1) Most of the anti-Catholics I have known are lapsed for former Catholics. I don't think the clowns cited in "Catholic Answers" represent any significant sort of enemy of the Catholic Church, and that the cited publication mostly uses them as a red herring.
2) I have to tread carefully here, because I have a significant and growing number of catholic relatives and in-laws. So I am compelled out of family considerations to attend their funerals, and mourn lugubriously like the rest of the flock, standing when they stand, sitting when they sit, and looking as pious as possible.
But nobody's ever been able to induce me to let a priest stick a wafer in my mouth and chew on what purports to be the body of Yeshua of Natzrat. On the other hand, at a lot of these services, I see large numbers of people who share no such communion.
If I were a Catholic, I think I would yearn for the grand old days of the full Latin rites. The changeover to English has turned the Holy Episcopal Roman Catholic Church of Jesus Christ into just another vaguely liberal suburban protestant church, with all the mystery washed away in interests of some wierd sort of ecumenicism.
3) Why do the editors of that online publication feel it is necessary to publish two stamps of official church approval of every word they have written?
3) Why do the editors of that online publication feel it is necessary to publish two stamps of official church approval of every word they have written?
Arnold, the answer was self-evident for those who actually did read all of the article:
"These three examples are not important in themselves, but they illustrate the material professional anti-Catholics produce."
The changeover to English has turned the Holy Episcopal Roman Catholic Church of Jesus Christ into just another vaguely liberal suburban protestant church...
That may be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read from you. If the worship is NOT in the language of the people, what's the point? It's akin to keeping bibles away from followers (which they tried to do btw). Yes, that's a good idea, let's alienate more members of our faith. If you didn't already get the memo, the American Catholic Church is both very liberal and very conservative depending on the issue. What it doesn't want to do is lose followers to protestant churches (like those shameful megachurches where it's basically a cheap pep-rally for Christ via satellite and 800 numbers flashing across the screen for donations - those types of Churches make my stomach churn.)
Anyway, the Catholic Church can remain relevant AND remain in the people's language without compromising "the mystery."
Intellectually and practically, Valjean, you are quite correct.
But I think something quite basic was lost when the Roman Catholic Church gave up the Latin rite.
My opinion of the televised spectacles of the megachurches with the flashing 800 numbers mirrors yours.
Still, all things considered, I think it would be a great cultural loss if the orthodox Jews switched over from Hebrew to English in their prayer services, or the Moslems from Arabic to English.
Just remember, I'm a culturalist, not a seeker of ultimate religious truths. For all I ever can know, all of you are equally right. Or you all are equally wrong.
3) Why do the editors of that online publication feel it is necessary to publish two stamps of official church approval of every word they have written?
The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are there to show that the local bishop endorses what has been written as reflective of true Roman Catholic doctrine. It's the guarantee to the reader that what is written isn't merely the opinion of the writer but is in accordance with Catholic teaching. Really, if you see a publication which purports to explain Catholic teaching that doesn't have these two signs you should take it with a huge grain of salt.
(like those shameful megachurches where it's basically a cheap pep-rally for Christ via satellite and 800 numbers flashing across the screen for donations - those types of Churches make my stomach churn.)
Two points from me:
1. You've actually seen a service at an Evangelical megachurch that has an 800-number? All the ones I've been to either pass the plate like anyone else or have a box in the back where people can give at will. Now, I've seen some smaller urban congregations where I have a very big problem with how money is collected, but the Evangelical megachurches I've attended haven't done any worse than others and often do better.
2. I think there's a place for "pep rallies for Christ" in people's religious life. That's what a Promise Keepers rally, an Amy Grant concert, or a Passion Play basically are (you could probably throw in Catholic feast days in this category as well). I think that Protestants and Evangelicals have missed the point when they have what amount to pep rallies on Sundays and neglect the Sacraments, but it's done out of ignorance rather than evil intent.
What are some of the ones you've heard? I just crossed over from that side of the divide so I'm more used to hearing anti-Catholic whoppers. The closest to an anti-Evangelical whopper I've heard is how a lot of Roman Catholics seem to have no idea of Evangelicals in contradistinction to Fundamentalists. Quick guide: Evangelicals are basically Baptists or Presbyterians on amphetamines. Fundamentalists are like the stereotype of the Puritans.
