Postscripts From The Catholic Spitfire Grill

I have received a rather lengthy response to my post on Church shopping titled: So What’s The Problem? if you’d like to read ty23’s comment in its complete and intact form you may do so there. It is easier for me to respond to the issues raised by ty23 if I break it up and respond point by point. I will be honest in that I really didn’t expect that anyone from Elevation Church (or supporters thereof) would see my comments since I am such a tiny voice in the blogsphere. I have learned a lot however about the power of “Technorati” and “Google“  and I am now wiser. I have NEVER “Google’ed” or “Technorati’ed” either my church or my pastor and it never occurred to me that others would. Live and learn. So let’s dive in shall we?

Written by: ty23
RNW: I’m not sure where to begin, as your rant has so many holes, confusing contradictions and moments of completely neglecting what was actually being said in Pastor Furtick’s post, it leaves me almost speechless.

RNW: Well thank you for stopping by ty23. I want to thank you for the opportunity to patch up some of those holes, clear up some of the contradictions, and to clarify that while my remarks may have been provoked by Pastor Furtick’s blog entry, I hold no personal animosity toward him or any member of Elevation Church….even you ty23. May I also just say that you seem to have overcome that speechlessness with breathtaking completeness?

ty23: I don’t make a habit of wandering across blogs that seem to be nothing more than a sounding board for bitter ‘theologians’, either professional of amateur, to debate all the petty differences, doctrines and other minutia that have nothing to do with seeing people’s lives changed by God, but…I just happened to find you when reading more about Pastor’s Furtick’s post and the affect that his church has had on the local landscape in South Charlotte.

RNW: Again thank you for stopping by and reading my blog then, I know that I am a rather tiny voice in the world of blogging and I am flattered (sincerely) by those who take the time to read what I have written especially those who do not normally do so. However, it appears that you have called me bitter with that remark of yours. I assure you that I am not bitter, nor am I a theologian amateur or otherwise. I am simply a person who found herself answering questions for individuals about the Catholic Church and the more I answered, the more people seemed to ask and it became timesaving device for me to post answers here on a blog rather than craft individual answers. And just as you happened across my remarks here, I happened on Pastor Furtick’s remarks solely because someone asked my opinion. I responded with vigor because his blog entry hit upon an issue that as a Catholic I find particularly offensive. I would like to gently point out that as a Catholic, I have been told that many of the things I believe and do are offensive and I have in my own little inadequate way attempted to explain and defend them on my blog to those who ask me. Do really think that there isn’t anything that Protestants do that Catholics don’t find every bit as offensive as the ubiquitious Protestant opinion of Catholic “statue worshipping” and “vain repetitions”? (And for the record we do not worship statues or use vain repetitions but I know that Catholics are accused of it and so I use it an an example.)

ty23: 1. Your opening rebuttal contained your first of many rather petty inferences that when God speaks of the church, He is speaking only of the Catholic church, I guess thereby disqualifying everyone else out there as a viable vehicle throgh which He can saved lost souls. Let’s just get this out early, and I know this completely throws your entire world upside down, it’s probably one to just agree to disagree, but…the Catholic church’s belief that it is the one true church is just rediculous. I don’t know how else to say it because it’s so ludicrous.

RNW: I am sorry that you chose to characterize my beliefs as “petty,” “ridiculous” and “ludicrous.” I do believe that the Catholic Church is The Church that Jesus founded on Peter, The Rock. I believe that the Church is ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic (among other things) and if you wish to characterize my faith in that manner, I will try to accept it with the Christian Charity made possible by my faith in Jesus. But in all honesty, the less-surrendered parts of me don’t care much for the ad hominem approach. Since I am a convert to the Catholic Church and I came from your way of thinking, I must tell you in all earnestness that your opinion does not “throw my world upside down” it can hardly do so if I once held it myself. I would, however, like to clarify something here. I believe that Our Lord works in many and myriad ways. I see in the Sacred Scriptures and indeed throughout the history of the church, Catholic and otherwise, that He does indeed work even through disobedience and sin and that INCLUDES sinful popes, bishops, priests, nuns, and Catholic laypeople of all sorts. In fact, given that there are more Catholics than Protestants both now and throughout history, I would have to say that there are MORE wretched sinful Catholics than Protestants. Our Lord works through us even though we are sinners. I do not doubt that you ty23, Pastor Furtick, and the vast majority of the members of Elevation Church are my true brothers and sisters in the Lord. Well, I suspect that many of them would not accord me, as a Catholic, the status of Christian; nevertheless, if someone says they are a Christian I absolutely accept that they are because I do not have The Pen To the Book Of Life and ONLY Our Lord can say differently.

ty23: Not biblical, not in line with any biblical teaching, and pretty much flies in the face of what the Bible DOES say about God’s plan for the local church to redeem the world.

