boppysbud:
Irish Melkite:
Let me explain what I mean when I say that he doesn’t proselytize churched persons. At evangelical crusades, persons who “decide”, “seek to be saved”, “make a commitment” are asked to complete so-called “decision cards”. These are then forwarded by crusade staff to a church near the person’s home - one of the same theological bent as the preaching evangelist. Graham’s staff assures that decision cards made out by Catholics are forwarded to local Catholic churches (the same is true for all churched persons; unless they ask otherwise, they are referred to a church/synagogue of their own denomination
That is all well and good BUT… We Catholics don’t beleive in “gettin saved”, getting Catholics “saved” is in and of itself proselytizing.
We have things called sacraments, in particular the sacrament of Baptism, which according to Catholic theology “saves” us, not going forward at a Billy Graham crusade, and then being re-baptised
after we are “saved”. becuase infant baptism doe not count.
Remember the Billy Graham is a Southern Baptist, with all that entails. SBs are the worst proselytizers in existence.
Bud
I used “seek to be saved” as an example of terminology one hears if you listen to evangelicals. If you read the site I linked, wherein fundamentalists decry Graham’s relationship with the Catholic Church, and where there is extensive quoting of his staff and documents from his ministry, I believe you’ll find the words “decided” or “decision” to be those most commonly used. I wasn’t sure that those would be understood as well (out of context) by readers who didn’t go to the source document, so I added alternative phrasing to make it more understandable. I believe that, in the source document, there is a Graham quote which uses Catholic terminology (possibly “making a commitment to Christ”, or something similar) to refer to a Catholic who comes forward at one of his Crusades.
Graham doesn’t re-baptize. As I explained (and you quoted), he refers those who “come forward” or “fill in cards” or whatever to their church of origin. If you read my post through, you’ll note that this twist is unique, as all other evangelists (of whom I am aware) refer folks to churches of the same theological bent as themselves - usually fundamentalists.
As to your final comment, Southern Baptists are indeed heavily into proselytizing and Billy Graham is a Southern Baptist. It doesn’t follow that Graham proselytizes. I think it’s reasonable to believe that the incredibly diverse range of Catholic hierarchs, American and otherwise, who (at Graham’s request) have sent priests, religious, and laypersons to his Crusades over the past several decades (to provide immediate ministry contact to Catholics) are a better barometer of the experience and comfort level of the Church with Graham’s techniques than your preconceived notion of him, based on his nominal denominational affiliation.
Regardless of what you think, there are relatively few persons in the past century who can be cited as having been personally responsible for causing more people to reach out to/for Christ than Billy Graham. And, almost invariably, any person who takes Christ into their life is the better for it; if they do so as a Catholic, that’s wonderful - if they do it in another Christian community, it’s likely still better than remaining unchurched.
IMHO, Billy Graham’s ministry is not without God’s favor. I wish he was a Catholic but he isn’t. If Catholicism had a site akin to Yad Vashim and a concept akin to that of a “Righteous Gentile”-(to paraphrase words that have accrued an aura of sanctity through their use by our Jewish brothers and sisters - and, by using them, I neither intend to offend nor to diminish the context of their familiar use) - Billy Graham would be properly termed a
“Righteous Protestant”.
Many years,
Neil
(wow, an exact 4,000 character post
)
**