Catholic Exchange

Do Catholics Preach About Salvation? | Answering a Protestant Reader

Do Catholics Preach About Salvation? | Answering a Protestant Reader

‘Why Don’t Catholics Preach About Salvation?’

That question — as I’ve paraphrased it above — was posed to me recently by a Protestant reader who is beginning his journey into the Church.
The question veils an accusation and my reader already had a sense that it was wrong. He just wasn’t sure what the right answer was.

The perception indeed is widespread that evangelical Protestants preach about salvation and Catholics don’t. I’m sure I once believed that. And it is grounded in a kind of truth: I’m sure that, on any given Sunday if you go to your garden variety evangelical church chances are likely you will hear an explicit message on salvation whereas it won’t be so obvious in a Catholic parish.

So do Catholics not preach about salvation then?

As I was mulling over this question, I thought back to the recent homilies I’ve heard. The two last ones were simple expositions of the gospel reading. One was on the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep in John 10. The other was the story about Doubting Thomas in Luke 24.

The Sunday before that, the reading was on the miracle of the fish in John 21, and I recall the preacher talking about how we join our sacrifice to Christ’s in the Mass, which fits the gospel story about how disciples brought their fish to the fish Jesus was already cooking on the beach. And, on Easter Sunday, my local bishop delivered a homily centered on the question of whether we have encountered the resurrected Lord.

I don’t recall any of those preachers saying anything explicit about how we are saved. But were any of these homilies not about salvation?

I don’t think so. How can someone be saved without encountering the resurrected Lord? How can the sacrifices we join to Christ’s sacrifice be completely unrelated to salvation?

These homilies illustrate the difference in how Catholics and Protestants talk about salvation. It’s not that one does and the other doesn’t. It’s that everything in Catholicism is ordered towards our salvation. In feeding the hungry or caring for the sick we are doing what Jesus commanded was necessary in order to inherit the kingdom in Matthew 25. In fasting, renouncing attachments to material things, and cultivating a poverty of spirit we are heeding Jesus words’ to the rich man in Luke 18. And in receiving the Eucharist we are assured that ‘eternal life’ is within us, as Jesus said in John 6.

Still, the question deserves more of a direct answer.

There are a few different ways we could answer this. In terms of sacraments, we need baptism to wash away the stain of original sin, the Eucharist to participate in Christ’s sacrifice for us, and confession to be absolved of the sins we have committed since our baptism.

We could also speak of one’s interior life. Faith is critical to salvation, but it’s just the beginning. For faith works through love (Galatians 5:6). So, one also needs love (see 1 John 4:8). Salvation thus comes through not a momentary pronouncement of faith but a lifelong process in which faith grows in love.

This love expresses itself through acts of charity. And it is here that ‘works’ come into the picture. But their proper place must be understood: it is not a matter of accumulating enough good works. Instead, what matters is how bright does the fire of love burn in the soul?

It is this love that makes all the difference. Love doesn’t ask, ‘What is the minimum I can do?’ Love asks, ‘How can I give everything I have and everything I am for the sake of my Beloved?’ Love has no limit, no end. There is not some point at which we’ve banked enough love in order to be saved—because that’s not what we’re trying to do. That’s not how love thinks. Love is hard work indeed. But, lest we think any of this is due to our own effort, both Scripture and Catholic teaching make clear that all of this comes through grace.

Every time we say the rosary, pray a novena, or sit silently in Eucharistic adoration we are performing a work of faith and love: we are stating our faith in the truth about Jesus and expressing our love for Him. Abstaining from meat during a Lenten Friday, making a small donation to help the homeless, or simply gazing lovely upon a crucifix or an icon are all small things that aid us on our journey to heaven.

For Catholics, then, salvation is more like some sort of thick stew with a little bit of everything thrown into it—chunks of beef and pork and other meats, carrots, broccoli, spices, and maybe even a bone or two. And thank God, because I’d much rather have that hearty stew than some kind of meatless chicken broth.

Comments

30 responses to “Do Catholics Preach About Salvation? | Answering a Protestant Reader”

  1. OutsideTheGate Avatar
    OutsideTheGate

    Although this article is spot-on (like most of Stephen Beales’), the problem, for me, is that, as an ex-Evangelical myself, I know exactly what the questioner meant, and this article, at best, doesn’t answer it, but fudges the issue, and at worst, it’s simply a rationalisation which tries to justify the fact that most Catholics don’t know ‘Jesus as their Lord and Saviour’. If you ask them, they either say being nice and loving people, or some esoteric pious-sounding talk about the Eucharist. (It is unquestionably the source and summit of the Christian life, but their language seems ersatz and contrived. There’s something not quite authentic about it.)

