Well I’m sure it’s not common among all branches of protestantism but I would say it’s fairly normal among Baptists, non-denom and pentacostals
As a former protestant (Evangelical, pentecostal) the fact that there even exists a church called the “Catholic Church” is barely a blip on the radar. We we aware that Catholics existed, but we knew them as people who were largely uneducated about scripture, rarely cared about discussing their faith, and seemed largely disinterested in spirituality as a whole. In my old denomination we had experienced God in worship and spent our time trying to dig in deeper to scripture and the Holy Spirit to understand more. Me? I dug too deep and became Catholic. : /
Sadly, the Catholics in my area to fit my first impression of them. I’m not in a super great area for Catholic spirituality.
Thank you for such an honest evaluation. I think you would speak for the vast majority of the non-Catholics I know, although, I would add that most of us would know someone who is Catholic who would be the exemption to the norm. And usually those do not seem to have a need to castigate the Protestant churches.
I’m non-denominational…I didn’t even realize there was a Catholic vs non-Catholic “thing” until after going to church with my wife a handful of times.
Growing up, I never thought twice about the Catholic church/churches in town. They were just another church of believers down the road.
Hoping to not appear egotistical here, but that’s generally me. I maintain contacts with my previous church and even the pastors there say they are thrilled at what they are seeing in the church, not filtered through the media. I found as a protestant that those Catholics were usually converts.
I admit, I’m a child of two worlds. I met Jesus as a protestant. I found Him even more as a Catholic…now I feel that I am both. The Catholic church seems to have no room for me because I’m too “out there”…at least in my area that has a Catholic church that preaches homosexuality as something to be embraced and a distant faith that “doesn’t interefere in daily life”
I find myself often visiting the local non-denominational evangelical church on weekend (and got permission to do so from my parish priest!!) in order to hear something approaching sound doctrine (though, they are devoid of the saints, tradition, and most importantly, the Eucharist!). Admittedly it was the priest that steered me towards the local evangelicals because the local parish just didn’t have what I needed (bible studies, worship, prayer, etc) We’re a Mass only church…
I believe you, from what I have seen Catholic parishes differ greatly. I can’t understand how it can be openly homosexual, I did not know that was even possible.
I am trying not to lose confidence in all churches. I guess they all have strengths and weaknesses.
SO many non-Catholics and non-practicing Catholics think all Catholics are obsessed with guilt and sex. That’s what I’ve heard from non-Catholics a ton. Mainly that we are extremely guilt-tripped and talk about the morality sex all the time
Area means a lot. I’ve been working closely with a priest about my issues where I am. He admits there is a problem and says that I’d do better in another area with more Catholics. Sadly, that is not where God planted me, so we are talking about growing where we are planted.
My parish is NOT indicative of the church as a whole…I have to remind myself of that at times. I just live in a very confused area.
It describes an attitude many people today have adapted
I’ve heard from some Protestants that they think the Catholic Church used to be the One Church, but was led astray, and so they’re waiting for it to return to God so they can rejoin it. They don’t want to be separate, but they believe it’s necessary to preserve their faith.
Yes, most importantly is the Eucharist.
Even over words spoken in homilies that please or don’t please our ears.
For clarification, The priest didn’t say by chance, that steering you in that direction, would substitute for mass for you … right?
To add to your previous great point Re: the Eucharist being most important
Jesus put a HUGE conditional statement together, on the requirement of receiving the Eucharist. IOW, This is NO suggestion but a command from Jesus.
Jn 6:53-58 (all emphasis mine)
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
Charlotte Keckler talks complete and utter nonsense. I’ve run across this woman several times before and she plainly knows little indeed about either Catholicism or religious orders and that is plain listening to her.
Oh absolutely not! No, he said it’s an okay practice for someone like me as a devotional practice done in the full knowledge that it does NOT substitute for Mass. He only suggested it because he knows my background (I am Charismatic) and he knows that wild horses couldn’t pull me away from the Mass and the Roman Catholic Church. He also knows I need a supplement though in such an…isolated…area.
thanks for the answer
I honestly just caught this…and must thank you for the compliment…(I think ). I’m over 40, so I personally wouldn’t lump us in with “young people”. I could count the number of times I missed church, per year, on one hand. I guess that’s just the way I was raised and the way my church was…I just saw us all as Christians.
I remember accepting a job at a Catholic high school and the last question they asked me (after I accepted) was if I was Catholic, like I would have an issue. I found that so strange.
But the run-around we got when trying to get married, and then then some of the stuff we ran into afterward…we honestly didn’t know there was such a Catholic vs. non-Catholic “thing”.
