Posted on 03/16/2009 1:36:46 PM PDT by NYer
Many cradle Catholics I know look at the moral conflicts tearing apart the mainline denominations with sadness, but as a convert from one of them (the Episcopal Church, the most notoriously divided one of them all), I think this is not quite the right response.
We will feel sad at the sight of beloved Christian friends suffering as their churches divide, but we might be heartened to see that because these conflicts express flaws in the original design, they will encourage some to greater friendship, if not full reconciliation, with the Catholic Church.
The sadness we feel will be like the sadness you feel on seeing a pretty old house finally falling down because it was badly built in the first place — built on sand, say — and has been coming apart for most of its life. You’re sad, even when you know it will be replaced by a much better house.
You know your neighbors will miss their old home, but you also know they’ll be happier in a house whose basement doesn’t flood, whose roof doesn’t leak, whose windows don’t let out the heat in the winter, whose pipes don’t clog every other day.
You also know they wouldn’t move into the new house until the old one collapsed. The house held too many memories, was too comfortable, even if damp, and leaving it was too hard.
Unfudgeable Differences
My own former tradition, for example, developed its own rebellion against the Church by a series of compromises and fudges and mutual agreements to look the other way. It was a house built on sand, but it has stood for a long time. At last, real, unfudgeable differences are forcing their various parties apart.
The question of authority, for one, was never really settled. The Anglican founders declared their belief in the supremacy of Scripture but left unanswered the question of who was to decide what Scripture actually taught. The founders thought this would be obvious. This arrangement worked all right when good, middle-class Englishmen and Americans agreed on the practical matters, until a few decades ago, when they started disagreeing about them and asserting contradictory views of what Scripture taught.
No Anglican authority could convincingly declare who was right.
Some found in the Scriptures the traditional view that ministers must be male, while others found in them a new view (which they claimed to have been the original view, long suppressed): that ministers could also be female. Both sides offered substantial biblical arguments for their position. Many conservatives came to approve the innovation, while a shrinking minority held out. Revealingly, perhaps, the evangelical wing, the one loudest in its declarations of belief in Scripture, has largely accepted the innovation.
In this case, Anglicans came, as they always had done, to an uncomfortable practical accommodation, with the few who couldn’t accept it, leaving — some for Rome, some for “Continuing Anglican” churches. But in the last few years, even that has come apart, with members of the shrunken minority denied ordination or pastorates because their view is “discriminatory.”
With the rise of arguments for homosexuality, they seem to have come to an innovation a large number of conservatives will never approve and, thus, a matter they can’t settle with a theological fudge or practical accommodation. Conservatives who accepted the Rev. Jane Doe won’t accept Mr. and Mr. John Doe.
Breaking Up
This is what happens when your body doesn’t have a magisterium. You might get along without one for a long time, as Anglicanism has, for a host of reasons. (One of which, not often noticed, is having the Catholic Church to hold the line for you.)
But when the disagreements finally become too great and too practical to avoid, you will see your church break up as painfully as we are now seeing world Anglicanism break up, into bodies each holding a particular reading of Scripture’s teaching in the controverted matter.
Even here you see problems, as the conservatives are deeply divided on the ordination of women, leading to the possibility of there being at least two conservative bodies separated from mainstream Anglicanism — and also from each other.
This is, as I said, reason to be heartened. Many of our mainline brothers will see that their churches should not have wound up as they have, and many of those will wonder whether the fault is in their founding, if their traditions were flawed from the beginning. Almost all of them will look at the Catholic Church with more sympathy than they had before, and some may begin to ask if she is indeed who she has said she is.
This has been true, at least, of Anglicanism. As a result of their inevitable conflict over the teaching of Scripture, one portion of conservative Anglicans are looking to Rome, some converting by themselves, but many (the Anglo-Catholic party) hoping for corporate reunion.
And other Anglicans, including many of the evangelicals, look at Rome with new respect and sympathy.
I have had evangelical friends say to me privately that for the first time in their lives they see the value of a magisterium and now wonder if the Catholic Church knows something about the nature of church they don’t. Few of them are likely to convert, but they like and will listen to the Church in a way they did not before.
