Posted on 12/11/2009 4:15:24 PM PST by NYer
Thanks for prayers for health. I am feeling God’s goodness and kindness each day. Still several days away from any kind of information I can share. Continue praying. I love you and count myself blessed a thousand times to be surrounded by so many who will pray for me.
I spent the entire day yesterday listening to Catholic radio. I took in EWTN and Ave Maria in about equal portions, along with a couple of archived hours of Catholic Answers. I thought it would be interesting to the IM audience today to hear some of my thoughts on the “Catholic radio” experience.
Let me say a couple of things. First, some good Catholic friends have told me not to do this. Not because it is counter-productive as much as simply a bit distorted in its picture of the Church. EWTN is one kind of American Catholic experience, but it’s very much its own culture and flavor. There is lots more going on, some not as conservative, some far deeper and richer in flavor. I hope I counted all of this as I reflected on what I was hearing.
Secondly, I’m very open to what Catholicism has to say. I’m about as soft a sell as you could find right now. My own evangelicalism has made its case to me and while I remain part of the evangelical community, I am not manning the ramparts with weapons. I’m opening windows and doors, actively inviting in the voices of non-evangelical Christians and their experience of Christ.
Third, it was the Feast of the Immaculate Conception yesterday, so I heard a lot of discussion of Mary.
So here are some of my reflections. No particular order or significance to placement.
1. The broadcast of the mass of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception from the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in D.C. was very impressive. With all the theological questions that come along with this emphasis, the beauty, majesty and antiquity of the Catholic faith comes across. Evangelicals these days, given an hour or so of similar time, would….what? Contemporary music with a celebrity sermon? We could, within our resources, present a wonderful and beautiful worship experience, but one wonders if it would ever get past the discussions of contemporary music. etc.
2. Likewise, there are some embarrassing and ignorant goof-balls who have managed to corner an hour of Catholic radio. If anyone thinks that evangelicals or fundamentalists have a corner on this market, you are quite wrong. They are waiting for you on the other side.
3. It doesn’t seem that a majority of the voices I heard on a day of Catholic radio have a sense of how the church itself, and the mysteries of Christ, the church and personal faith, are experienced differently in Roman Catholic spirituality as compared to Protestantism. The reformation isn’t just a historical and doctrinal event. There has developed a significantly different experience of the church, the Gospel and the Christian life in these two traditions. It’s not simply a multiple choice question, but two very different ways of living, trusting and being a Christian. Overlooking this is a real mistake. It isn’t easy to talk about, but I’m convinced that, at the end of the day, it has to be counted far more important than most make it.
4. Catholic Answers’ apologists answer a huge number of marriage related questions. It’s simply quite extraordinary. Sometimes half the questions offered to a Catholic Answers apologist are marriage related. Is there a better place to work these things out than the radio? The impression this leaves with a Protestant is poor.
5. Catholic Answers’ apologists, at least as I have heard them on this day and many others, vary widely in quality, and some of them are quite weak. Jimmy Akin is CA’s senior apologist. A caller asked him about Mary’s behavior toward Jesus in Mark 3. He was stumped. Speechless. He sounded as if he hadn’t read up on this passage in years. Eventually, after a couple of extended silences, he resorted to appealing to “nuances in translation,” a far too frequent apologetic hide out for the unprepared. I know this passage well from teaching Mark. I could have answered- in a Catholic friendly way- in a minute. Unimpressive and indicative that, as I’ve said, the wrong emphasis is often implied in this kind of Catholic argumentation.
6. Fr. Benedict Groeschel did an hour long presentation on the Immaculate Conception. He’s simple and quite excellent, and I say that counting in what scholarship has to say, what the early church fathers contribute and where the teaching authority of the church steps in to define dogma. Fr. Groeschel understands them all, gives them the proper emphasis and never- never!- tries to argue an evangelical into seeing that this doctrine is plainly taught in scripture. Even Luther and Calvin believed it by way of Augustine. When one meets a Catholic who deals with his/her own beliefs in the context of how the Catholic church actually holds the faith, everything works much better. The voices that act as if these things are simply matters of argument about scripture and that’s all are not helpful.
7. Scott Hahn may not be the scholarly heavyweight that the RCC in America make him out to be, but he really is a gift to the RCC. Few people in evangelicalism could do what he does with scripture, tradition and experience in such a winsome way. His evident joy in his journey goes along with his enthusiasm for the Bible in Catholicism and results in a very glad witness.
8. More than a few people at Catholic Answers/EWTN need to re-read the Vatican II documents on ecumenism and make up their minds whether they plan to present the church’s views accurately or not. At times, it seemed to me that some persons were ready to go to the rack rather than say “separated brethren.” Bizarre.
Your thoughts and responses to my impressions are welcome.