    It’s also a question I still ask often after I hear a homily, as nearly every one is merely some form of moral exhortation (good though that is), but what an Evangelical is looking for is the ‘Good News’: to hear that Jesus has saved us and, frankly, since I returned to the Church 30 years ago, I’ve never heard that preached.

    Sadly, as preached and lived out (not the reality), Catholicism is, in a sense, fundamentally boring, and would be what CS Lewis called ‘Churchianity’. I have been involved in RCIA and other forms of catechesis and found it frustrating as its content is all about ‘Churchianity’, not Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. Even a lot of the new breed of Catholic young I meet who go to adoration and stuff, like the charismatics before them, talk about a ‘personal relationship with Jesus’ but, when I listen to their language and turn-of-phrase, they seem to have religious mania more than Jesus. Their ‘Jesus’ has saved them: therapeutically. It’s narcissistic, shallow, and subjective, although their ‘talk’ is ‘objective’ grandiose, doctrinally sound, and pious-sounding: they say all the correct things, whilst their expression and sentences disclose ‘expressive individualism’. To me, it seems to be just the latest flavour of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, except it’s expressed in Latin and Dogma rather than Tongues and Bible Verses.

    Of course, the Church is Christ, sacramentally – his mystical body – but when the tyre hits the road, in catechesis and normal Catholic life, the only thing most Catholics know about, or are interested in, are the rules, expressions, and rituals – and how Catholicism benefits them – more than the essence himself.

  2. reddog44 Avatar
    reddog44

    Stephen, when you refer to yourself as a convert, that is not the correct terminology. Convert refers to someone who is non-Christian becoming a Christian. If you were a Christian prior to joining the Catholic Church, you did not convert you simply went church shopping or changed religion.

  3. Stephen Beale Avatar
    Stephen Beale

    Not the correct terminology according to whom? In the New Testament, conversion is described as a turning of the heart to God and that is absolutely what happened when I entered the Church. Additionally, while I was raised evangelical Protestant, at the time I entered the Church I was not practicing at all. I was for all intents and purposes not a Christian. Also, I take exception to the assumption that I “went church shopping.” I most certainly did not. The extent of my church shopping was a single visit to an Episcopalian church.

  4. dtcomp95 Avatar
    dtcomp95

    Hi – just a semantic interpretation perhaps, but for me and many others, “convert” is correct terminology. Every former Protestant I know (including myself) who has recently become Catholic refers to ourselves as converts, as have many Catholic websites dedicated to helping us find information during our journey. The reason is that despite sharing a basic common belief in Christ, the Bible, Trinity, etc, Protestantism is a rather significant departure from the Christianity of the early Church fathers as it involves developing a subtly individualized version of truth and theological reason (few realize it until finding the Catholic Church).

    Church shopping, which many people do as Protestants (we did before we knew about the Catholic Church), typically involved finding a church that we agreed with, liked superficially, and felt comfortable in – a frustrating and fruitless experience for me. Finding the Catholic Church was a profound experience with the truth – a breaking down of a “veil of deception” as I and others I know have described it. To find lasting, unshakable, 2000 year old truths that we could never nail down as Protestants (hence the church shopping) is far more than just shopping around – it is a conversion experience. There is no other way to describe it.

    Great article – I have found that faith as a Catholic is all about salvation – that is a significant change from my Protestant past.

  5. reddog44 Avatar
    reddog44

    You probably belonged to the ana-baptists that Luther warned against as they really deviated from the truth of scripture and totally rejected traditional catholic liturgy. Evangelicals jump around in their doctrine.

    Stability in doctrine is foreign to to those who choose a cafeteria attitude where they feel they can cherry-pick biblical truths.

  6. dtcomp95 Avatar
    dtcomp95

    Non-denominational – Baptist before that. There is no stability in doctrine in Protestant denominations of any kind since all have interpreted scripture for themselves, and rejected the tradition, magisterium and authority of the Church that assures timeless consistency of Christian doctrine and faith.

    I realized the contradiction of multiple denominations attempting to understand one God, one Bible, and one savior (Christ), long before I knew about the Catholic Church. Most Protestants probably don’t realize it, but switching churches (and denominations), is partly driven by that restless uncertainty. Most mainline Protestant denominations have multiple variations now as a result, and many have detoured so far from scriptural morality, I would consider them a greater departure from the Catholic Church (theologically) than even some non-denom churches, as odd as that may seem.