I hope you had a great Christmas. Unfortunately, I have not found time over the holidays to continue the discussion with yourself and Steve-b. Hopefully, I will have time to seriously reply to your posts in the near future.
In the meantime, I would note that you cite to 2 Maccabees in support of the practice of praying to the dead. However, this can only be used as support for the distinct practice of praying for the dead. While I am no proponent of prayers for the dead, even the classic 1928 Book of Common Prayer contains such prayers:
"And we also bless thy holy Name for all thy servants departed this life in thy faith and fear; beseeching thee to grant them continual growth in thy love and service… " (Service for Holy Communion)
[Of course, the readings of the historic Books of Common Prayer include the Deuterocanon, while Jerome’s distinction between the Hebrew Canon and the Deuterocanon is maintained].
In contrast with “prayers for the dead”, which do have clear support in the Deuterocanon, the practice of “prayers to the dead” is entirely absent from the Deuterocanon, as well as the New Testament and Hebrew Canon. Further, the practice appears to run afoul of the Scriptural condemnation of any communication with the departed (whether the departed is dead in sin or living in God–as was the case of Samuel, Abraham and all the Old Testament Saints).
Finally, for a non-Roman Catholic example of the distinction made between the “prayers for the dead” and “prayers to the dead”: The 1928 Book of Common Prayer–while containing prayers for the dead–also incorporates from the original 39 Articles a condemnation of prayers to the dead or Invocation of Saints which is shockingly strong to our modern ecumenical ears:
“…Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.”
[Given all the BCP references, I should note while I am essentially traditional Anglican in my beliefs, I am actually sojourning in another blessed portion of the Mystical Body of Christ. This leaves “Mere Christian” as the best label I can muster (and my preferred label). “Bible-thumper” isn’t half bad, but a distant second]
p.s. Finally, I won’t have time to reply to any further posts on this thread at the moment, but as I noted above–I hope to be able to do so before too long…
p.p.s. I’ve made time for some clarification before signing off for a little while. In case anyone claims that I am improperly quoting the 39 Articles on condemnation of prayers to the saints, I will readily acknowledge that Newman’s [strained] interpretation of this Article sought to carve out grounds in the Article for some “prayers to the saints”. And I have no doubt that there were even some who took part in preparing and approving the 1928 Book of Common Prayer who held a similar position to that of Newman. However, with due respect to those who share Newman’s interpretation, the Anglican Homily of Prayer* (Book of Homilies II, Homily VII), and the consistent practice of the English Branch of the Church prior to Newman make clear in my mind that his interpretation of the Articles on this point was unfounded.
*Anglican Homily on Prayer:
“Let us not therefore put our trust or confidence in the saints or martyrs that be dead. Let us not call upon them, nor desire help at their hands: but let us always lift up our hearts to God, in the name of his dear son Christ, for whose sake as God has promised to hear our prayer, so he will truly perform it. Invocation is a thing proper unto God, which if we attribute unto the Saints, it sounds to their reproach, neither can they well bear it at our hands.”
Now for those who take offense at the strong words of the 39 Articles on this matter, it is helpful to remember that strong words (and the rather distasteful practices of burning at the stake, beheading, etc. the opposition) were the norm on both the Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic side in those days. Undoubtedly, fatal excess in theological disagreements may also hinder effective prayer…
[As a quick aside for the non-existent number who care what I think–I believe the Anglican Church in the Western World–with the exception of a faithful remnant who still cling to the Creedal/Scriptural doctrine of the Church–has basically jettisoned the faith and is a better representative of modern Baal worship than anything remotely resembling the Apostolic faith (Exhibit A–the Episcopagan Church here in the US). Thankfully the vast majority of Anglicans–namely those from Africa, Asia, South America, etc. are–despite inevitable imperfections–faithful followers of Christ. They certainly are better representatives than I am]. Have a great week all…
And I agree, generally, with your ultimate para.
While observing, re: the occasional reference to the Articles I see in this thread which I have not followed, that the XXXIX are not normative, by their existence, for any save (theoretically) the clergy of the CoE, IAW the 1571 Parliamentary Subscription Act. Anglicans, generally, may accept, partially accept, ignore, or remove them from their Prayer Books and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter, without reference to how Elizabeth I chose to govern her fractious Church, in fractious times.
I confess to Almighty God, to Blessed Mary ever-Virgin, to Blessed Michael the Archangel, to Blessed John the Baptist, to the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, and to thee, Father, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, deed; [they strike their breast thrice] by my fault, by my own fault, by my own most grievous fault. Wherefore I beg Blessed Mary ever-Virgin, Blessed Michael the Archangel, Blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the Angels and Saints, and thee, Father, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
The ACNA officially holds to the 39 Articles in their “literal and grammatical sense.” So more than just CoE hold to them.