3. It doesn’t seem that a majority of the voices I heard on a day of Catholic radio have a sense of how the church itself, and the mysteries of Christ, the church and personal faith, are experienced differently in Roman Catholic spirituality as compared to Protestantism. The reformation isn’t just a historical and doctrinal event. There has developed a significantly different experience of the church, the Gospel and the Christian life in these two traditions. It’s not simply a multiple choice question, but two very different ways of living, trusting and being a Christian. Overlooking this is a real mistake. It isn’t easy to talk about, but I’m convinced that, at the end of the day, it has to be counted far more important than most make it.
###################
I think that’s quite true.
Thx.
I think that non-Catholics who listen to Catholic Radio need to understand, it’s isn’t being broadcast for them. It’s being broadcast for us.
If they are hoping to find a Trinity Broadcasting or CBN type programing, they are not going to find it. Those are generic Christian. A Baptist, a Presbyterian or a Methodist can find themselves in the broadcasts, but we live what we are, we are Catholic and live Catholic, not Bible Christian only. Those broadcasts are from our POV. Sorry they don’t like our talk of marriage or the Immaculate Conception. They can turn the dial, because we are talking to Catholics.
From someone who used to be majorly into the non-Catholic stations, I can tell you, Catholic Radio is not the same as non-Catholic radio. We talk to us. We are not generic and it’s not meant to be. If they had a Lutheran EWTN, the Presbyterians may not get into it. The problem is?
I’d say the majority of Catholic radio projects what most Catholics all over the world are like. Many American Catholics (and clergy and religious) are their own breed. Most of the Catholics I know are not traditional. It gets pretty lonely if you are traditional.
In our parish this year, we had a mundane Mass with a solo cantor for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. For the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the whole church was decorated and their were Aztec dancers.
No wonder people get confused.
One thing no one brings up and I find poor form is the habit of converts, such as Hahn, Grodi, and Madrid, sort of chuckling at the misguided Protestants like they are dim bulbs who don’t really understand things.
As a convert, I appreciate that Protestants often don’t understand some of Catholicism, but whether Catholic radio is oriented towards Catholics or the world at large, this sort of attitude is off-putting. I have quit watching Grodi’s program on EWTN because of this attitude.
Father Groeschel is the best on EWTN, and I try to catch his program every week. I also listen to anything he does on radio. He does NOT talk down to people nor does he have that smug “I know the Truth” attitude towards those of other faiths.
I realize this is probably going to annoy some people, but a steady diet of this type of stuff would have pushed me away from Catholicism, had I heard it when I was exploring joining the Church.
You’ve never found that on other Christian Media? I have. Watch some Trinity Broadcasting and see how they look down on those who interpret the Bible in ways different than they do. They cut no breaks. In fact, I was just reading about the No Greater Joy ministry and the interpretations of the Bible by the wife as to the place of a woman. Those who don’t think the way she does are called “whores” and “hussies”. Her ideas of staying in a marriage through all is downright dangerous.
My husband is a convert also. He doesn’t find Catholic Radio condescending. Some of the stuff is what he calls “The Catholic Club”. He felt left out until he was in. But as he said, that’s any group, everywhere.
I heard that the Ave Maria in particular was quite beautiful at the noon. I will remind everyone that while the National Shrine has deeper pockets than some other places, the cathedrals generally make do with limited budgets.
That's largely because Catholics see the period of the 16th century from the other side. It was more of an intellectual revolt against centuries of revelation and Sacred Tradition that resulted in large scale destruction and confiscation of Church property and assets that had been left in trust for future generations. Much like what happened in the latter 20th century with wreckovation and the wholesale discarding of the old Mass, what was beloved by the people was ripped away and destroyed by forces who were chasing what amounts to a fad.
There has developed a significantly different experience of the church, the Gospel and the Christian life in these two traditions. It’s not simply a multiple choice question, but two very different ways of living, trusting and being a Christian. Overlooking this is a real mistake. It isn’t easy to talk about, but I’m convinced that, at the end of the day, it has to be counted far more important than most make it.
This is very true to an extent. It's difficult a lot of times to put observations into words without causing massive offense.
As marriage is a vocation, this is very much the proper place for it.
I actually find him to be quite annoying.
You are mistaken. Patrick Madrid is a cradle Catholic.
Well said. Too many have an attitude that doing anything more than going to Mass weekly is being 'too pious'. They've gotten out of the habit of saying the Rosary, going to Adoration, etc. so anyone else doing so is considered some sort of 'Jesus freak'. I DID get out of those habits for many years, and what brought me back to them was our involvement in a Charismatic Prayer group for a while, when we lived in NJ.
But I don't listen to EWTN or watch it on TV. Sometimes it gets a little too 'pious piffle' for me, but I'm glad it's there for those who like it, or those who are searching for something REAL in their lives, and want to look at the Catholic faith. It is there, unadulterated, for anyone who is looking with an open heart.
