Why Is Catholicism So Unattractive to Evangelicals?

[FollowChrist34]

I personally don’t think the structure of the Catholic priesthood violates or prevents the laity’s reception of the truth of the Gospel and the real presence of Christ in the Mass. A Catholic is still saved by the grace of God. And it is the living grace of God that is received in the Eucharist (if taken worthily). That said, I believe Protestants (if worthy in faith, word and deed) are in the grace of God as well. I like the fact that Catholic priests receive extensive training - they are very knowledgeable in Church history and theology and this allows (at least ideally) for consistency in the “ministry” of the Church - it helps to avoid going off message. I respect the liturgy as it has been performed in the Church since the beginning and is performed to this day in the Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran Churches. One thing I think that is unattractive about Evangelicals is that a lot of time the ministers are really poorly educated and do not relay the Word of God truthfully or consistently. (see Joel Osteen; Tim and Tammy Faye Baker etc. every denomination the message from the Holy Spirit is different) However, to be fair, there is also inconsistency (and scandal) in the Catholic priesthood on a human, “sinner” level - at least the liturgy is constant which is what the Mass is about, not the priest. You can experience the same liturgy at any Catholic Church in the world, or in the Orthodox Church and with slight modifications in the Anglican or Lutheran Church (yes, I know these two are not in full communion, thanks). And I love the fact that the liturgy has been preserved since the beginnings of the Church - I often think of all of the Christians throughout time and the world who have prayed as I do every week and with whom I connect in worship. I think the Church extends through time, alive, as part of its universality.

I also agree there is a lot of misinformation about the Catholic Church. To be honest, you see the same thing on the Catholic side against Protestants. But it doesn’t do either side credit. My friend who is Evangelical sees hating the Catholic Church as her duty in a way. She frankly doesn’t know anything about it and doesn’t want to. Her knowledge of the history of the Church is close to nonexistent, including the Protestant split. And it is essential to keep it that way. She receives God in her own way, in her own world. It has nothing to do with any sort of historical, universal Church of believers. (This would be inconceivable to Jesus, the Apostles and early Church.) I don’t see where the Evangelical shows a responsibility or concern towards others that I have ever seen, other than missionary work, which largely consists of talking to the poor, homeless, drug addicts about receiving the Word of Christ. Very little charity or love to those outside of their Church; loving your neighbor means your Church and that is it. Loving and forgiving your enemy through the grace of God - who knows about that; ditto giving away one of your coats to those with less - social justice or responsibility doesn’t seem to be part of it at all. Maybe this is “works toward salvation.” I am sure there are Evangelicals who do live in Christ in a real way, but I don’t know that many of them. It doesn’t seem to be their goal - at least not in any way that I can relate to or understand.

Needless to say I don’t believe your chances of being saved increase much as an Evangelical than if you are in the Catholic Church. We each answer to Christ on Judgment Day with the fruits of our faith, good or bad. Simple as that.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

Thank you!

Being a good apologist does not mean that I have to be a captive audience, much less a captive participant.

There seems, from my experience, to be a bit of an epidemic of people not understanding that.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Well, according to folks more knowledgeable than I am, it turns out that “wife” may not necessarily mean “the woman who shares your bed and makes your meals and does other 1st century wifely things”, but rather “sister” or “woman”.

The key Greek words in 1 Corinthians 9:5 are “adelphaen gunaika.” The first means “sister,” and the second can be translated as either “woman” or “wife.” This means the phrase translates as “sister woman” or “sister wife,” with “sister” indicating not a biological but a spiritual relationship. It would make sense for the apostles to be accompanied by “sister women” who could assist them in ministering to women—for example, at full-immersion baptisms, where a question of modesty could arise, or in cases where it would be more appropriate for a woman to perform a charitable or catechetical function.

This finds support in the Fathers. “Sister woman” is found in Jerome’s Vulgate, and Jerome wrote that “It is clear that [they] must not be seen as wives but, as we have said, as women who assisted [the apostles] with their goods” (Ad. Jovinian I, 26). Clement of Alexandria agreed, saying the women were not the wives of the apostles but were female assistants who could enter the homes of women and could teach them there (Stromata III, 6).catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-peter-have-a-wife

 

[PRmerger]

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.

And some men participate in this priesthood, just like God is the Eternal Father, and yet there are some men who participate in this fatherhood.