  7. reddog44 Avatar
    reddog44

    I think you are lumping all mainline protestant churches together and that is not the right thing to do. There are many faithful protestants who adhere strictly to a strong moral code and are standing up for biblical truth. Even though the Catholic church has embraced many of Luther’s 95 thesis there is still plenty of reform needed to rectify the errors of the past. There remains a strong need for fine-tuning or cleaning up errant doctrine.

    But I am glad you finally found a home in the RC Church and are happy in it. I hope you will still say that in 10 -20 years. As for me,
    NO Thanks!

  8. reddog44 Avatar
    reddog44

    You are spot on about the divisions within the Catholic Church. The fullness of truth is a subject for debate in today’s RC Church. There are as many divisions within Rome as there are Protestant denominations.

  9. dtcomp95 Avatar
    dtcomp95

    There is no errant doctrine or dogma in the Catholic Church. The basis for every Protestant denomination is errant by nature of rejection of the idea that Christ founded one true Church – there can only be one faith, one salvation and one interpretation of God’s word, will and design. Yes there are many Protestants who have a strong faith, and moral code, but most denominations recanted on at least one moral concept decades ago – if not longer (divorce, contraception, or abortion, just to start). I don’t know of one Protestant that doesn’t accept at least two if not three of those examples as simply a matter of choice rather than morality – Lutheran, Episcopalian, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. That list is much longer, and just an example. How many actually believe in mortal sin? I haven’t met one in my 40 years in various churches, with friends and acquaintances attending many different denominations. That doesn’t mean there aren’t some, but most mainline denominations have adopted a “matter of opinion” approach to moral issues – ECLA (Lutheran), Methodist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and to some degree, Baptists as well.

    If there can be multiple versions of one truth, then no Christian denomination is right, and Christianity itself must be false (i.e. human opinion can’t determine absolute truth). Regardless of the imperfect people in the Catholic Church (and we are all imperfect, Catholic or not), the faith, doctrines and dogmas of Church itself have remained the constant for 2000 years. No other religion, nation, or ideology can say the same (even technically older ideas and bases for other religions have changed significantly).

  10. dtcomp95 Avatar
    dtcomp95

    Much of this sounds like the influence of Protestantism and/or modernism on the Church rather than a problem with Church doctrine itself (I define modernism as the view that the individual is the ultimate judge of truth – a concept introduced in part by the Reformation itself).

    The charismatic renewal movement does concern me due to it’s overly Pentecostal similarities – too much focus on emotion with little understanding of the life of discipleship (aka, disciplining ourselves to a life with Christ). Emotions can be gravely misleading. But just because some parishes, priests, Catholics, groups or RCIA programs fail to emphasize the complete truth (salvation, doctrine, dogma, etc), doesn’t mean the truth has left the Church.

    The truth is the truth. There is no “either/or” with the truth itself, though the secular world, and some in the Church wishing to change our faith would like for us to believe there are “sides” battling for control. The contention isn’t over one end or another of fanaticism, but the truth itself being assaulted by deception. We are all imperfect humans and we have to remember that others are imperfect as well. They need prayers as much as we them.

    For many decades (and centuries) popes, saints, cardinals, bishops and priests have warned that Satan’s ultimate attempt to undermine the Church would be to cast doubt over reason and the idea of absolute truth itself. There are not two sides that need to be united. There is one Church with one truth, and there are those that wish to “change” her (whether wittingly or not, “change” really means destroy). However, in Matthew 16:18-19 Christ promised this would not happen. The Church will remain. It may be very small as many will follow the culturally, politically correct modernistic path of least resistance. Many who remain faithful may face great persecution, and even martyrdom. But the true Church will not be destroyed, or divided. There will only be the faithful, and the apostate – aka, those who reject that one true authority. That may sound harsh, but it is a hard reality we all need to understand and accept because Christ himself warned us of this in saying that the way is narrow, and few are those the find it. Instead of picking sides, we should “seek the narrow path” – walking with Christ, pursuing holiness, not change or compromise.

  11. reddog44 Avatar
    reddog44

    There is one thing new converts should do when they become Christian or change faiths and that is take a vow of silence for at least 10 years as their emotion overrules logic and they are not impressing anyone.

    I would like to debate with you some of these issues but it would be a waste of time. You new converts bad mouth other religions and you expect them to respect the Catholic Church, but you are having the opposite effect. You turn people off and your uncharitable attitude just shows the true nature of your so called perfect church.