Evangelical refers to any Christian faith (or perhaps ANY religious faith) that has a doctrine of spreading its message. What I think you are referring to Hokie when you talk about "Baptists or Presbyterians on amphetamines" is often referred to as Pentecostal or Charismatic Evangelical. These would be your Assembly of God, Church of Christ, Church of God etc...more here.
Valjean, "Church of Christ" wouldn't be considered Pentecostal or Charismatic. While they sing in their services, they don't believe in having musical accompaniment. I grew up in a "Disciples of Christ" church, which is kind of related. They're, both, off-shoots from "Campbellites". However, even my church, "First Christian," was more independent/conservative than the main DoC, but considered more liberal than CoC--we had music, let women lead, was pretty mainstream, etc. The main point is that CoC is most definitely not Pentecostal, at least not the ones I've attended. It is about as whitebread, staid, and quiet as it gets.
Now, "Church of God of Prophecy" which I attended once with a guy I dated twice--that's a way different story. Coming from the above background, I probably sinned while praying during their "jamboree." While they were doing their thing (jumping up and down, wailing, dancing), I was fervently praying, "Dear God, make them stop. Please, Lord. They don't know what they're doing. They're scaring me, God. Oh, please make them stop."
I have since asked for forgiveness for that prayer, as I believe each to their own, but....man!
Oh, the issue with the "Church of Christ" followers - they refuse to call themselves a "denomination" and also believe that their Church is the only true Church (thus the name). I had a few of those wackos in a university philosophy class back in the late 80s and they brought witness tracks to class and spent endless hours arguing their theology with our professor. It was truly great comedy to see those clowns but sad at the same time...it's almost like they were programed.
"Evangelical" means different things depending on where in the world you are, but in the United States today it tends to be dominated by those with Baptist or Calvinist leanings, which sort-of includes the more theologically conservative wings of most Protestant groups.
The archetypical American Evangelical is Billy Graham, and things associated with Evangelicals include megachurches, WWJD bracelets, Christian bookstores, and Focus on the Family. They're like the American equivalent to John and Charles Wesley.
Pentecostals/Charismatics are nearly always a subset of Evangelicals, and more-or-less can be stereotyped as Evangelicals who practice tongues-speaking (or at least their congregation does).
Fundamentalists tend to be a subset of Evangelicals as well, and while "generic" Evangelicals and Pentecostals/Charismatics tend to get along, Fundamentalists often don't mix so well. They also don't use megachurches. They're the ones you'll hear about who ban things like card-playing, movies, and pants on women. They're like the American equivalent to Oliver Cromwell.
Basically, under "Evangelical" you have at least three subgroups:
1. "generic" Evangelicals
2. Pentecostals/Charismatics
3. Fundamentalists
As for the claim that "evangelical" can mean almost any type of Christian, this is technically true but in the generic use, "evangelical" has come to refer to a specific minority subset of Christians--essentially, those who hold to the Bible and the Bible alone as authoritative in all matters of spirituality and doctrine--essentially, an extremist development that came out of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It's a relatively new movement that started in Europe but found its deepest and most lasting roots in America. It is, quite arguably, not technically Protestant, and is certainly regarded as more than a little odd by most mainline Protestants, as well as of course by the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic.
As for Arnold's comments: I've learned to simply ignore him when he writes about the Catholic Church, because he knows far less about it, or Christianity in general, than he supposes, and so often says things that are simply factually inaccurate it is difficult to know where to begin commenting. When practically every sentence contains at least one error, with sometimes multiple errors per sentence, it's like untangling the Gordion knot.
And by the way, Hokie: Not exactly, most mainline Protestants, including conservative Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc. look at the evangelicals a bit oddly, although some (especially the Methodists) have wings that are more evangelical-friendly than others (like the one the President belongs to).
It's the Methodists and especially the Baptists that these folks came out of, but they eventually got so liberal in their theology they stopped being even baptists. They're the ones who run so-called "Bible churches" and Bible colleges and whatnot that really aren't part of any denomination and claim to hold to no creeds at all--which is why they're arguably not really Protestants, by the way, although some take that lable for themselves in a generic sort of way.
They're the ones who run so-called "Bible churches" and Bible colleges and whatnot that really aren't part of any denomination and claim to hold to no creeds at all--which is why they're arguably not really Protestants, by the way,....
True, i.e., Boise Bible College, where a couple of ministers from my church ended up being president. I do consider myself to be a Protestant, however, in that I am not (big C) Catholic. Just as an aside, Mormons consider everyone else, including Protestants, to be Gentiles.
