www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Catholics are starved for Christ

Apalling.



Apparently the Catholic and Orthodox clergy there don't read this situation the way I do: "Thank goodness CCC was there to tell Bulgaria about Jesus, since nobody else was!"

Saddened,
Dave

I disagree with the Evangelical criticisms of Catholic/Orthodox Tradition as idolatry, etc.

Otherwise, I agree with them: the established churches often need spiritual revival.

Let�s look first to Europe (the subject of the initial post). I have some experience with Western Europeans and Eastern Europeans. Western Europeans are often culturally Catholic or Protestant, but many do not have a vibrant personal relationship with Jesus Christ; many in fact are atheists or agnostics. As for Eastern Europeans, many of them converted en masse to Orthodoxy when Communism fell. That was part of reclaiming their nation's identity and tradition. But many of them also don't have a vibrant, personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In short, from what I can tell (and I might be wrong), many Europeans are culturally religious but they are not personally, spiritually connected to God in Jesus Christ.

I am reminded of a Coptic man from Egypt whom I met a few years ago. He was Coptic by birth and upbringing. But, he was Christian because of an evangelical group who brought him to a personal experience of and relationship with Jesus Christ.

I am also reminded of how, here in America a few years ago, my former (Catholic) parish was closed because of the priest shortage. Meanwhile, the local evangelical church was doubling its physical capacity. Likewise, my current (Orthodox) parish has maybe 35 active members who come to services on Sunday; but the new local evangelical church has well over that every Sunday.

The pattern, I suspect, is the same. The established churches get focused on their traditions and their ministries, but they can treat Christ Himself as an abstract concept or as a secondary issue buried under all the rituals. The new, growing churches, however, focus first and foremost on Jesus Christ. They offer contemporary, streamlined rituals that encourage a direct, personal conversion to Jesus Christ or a renewal of a relationship with Jesus Christ. Then, afterwards, they take care of the rest.

So: I laud any group that can bring people to a personal, living, spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ. I wish our established churches did that, but they often fail . . . as is evidenced by the millions of people who join Evangelical and Pentecostal churches.

Hence, I wish we would learn from them. We don't have to become them and we don't have to give up our traditions. We just have to remember that our religion --Christianity-- is based on a personal, living, spiritual relationship with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit. If we would remember that and make that the focus of our services and ministries --instead of an assumption or an addendum-- we wouldn't have to worry about other Christians successfully proselytizing the membership of our churches.

My $.02.

-- John

Excellent post, John!

That is what made Billy Graham so wonderful...he brought revival to people, to countries (even on the invitation of the MP under Soviet rule) without wanting to poach...he simply wanted to bring people to Christ.

I am afraid that the Evangelicals of today are different--they want members. Wanting members is always a form of self idolatry, self love, and pride, so these Evangelicals need to look within themselves and see their own sins before condemning others. Offering Bible Studies for those who are clueless are one thing, and something which they are good at, but making members is another. (A good and sincere analysis and study of early church history might also be a good thing for them to do)!

In any case, if they were truly concerned about other's souls, and were respectful of other people and Churches, they would, like Billy Graham, be telling people to go back to their churches to nourish themselves.

In any case, John is right in that many who attend the traditional Apostolic Churches (in every country of the world) are culturally religious, but not spiritual AT ALL...turning to God, seeking Him, finding Him, depending on Him, trying to be a Christian in all aspects of life, and salvation, play little or no part in their lives. Sunday attendance on occasion is often the extent of their spiritual and religious lives.

Alice

John, you are dead on the money man!

I've struggled to understand this phenomenon but don't think I am any closer to comprehending the "whys" of it. To be totally frank, according to the traditional views of the Church, Protestantism is not only illegitimate, but simply SHOULD NOT WORK (Spiritually) at all. Yet most of us know that it not only DOES work Spiritually, but often outshines our own churches. It leaves me scratching my head! This is where there is a serious chasm between us who see things this way and our more "traditional" brothers and sisters who simply take the word of the Church literally and at face value about "outside the Church there is no salvation."