Catholics who see where mainline conflicts can lead will anticipate a new fellowship with our separated brethren and the entrance of a number of them into full communion with the Church and, therefore, with us.
This explains why I think Catholics should be encouraged by the mainline churches’ problems. I know this seems cold-hearted or triumphalistic, but it isn’t. We are not interested in saying, “See, we were right!” — but excited by the possibility of finally being able to say, “Welcome home, good friend.”
For Catholics, it is so obvious that our Lord would not abandon His sheep but give us a shepherd to guide the Church through good times and bad. How truly blessed are we.
Heard dozens say just the opposite. “Finally free from the chains of the Catholic Church.” Guess we know different folks.
Personally, I know a lot of former Catholics who are now Baptists, so I guess it’s all a matter of who you talk to. I also know a lot of former Protestants who are now Baptists, as well.
For Protestants, it is not so obvious. Ephesians 4:11-12, “God gave some...as pastor-teachers...”
Don’t worry, a time will come when all the faiths of the world will be united under one Shepard.
“so that they all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you..”
My sister went to a church that split over whether to continue organ music during services.
/sarcasm
FYI
There is a dynamic that seems to happen a lot to people who find God, or rededicate themselves after years of being aimless or disconnected or lukewarm. It seems to be necessary in many cases to get up from where you are and move to another pew. Get up from whatever group you are in, and go where God leads you.
I don’t think its just about doctrinal differences; as you say there are protestants joining the catholics, and catholics joining especially the evangelical churches. There is a huge cross-fertilization going on among people who suddenly find themselves drawn into a more real walk with God.
Two things are going on, in my view. God leads you where you need to be, where you can be led and nurtured at the level you are at. And God at some point leads you to where you are needed for what you can contribute.
These days most Catholics, even “practising” ones, may worship in a Catholic church, but they live, think and behave much like mainline Protestants. The only reason there hasn’t been a schism with Rome is because most American Catholics are happy to be “Cafeteriaists.”
Yes, as the article states, some may come to appreciate the Catholic Church or even seek communion with it.
The other “half” though will take the traditional antipathy to the Catholic Church, and put it on steriods by combining it with rabid secular views (now held in many “mainline” Protestant Churches) on abortion, homosexuality, etc...
Jews and Christians have different views of history.
The Jewish view is that history is like a sine wave. When times are bad, people return to their faith, which brings about good times. But when times are good, people stray from their faith, which brings about bad times. Thus Jews rejoice when times are bad, because they are looking up.
The Christian view is that history is like a sawtooth wave. Left to their own devices, people over time go bad. But then a patriarch, prophet, or Jesus comes along and spiritually uplifts people to a much higher moral state. Once they are gone, however, people again start going bad.
These two very different outlooks of history are reflected throughout Jewish and Christian cultures.
But that being said, Christians should now look at Christianity itself. Especially in the 20th Century, a lot of Christianity has strayed from its faith, by embracing trendy social ideas, and emphasizing relativism over longstanding values and beliefs. And it would be the easiest thing to assume that this is part of the moral decay of man, when left unattended.
However, look also to those parts of Christianity that are trying to reform and rebuild their spiritual values. Who are rejecting efforts to make their churches trendy, in favor of embracing the core values that are the reason for their churches in the first place.
The Catholic church reexamines “Vatican II”, and the Anglican church is willing to schism by those who want to protect their faith, even at a high price. Other prominent denominations putting their foot down in favor of traditional values.
As long as this is done, perhaps man hasn’t fallen too far.
I quite frankly see no Protestant Meltdown. I have lots of Catholic friends and we get along fine.
As far as envying their hiearchy, I do not. If a Church leader commands authority, by his knowledge or actions, I respect him regardless of where he is from.
If they do not take scripture seriously, I don’t waste my time with them.
The modern adapters of faith, who do it out of touchy-feely air, or those who preach believe-and-prosper faiths cool my interest in them.
In the end, there will not be Baptist, Methodists, Catholics, or other denominations. Only Christians.
And of course the Jews. Like it or not from either side we are joined together forever.