While the following is not complete in the statement, and I don't really agree with everything my old church represented (even that below), from Wiki's Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, I still stand by some of it, especially the last.
The following are expressions typically used by such churches as an explanation and clarification of beliefs:
"Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent"
- This defines a commitment to speak, teach, and preach on the contents of the Bible while avoiding additions to the scripture that come about from traditions or cultural developments.
"In essentials unity, in opinions liberty, and in all things love"
- Essentials include the direct teachings of the Bible, opinions refer to those areas not specifically defined in the Bible (such as musical instruments in worship), and love is held as the unifier that holds the congregation together in spite of differences in opinions.
"No head-quarters but heaven, no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible, no plea but the gospel, and no name but the divine."
- These churches hold the Bible as the direct basis for doctrinal statements rather than referencing any denominational creeds and believe that churches should take on no name other than the one that defines them as followers of Christ. Hence the name "Christian"
"Christians only, but not the only Christians."
- A recognition that the people of these congregations define themselves only as Christians (not Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.), but they do not consider themselves to be the only Christians.
United Methodists and Baptists have distinctly different theological ideologies. Methodists are very liberal in their social doctrine although officially opposed to SSM. They oppose the death penalty, are pro-choice, and generally anti-war.
Remember, the founder of the Methodist Church was Anglican minister named John Wesley.
Cardeblu: Yep, that's about right. I am a refugee from that branch of Christianity, as it happens.
Valjean: I take mild issue with a few of those. John Wesley insisted he was well within the traditions of the Church of England, but Methodism itself broke away from the C of E and the Episcopalians quite some time ago. Also, there are multiple branches within Methodism, some more politically and socially conservative than others. Theologically they tend toward being fairly liberal, but then, so do most evangelicals (although they don't think of themselves that way, from an orthodox perspective they're extremely liberal without being aware of it--heh).
Most of what I know about Catholocism, Dean, I learned from my Catholic relatives and in-laws who got thouroughly pissed at everything to do with that religion.
So while I may be speaking in ignorance, I would still say that most of those folks know more about Catholicism than you do.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
12.31.2007 11:17pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
2) I have to tread carefully here, because I have a significant and growing number of catholic relatives and in-laws. So I am compelled out of family considerations to attend their funerals, and mourn lugubriously like the rest of the flock, standing when they stand, sitting when they sit, and looking as pious as possible.
But nobody's ever been able to induce me to let a priest stick a wafer in my mouth and chew on what purports to be the body of Yeshua of Natzrat. On the other hand, at a lot of these services, I see large numbers of people who share no such communion.
If I were a Catholic, I think I would yearn for the grand old days of the full Latin rites. The changeover to English has turned the Holy Episcopal Roman Catholic Church of Jesus Christ into just another vaguely liberal suburban protestant church, with all the mystery washed away in interests of some wierd sort of ecumenicism.
3) Why do the editors of that online publication feel it is necessary to publish two stamps of official church approval of every word they have written?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Arnold, the answer was self-evident for those who actually did read all of the article:
"These three examples are not important in themselves, but they illustrate the material professional anti-Catholics produce."
That may be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read from you. If the worship is NOT in the language of the people, what's the point? It's akin to keeping bibles away from followers (which they tried to do btw). Yes, that's a good idea, let's alienate more members of our faith. If you didn't already get the memo, the American Catholic Church is both very liberal and very conservative depending on the issue. What it doesn't want to do is lose followers to protestant churches (like those shameful megachurches where it's basically a cheap pep-rally for Christ via satellite and 800 numbers flashing across the screen for donations - those types of Churches make my stomach churn.)
Anyway, the Catholic Church can remain relevant AND remain in the people's language without compromising "the mystery."
But I think something quite basic was lost when the Roman Catholic Church gave up the Latin rite.
My opinion of the televised spectacles of the megachurches with the flashing 800 numbers mirrors yours.
Still, all things considered, I think it would be a great cultural loss if the orthodox Jews switched over from Hebrew to English in their prayer services, or the Moslems from Arabic to English.
Just remember, I'm a culturalist, not a seeker of ultimate religious truths. For all I ever can know, all of you are equally right. Or you all are equally wrong.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
To be honest, I read the article but did not notice what you cited here. Probably because I was looking for something to chide them about.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are there to show that the local bishop endorses what has been written as reflective of true Roman Catholic doctrine. It's the guarantee to the reader that what is written isn't merely the opinion of the writer but is in accordance with Catholic teaching. Really, if you see a publication which purports to explain Catholic teaching that doesn't have these two signs you should take it with a huge grain of salt.