    If there is such unity of doctrine in the RC Church why pray tell me is there so much division and disagreement. There are more dissenting opinions than there are Protestant churches.

  12. OutsideTheGate Avatar
    OutsideTheGate

    Of course there is no either-or when it comes to truth and, yes, it is truth, or falsity. But who’s the judge? Your approach sounds far more like the approach of the Calvinists I know, than anything Catholic.

    That is, they don’t know who the elect are, but the elect exist, and they’re the ones who have it correct. It ends up with the notion of invisible truth, invisible church: or arrogance and hubris.

    I know far too many traditionalists who hold to a ‘one truth’ view, yet are still disagreed as to exactly what ‘the truth is’.

    As reddog44 points out, Catholicism – especially American Catholicism is – de facto – riddled with crypto-denominationalism, whatever it imagines about it’s own wonderfulness, and in complete denial of the fact that all American Christianity is culturally isomorphic and there’s no difference, in reality between Protestantism and Catholicism in most cases, and so Rad Trad Catholics act just like members of Westboro Baptist Church: different ‘denominations’: identical crazy mindset.

  13. dtcomp95 Avatar
    dtcomp95

    There is no disrespect here – only truth, from personal experience, study, searching, and prayer.

    How is it charitable to say I shouldn’t speak? That isn’t charity – it’s simply an attempt to stop conversation. Charity would be to discuss this politely, whether you agree with me or not.

    Speaking the truth *is* charity. This relativistic world says otherwise because that is the best way to disrupt and attempt to destroy the concept of truth itself. Would it be charitable to allow a child to put his/her hand a hot burner simply to avoid offending or hurting the child’s feelings? No, of course not. The hard truth is that the child would badly injure themselves, and be left with a life long burn scar (both physical and emotional). The same applies to the truth about God, what Christ taught, and heaven/hell (eternity
    and salvation). I have already said that none of us human beings are perfect. But the Church – i.e. the Church Christ established in Matthew 16:18-19 – is perfectly true, or God is a liar. That doesn’t mean the people in it are going to be, or act perfectly. Far from it. We have all been slaves to sin, but only through Christ can we be reconciled to God and ultimately saved.

    The truth God has divinely given to all of humanity through the Jesus’ teaching, the Church, scripture, and apostolic succession has not changed, and won’t. There is only disagreement from those who reject those truths, both inside and outside of the Church.

    Do you believe in absolute truth – truth that has to exist whether we believe it or not? The truth God created, and the truth of who He is has to exist, or faith is pointless. If God did not create a way for us to sort out fact from fiction, truth from misinterpretation, we would have no way of ever having a relationship with Him.

    Clearly there are thousands of belief systems and versions of faith in a higher power, but only one can be right. If all are flawed, then how can we possibly know what is true, including how to be saved? Do you at least agree with that?

  14. dtcomp95 Avatar
    dtcomp95

    The truth – doctrines and dogma of the Church are clearly explained in the catechism. If you haven’t, read the early Church fathers (Sts. Igantius, Athanatius, Augustine, Aquinas, etc), scripture and what the Church has taught for 2000 years – that is the truth. It isn’t about “rad trads” vs whoever (progressives?). Labeling people is divisive, and that is part of the problem.

    What do you believe if you don’t believe in absolute truth, or believe no one can decide the truth, not even the Catholic Church? Do you believe the Bible is true? Who has the authority to interpret it correctly if not a Church of 2000 years? Do you believe Christ is present in the Eucharist? Do you believe we are forgiven through reconciliation/confession? Do you believe God can be anything we want Him to be, based on personal opinion or preference?

    Correct me if I am wrong, but what I am reading you and reddog44 say is that you see Catholicism as another denomination, and don’t think there is any true church. If that were true, then how would you know Christianity isn’t a myth fabricated by imperfect humans, like us?

    I would suggest researching the early church fathers as I noted above. Read through more history of the Church through their words and inspiration. Even with the worst popes in history, Church doctrine and dogma have not changed – that is nothing short of miraculous, considering the power those men could have exercised.

    What I think you are both missing is an unshakable foundation upon which to understand and believe in absolutes. Without that, yes, we are just drifting through cultural isomorphism and moral relativism.

  15. reddog44 Avatar
    reddog44

    You really have no interest in dialogue only scorn condemnation and derision are your main points. Legalistic to the core.

    You may claim to be an expert by study, prayer and average day experiences, but your abrupt style shows me only a pharisee who loves to put others down and basks in his own righteousness.

