on a CD at home or in the car.

I think the real reason Catholicism is unattractive to evangelicals is because they have been fed wrong information from anti Catholic information.

 

[Sarcelle]

You…missed…the…point.


It’s very easy to leap into triumphalism and look down our noses at the criticisms of evangelicals.
It’s NOT easy to take a look at ourselves take what they say into consideration.

I have respect for the informed opinions of Protestants. Criticism based off on a fundamental knowledge of Catholic doctrine is good.

Most of the criticism I have heard are based on outright falsehoods. This I cannot take seriously. I can try to correct them but it’s up to them to listen or not.

 

[z_0101]

I think the real reason Catholicism is unattractive to evangelicals is because they have been fed wrong information from anti Catholic information.

 

[Della]

I have been to many churches over the past couple of years searching for the place I feel God wants me to be. While at first the evangelical “friendliness” was a positive, it actually soon turned into a negative. Some days I want to go to church…just to talk to and worship God and I think that’s something evangelical churches miss. I grew tired of being pounced on the minute I entered the church. While it would be nice to have a “chat” with someone at mass…it was lovely to be able to focus on God. As an outsider perspective the one thing Catholics have that evangelicals don’t is reverence. They don’t go to church for a social club, they go to worship God. Also the amount of churches I have been too…I have learned that the “pounce on every new comer” typesbdon’t want to know as soon as you decide their church isn’t for you, even if you have built friendships.

I experienced the same thing–everyone thinking it their business to be into my business whether I wanted them to be or not. :yup:

Now I’m confident I don’t agree with the doctrines of evangelical churches. The only thing I do love about them is the modern worship songs…but I can listen to those on a CD at home or in the car.

The thing about such songs is they are mostly “how I feel about God/what God did for me/how I love God” songs which put the focus squarely on human beings. Whereas hymns put the main focus on worshiping God for being God. Christian songs are okay, but they’re not as spiritually satisfying in the long run as hymns because they aren’t as theologically rich.

I think the real reason Catholicism is unattractive to evangelicals is because they have been fed wrong information from anti Catholic information.

BINGO!!!

 

[inocente]

Why Is Catholicism So Unattractive to Evangelicals?

The OP article says things like “Evangelicals find Catholicism unattractive because of the Catholic witness. The lack of Catholics with a personal relationship with Christ.” And “Evangelicals don’t see a Catholic spiritual life lived out, celebrated, and wholeheartedly embraced. Evangelicals see an empty religion, and can we blame them?”

When that evangelical sees Catholics earnestly discussing Constantine or Aquinas, or Luther for that matter, it must surely confirm her view that Catholicism can only talk of dead history, can only look backwards, has nothing left to say.

I mean, she considers herself born again, with a personal relationship with Jesus, worshiping with songs like the following, Christ is alive and with her now. She’s not going to exchange that for anything less. :twocents:

All I Once Held Dear (Graham Kendrick), Robin Mark at the Mandate, Belfast - youtube.com/watch?v=oxpPIa-BskY

Jesus Is Alive (Ron Kenoly), at Hillsong, Sydney - youtube.com/watch?v=9QCF_QyQ0x0

 

[Della]

The OP article says things like “Evangelicals find Catholicism unattractive because of the Catholic witness. The lack of Catholics with a personal relationship with Christ.” And “Evangelicals don’t see a Catholic spiritual life lived out, celebrated, and wholeheartedly embraced. Evangelicals see an empty religion, and can we blame them?”

When that evangelical sees Catholics earnestly discussing Constantine or Aquinas, or Luther for that matter, it must surely confirm her view that Catholicism can only talk of dead history, can only look backwards, has nothing left to say.