(like those shameful megachurches where it's basically a cheap pep-rally for Christ via satellite and 800 numbers flashing across the screen for donations - those types of Churches make my stomach churn.)
Two points from me:
1. You've actually seen a service at an Evangelical megachurch that has an 800-number? All the ones I've been to either pass the plate like anyone else or have a box in the back where people can give at will. Now, I've seen some smaller urban congregations where I have a very big problem with how money is collected, but the Evangelical megachurches I've attended haven't done any worse than others and often do better.
2. I think there's a place for "pep rallies for Christ" in people's religious life. That's what a Promise Keepers rally, an Amy Grant concert, or a Passion Play basically are (you could probably throw in Catholic feast days in this category as well). I think that Protestants and Evangelicals have missed the point when they have what amount to pep rallies on Sundays and neglect the Sacraments, but it's done out of ignorance rather than evil intent.
What are some of the ones you've heard? I just crossed over from that side of the divide so I'm more used to hearing anti-Catholic whoppers. The closest to an anti-Evangelical whopper I've heard is how a lot of Roman Catholics seem to have no idea of Evangelicals in contradistinction to Fundamentalists. Quick guide: Evangelicals are basically Baptists or Presbyterians on amphetamines. Fundamentalists are like the stereotype of the Puritans.
These people take it up a notch.
Now, "Church of God of Prophecy" which I attended once with a guy I dated twice--that's a way different story. Coming from the above background, I probably sinned while praying during their "jamboree." While they were doing their thing (jumping up and down, wailing, dancing), I was fervently praying, "Dear God, make them stop. Please, Lord. They don't know what they're doing. They're scaring me, God. Oh, please make them stop."
I have since asked for forgiveness for that prayer, as I believe each to their own, but....man!
Did we really? I always knew those sneaky Ambrosians would outlast us.... And after all that fuss about the motu proprio, too.
"Evangelical" means different things depending on where in the world you are, but in the United States today it tends to be dominated by those with Baptist or Calvinist leanings, which sort-of includes the more theologically conservative wings of most Protestant groups.
The archetypical American Evangelical is Billy Graham, and things associated with Evangelicals include megachurches, WWJD bracelets, Christian bookstores, and Focus on the Family. They're like the American equivalent to John and Charles Wesley.
Pentecostals/Charismatics are nearly always a subset of Evangelicals, and more-or-less can be stereotyped as Evangelicals who practice tongues-speaking (or at least their congregation does).
Fundamentalists tend to be a subset of Evangelicals as well, and while "generic" Evangelicals and Pentecostals/Charismatics tend to get along, Fundamentalists often don't mix so well. They also don't use megachurches. They're the ones you'll hear about who ban things like card-playing, movies, and pants on women. They're like the American equivalent to Oliver Cromwell.
Basically, under "Evangelical" you have at least three subgroups:
1. "generic" Evangelicals
2. Pentecostals/Charismatics
3. Fundamentalists
Considering how very rare such things are, it would be hard to put one together. But if you've got some suggestions, feel free to share.
[shrug again]
It's the Methodists and especially the Baptists that these folks came out of, but they eventually got so liberal in their theology they stopped being even baptists. They're the ones who run so-called "Bible churches" and Bible colleges and whatnot that really aren't part of any denomination and claim to hold to no creeds at all--which is why they're arguably not really Protestants, by the way, although some take that lable for themselves in a generic sort of way.
While the following is not complete in the statement, and I don't really agree with everything my old church represented (even that below), from Wiki's Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, I still stand by some of it, especially the last.
Remember, the founder of the Methodist Church was Anglican minister named John Wesley.
Valjean: I take mild issue with a few of those. John Wesley insisted he was well within the traditions of the Church of England, but Methodism itself broke away from the C of E and the Episcopalians quite some time ago. Also, there are multiple branches within Methodism, some more politically and socially conservative than others. Theologically they tend toward being fairly liberal, but then, so do most evangelicals (although they don't think of themselves that way, from an orthodox perspective they're extremely liberal without being aware of it--heh).
So while I may be speaking in ignorance, I would still say that most of those folks know more about Catholicism than you do.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.