    I would love to dialogue with you but that would bear no fruit. I do however agree that truth is the ultimate goal and we must fight to the death to defend it. There is only one way to heaven and that is through Jesus. Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else,for there is no other name given among men whereby we can be saved.

    On the other hand I am glad there are legalistic people around like yourself, it will keep the Protestant church growing.

  16. Stephen Beale Avatar
    Stephen Beale

    Dear OutsidetheGate, I appreciate the feedback but I think we disagree on how salvation is taught in the Catholic Church. The notion of an encounter with Christ is constantly stressed. How is this not knowing Christ as our Savior?

  17. Stephen Beale Avatar
    Stephen Beale

    Appreciate the discussion here but you are drawing a false equivalence between disagreements and schisms. Yes we have many disagreements but that does not mean we are just like the Protestants. Tyler Blanski talks about this at the end of his new book, An Immovable Feast.

  18. Stephen Beale Avatar
    Stephen Beale

    Dear reddog44, thanks for the follow-up but we are still in a respectful disagreement here. When someone who is Protestant becomes Catholics they did not simply switch churches, the way a Protestant might switch from a Congregational to a Presbyterian church, or Methodist to Anglican. If you closely read many of the documents coming out of the Vatican these days you will notice they do not recognize Protestant churches as churches. They recognize them as faith communities. Technically, a church has the Real Presence, a true priesthood, and apostolic succession. So the Orthodox have churches but not Protestants. In everyday parlance we can refer to them as churches, but this leads to the kind of misunderstanding reflected in your comment, so it is important to remember this.

    I also do not accept the characterization of people who come over as “stolen sheep.” That phrase is problematic in all sorts of ways. There is one sheepfold not many. And to draw the sheep into the true sheepfold, closer to Christ, is hardly “stealing.”

    In your other comments it sounds like you have a desire to affirm ecumenical dialogue and I too support this. However, for me, this shouldn’t come at the expense of discussing the truth. I am unwilling to downplay the drama of what for me was a true conversion out of some false sense of charity towards Protestants. I absolutely recognize that some Protestants are sincerely discerning a true relationship with Christ, have a passion for the Scripture, and many other positive spiritual qualities, but at the same time I really did have a conversion to the one true Church. Those two realities can co-existence with each other. I don’t see them as being in conflict.

  19. reddog44 Avatar
    reddog44

    I see dialogue is fruitless, so there is a judgment day and then the real truth will come out.

  20. dtcomp95 Avatar
    dtcomp95

    If you would like to dialog, that’s great, but please refrain from labeling. Calling me “legalistic” simply shows that you don’t really know me and are just judging me unfairly. I am short with posts to save time, respect that people don’t want to read a tome on a public forum, and keep things to the point – no other reason. I am sorry if that offends you, but I was trying to respect everyone’s time reading, and the fact that this is CE’s website.

    I have not put anyone down. I am sorry you see it that way, but re-read again and realize that not everyone thinks or perceives the way you do. Perhaps you are just seeing what you want instead of what I wrote. What am I disrespecting of you or your beliefs? Have I said you are being “disrespectful”, or categorized you in a way similar to “legalistic”?

    Let’s look at the Acts passage you cited in context with other verses of the New Testament. True, Acts 4:12 affirms that Jesus is the only path through which salvation is possible – i.e. his death and resurrection. But Acts 4:12 does not address our role – choosing Christ daily – our relationship with God. The first part of that chapter is an account of Peter and John appearing before the people, priests, captain of the temple and Sadducees. Here they were defending the power of Jesus name in healing of a crippled man. In addressing the Jews here who had rejected Jesus, they were making the point that Jewish law could not save them if they rejected God’s own Son. Even if some of Jewish law had merit, salvation requires Jesus’ role. Of course it does – his death on the cross, and resurrection.

    But that isn’t the only verse on salvation, and we should always take all of scripture together to keep it in context:

    John 3:5: “Jesus answered, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit.” – He is referring to baptism, not human birth.

    John 6:54 “So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of man and drink of his blood, you have no life in you, 55 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” – referring to the Eucharist (see writings by early Church fathers through the early centuries, middle ages, post-reformation, to current day).

    Matthew 7:13: “Enter through the narrow gate;* for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many.”

    Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”
    – Here Jesus is not speaking about those who do not believe, but clearly about those who claim to believe, but rejected Him in some form.

    John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments”.

    These are all Jesus’ words – are they legalistic?

    1 Cor 6:9-10 lay out a sobering description of sins that will (if not we don’t truly seek forgiveness) bar us from entering heaven – i.e. cost us our salvation.