Evangelical Protestants do fine numerically. I don’t think the mainline Protestant collapse affects them at all.
“unfudgeable”
As a former Episcopalian, I find the use of this word to be hilarious. It sums up the argument quite succinctly.
Thank you for making that distinction.
The magisterium a two edged sword. If headed by a Godly man it is a blessing. If the enemy captures the top post, God help all his followers.
There fixed it.
No, it's a meltdown all around. The old cradle Catholic America is gone.
I have a lot of dear protestant friends. Some of them have passed on, and I believe some of them have made it to heaven. They now see God and the Holy Virgin as is, as opposed to what they thought, to which I now say to them, “I told you so.”
The fact that Catholics ignore the teachings of the Church in no way impacts its ability to lead christians to the Truth. For 1500 years, there was but one christian church - the Catholic Church. Martin Luther opened Pandora's box when he said anyone, even a milkmaid, could interpret scripture. That is why today, there are more than 40,000 protestant denominations and that number grows each and every day. This was never God's plan for us.
There is no such thing as “former” Catholics. Once a person is baptized as a Catholic, they are always a Catholic. They may choose to leave the church for one reason or another, but they can come back anytime by calling their local parish. Our parish has a program entitled “Catholics Can Come Home Again.” People are always so happy that they came back to the ONE, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.
As a convert to Catholosism from the Baptist faith, I have many dear friends (and all of my husbands family, though hubby converted with me) who are Baptist. We talk about some things, but never with malice, as I am not going to change their minds, nor they mine. We agree to disagree on some subjects and let it go.
My biggest observation does relate back to the topic of interpretation/view points.
I am an American, and as such I have the right to many things in this country. Freedom of speech, religion, and to practice whatever way is the way I deem correct. However, I have these rights because, while God gave them, the Constitution protects and defends them. We all know what it says, but it is a living document and needs interpretation and a ruling to define parts that need defining. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, yet you have the right to free speech. Not all speech is protected speech, the question remains, who determines what speech is protected and what speech isn’t. Its the supreme court. It is their job and duty to define for all americans what the constitution declares when a question arises. Their decision is binding on the whole country.
Such is the Pope along with the Magisterium. They, when speaking on a matter of faith and morals as the head of the Universal Church, define and declare a questioned item as binding on the whole universal church. This is not done with frequency, but, it does happen. Catholics can choose with their free will whether or not to accept it and remain a catholic, or to leave the church. Cafeteria Catholics choose to excommunicate themselves by refusing to accept the teachings of the church. They are de facto catholics or CINO’s. Should they choose to repent, they are welcomed, like the prodigal son, back into the fold, as practiced by Jesus who told many to go and sin no more.
I do find it a little strange that this concept, while so intregal to America (as far as the constitution and supreme court goes) it is so hard to understand why it is so strange to have a final authority on a belief system.
Doesn’t each person who reads and believes in their own heart what the message of scripture is, actually acting as their own Pope? There cannot be more than one truth. If two persons disagree about something like whether gay marriage or abortion or birth control or any other divisive issue, one of them is necessarily wrong. Black and white cannot both be black. There is one God, guiding one Holy Spirit in one truth, and seeing as this decision, which is right and which is wrong will have eternal lasting consequences, I think it would be prudent to find out, for sure, just where the truth may lie. Jesus promised, seek and you will find, knock and it shall be opened, ask and you shall receive. with a promise like that, it is in the interests of all christians to do whatever he tells you.......Cheers all and have a great night!
Wow! You nailed it.
You wrote:
“Heard dozens say just the opposite. “Finally free from the chains of the Catholic Church.” Guess we know different folks.”
We definitely know different people. All the Protestants who became Catholics that I know knew exactly what they were leaving and exactly what they were joining. This includes at least two former Lutheran ministers I know (one of whom may be ordained as a priest soon). On the other hand, I never once met a “former Catholic” who knew much of anything about the Catholic faith or cared too. They couldn’t tell you accurately about Catholic doctrine, or what the Mass is or means, etc. Clearly the priests and bishops (and lay people!) have failed to catechize well over the last four decades. But putting that fact aside for the moment, it still means that - overwhelmingly - Catholics who become Protestants are just ignorant while many Protestants who become Catholics are not.