 

[Tomyris]

Well, according to folks more knowledgeable than I am, it turns out that “wife” may not necessarily mean “the woman who shares your bed and makes your meals and does other 1st century wifely things”, but rather “sister” or “woman”.

The key Greek words in 1 Corinthians 9:5 are “adelphaen gunaika.” The first means “sister,” and the second can be translated as either “woman” or “wife.” This means the phrase translates as “sister woman” or “sister wife,” with “sister” indicating not a biological but a spiritual relationship. It would make sense for the apostles to be accompanied by “sister women” who could assist them in ministering to women—for example, at full-immersion baptisms, where a question of modesty could arise, or in cases where it would be more appropriate for a woman to perform a charitable or catechetical function.

This finds support in the Fathers. “Sister woman” is found in Jerome’s Vulgate, and Jerome wrote that “It is clear that [they] must not be seen as wives but, as we have said, as women who assisted [the apostles] with their goods” (Ad. Jovinian I, 26). Clement of Alexandria agreed, saying the women were not the wives of the apostles but were female assistants who could enter the homes of women and could teach them there (Stromata III, 6).catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-peter-have-a-wife

I discussed this in your thread in Apologetics. The Greek cannot be “sister woman”. It would also be an occasion for scandal. It can be “woman” - the Greek word can be either “woman” or “wife”. I would think Paul would have used a term such as deaconess if he had meant that - in context he must be speaking of a “wife”.

Jerome is suspect on celibacy due to some of his eccentricities on marriage and the attitude of the age. He never bathed, never married, but went about with a woman and daughter who also never bathed.

 

[feed_me]

Since im moving past the celebacy on this topic, their is one thing I would like some info on which is and I dont know if this is actually done in the Evangelical Church and that is this: The Catholic Church doesnt train people on how to use the gifts of the Holy Spirit, you might get a few classes on it here and there but not full on trained to use the tools.

 

[PRmerger]

Jerome is suspect on celibacy due to some of his eccentricities on marriage and the attitude of the age. He never bathed, never married, but went about with a woman and daughter who also never bathed.

His hygienic (dis)inclinations notwithstanding (ewww!), this incriminates his translation prowess…how?

And if it makes his translation abilities on this particular word dubious, are we to assume that you believe he got other things wrong in his Vulgate?

Are we to believe this translation to be faulty in general?

 

[Tomyris]

And some men participate in this priesthood, just like God is the Eternal Father, and yet there are some men who participate in this fatherhood.

In that sense there is the priesthood of all believers, of which you and I are a part, principally in intercession.

Paul described himself serving as a priest in only one place in Romans. Everywhere else the presbyteroi and episcopoi are described as teaching and building up the body rather than taking on the sacramental priestly function of atonement. Atonement was finished at Calvary. The Reformed (I think Lutherans agree with you on this) hold that the office of priest was terminated at Calvary, except for the continual priesthood of Christ, in which we all share. In contrast Catholics hold the sacramental sacrifice of the Mass as central,“the source and summit of our faith.” This is repugnant to Evangelicals who believe faith coming by hearing is most important and the sacraments take a second place.

Freebie: I once heard a Reformed minister maintain at length that the sacramental system in the Catholic Church preserved Christianity through its darkest days, after the fall of Rome.

 

[PRmerger]

In that sense there is the priesthood of all believers, of which you and I are a part, principally in intercession.

Oh, yes!

And again, it prompts an analogy.

There is the general priesthood of all believers, which is a profound and sublime gift.

And then there is the ministerial priesthood.

Similarly, there are beautiful, wonderful, lovely books.

And then there is the Holy Bible.

Priesthood of all believers : lovely books

Ministerial priesthood :: Holy Bible

 

[PRmerger]

Freebie: I once heard a Reformed minister maintain at length that the sacramental system in the Catholic Church preserved Christianity through its darkest days, after the fall of Rome.

Interesting.

Is he now Catholic?

 

[Tomyris]

Intersting.

Is he now Catholic?

He passed away some years ago.

 

[AbideWithMe]

One thing I think that is unattractive about Evangelicals is that a lot of time the ministers are really poorly educated and do not relay the Word of God truthfully or consistently. (see Joel Osteen; Tim and Tammy Faye Baker etc. every denomination the message from the Holy Spirit is different)

I don’t see where the Evangelical shows a responsibility or concern towards others that I have ever seen, other than missionary work, which largely consists of talking to the poor, homeless, drug addicts about receiving the Word of Christ. Very little charity or love to those outside of their Church; loving your neighbor means your Church and that is it. Loving and forgiving your enemy through the grace of God - who knows about that; ditto giving away one of your coats to those with less - social justice or responsibility doesn’t seem to be part of it at all. Maybe this is “works toward salvation.” I am sure there are Evangelicals who do live in Christ in a real way, but I don’t know that many of them. It doesn’t seem to be their goal - at least not in any way that I can relate to or understand.

