MegaChurch or Catholic Church?

taylormarshall.com ^ | August 26, 2013 | Dr. Taylor Marshall

[NYer]

Megachurch. Two young ladies. Both had left the Catholic Church. Both were now attending “megachurches.” We had a good chat together. I wanted to understand their reasons for why they left the Catholic Church for a megachurch.

Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Megachurch
43,500 weekly attendance

I was at the bank and somehow I got into a spiritual conversation with two Hispanic executives that worked there.

Why the Megachurch?

When I asked why they exchanged the Catholic Church for the megachurch, they gave me a number of reasons:

1. “My new church has an iPhone app. I can go on my iPhone and get Bible studies, sermons (video and audio). When I travel I can still watch the sermon, either live or later. I feel apart of the community.”
2. “The preaching is dynamic and speaks to my life. I find practical encouragement.”
3. “I felt judged at the Catholic Church.”
4. “People were not friendly or welcoming at the Catholic Church. The first time I went to my new church, I was welcomed by so many people.”
5. “My new church has classes and courses that are interesting and helpful.”
6. “The music is better.”
7. “In the Catholic Church, they use a lot of words that I did not understand.”
8. “People pray for each other and know each other (in the megachurch).”

Although these two ladies didn’t articulate it explicitly to me, I could tell that they were very proud of their new churches. I could also discern in them a surprise that I am so “spiritual” and yet I am very excited about being Catholic. They assumed the “with it” people were leaving Catholicism for the bigger and better and deal.

I asked them what they miss about being Catholic. They replied with two answers:

1. “There are not any crosses in my new church. I know it makes some people feel uncomfortable, but I wish we had crosses.”
2. “What will I do when I die?” They were both unclear about whether they could get anything like Last Rites at the megachurch.

What About the Eucharist?

I asked both about the Eucharist: “Don’t you miss the Eucharist?”

This question didn’t phase them one bit. “Oh we still have communion. They pass out little crackers and cups of juice. I like this better because I thought drinking from one big cup is icky. Spreads germs.”

“But in the Catholic Church,” I replied, “we believe that the Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus?”

I may as well have said, “Don’t you know that there are Martians in my back pocket.” She was unaware that the Catholic Church taught this. No idea.

The Problem

This, my brothers and sisters, is the crux of the problem. These girls were raised as Catholics, but did not know about the Eucharist. They did not know that the Eucharist is God. They did not understand the Holy Eucharist is the center of the Catholic tradition.

So when they compare our ho-hum Catholic music and pedestrian sermons to snazzy well produced musical productions and highly polished bulleted sermons from handsome professional speakers…where are they going to go?

If they had believed that the Holy Eucharist is truly the Lord Jesus Christ, then they would have stayed. This is the task of the New Evangelization if there is going to be one. Can we communicate the mystery of Eucharist. If we fail in that, everyone is leaving the building.

Godspeed,
Taylor

PS: I don’t mean to suggest that having the Holy Eucharist is an excuse for bad music, bad vestments, bad architecture, and bad sermons. The Eucharist is like a precious diamond. It deserves a platinum setting…not a plastic setting. We can’t say, “Well, we have the Eucharist – so you’re forced to stay and have a miserable experience every Sunday.” We can’t keep the sacraments hostage to mediocracy.

PPS: With 1 billion strong, the Catholic Church is the real megachurch!

Pope Francis at Rio de Janeiro
3 million people

[CynicalBear]

>>Are you saying that was NOT the literal physical body of Jesus Christ being referred to in that passage from Matthew 27:57-60?<<

No, I’m saying you need to take the verse in John in context with the rest of scripture. They didn't really eat the scroll either.

[CynicalBear]

Now there was a whole post of man’s wisdom!

[daniel1212]

You stayed in the church for 6 years after you were baptized?

No; i was "baptized" that is, sprinkled with water as an infant unable to repent or believer as per the Scriptural requirements, (Acts 2:28; 8:36,37) by my uncle, one of two uncles who were RC priests, and sincerely believed in God and was raised very devoutly. But there was no real relationship, and later i fell away after i left home, and basically worked and partied for some years.