Yes, we know different people.
Those that left being Catholic became Christians.
You wrote:
“Those that left being Catholic became Christians.”
If they were Catholic, they were already Christian. They just weren’t very knowledgeable or faithful.
I heard a story from a friend about an earnest protestant/evangelical young lady who told him that it made her sad to be sitting in class, knowing that she was saved and that most of the other folks in the room were going to hell.
The tone of this article reminded me of that story....
This, too, reminds me of the story related in #30. Apparently, to be you, means to be smug about other people's relationship with God.
The Catholics who leave for Protestantism do so out of either ignorance or curiosity. For many, it is a phase which they outgrow and come back to the Church, and others lose their faith completely.
Assuming that sacerdotal chains, paternosters, mariolatry, genuflecting, the Pope mobile, candles, “sainthood”, Swiss soldiers, relics, cathedrals, hosts, chalices, tall hats and the other trappings didn’t actually occupy their thoughts, rather than Christ, alone.
You left out a couple of reasons why Catholics leave the church, as in my example.
1) I moved from the north to the south, where Catholicsm is not the majority. Raised that I should marry a catholic, I dated a catholic jerk and broke it off. I then met a wonderful protestant guy who refused to become Catholic, and married him. Long term marriage has resulted and Jesus Christ is still the center of it.
2) My willingness in leaving also had alot to do with the “annulment” of my parents’ marriage by the RC. I have had discussions with a priest about this. They need to come up with a better terminology for this procedure.
All that said, neither the Protestant nor the Catholic denominations are perfect in their doctrines. Satan has a grip on this world and man has added alot to all Christian doctrines and denomination. Worship where you see fit and question where you see unsound doctrine. I don’t think many lose their faith in God as much as they lose faith in religious organizations.
Yes, social pressure is a common reason Catholics leave the Church, but then it is another manifestation of ignorance.
What’s wrong with “annulment”?
I don’t see one either. The same fall-offs in worship are affecting both Catholics and protestants. Where I am they have been consolidating parishes not only because of priest shortages but a dwindling membership base.
And I hardly miss the RCC hierarchy.
Yes, that last statement is true.
It is unfortunate that it happens, but for me, I fail to see why people allow themselves to elevate someone other than God to being someone who can’t do any wrong, and then get upset and leave the church when the human being they’ve been believing in (priest, etc) lets them down or worse is in some kind of scandal, and THIS is the reason they leave the church? Or sours you on God?
This is why church leaders must be made accountable and be able to be removed by the congregation and the elders of the church (we need real biblical church elders again!) when things like this happen. We can’t just have a network that shuffles bad pastors around and never addresses the problems. Protestants have this ability in varying degrees, much more so than Catholics. Only the bishop or archbishop can remove a priest, and with their shortages they don’t unless said priest is going to jail.
You wrote:
” Apparently, to be you, means to be smug about other people’s relationship with God.”
No, to be me is to be accurate. If you’re a Catholic, then you’re a Christian. Catholics believe in Christ and are baptized in the name of the Trinity.
No man on this earth, clergy or otherwise, can grant that a publicly made vow to God “ceases to exist”.
The intent of the Church in granting an annulment is that the couple recognize the failures of the marriage and “acknowledge” those failures before going into another marriage. Noble intentions and a positive procedure to prevent another divorce, true. Why not call it as such an “acknowledgment of matrimony”?
Quite a difference from Webster's meaning, and it does not diminish the original oath.
You still refer that I had some manifest ignorance in leaving. No, I knew exactly what I was doing, and I will not dignify you further with any response on the matter.
Good day.
You wrote:
“Assuming that sacerdotal chains,”
There are no chains.
“paternosters,”
Jesus gave us the prayer. I don’t see why we shouldn’t pray it. Are you opposed to the prayer Christ gave us? Figures.
“mariolatry,”
We don’t worship Mary.
“genuflecting,”
How horrible! Showing respect for God’s presence.
