Isn't that Catholic?

It's been five years now that our congregation has been observing Ash Wednesday and the Lenten season.  Although our noontime service is rather brief (30 min.), those who attend always find it to be thought-provoking and personally meaningful, including the imposition of ashes.

There have also been a number of other, older, faith-practices which we have introduced into our weekly worship gatherings.  Praying ancient common prayers together, standing for the reading of Word, and reciting the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds are among these.

Despite the fact that many Protestant groups have long incorporated practices like these into their respective liturgies and services, people in our congregation repeatedly encounter folks who say to them, "isn't that Catholic?"

What's behind that?!?

Is it simply the ignorance of Evangelical believers (I've never heard a Lutheran or Episcopalian say this)?  Or does the practice betray something deeper?  One thing I'm thinking of is how much "Catholic-bashing" has taken place within some evangelical denominations in recent decades (e.g. Calvary Chapels and Southern Baptists), leading them and other groups to "distance themselves" from anything that remotely looks or feels "Catholic."

I'd be interested in hearing your 'read' on all of this -- not only regarding it's cause, but on what it will take to turn the tide, helping people to be better informed and less suspicious and/or critical of our more ancient faith traditions and ecclesiologies.

.

image credit: avisualplanet.com

Comments

[Jim]

Of course it's catholic. Not Catholic, catholic, with a lower-case "c."

The Nicene Creed to which many evangelicals ascribe professes belief in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Those of us trying to be Christians -- "that we all may be one" -- need to recall that Jesus could never have imagined how divisively we have managed to operate the Body of Christ.

In attempting to define for ourselves what the exactly correct orthodoxy is, we have split hairs over what's in and what isn't in "good" worship. When Jesus instructed us to "do this" in rememberance of Him, he used symbols of His sacrifice; yet we have managed to split and re-split over wine vs. grape-juice, common chalice vs. individual cups, or special wafers vs. bread from a loaf. Or, believe it or not, whether the Eucharist is every Sunday, once a month, or once a year!

We look askance at other denominations for so many silly reasons that we forget that Jesus told us to love one another as he loves us. We call Him Lord, but pay allegiance to a Pope or a synod or to no ecclesiastic authority (but also not to Him!).

The imposition of ashes is symbolic for the beginning of a period of contemplation about the suffering our Lord endured. Let's stop adding to His suffering, and begin to show our love for Him by trying to regain the unity that He so fervently desired.

[Kevin]

We were studying Nehemiah in Sunday School this morning. Take a look at the worship service in the last few verses of Nehemiah 12. You have two great choirs singing and praising in almost a chanting style. How positively Catholic; and "Gregorian" in particular! But, I would have loved to have heard it and been a part of that great dedication service.

~Kevin

[Carlos]

Reformations and revolutions are in the habit of throwing out babies along with the bathwater. It's good to remember that by defining yourself by what you are not, you may end up with almost nothing. The puritan church would be an example of that. Ultimately, this catholic-bashing you mention, deprived the evangelical (and other) churches of worship element the emerging church now tries to add ...

It's good to remember the ancient dictum "lex orandi, lex credenti", you can only believe what you pray and vice versa. Within this principle resides a lot of liberty to create new liturgies.

[seraphim]

I agree with the poster 'catholic' not 'Catholic'. 'course catholic just means "Universal". We had a 'weird' ash wednesday thing happen. The Jade and Janice went to a noon Ash Wednesday service at Trinity Presbyterian Church, (apparently the Presbyterians have only been doing Ash Wed since early 1990's)

However, there was no placing of ashes on the foreheads. They didn't have any ashes at all.

So we went to an Ash Wednesday service at 7pm that night at Church of our Saviour Episcopal...

I'm also reminded of the saying 'All Truth is Ours'.. I think it was said by Lady Julian of Norwich quoting one of the Fathers.

Seraphim

[Mark]

In our congregation there is man who had studied to be a Roman Catholic priest. He dropped out for a variety of reasons but none of them have to do with a view that certain worship practices are wrong, stupid, empty, meaningless (all adjectives that people who have been worried about things being too Catholic have used to explain what they meant). He has been a blessing especially when he "rediscovers" some of those things from his past that he had forgotten about (that is 'turned his back on') and sometimes is able to offer an additional level of meaning (for example holy water at the entrace of the sanctuary and the practice of genuflecting).