Neither of these above perceptions of Evangelicals are true in general or as a norm.

I think a very large part of the problem, running equally both ways, is that we all are prone to over-generalize from our limited experience of those in other groups.

Even those who are former Evangelicals or former Catholics very often have converted away from their previous church without giving it due diligence by trying to work hard to understand its depth and nuances; they just take their youthful perceptions of their own church and walk away looking for seemingly greener pastures in another faith tradition. And they tell people in their new church, whether it be Catholic or Evangelical, how shallow their old church was, leading the adherents of their new church to think “He/she must know what he/she is talking about, because, look, he/she was a Evangelical/Catholic insider for so long.” And so the snowball of ignorance keeps getting bigger, rolling on down the hill…

My bumper sticker: “Evangelicals Are Not a TV Show”.

 

[Tomyris]

Neither of these above perceptions of Evangelicals are true in general or as a norm.

I think a very large part of the problem, running equally both ways, is that we all are prone to over-generalize from our limited experience of those in other groups.

Even those who are former Evangelicals or former Catholics very often have converted away from their previous church without giving it due diligence by trying to work hard to understand its depth and nuances; they just take their youthful perceptions of their own church and walk away looking for seemingly greener pastures in another faith tradition. And they tell people in their new church, whether it be Catholic or Evangelical, how shallow their old church was, leading the adherents of their new church to think “He/she must know what he/she is talking about, because, look, he/she was a Evangelical/Catholic insider for so long.” And so the snowball of ignorance keeps getting bigger, rolling on down the hill…

My bumper sticker: “Evangelicals Are Not a TV Show”.

There is a wide range of training to become an evangelical pastor. Most presbyterian pastors complete a four year degree and then three years in seminary for a M.Div. Some go on to get a doctorate. Like Paul.

I knew a non-denom pastor who served in the Army in Viet Nam and then kicked a drug addiction when Christ got ahold of him and started a church. Zero college, zero Bible school, would never get into either, I think. But he could really lead worship and train other people to, preach very practical sermons, handle difficult people situations, and take short term mission teams overseas. He had some leadership skills that a lot of pastors lack: he was someone you would trust to lead you out of a volcano and a second-to-none commitment to Christ. He knew what he could do and what he could not. Sort of a Peter.

There is a place for both kinds of people. Both are needed.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Thank you!

Being a good apologist does not mean that I have to be a captive audience, much less a captive participant.

There seems, from my experience, to be a bit of an epidemic of people not understanding that.

Being someone who regularly escapes from CAF and runs around shouting “I’m free! I’m free!” like a lunatic, I know I owe a bunch of replies to people from last week. If I can’t find the time to focus on responding any time soon, would you folks be willing to accept a free fine dining experience at a nice restaurant in lieu of my responses?

 

[AbideWithMe]

There is a wide range of training to become an evangelical pastor. Most presbyterian pastors complete a four year degree and then three years in seminary for a M.Div. Some go on to get a doctorate. Like Paul.

I knew a non-denom pastor who served in the Army in Viet Nam and then kicked a drug addiction when Christ got ahold of him and started a church. Zero college, zero Bible school, would never get into either, I think. But he could really lead worship and train other people to, preach very practical sermons, handle difficult people situations, and take short term mission teams overseas. He had some leadership skills that a lot of pastors lack: he was someone you would trust to lead you out of a volcano and a second-to-none commitment to Christ. He knew what he could do and what he could not. Sort of a Peter.

There is a place for both kinds of people. Both are needed.

I agree.

 

[Michael68]

I attended two Masses today (being a church musician) and I paid close attention to the foyer and the front lawn where people tend to gather before and after Mass. I saw joyful, happy people!!! I didn’t see the coldness some have posted here. We have over 600 families in our church and I don’t know everyone, but I didn’t see anyone being ignored .We have our share of those who show up just as Mass is starting and sometimes I don’t recognize them, but my point is, my church does not have a coldness to it.