“the Pope mobile,”
Keeps a good man from being assassinated by hateful people. Might keep the pope from being assassinated by someone with your views.
“candles,”
How dare we use candles!
““sainthood”,”
It’s a fact. No reason we should honor it.
“Swiss soldiers,”
Good bodyguards.
“relics,”
Saints.
“cathedrals,”
Beautiful houses of God.
“hosts,”
God’s gift to us.
“chalices,”
Holder of that gift.
“tall hats and the other trappings didn’t actually occupy their thoughts, rather than Christ, alone.”
I see no reason to believe that you think of Christ alone when you have such obviously fanciful thoughts about things.
St. Patrick - whose feast this is - had to grapple with the issues of this world. He ordained priests, consecrated bishops, build monasteries, churches, erected dioceses, etc. None of those things took away from his mission of converting people to Christ or his own pursuit of holiness. It could be said your very presence here is detracting from your thinking of “Christ alone” - according to your own standards. Some how I think the sheer hypocrisy of your own actions will never occur to you.
You wrote:
“What prompted me to call you “smug,” is the following: If they were Catholic ... they just weren’t very knowledgeable or faithful.”
Whatever prompted you is essentially irrelevant because there was still no cause for it. The simple fact is that they “weren’t very knowledgeable or faithful.” I have seen it a number of times. In questioning them it always comes out the same. Ask other Catholics here and you’ll see they’ve seen the exact same thing repeatedly. Also, ask reverts and they’ll tell you they never knew what the Catholci faith taught until the second time around.
Catholicism is only a little bit back from being in the same shape as the Episcopal Church. The moment the churches decided that the TaNa"KH (especially the Torah) was primitive mythology containing mistaken opinions instead of the Word of G-d chr*stianity's fate was sealed. Only the independent Fundamentalist Protestants remain, ironically because they don't have an external authority to force liberalism on them (apparently the only purpose religious authority serves in chr*stianity is to mandate liberalism).
No, that is not the intent of the Church. The intent of the Church is precisely what "annulment" means, to find that no marriage had existed under God.
I think there’s a definite trend in Christian worship, and it’s bad for everyone:
Catholic -> Protestant -> Nominal Christian -> Non-believer.
Everyone in growing Protestant and non-Denominational churches talks about how many former Catholics they know among their members. Great, but given the enormous decline of mainline Protestant denominations, isn’t the obvious question, “Where are all the Protestants going?”
I mean, numbers-wise, the Catholic Church is doing pretty well. Last year, there was a decline, but that was after surges in membership in recent years. And no, it’s not Latino immigrants: 25% of Americans and only 38% of Mexican immigrants identify as Catholic. But mainline Protestant churches have been declining for years.
Fifty years ago, America was 70% Protestant and 20% Catholic. Today it’s about 25% Protestant and 25% Catholic, with 25% non-Christian and 25% unaffiliated Christian. So if a church isn’t converting people, shouldn’t most of it’s converts be former Protestants? How could all the conversion-based churches be largely Catholics? The answer: “Falling” Catholics become Protestants, but falling Protestants abandon their faith.
I am without question, a hypocrite. But, you sir/maam, are clearly the Pharisee saying, “At least I am not like him.” Hmmm. What happened to those guys?
To be fair:
I think what’s really going on is that falling Catholics lose their faith, and then find new Protestant churches easier to come back to. A LOT of them come all the way back to Catholicism: going through an apostate phase or a Protestant phase almost seems to be part of the maturation of a Catholic’s spirituality. So Protestant churches seem to be a benefit to the common Christian cause, except many of the churches of former Catholics have found the way to keep their followers from going back to the Catholic church is to attack their Catholic faith.
It seemed so in the 70's, but I think with the last two pontificates we are recovering nicely.
In light of my 2nd Post, #47, I could redraw the cycle:
Catholic -> nominal Christian -> Protestant -> Catholic, while noting that formerly Catholic “nominal Christians” usually continue to identify as Catholics.
Perhaps I have misunderstood your point, then: who, precisely, is not “very knowledgeable or faithful?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.