3. It doesn’t seem that a majority of the voices I heard on a day of Catholic radio have a sense of how the church itself, and the mysteries of Christ, the church and personal faith, are experienced differently in Roman Catholic spirituality as compared to Protestantism. The reformation isn’t just a historical and doctrinal event. There has developed a significantly different experience of the church, the Gospel and the Christian life in these two traditions. It’s not simply a multiple choice question, but two very different ways of living, trusting and being a Christian. Overlooking this is a real mistake. It isn’t easy to talk about, but I’m convinced that, at the end of the day, it has to be counted far more important than most make it.
###################
I think that’s quite true.
Thx.
I do too. Tangentially if not complimentarily, the following point below is also of note:
6. Fr. Benedict Groeschel did an hour long presentation on the Immaculate Conception. He’s simple and quite excellent, and I say that counting in what scholarship has to say, what the early church fathers contribute and where the teaching authority of the church steps in to define dogma. Fr. Groeschel understands them all, gives them the proper emphasis and never- never!- tries to argue an evangelical into seeing that this doctrine is plainly taught in scripture. Even Luther and Calvin believed it by way of Augustine. When one meets a Catholic who deals with his/her own beliefs in the context of how the Catholic church actually holds the faith, everything works much better. The voices that act as if these things are simply matters of argument about scripture and that’s all are not helpful.
########
I have long ago given up trying to convince my fellow Christians that the Catholic Church’s dogmas can be shown explicitly in Scripture. I still maintain that there is no dogma that *violates* Scripture, but my fellow Catholics here, and in other fora, who continue to try to answer Protestant objections “on their terms” (that is defending Catholic dogma from Scripture alone) are not doing themselves or the Church any favors, IMO.
We simply have different mindsets, as point 3 (and point 6) points out. I’d also go so far as to say that, IMO, without any offense intended, it’s simply unreasonable to believe that everything God wants us to know about His Son’s revelation is contained in a book.
Indeed, in closing, I’d submit that the point of the Incarnation was not only to provide us with a bridge between us and the Infinite, but also to show us clearly, once and for all, how God expects us to come to him, to whit: Through the mystical body of Christ, the Church. IOW, the Incarnation was not just a one time event, but Christ lives, mysteriously, even today, in His Body. We can meet Him, alive today, and learn about Him and “who He was/is”, and “what does He want from me” through this Body, literally in the faithful. This is the method that Christ proposed then, and it’s still in existence today.
We meet Him, not as some incredible vision or in our “feelings” or imaginations, but as a real, concrete human being, our friends, co-workers, family, etc. This is the point of the Incarnation, I believe, and so debates about theology, while important in their own right, are not truly the way we discover Christ present in our lives. They can become a distraction to the true Encounter that changes lives.
Through this method, the Incarnation, and not through theological debates, we can and do meet Christ exactly as His disciples met him on the road to Emmaus. In our reality, now. Christ became fully human not to show us how flawed we are, but to allow us to become as fully human as He was/is. Not that we become Christ (God), but that in our imitation of Him, with His help, we can, for however brief a time in a day, every day, “become Him for others”. This is what “witness” means, IMO. This is how Christianity works, grows and spreads. Again, not (at least not ultimately) through theological debates, but through an encounter with a living Presence.
The evidence of this is simply in one’s own personal conversion experience. Most were not “convinced” to become Christian, to live as a Christian, by reading the Bible or debating theology, or by some mystical vision. Ultimately, most converted because of someone they MET, a real PERSON, someone, who was “Christ for them” at that moment in time.
It truly is a different way of thinking.
FYI, Hahn and Grodi are converts, but Madrid is a cradle Catholic.
I understand what you’re saying about them, though, and somewhat agree. I think it’s an effort to combat the “Catholics don’t know the Bible” attitude one finds among fundamentalist Protestant types, but is probably, as you say, counter-productive.
Fr. Groeschel’s approach is probably better. Mother Angelica was very good also. Just lay out the faith as it is, and people will find their way to embrace it.
I think you’re correct. Furthermore, I’d say that it is our sense of mystery (shared with the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, who emphasize it even more) that is the central difference between Catholics and Protestants. From there, all the other differences have developed.
In recent years, this centrality of mystery has been deemphasized in the Western Church, and has caused all sorts of problems. The Holy Father is leading us towards a reembrace of the mysterious.
I agree that there are important aspects of
Christ’s Incarnation
that God would have us learn from one another as parts of His Body, The Church.
However, I’m fiercely still SOLA SCRIPTURA.
I do not AT ALL find any foundation in any convincing place or way to any of the extra Marian stuff. I just don’t.
I think I’ll charitably stop there.
Thanks for your kind msg.
I do not AT ALL find any foundation in any convincing place or way to any of the extra Marian stuff. I just don’t.
So you embrace that which is not in Scripture yet reject that which IS in Scripture.
Quite the opposite.
That’s YOUR construction on things.
It’s NOT mine.
The Marian stuff is NOT REMOTELY in Scripture.
Building Midevil skyscraper castles on one toothpick
is NOT remotely my construction on reality.
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.