Maybe we need more of these relationships in order to "turn the tide."
In Christ,
Mark Eberly

[Bald Man]

I'm going with ignorance and fear. The 1970's are old school for most evangelicals. (Cool - Keith Greene just popped up on my iTunes Lent mix! "Create in Me a Clean Heart") Anything that predates is a bunch of Catholic hocus pocus. That's the "take-out" version.

Solution: More voices who occupy multiple spheres and the space between our denominations. More people who always say "yes" or "no" when asked Are you Catholic? Evangelical? Methodist? Lutheran? Anglican? Charismatic? etc.

[Benjy]

Chris, check out this great idea:

http://alternative.victas.uca.org.au/?p=132

[Matt]

Dawn and I tend to identify with the Catholic Faith. We have found God present there and have some close friends who are hardcore catholic believers. There is something a bit earthy and reverent about being in a Catholic Mass. I could see how one could do it out of memory because of repetition and become habitual; but make no mistake, the Roman Catholic faith has been around a long time; longer than most. In our home, we even have iron crosses on the walls, and even a holy water dish at the front door.

I too am amazed how many evangelicals are so anti-catholic; some of whom even came from catholic background. So sad. They are part of us, we are part of them.

[Fr Matt]

A Few Comments: First, catholic does not merely mean "universal" but "in accord with the whole" and denotes those things that are believed and practiced "in common". Secondly, if memory serves, Gregorian Chant does have its roots in Jewish liturgical worhsip. Third, I do not agree that "lex orandi, lex credendi est" (the rule of prayer is the rule of Faith) provides room to create a lot of liturgies. In fact it is precisely because praying shapes believing that innovation in the liturgy should only be done cautiously at best (and not at all according to the Orthodox). Finally, I think that Evangelicals are biased because they have carried on a latent Protestant prejudice against things catholic.

[Seraphim]

Hold up. Let's not bash the anti catholic folk anymore than we bash the catholic folk. Why do alot of protestants shy away from the RC Church?

Come on, ya'll don't know? Let me help. The linchpin of the Reformation is thus: Salvation is thru Faith Alone in Christ Alone thru Grace Alone.

The Roman Catholic Council of Trent #9 says:

"If anyone says that Salvation is thru Faith Alone, Thru Christ Alone, thru Grace alone, let them be anathema"

and let's not forget that just this year Pope Benedict gave out 'indulgences' to celebrate an anniversary of the Church..

So remember, Unity on Essentials - Soeterology is pretty essential.

God's Peace

Seraphim

[Wanderer]

Oddly enough, (well it isn't odd to me but I assume several of you might be surprised) we get just as many, if not more, former Catholics than the protestant and evangelical folks do.

When they come to us, their break with the church tends to be significant and they are looking for the anti-catholic approach. This is one of the first things I have to teach people again and again. If you are looking to define your spirituality through not being Catholic, you are wasting your time, for your whole belief system still hinges on theirs.

For whatever reason, it seems that disillusioned protestants move to other Christian faiths. Disillusioned Catholics become Pagans and atheists.

[Dana Ames]

Seraphim, you must know that the statement you quote from Trent is in bald reaction to the Reformers. Lots of people around us, and indeed many Christians, are not invested the question "How does one get saved?" to the extent that the Reformers/Counter-Reformers were, or even those of us who went through the Jesus Movement were, or at all. Indeed, the idea of Hell is being rethought these days by many sincere "bible-believing" Christians, so your comment about indulgences is probably moot for many.

I cannot not return to the Catholic Church for several reasons, not very many really, but the Soteriologic is not one of them. Most important for me is the perceived necessity of sacrificing Jesus over and over again, which is the very heart of RC praxis in the Mass.

I have always been saddened at the continued anti-RC stance of so many Protestants, the reasons for which I think Fr. Matt has outlined very well. I do not in any way repudiate having been raised RC; it gave me many good things, not least of which was a interpretive grid for my God-consciousness even as a child. I left it for Conscience's sake, which is the only reason that makes any sense at all within a RC framework.