    Paul also talks about running the race to completion, and “somehow attain the resurrection from the dead” (Phil 3:11).

    Salvation is a key foundation for our relationship with God – if we don’t participate, nothing happens. Our earthly relationships are much the same – we don’t marry someone and then assume it was “once and done”. Marriage takes work, sacrifice, and commitment. God created us in his image – that includes the lives he wants us to lead here on earth. There is much more, but in keeping with my hope to be somewhat brief
    hopefully that will be enough for consideration and/or discussion for
    now.

  21. Linda Almaraz Avatar
    Linda Almaraz

    As a cradle Catholic who came of age during Vatican II, you are spot on as to the Truth of the one and only Holy Catholic Mother Church. It is and has always been humanity who have been the disrupters, the sinners, the confused and prideful within her. When you arrived you were illuminated, and gifted to see her for who she really is: she is incorruptible, she is holiness and she holds the Truth because she is of divine origin birthed from the Savior Jesus Christ. Sadly, so many only see her through the marred image of her broken children and don’t see the beauty and truth that is immersed within her.
    I am a old battled worn out Roman Catholic but I am renewed every time I see converts like yourself arrived who are able to see and discern the splendor of the Truth. You converts are indeed being grafted and are infusing new vigor and vitality to our suffering Mother Church. Thank you and God bless you.

  22. Counting my blessings Avatar
    Counting my blessings

    Praise Jesus! By His Blood we are saved. Thanks be to God! If, you ever
    have gone thru the Catholic Charismatic Life in the Holy Spirit Seminar there is a second talk on “Salvation.” The first teaching is Love Of Jesus as Lord. Wow!! When we receive our Baptism and all the Sacraments we come to know Jesus in a personal way and it’s thru OUR ‘daily’ prayer and OUR ‘surrending’ our lives personally to Jesus that we are ever so grateful for His death on the cross for each and everyone of us. So, I believe it’s OUR duty to pray and stay close to the Catholic Church to see the Holy Spirit working. If we don’t we’ll lose out and I know Jesus doesn’t want that. I think if you ever have a chance to read up on the Catholic Charismatics you’ll hear a lot of Salvation talk. It’s a renewal that’s been around for 50 some years or so. I have been blessed to remain in the sacraments by the grace of God and the Catholic Church…the Catholic Charismatics renewal only made me closer to the Lord. It has been handed down to us from the beginning of time. Praise Jesus! He’s Alive. By His stripes we are healed and Saved. I Thankyou Jesus that we can receive YOU everyday in the Sarament of the Holy Eucharist at Holy Mass. There is also a special Prayer to the Precious Blood of Jesus that we meditate on the wounds of Jesus. We can also pray the Stations of the Cross which is the walk of Calvary(can be seen on the walls of our every Catholic Church). I believe Stephen put it nicely and I thank him for it: living the gospel, corporal and spiritual works of Mercy and most importantly have we lived the 10 Commandments? Is God first in our thought, word and deeds? This is the way we will show Jesus how we will be saved.We can’t put the Holy Spirit in a box. His Spirit attracts us as a gentle breeze or a mighty wind to show us His Salvation. We see Jesus in action in the Holy Bible as an example to us and is read ‘everyday’ at Mass. I invite you no matter where your walk of faith is and you’ll hear our Savior talk to you when the Word is broken open to us at Mass. Praise the Lord now and forever!!!!! May God’s love and peace be with you.

  23. independent_forever Avatar
    independent_forever

    Honestly, it’s time for Protestants to start proving to Catholics what they believe and show us where their doctrines are in the Bible. They point to verses non-stop BUT in many cases they have changed wording, injected their OWN PERSONAL interpretation into the readings and often just plain have it wrong.

    Take Catholicism OUT of the picture and there is a whole list of questions I can ask any Protestant that they simply won’t be able to answer because it’s nowhere in Scripture that they claim as the SOLE source of their beliefs…sola scriptura–some examples

    1. Do you believe in contraception? If so, where is it written in the Bible?
    2. where in the Bible is the list of books that are supposed to be in the Bible? The Bible itself cannot tell us what is supposed to be in the Bible so WHO decided for you?
    3. Do we need to LOVE GOD in order to be saved? If yes, then it’s NOT by faith alone but faith & love. If no, then they contradict the Bible
    4. If you have not works Can your faith save you (James 2:14-17)? If yes, they contradict James and If no they agree faith alone doesn’t save you.
    5. If this concept of “FAITH ALONE” is so CENTRAL to their beliefs then WHY does it NOT appear anywhere in the Bible except once in James to say “NOT by faith alone….”?
    6.Where in the Bible does it say SCRIPTURE ALONE is the sole rule of faith for Christians?
    7. Where in the Bible does it say Baptism is symbolic?
    8. Where does it say in the Bible you are to have altar calls?
    9. where does it say it is OK to disagree on non-essential doctrines as long as you agree on “essential doctrines”?
    10.and following #9 where does the Bible even say there are “non-essential” parts of the word of God? as if God inspired “non-essential” anything.
    11. where in the Bible does it say FAITH ALONE for salvation–it doesn’t anywhere. That word ALONE is added by Protestants.