But i was convicted later of my sins and need for God due to the emptiness in my soul, as i had never known God, and by the conviction of judgment coming. Which finally resulted in deep repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ in confession, with evangelical preaching on the radio (i was a truck driver) soon helping me to place all my faith on Christ.

Attitudes changed that i did not expect to change and even nature seemed new to me, and i wanted to serve God. Thus i served as a lector and CCd teacher, while also trying to speak to others of conversion and "this life," though few in the RC church were interested or could understand the profound change i humbly found.

Looking for life i went to RC charismatic meetings, which were an improvement, if marginalized by the hierarchy, but they were far what i saw in Scripture of a church eager to share the gospel, and from the life giving preaching i heard by evangelical ministers.

But i still stayed while seeking to tell others of Christ and stand for righteousness as the Lord convicted me to do, though it was basically the Lord and me. But when i first sincerely prayed to God that if it was His will to go to a different church then He would show me, then the next day He answered that, and (was also baptized later) has abundantly confirmed that move in the years since.

Not that i think i have arrived, and if anything i became far more conscious of my failings after conversion, and today am grieved my attitudes of my heart when they are not right, or actions, and know of His chastisement for such, but Christ is real and works in my and thru me, by His grace and to His glory.

[Heart-Rest]

"They didn't really eat the scroll either. "

You were there?

[CynicalBear]

>> Catholics can only have conditional life at best until death.<<

Catholics are a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

[paladinan]

Oy, vey!

There's no feasible way to chase down all these (100 new posts per hour) new replies... so I'll have to try a summary again:

1) Sola Scriptura is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Nowhere. Go check. And before you try to sling the same old verses (2 Timothy 3:16, etc.), may I please remind you of something (and I'll pray that people actually READ this, as opposed to skimming for chum to gobble)?

If a Scripture verse says that Scripture is good or necessary, or that people went to check it when making a spiritual discernment, the Catholic Church agrees with that, 100%!! Honestly. I'm not trying to pull a fast one on you! The Church loves the Bible, She knows that it's the Written Word of God, and She venerates it as She does the very Body of Christ (CCC 141). It's absolutely essential, and we need its contents for Salvation.

But.

But. (Are all the sola Scriptura folks listening, and not skimming anymore?)

But...

IT IS UNBIBLICAL, ILLOGICAL, AND JUST PLAIN LOCO TO INSIST THAT ANYONE SHOULD (OR MUST) USE IT ALONE!!!

Is THAT point now clear, at very least? Perhaps someone might respond to that?

(Advance caution: if anyone responds by citing a Scripture that praises or recommends the Scriptures for use, I'll sternly direct you back to this post, since no one who read this carefully and understood it would do such a thing. The same applies to emotional expressions of devotion to the Scriptures--e.g. "They're so PURE! They're so WONDERFUL! They're such a priceless GIFT! etc."--yes, they are. I agree wholeheartedly. But we're talking about Luther's pernicious IDEA (i.e. error) of directing that the Scriptures be used ALONE (the "SOLA" part of "sola Scriptura")... not about the Scriptures.

Is that now painfully, abundantly, excruciatingly clear? We (Catholics, and those of like mind) are fighting the SOLA... NOT the SCRIPTURA!!!

(*sputter*) Honestly...!

[CynicalBear]

>>IT IS UNBIBLICAL, ILLOGICAL, AND JUST PLAIN LOCO TO INSIST THAT ANYONE SHOULD (OR MUST) USE IT ALONE!!!<<

There ya go. Address a post to “all” and then show your ignorance. Where has anyone ever said to use scripture “alone”? By that one comment you have shown that you do not understand what Sola Scriptura means. If you don’t know what something means it’s rather presumptuous to try to correct people on it. I would suggest you do some study on what Sola Scriptura actually means. It’s been explained on this forum many times but still you make a statement indicating to don’t understand it. I would suggest you sincerely pray and ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten you on what it means.

What is clear from your post is you have some work to do to understand the term "Sola Scriptura".

[bkaycee]

Here is a good definition of what is meant by Sola Scriptura.

“First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html

[paladinan]

My dear fellow: surely you realise that there are more people on this form than simply you? And that some of them might have a different definition of “sola Scriptura” than you do?