Seraphim, you might enjoy reading this:
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm
(hope you can paste that in your browser ok)

LYB-
Dana

[Fr Matt]

"Most important for me is the perceived necessity of sacrificing Jesus over and over again, which is the very heart of RC praxis in the Mass."

Unfortunately the Roman church often does a lousy job at catechizing her children. The Sacrifice is a re-presenting (the Gk word is anemnesis) of the singularly sufficient sacrifice once offered. And in order to "get it" you generally have to accept a sacramental worldview in which the eucharist participates in a timeless way in that one perfect sacrifice. But that is hard to teach a bunch of 10 year old kids.
Having grown up in the North East I have to disagree with Wanderes comment that Catholics become pagans or athiests. They were either always nominal catholics who become athiests because of "catholic guilt" and reject such a God or they become AOG pentecostals. And there are a lot of Prots who have gone pagan.

I don't believe the Roman church is "all that", but I believe that the Evangelical Protestant world has far less to offer- shallow theology, no mystery, no sacraments, nothing truly transcendent, pat bible answers, etc..... And the only thing that has made Rome at all attractive is JPII and the mystical predisposition of the postmodern world. As for me, I am a post-protestant, post-denominational neoCatholic. I make my bed nowhere and everywhere.

[Dana Ames]

Fr. Matt, please don't lump me in with that bunch of 10-year-old kids. I'm older than Vatican II, old enough to have had to learn the Latin responses. God built my brain for languange, and I didn't just learn those responses by rote- I knew what they meant in English, and I had some sort of understanding of them; I was compelled toward the Meaning of them because I longed to belong to God, even as a 6-year-old. The Catechism taught me that the mass is the Unbloody Sacrifice, and the Consecrated Host the True Body and Blood of Jesus. I don't believe that's changed over the years.

I understand and value the concept of anamnesis. I greatly appreciate the sacramental view of things; I never lost some of it, and have returned to much of it. I believe something "happens" at the Eucharist to draw the People of God into the Reality of the Story; I just don't believe Transubstantiation is the "vehicle" for it. I don't see any biblical warrant for it; to me, the RC arguments for it are very thin. That's part of the bed I'm lying on.

The peace of the Lord be with you.
Dana

[Seraphim]

Dana,

Thanks for the thought. But I disagree with old Tom. I don't think we NEED a new Perspective on Paul. And allow me to clarify. Being anti RC Theology would not equal Anti RC people.

I was born again at age 6, rededicated my life at age 12, and entered the Roman Catholic Church at age 18, to leave her at age 24 for the Vineyard and various other non-demoninational churches.

when 33 I entered the Eastern Orthodox church. However for the past year or so have not been in good standing with her. As some of the things that bothered me about the RC are in the EO as well.

Example (from the RC) Francis De Sales. Supposed to be a great saint of the Church. Gave us the 'ladder rosary'.

In a vision Francis saw a Ladder going to Heaven to Jesus which was really long. And saw a ladder going to Mary which was much shorter. And a voice seemed to say to him, Use my ladder it's easier.

Now, I'm sorry. I may love mass and candles and incense and liturgy, but that's blasphemy. And it cheapens the sacrifice of what Christ did, in fact do for us.

Can we as Protestant, Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox agree on some things? Sure. Real Generic basics. Jesus is the Only Way to Heaven, to the Father etc. God is a Trinity. Etc.

also Dana you say here: Lots of people around us, and indeed many Christians, are not invested the question "How does one get saved?"

Well, I must say I've been consumed with just that question since age 6. Salvation is more than Save me from the Wraith to come. But let us remember, it is not less than that.

LYS

Seraphim

[Seraphim]

btw Dana, Sorry I missed this you say:

Indeed, the idea of Hell is being rethought these days by many sincere "bible-believing" Christians, so your comment about indulgences is probably moot for many.

wow. McLaren is a good story teller, much better than LeHayle, but I'm sorry, still fiction. His last book especially the points about Job, were lame. And I'm not talking behind his back cause I told him that here on Chris' blog when he was a guest.

I still believe in the reality of hell. I still believe there is a heaven to be won and a hell to shun. Thank God for Jesus. And no matter what 're-thinking' folk are doing, well let me put it like this.

I may 're-think' that the train barrelling down on me is made of marshmellows, but I'll still be dead when it hits me. Reality is not based on my wishes or perceptions.