    Just a few examples and I could add many more specific to Catholic faith but wanted to try to keep this focused on what Protestants believe specifically and ask them to defend these questions. Keep in mind this is NOT intended to run anyone down or say I am right and you are wrong…just looking for the truth and in my humble opinion Protestant beliefs simply fall short in many ways.

    There seem to be many contradictions and many vague explanations that seem to come from OTHER HUMAN BEINGS instead of from God (i.e. inspired Scripture) it tends to make one look elsewhere for truth. Much of Protestant belief is simply NOT Scriptural when questions like this are asked of them. They cannot find the info in the Bible because it’s not in there.

    Frankly, if modern Protestants would actually read their own history they might realize there are major parts of their beliefs that even their own founders Luther and Calvin did NOT preach and dare I say even these two still held some Catholic beliefs that Protestants today reject–why? Just goes to show how fractured the Protestant beliefs are even among themselves.

    Lots of changes over the centuries and this is why you have 35000+ denominations with each one interpreting Scripture in their own way with no external authority (like our Magisterium) to keep teachings consistent and ensure the interpretation correct and accurate.

    Catholics have been accused of not being able to “defend” their faith well but also remember we do NOT solely rely on Scripture for teachings as my questions above demonstrate. Christ never wrote anything down NOR did he tell the Apostles to go out and WRITE DOWN what I have spoken…he said go and PREACH THE WORD OF GOD among nations and this part of our Sacred Tradition.

    I know there are those who will angrily disagree and defend their beliefs and it’s completely understandable. Again, it’s not meant to insult but simply get to the truth. All I can say is I believe Catholicism gives me a rich and full path towards salvation following Scripture and Jesus’s teachings without injecting HUMAN interpretations or changing words to fit the faith–in others words we listen to God’s word as it is written no more, no less because his Word is infallible.

    We call it the MYSTERY OF OUR FAITH for a reason…not everything is explainable or definable.

  24. OutsideTheGate Avatar
    OutsideTheGate

    You seem to be reading what you like into what I’ve said in order to promote your own position. In other words, I am correcting you because you are wrong and making wild assumptions about my position in a rather patronising manner. Of course the Church is not a denomination. She is the Church. Also, if there was the Oath against Modernism today, I would sign it. Modernism is the most toxic influence in the Church – a label – and the growing ‘Rad Trad’ movement – another one – which is just a toxic equal, and opposite, force, except one’s aggressive, and the other, passive-aggressive. The members of both groups are both are doing so much damage to the church with their childish and emotional immaturity.

  25. OutsideTheGate Avatar
    OutsideTheGate

    I’m not in the States, but in my experience, there are movements which stress a ‘personal relationship with Jesus’, but they tend to be ‘pietistic’ organisations here, in England, very much like a Catholic equivalent of the Higher Life Movement, with a two-tier view of their parish which tacitly assumes itself superior to ‘the man in the pew’. Joining their mission to clean up the church by separation and condemnation into their pure parachurch, rather than immersion through frienship evangelisation in the pews, seems to be their objective.

  26. dtcomp95 Avatar
    dtcomp95

    Hi OutsideTheGate – I am only reading what you have written, so take it with a grain of salt if I have misinterpreted you. I am also commenting from my own personal experience, which may be different from yours. Reading your response to Stephen, we may be seeing slightly differing symptoms of the same general problem. We don’t have any ‘personal relationship’ groups creating a two-tiered view. We do have a similar movement here, and it does have some concerning aspects – such as putting too much emphasis on emotional experiences.

    I’ve seen the “traditionalist” or “rad trad” label used most often to oppose anyone who even suggests that Church and Christ’s teachings are true, and absolute – even by Cardinals attacking other Cardinals. It seems more commonly used as a shame tactic to promote modernist concepts by silencing and eliminating any opposing concept (i.e, undermining the truth itself, not merely the form of the Mass, or non-doctrinal traditions).