 

[PRmerger]

I attended two Masses today (being a church musician) and I paid close attention to the foyer and the front lawn where people tend to gather before and after Mass. I saw joyful, happy people!!! I didn’t see the coldness some have posted here. We have over 600 families in our church and I don’t know everyone, but I didn’t see anyone being ignored .We have our share of those who show up just as Mass is starting and sometimes I don’t recognize them, but my point is, my church does not have a coldness to it.

What’s probably going on in the foyer and front lawn is a gathering of folks who know each other–their kids play soccer together, they saw each other last night at the neighbor’s firepit, they are in the PTO…

But if there’s a newbie, someone who’s investigating the CC, wants to inquire, “What’s this Catholic thing all about?”, I think that he might get a different reception.

 

[Peter_J]

Being someone who regularly escapes from CAF and runs around shouting “I’m free! I’m free!” like a lunatic,

Interesting. I myself sometimes escape into a fantasy where I’m walking – sometimes it’s on grass, sometimes on a sidewalk, sometimes on stairs or just a floor, but in every fantasy I seem to do things by moving my arms and legs, and communicate by moving my mouth without touching anything, and I see these really big fancy smilies. Has that ever happened to you?

 

[FollowChrist34]

Neither of these above perceptions of Evangelicals are true in general or as a norm.

I think a very large part of the problem, running equally both ways, is that we all are prone to over-generalize from our limited experience of those in other groups.

Even those who are former Evangelicals or former Catholics very often have converted away from their previous church without giving it due diligence by trying to work hard to understand its depth and nuances; they just take their youthful perceptions of their own church and walk away looking for seemingly greener pastures in another faith tradition. And they tell people in their new church, whether it be Catholic or Evangelical, how shallow their old church was, leading the adherents of their new church to think “He/she must know what he/she is talking about, because, look, he/she was a Evangelical/Catholic insider for so long.” And so the snowball of ignorance keeps getting bigger, rolling on down the hill…

My bumper sticker: “Evangelicals Are Not a TV Show”.

My bumper sticker: Catholics receive the Grace of God as a Gift through Faith.

I agree there are misperceptions. Any CAF thread will confirm this. On both sides. I am at a bit of a disadvantage on the Catholic/Evangelical convert spat because I have never converted. I don’t know any Catholics who are ex-Evangelicals (excepting CAF of course) or maybe they just never mentioned it to me - that could be likely. I never hear Catholics trashing Evangelicals (except for here). I actually do hear more Evangelicals trashing Catholics in “real life.” I should say my Evang friend does not do this - I don’t want to mislead. We do respect the other’s faith as “valid.” But avoid details for sure. I once even attended a barbecue of her Church friends and openly talked about being Catholic. Some people were kind of freaked out by it, but most, especially the younger ones, were totally cool or at least acted like it was ok. I grew up with a lot of Dutch Reformed in the area - they were often fairly openly anti-Catholic.

As for education, yes a Presbyterian does receive theological education. However, an attorney I worked for (recovered alcoholic with a penchant for boa scarves) quit her job and became a Protestant minister. I believe she had one year of training, if that. Can’t remember the denomination. But I will say this - I would certainly never trust her access to the Holy Spirit any more than mine or the man on the moon - in the role of a pastor. I will take my chances with priests - so far so good, 20 years almost. Every single denomination has a different approach to this topic so I don’t know how helpful it is use just one example or another.

Lastly, I do agree that some who are not educated can be very effective in Church ministry because of their faith - I did know a guy like that (ex-Protestant, truck driver) in one parish. He was just in a faith group - he was really inspiring. Very honest about doubts, faith, etc. I liked him a lot.

 

[KathleenGee]

In ancient churches, the bishops said Mass; there were those headed by presbyters.

The Mass is a very different form of worship as that compared to Evangelical. It takes time to study to understand it more on an adult level.

But I also think part of the reason Evangelicals are not drawn to Catholicism is simply because they do not utilize history too much. Many Christians have come into the Church after studying early church history and the early Church Fathers…so this takes one beyond a personal, even emotional encounter to that more transcendent, universal…all time.

And the posture of the Mass is one of adoration because of the Physical Presence of Christ before us. Many Catholics do not find the time to go to classes to learn more about the Mass and their faith as well, and I am beginning to see a better and more profound experience would be in home catechesis for small group gatherings…where it is more personable, people share more honestly and thus people can connect and grow in authentic relationships.

Alot of times problem with Catholic churches is that they are just too big. Mine has 8,000 parishioners and is multi cultural.