God's Peace

Seraphim

[Dana Ames]

Seraphim,
once again I note things we have in common, particularly our early life; I did it all up to about age 21 as a Catholic. I "went forward and accepted Jesus" at a Billy Graham movie when I was in Junior High, and that was important- and I view that step as a step in the process. From my earliest consciousness of God, I have always wanted to belong to him, be on his side, "be saved", whatever words will convey that. It led me pretty much where you have been. Like Whitewave, I find Orthodox theology (what I know of it) to be beautiful and scriptural- and, like my hesitancy with some RC doctrine, some EO doctrine gives me great pause as well.

My Italian and Jesus-family brother, did you actually read the article? Please don't let the title put you off. I think it would be very helpful for you, even if you end up not agreeing with what he's saying.

Blessings to you-
Dana

[Seraphim]

God Love ya Dana, and I do sis, I've not only read it this time, but when I bought and waded thru the 3 vol set of ole Toms (NT & People of God, Resurrection & Victory)I read all the stuff on Tom's site about the New Perspective.

I disagree with him whole-heartedly. My reasons are adequately addressed by this quote (2nd and 3rd paragraphs in this article:

Do we need a new perspective on justification?

God's peace

Seraph

[gaston]

I think it's a result of the Catholic Church bashing that's so popular among the Evangelical christians. (At least most of them).

In Costa Rica, most evangelicals are 100% sure that Catholic christians are not even christians. They say that they don't know God because they haven't been born again. (Which simply translated to they haven't said the "I receive you Jesus" prayer.)

We're in bad shape. : (

[Seraphim]

Gaston!

If you found Jesus at the Altar, during an altar call, if you found Jesus during confirmation, if you found Jesus during chrismation... during baptism.

What's important is that you found Him. Cause what that really means is that He found you.

It's just us arm-chair theologians that argue this stuff. The average believe just loves Jesus and all this stuff is irrelevant. I would never say who was not a Christian. I do get it up over folk who say who isn't a Christian.
L

LYB

Seraphim

[Seraphim]

Hit post way to quick sorry. The last line shoulda been. "The average believer just loves Jesus and all this stuff is irrelevant. I would never get my dander up over say who was a Christian. I do get it (my dander) up over folk that want to say who is NOT a Christian.

We need to remember that there are those whose Faith is only known to God.

And Jesus is the King & Judge. Romans 8.

LYB

Seraphim

[Dana Ames]

So I read the article, and I disagree- though not wholeheartedly :) The writer's non-disagreeable tone and some of the points he made are good to keep in mind.

I've read Wright's Big Three and and a big chunk of everything else he has written. For me, Wright's interpretive grid makes the whole bible and life in God make sense like nothing else I have ever encountered. Because of it I am deeply and joyously glad to be a Christian like never before in my 50 years. If something else does that for you, then rest there, brother.

L'Shalom and a hug-
Dana

[Fr Matt]

HI Dana,

Sorry, didnt meant to lump you in with those 10year olds. You said, "Transubstantiation is the "vehicle" for it. I don't see any biblical warrant for it"

In the miracile of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes we have a great example of Transubstantiatino without having to resort to Aquinas, per se. While the taste and appearance of the bread remains the same (the accidents), the substance is extended indefinately so that it feeds the five thousand. In the same way one might also say that our substance changed when we were born again. The accidents (our flesh) is the same and we struggle with fleshly impulses, but because there has been a change in substance we are different. I think one can build a strong case for transubstantiation from the New Testament. The important thing however is that we do not need to insist on this explanation - Real Presence is sufficient and consensually recieved.
Blessings. :)

[Seraphim]

In the miracile of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes we have a great example of Transubstantiatino without having to resort to Aquinas, per se

Fr. Matt, I can see where you are trying to go, but may I suggest rather than Jesus being 'multiplied' in the Eucharist, we are instead "Unified" - Made One as Jesus and the Father are one?

I'shalom

Seraph

[Chris]

"The important thing however is that we do not need to insist on this explanation - Real Presence is sufficient and consensually recieved."

Fr. Matt -- just curious. Theologically, can Real Presence be understood as a tangible expression of Christ's Immanence?