    In the US, that I have seen at least, there are some smaller fringes that tend to point fingers and accuse, but they aren’t the majority of those that support the traditions of the Church. If they are the rad-trads, they aren’t the problem.

    I think we need to address the real core problem – a lack of faith
    and belief in all aspects of what the Church teaches. It is the combined whole that makes the Church true, so we can’t simply take the personally
    appealing teachings out of context, in isolation, without undermining the validity of even those teachings.

    Tradition is part of the foundation of Church teaching. I see less of a problem with over-zealousness in promoting that tradition (truth of teaching) than trying to minimize or abolish it. Over zealousness can be tempered. Error is simply wrong (speaking generally – I think we have similar stances on this, even if we articulate it from different perspectives).

    Tradition is
    part of what makes us Catholic, and Catholicism true – for everyone,
    whether they choose to believe it or not (speaking of the teachings passed on through tradition – i.e. word of mouth, common belief and agreement). The loss of many visible, audible and liturgical traditions that remind us of our humility and reverence before Christ are part of the reason there is decreasing unity of belief and understanding. But it isn’t a coincidence that tradition is being attacked – it is one of the pillars of the Church that, if removed, is and will lead millions away from the Church, and away from Christ. Several Popes, bishops and priests have warned about this rise of
    modernism (aka, relativism) for several centuries. This isn’t a new
    battle for the Church. Satan has been working on this for centuries (in our timeline at least).

    I agree that aggression, passive aggression, and taking sides are not solutions. At the same time, we need to recognize the real danger behind the confusion and division. Only the unshakable truth can unite us – simply because it exists whether we choose to believe it or not. I’ve seen faithful Catholics that I conversed with regularly and agreed with completely (or so I thought at the time), take a self-proclaimed “neutral” position recently when confronted with modernist aggression. This created an impression of moral and theological ambivalence, and validated the self-interpretation those with a modernist belief were looking for.

    Jesus said that the truth would offend – not to suggest that offense is our goal – but to prepare us to understand that many would oppose the truth and us as a direct result. Avoiding the potential for offense is equally dangerous as I’m sure you have seen as well. I had a conversation with a recent convert today who is asking how the Church could teach the beauty and relevance of the Mass more clearly as this person could see it lacking in catechesis. They can see something beautiful, and convincing, is missing in Church teaching at the parish level (most of us learned the faith through personal research and study).

    In the past few decades of changes to the Mass, teaching the faith, and standing up for the faith in general, many seem to have lost an understanding for the connection we have with heaven and Christ there; and as a result, lost faith in the truth of Christianity. Not one convert I know wants a more modern or accessible Mass, and everyone prefers a more traditional Mass, or at least an English version of it (which was the only real intent of changing from the Latin mass – few people know Latin anymore).

    That’s why we converted – not because the Church reminds us of our Protestant/non-Catholic pasts, but because it takes us away from the confusion, division and secularism of the world and into an other-worldly experience with God.

  27. Shawn Albert Avatar
    Shawn Albert

    Exactly. That’s the whole thing. Protestants claim to believe in the Bible, but ask them where the Bible states what books are actually inspired and they have no real answer. They love to speak of how Catholics believe this or that and how it supposedly contradicts Scripture, when Prots don’t even HAVE Scripture to begin with!

    Thanks for telling it like it is.

  28. Shawn Albert Avatar
    Shawn Albert

    You do realize that the very founder of the “catholic charismatic movement” went to Protestants to be prayed over to “receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit” right? Don’t take my word for it. Read the book “Catholic Pentecostals” by Kevin and Dorothy Ranaghan. Since it came from Protestantism, the “catholic charismatic movment” is not from God.

    Please don’t tell me Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict and Pope Francis all approved this movement.

    So what? Heresy is heresy.

  29. independent_forever Avatar
    independent_forever

    No problem. We Catholics need to start defending our faith by going on the offensive in a way that is truthful yet with respect. Ironic that a faith which only speaks of loving God and loving neighbors is constantly attacked. They need to separate their problems with other sinful human beings with that of our faith. Karlo Brussards new book PREPARE THE WAY is awesome and would answer all of these questions with logic. Atheists would really have a difficult time defending their position cheers

  30. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    I don’t doubt the sincerity or knowledge of the author; however, I believe that much of what is said would be lost on the average church-going Catholic. The author has given the topic considerable thought — something the average Catholic would not. Most of those who regularly attend Mass could not two days later recall the subject of the homily, let alone have the author’s insights.

Leave a Reply