That being said: perhaps you might tell me what YOUR understanding of “sola Scriptura” is (I’m using Luther’s)? That might save a bit of time and frustration and second-guessing, I think.

[paladinan]

Case in point: if you look at the definition which bkaycee quoted, you’ll find that it harmonises with my own (i.e. if it isn’t in the Bible, then it is not to be trusted in matters pertaining to salvation).

That being said: even bkaycee’s definition is nowhere to be found in the Bible... and the same problems remain.

Honestly: I didn’t invent this problem with sola Scriptura... nor do I enjoy any distress it might give you (or anyone else). I’m merely the messenger with a bit of bad news about it.

[BlueDragon]

Perhaps you could state your point plainly. If you have one...

[CynicalBear]

I have no idea what Luther really taught or said about Sola Scriptura. Though I could envision you got your version of what Luther said from Catholic sources which I can just imagine are misquotes. I do know that when he translated into German there were things he inserted that weren’t there in the original Greek. (He translated from the Latin if I remember correctly) He was after all a Catholic and retained much of the Catholic error. I also suppose I don’t care what he, in particular believed. It would be like me using your definition I suppose. The best I have found is here.

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura)

I might suggest that what you have indicated as your understanding is more Solo Scriptura which doesn’t work well at all.

[CynicalBear]

>> I didn’t invent this problem with sola Scriptura...<<

Of course you didn’t. It’s impetus is from those who want to add to, delete from, or in some other way alter what scripture teaches.

If you are comfortable with the Bob told Mary, who told Stan, who told George, who told my uncle Sam’s cousin Larry who told my uncle Sam scenario then by all means follow that system. I will utilize the example of Jesus and that apostles and rely on “it is written”.

[Elsie]

Of course!

(Don’t let the Devil back YOU down. All he can do is holler!)

[Elsie]

A Catholic posted a list of them up thread I think.

[Elsie]

You mean PRACTICE what they be PREACHIN’?

[Elsie]

It's been know to happen.

AMEN!

[Elsie]

Here ya go: a double sided sign...

GOD bless America!

Are you still killing your unborn?

-- GOD

 

[Elsie]

Have another...

---

I'd like to thank the United States Government for protecting me and my kind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, 40 years ago, my odds of making it out of the egg, alive, were very poor; about 80% of us died. 

 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rachel-carson-silent-spring-1972-ddt-ban-birds-thrive)

 

 

But a lady discovered our plight and wrote a book that addressed our problem,

and, in 1972, a law was ammended protecting us even further. (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html)

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I find strange is that the same government passed a law the very next year that allowed for killing

of unborn, and apparently unwanted, humans.  Little ones still nestled safely in their Mother's womb.

Around 25% of them are dying before birth - on average nearly 3,300 - every day of the year.

 

 

I hear that by now, somewhere around 55 MILLION of them have perished.

Wouldn't that kind of mess up the humans plans for growth, and welfare, and

retirement?

 

 

 

 

 

Strange birds; these Homo Sapiens.  Perhaps they'll come to their senses

before they are ALL dead!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to thank the United States Government for protecting me and my kind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, 40 years ago, my odds of making it out of the egg, alive, were very poor; about 80% of us died. 

 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rachel-carson-silent-spring-1972-ddt-ban-birds-thrive)

 

 

But a lady discovered our plight and wrote a book that addressed our problem,

and, in 1972, a law was ammended protecting us even further. (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html)

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I find strange is that the same government passed a law the very next year that allowed for killing

of unborn, and apparently unwanted, humans.  Little ones still nestled safely in their Mother's womb.

Around 25% of them are dying before birth - on average nearly 3,300 - every day of the year.

 

 

I hear that by now, somewhere around 55 MILLION of them have perished.

Wouldn't that kind of mess up the humans plans for growth, and welfare, and

retirement?

 

 

 

 

 

Strange birds; these Homo Sapiens.  Perhaps they'll come to their senses

before they are ALL dead!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Elsie]

Can you show me where THAT teaching is found in Scripture, then?

This is a fairly good variant itself!

You KNOW it can't be.

---

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.