This perspective (ours) is admittedly new. 100 years ago it would have been laughed to scorn and dogmatically condemned, although there have always been *some* who saw the genuine spiritual life in non-official churches. I recall a statement attributed to St Augustine that always left me cold, �A man cannot have salvation, except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church he can have everything except salvation. He can have honor, he can have Sacraments, he can sing alleluia, he can answer amen, he can possess the gospel, he can have and preach faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; but never except in the Catholic Church will he be able to find salvation.� (Augustine, Discourse to the People of the Church at Caesarea, A.D. 418) This was the attitude of the Church for a very long time. As much as those of us who reject such a position may not like it, the fact is that THAT is the traditional view of the Church and we are the newcomers with our more inclusive perspective.

That said, I am fully convinced that the new position is correct and that the Church was quite simply wrong. This demands that we reevaluate our understanding of the Church. Accepting traditional formulas at face value no longer works. I am not advocating a post-modern "question authority" position...however, I am not willing to blind myself to that which is obviously true for the sake of maintaining strict cohesion with the past.

I know I do, for one, and I suspect it is the position of probably 99.9% of all conservative, traditionally minded Christians that the 20th century was perhaps the worst overall century for "faith" in history. It saw tremendous advances in atheism, agnosticism, cultural irrelevance, cultural apathy, even widespread ambivalence towards traditional Christianity. It produced perhaps the most shallow Christianity the world has ever seen. Yet, as one who believes that God is the Lord of History I must believe that the Immutable One was no less active in the 20th century than at other times....perhaps even more so.

Those who maintain traditional attitudes toward non Catholics/Orthodox, imo, are in one respect very much out of line with the Universal Church, regardless of their cohesion with tradition...and in this regard: They are forced to look at history through the very narrow lens of the Church rather than recognizing that ALL of history is God's history and the Church is simply one part of it. The Church has very much regarded all of history as her own up until the present day. This is why she has felt allowed, even obliged to use material that originates outside her pale.

At any rate, though I do not wish to see the world become Protestant in praxis...I would be delighted if the world received Spiritual fervor and awakening at their hands. We Catholics/Orthodox, on the other hand, need to seriously rethink who and what we are. God swept away the clutter of millenia during the 20th century...and we need to get about the business of admitting it and figuring out what to do about it.

Jason

as an ex Mormon, I am afraid that is an oversimplification. the fault according to Mormonism was not Jesus abandoning His Church, but that Christians misused their free moral agency and turned away from Jesus and did their own thing. the Book of Mormon is rife with that train of thought, and they can fall on the history of pre Exilic Israel to back up their contentions.the LDS never taught by implication, let alone explicitly that Jesus was a liar nor did He abandon His Church. the people abandoned Him. that's the thought in Salt Lake.
Much Love,
Jonn

Jason,

Hi. I appreciate the points you and John make here, but regarding the quote from St. Augustine, I think there is a need for some "context".

This quote is from Augustine, the Bishop of 20+ years. Long before this quote, as a Manichean, Augustine had been seeking "salvation", along with many others of his day and age, including pagans, through "philosophy", regarded by those of his day, even the pagans, as a way of life, not just an academic discipline. Through the grace of God, Augustine had his "Damascus experience" at age 33 or so, which was a heartfelt conversion to "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" (as Evangelicals would describe it today). He was pressed into service as a priest by the Bishop of Hippo 4 or 5 years later, because that Bishop was a Greek and couldn't speak Latin well (nor any Punic) and he needed someone to evangelize and catechize for the Catholic Church in the area: the majority of Christians at the time were Donatists, a schismatic Christianity with a parallel hierarchy, sacraments, etc., which viewed itself as the true inheritance of Israel over against the Catholics, who were too "economical/accomodative" in their application of reconciliation to sinners.