I mean, she considers herself born again, with a personal relationship with Jesus, worshiping with songs like the following, Christ is alive and with her now. She’s not going to exchange that for anything less. :twocents:

All I Once Held Dear (Graham Kendrick), Robin Mark at the Mandate, Belfast - youtube.com/watch?v=oxpPIa-BskY

Jesus Is Alive (Ron Kenoly), at Hillsong, Sydney - youtube.com/watch?v=9QCF_QyQ0x0

It’s just plain not true that the Church is mired in the past and has nothing more for us. Anyone who seriously puts forward such an idea hasn’t plumbed the depths of the sacraments or Catholic spirituality. These are not only alive and well–they are enlivening and totally fulfilling–for those who take advantage of them. When I was on the Evangelical side of Christianity I was always longing for depth rather than for mere “shots in the arm” approach to a relationship with Christ. Now, as a Catholic, I have that depth at my disposal to the degree I am willing to give myself to God.

 

[PRmerger]

Clearly ALL the apostles except Paul were married and took their wives with them in ministry.

I’ve not seen that verse before used to support the married priesthood.

It’s a good one. I’ll start a thread on it here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13332737#post13332737

The idea that Peter was single when an apostle is pure fiction.

You seem to have some assurance of his marital status. That’s adding to Scripture.

Catholicism professes that all we know is that he had a motherinlaw. Whether his wife was alive or dead, we don’t know.

 

[Michael68]

The OP article says things like “Evangelicals find Catholicism unattractive because of the Catholic witness. The lack of Catholics with a personal relationship with Christ.” And “Evangelicals don’t see a Catholic spiritual life lived out, celebrated, and wholeheartedly embraced. Evangelicals see an empty religion, and can we blame them?”

When that evangelical sees Catholics earnestly discussing Constantine or Aquinas, or Luther for that matter, it must surely confirm her view that Catholicism can only talk of dead history, can only look backwards, has nothing left to say.

I mean, she considers herself born again, with a personal relationship with Jesus, worshiping with songs like the following, Christ is alive and with her now. She’s not going to exchange that for anything less. :twocents:

All I Once Held Dear (Graham Kendrick), Robin Mark at the Mandate, Belfast - youtube.com/watch?v=oxpPIa-BskY

Jesus Is Alive (Ron Kenoly), at Hillsong, Sydney - youtube.com/watch?v=9QCF_QyQ0x0

Christ is alive and so is His Church

 

[randomuser]

Apologetics doesn’t work that way. The Church is not obligated to answer every screwy objection any group makes. History, real history, from many sources, is readily available for those who want to know the truth, but those to put forward this kind of idea don’t want to know the truth–they aren’t interested in pursuing unbiased sources–they simply want use something, almost anything, in their efforts to discredit the Church.

It takes time for Catholic apologists to respond since the kind of Protestant who does this will grab anything he thinks is a “gotcha” argument even if it’s totally bogus. It’s meant to keep their own people on board and to sway clueless Catholics away from the Church. I saw it again and again when I was one of them. It didn’t matter what it was as long as it cast doubt on the Church’s validity.

And when they see that something is no longer doing the job, they grab something else. Trying to get such people to admit they’re wrong is like trying to sweep up jello with comb–it simply can’t be done since they have no desire to learn the truth. They wouldn’t put it like that, but that’s what it amounts to.

Constantine is barely a footnote in Karl Keating’s “Catholicism and Fundamentalism,” which covers pretty much every “screwy objection” in the anti-Catholic toolbox. It merited about two pages.

In 2015 (not 2013), there are still evangelicals - from Vineyard, from Calvary Chapel, from various “non-denominational” churches - who insist to me that Constantine founded the Catholic church. They don’t ask about it. They tell me. It’s not a question for them.

Apologetics means “giving a reason for,” and yes, it does mean you must be always prepared to answer whatever screwy objections are thrown your way. That’s exactly what apologetics means - you can’t pick and choose which objections you want to address like you’re at Luby’s. If you never have an answer for those “gotcha” arguments, then the natural conclusion those evangelicals will reach is: *“Why, none of those Catholics want to talk about Constantine, so it must be true that Constantine (not Jesus) founded the Catholic church-!”
*

I’m honestly a little perplexed as to why my comment about the serious lack of Constantine-oriented apologetics is being met with such derision and belittlement. I guess it’s easier to answer objections about praying to Mary, etc.