So, the context is the experience of St. Augustine: once a "Jesus and me Christian", he has learned from his exercise of the Priesthood, that the Church Christ founded (Catholic/Orthodox distinction is not even relevant at this time) contains the fulness of Christ's promises. St. Augustine was extremely "evangelical" in his teaching/preaching: he preached, seated on his "cathedra", with the scriptures on his lap, sometimes for hours at a time. And sometimes his congregations booed him or walked out!

The "Protestant Legend" about the Church, i.e., "Romanism", is a second-hand acquisition, and only first-hand "evidence" can overcome it. Which means we have to walk the walk, and not just talk the talk.

I met a couple from Taiwan a couple of years ago, now good friends, who are Evangelicals. In early conversations, the wife was describing her conversion -- from paganism -- and I was very impressed. A bit later, in trying to describe her "tradition" she said, somewhat tentatively, "we're Protestant". I then asked her, what are you protesting against? She smiled, and said "nothing!". So we agreed that, really, they were Evangelical.

Best regards,
Michael

the past few days I have been thinking this one over. Evangelical Protestantism is to be congratulated for their fervor anf recognizing that our salvation is not based on us but on the work of Christ on Calvary. I find it disturbing that there are peole who think that if they do enough genuflections or prostrations, and use enough Holy Water, plus come up with their own way in devotions that Jesus will let them into Heaven. many years ago, I saw an article in the diocesan paper from Nashville that asked "if Jesus asked why He should let you into Heaven, what would you say" I said to myself, because of my faith in Your Precious Blood to save me from Hell.I only hope that my life testified that was true in my life and not just empty words. not because I gave all my money to the Chrch, did a lot of good deeds, tried to obey the Ten Comandments or pop up and down millions of times before Ikons. it was You, Jesus, and not me, all those other things came from my faith in You and what you did for me on Calvary.
at the same time, I find it disturbing that there are people out there who feel that all you have to do is say the "sineer's prayer" which looks a lot like a magical incantation, and then turn around as do as you please and be so presumptious as to say, "hey, I said the prayer, let me in".
Protestantism, be it liberal or fundamentalist, is highly personal. it is the existential meeting of one person and GOD in Jesus Christ.because of it being personal,many Protestants have a low opinion of the Church, they can't deal with authority, as they feel it interferes with their relationship with Christ. at a drop of a hat, if they don't like the preacher, they run off and start their own church.thus, this is why many Protestants who convert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism have problems with authority.
Light travels in particles and waves. Jesus is the Light. our relationship with Him is both personal, and ueach of us have to answer to Jesus for ourselves when we meet Him, thus the particle. the wave comes in as we are in His Church, we cannot have a "me and Jesus" type of life. He mever intended for us to be that.Protestants need to realize this.
Much Love,
Jonn

Amen to you and to the others who have posted their comments as well! The problem with much of Protestantism is that they do not make the connection of ones relationship with Christ and the Church. The Church is almost an afterthought in their soteriology, which is strange given how hard God worked to form and father His people, Israel, in the Old Testament. This is one of the ways that I think Scott Hahn's covenantal theology is so helpful. It shows how the Church is at the heart of the Gospel.

So Catholics are not "starved for Christ". We consume Him at every liturgy. But the world is starved for Him because we do not fully realize the glory of our inheritance.

In ICXC,

Gordo

It is often only an appearance, and often only an emotional high, but our protestant friends are not being nourished spiritually and are in danger of falling into prelest like we are if we do not take care. We do have priests to guide us, they do not.

Sadly, many protestant churches teach once saved, always saved and The Rapture. Those whom I have met who do believe in these two non-biblical and anti-apostolic traditions do not strive for theosis and cannot strive for theosis because they lack the Holy Sacraments, especially Holy Confession and Holy Communion. Every Sunday, they come to the wrong banquet, and hence are not fed.

Then there are the Anglican and Lutheran Christians who have become cultural Christians too. Let's face it, we all need a revival, but certainly not a protestant revival.

Those Christians who do come to the Divine Liturgy, even if they do not partake of the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, do nevertheless experience Christ present in the faithful. It is an awesome moment.

And then to realize that St. Mary of Egypt died of love after receiving Holy Communion.

Metropolitan KALLISTOS Ware is coming to the USA this February and will be speaking in Baltimore (so, I have heard) and in Northern California and Southern California. I hope that many people will gather to here him speak on the Holy Sacraments and how Christ acts through these sacraments to radically change us if we allow Him.

Gordo,


Beautifully put. And I completely agree about the solidity and the timeliness of Scott Hahn's covenantal theology -- it can help one already in the Church better appreciate what we have, and it has been very helpful to Evangelicals in seeing why Christ must have founded an authoritative visible sacramental Church (and not a nebulous one).

Best,
Michael

"In any case, if they were truly concerned about other's souls, and were respectful of other people and Churches, they would, like Billy Graham, be telling people to go back to their churches to nourish themselves."

Precisely! But these people act as if the Orthodox and Catholic churches are invalid, as Church.

Many times I have thought that the Evangelicals I interact with were like Catholics in many ways. When speaking to an Evangelical they go down the list of doctrine they believe in, and most of the time I have to respond "the Church teaches that, that too, and that too." Most of the disagreements have narrowed down to obedience and authority.

Terry

Some very good points John

Jason

Michael,

Thanks for your comments. Just to be clear, it was not my intention to throw any shadow on St Augustine. In fact, I think your "context" proves a very important point. The quote I gave is ALWAYS quoted out of context by the pseudo-traditionalists to "prove" their claims. Yet in the broader context of general history, as you demonstrated, St Augustine is not a saint for nothing! In spite of his sometimes harsh words and theological conclusions, he was a man of genuine warmth and pastoral concern. He indeed had been down the long road of error before he was enlightened. This is why I think the Catholic Church is right to re-define or re-hash some of the things he said such as the quote in question. I maintain that the pseudo-traditionalists interpretation is the historic one...yet it is not the correct one. In a modern context St Augustine's words would not mean that there is no salvation outside the visible Catholic Church. In fact, even he himself stated that there were many "sheep without and many wolves within" the church.

Jason

I am far from an expert on these topics, but have often wondered whether the gospel story about Jesus' disciples coming to Him with information about another group baptizing in His name, and asking whether that other group should be told to stop. Jesus' response was to let them alone, if they are not against us they are with us (or words to that effect). I just wonder whether such sentiments might apply to the discussion here, realizing the the "against us" part perhaps would benefit from further clarification/elaboration.

I agree that obedience and authority seem to be fundamental differences between Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox. That may have also been a part of the questioning in the above mentioned gospel reference.

I also have concerns about (a) the entertainment aspect of Protestant services, and (b) preachers being more like motivational speakers rather than examples of holiness. Though one can hardly argue that these qualities (motivational speaking, and charisma) are helpful within the catholic churches) as well, e.g. Bishop Fulton Sheen and some Eastern hierarchs. It seems that the power that can come with fame can lead to all sorts of adverse consequences when it is not tempered by the required obedience and humility that comes with association with a higher church authority.

Some thoughts.....Peace and Blessed New Year 2008 to all of you!

A student

Points A and B may come into play when the sacramental aspect to prayer, worship, and life is abandoned. If the preacher speaks of matters of life and of living the faith and his objective is to keep his pews warm, he may choose topics which cause the most comfort among the flock.

It was the lack of substance, which I came to understand as the lack of the Eucharist, which make me spiritually uncomfortable at the Baptist church I grew up in. There are many aspects of the church that I respect, but as time increased I attended less and less because I saw the sermons as "good advice" and "nice teaching". What I desired was deeper than a nice service and a good message.

Terry