 

[randomuser]

When that evangelical sees Catholics earnestly discussing Constantine or Aquinas, or Luther for that matter, it must surely confirm her view that Catholicism can only talk of dead history, can only look backwards, has nothing left to say.

Sadly, many Catholic apologists don’t talk about Constantine anymore because that one has been, what’s the zippy headline?, “beaten to death.” The flak I have gotten for my comments about it is evidence of that.

 

[PRmerger]

I think the real reason Catholicism is unattractive to evangelicals is because they have been fed wrong information from anti Catholic information.

Pithy. Trenchant.

#rightonthemoney

 

[Della]

Constantine is barely a footnote in Karl Keating’s “Catholicism and Fundamentalism,” which covers pretty much every “screwy objection” in the anti-Catholic toolbox. It merited about two pages.

In 2015 (not 2013), there are still evangelicals - from Vineyard, from Calvary Chapel, from various “non-denominational” churches - who insist to me that Constantine founded the Catholic church. They don’t ask about it. They tell me. It’s not a question for them.

Apologetics means “giving a reason for,” and yes, it does mean you must be always prepared to answer whatever screwy objections are thrown your way. That’s exactly what apologetics means - you can’t pick and choose which objections you want to address like you’re at Luby’s. If you never have an answer for those “gotcha” arguments, then the natural conclusion those evangelicals will reach is: *“Why, none of those Catholics want to talk about Constantine, so it must be true that Constantine (not Jesus) founded the Catholic church-!”
*

I’m honestly a little perplexed as to why my comment about the serious lack of Constantine-oriented apologetics is being met with such derision and belittlement. I guess it’s easier to answer objections about praying to Mary, etc.

I don’t subscribe to your definition of apologetics. Sorry. I’ve been on the other side of the fence and I know when to “shake the dust off my feet” and walk away. That is good apologetics not pointless apologetics.

 

[Tomyris]

I don’t subscribe to your definition of apologetics. Sorry. I’ve been on the other side of the fence and I know when to “shake the dust off my feet” and walk away. That is good apologetics not pointless apologetics.

The ‘Constantine started the church’ argument is one I never heard of until I came to CAF. It is not a major argument, IMHO.

But I raised it with respect to examining the absence of papal authority at Nicea, not for any of the reasons I can find in looking up this issue.

 

[Tomyris]

I’ve not seen that verse before used to support the married priesthood.

It’s a good one. I’ll start a thread on it here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13332737#post13332737

You seem to have some assurance of his marital status. That’s adding to Scripture.

Catholicism professes that all we know is that he had a motherinlaw. Whether his wife was alive or dead, we don’t know.

We DO know. It is in the verse. It is not “adding to Scripture”. It is reading the text. Cephas was taking his wife around with him. Whether he was a widow and remarried or it was the same one, or if she had died after he was in ministry, it does not say. But Paul gives Cephas as an example of an apostle who was married while exercising his apostleship.

Note that he is called ‘Cephas’, not ‘Peter’ here, if you want to wander off subject.

 

[Tomyris]

A minister is a person who ministers to a flock. It is a job and a vocation. And a profoundly beautiful and noble job it is.

A priest is something else. Totally different than a minister. At the moment of his ordination, the universe is changed forever. What existed 10 seconds prior exists no more. He is no longer a man, but a priest. Changed forever. Ontologically.

That’s why I don’t have a problem with women being ministers. Because women, it must be said, can probably manage a parish office, counsel the disconsolate, advise the worn and struggling, often much better than a man.

However, no woman can ontologically become a priest.

#cantbedone

Neither can a man, now.
#cantbedone

Jesus was the last and final priest, according to Hebrews, according to Evangelicals, but probably I will get in a fight with Evangelical Lutherans over this, so I will say, some Evangelicals. Add it to the list of ‘Why Is Catholicism So Unattractive to Evangelicals?’ Evangelicals will tell you Catholics have reverted to a system of Levitical legalism and sacrifice instead of salvation by grace. I don’t necessary buy this argument, so I will not defend it.

It is a topic in itself.