RNW: No. It. Does. Not. Fly. In. The. Face. Of. What. The. Bible. Says.  I wonder, have you even investigated the Catholic faith as written by CATHOLICS….not ex-Catholics and not Protestants telling you what Catholics believe but an educated, orthodox Catholic approach? If not, may I suggest Scott Hahn, Steven Ray, or Thomas Howard as a good place to start? And if you won’t buy or borrow a book you can’t get plenty of solid Biblical Catholic instruction from websites such as Scripture Catholic, The Bible Christian Society (with FREE MP3 downloads and CD’s); and The Catholic Bridge. I tell you honestly, it wasn’t until I converted to the Catholic Church that I began to believe the whole Bible and not just my favorite parts of it. I will also tell you that I work with many converts from Protestantism to the Catholic Church and while their stories vary, many of them tell me that it was putting down the Protestant commentaries and prayerfully reading the Gospels alone that made them Catholic and all of those people will also tell you that was the last thing they expected that the Lord would reveal to them. A good friend has this quote at the top of her blog “I did not leave my Evangelical Roots because I was unhappy there. In fact, I left my Evangelical roots loudly protesting to the Lord that I was very happy where I was thank you very much and did He really think this was necessary.” She “lifted” the quote from me. The stunning realization that the Catholic Church was the ONE True Church…THAT turned my world upside down. That others disagree with that sentiment scarcely causes a ripple in my day. I know that you disagree…if you agreed, you have to be checking out your local parish’s RCIA schedule. However, I notice that you ignored some of the questions I asked in my first post. So let me ask them (and maybe one or two others, I am NOT suffering from speechlessness) again. Although it is maddeningly difficult to respond in general terms to Protestant beliefs because there are so many shades of meaning from one denomination to another and as soon as you define something one way to respond to Protestant A, Protestant B comes by and says “Protestant A is not correct in saying [fill in the blank]. Let’s define it THIS way, now please respond again.” Repeat over 30,000 times for the over 30,000 Protestant denominations (Link opens a PDF file, but one from a Protestant source so let’s not accuse me of exaggerating.) But one of the things that every. single. one. of those Protestant denomminations has in common is that they believe in the Protestant distinctive belief of sola scriptura and that in their church they’ve got the right shade of interpretation of scripture. That leads me to a question “How is it that ONE Holy Spirit is leading so many into such widely varying beliefs?” Did Jesus who prayed for His followers to be ONE as He and the Father were ONE really send the Holy Spirit to cause dissension and division? 

Next questions. If Jesus intended for the Bible to be the sole rule of faith? Why did the Apostles wait so long to write those books? If sola scriptura was Jesus’ instruction to them, why wasn’t the first thing they did to write and see about the preservation of the written word? AND the questions you ignored from my previous post, “Why do you accept the canon and reject the beliefs of those who set it?” If those men were full enough of the Holy Spirit to discern what scripture was, on what basis do you susbstitute your understanding of Sacred Scripture for theirs? While a complete discussion of the adoption of the canon is outside the scope of this post, and this blog, and my current level of theological knowledge and setting aside obvious Catholic/Protestant disagreement on the place of the septuagint I think that we can both agree that the canon that we both accept was on for all intents and purposes was set at the Council of Carthage in 397 (We can save the septuagint and the deutero-canonical books for another day….hopefully many MANY days from now.) These are some of the things that as members of the Catholic Church of the day, those men who set the canon believed was revealed in Sacred Scripture.

St. Augustine: “For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: –Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. —from Letters of St. Augustine 53, 2

St. Augustine: This is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can be; be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they all went out of it, like unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abides in its root, in its Vine, in its charity. —On the Creed: A Sermon to the Catechumens branches pruned from the vine: but itself abides in its root, in its Vine, in its charity. —On the Creed: A Sermon to the Catechumens

St. Justin Martyr: And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. –First Apology

RNW: John the Apostle was IN THE ROOM when Jesus said “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” He was present when Jesus said “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” Now you we can argue whether what Jesus said was symbolic or literal until we are blue in the face, I’ve been proof-texted and Protestant-commentaried to death about why Jesus didn’t really mean it that way. (Blogged about it even.) But we weren’t there and we don’t know anyone who was. In the end I think I’m right and you think you’re right. But what about the testimony of a man who was a student of John the Apostle, like St. Ignatius of Antioch? Now THAT’s authoritative commentary! This is just a sample of what he left us.

St. Ignatius of Antioch: Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God. –Letter to the Philadelphians 4

St. Ignatius of Antioch: I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life. –Letter to the Romans 7

St. Ignatius of Antioch: They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. –Letter to the Smyrnaeans (in which he is describing Heresy)

RNW: The men who had the authority to set the canon of Sacred Scripture in the first place, chose what was and was not scripture because it illuminated the teaching as passed down to them by the Apostles and their appointed successors. Since the NT canon is universally acknowledged (except perhaps by Luther who removed some of the books but was prevailed upon to put them back) I can only assume you agree with me that the Holy Spirit was working through these men in a mighty and powerful way. And so I ask, by what authority (other than your own personal understanding of Sacred Scripture) do you reject what these men believed Sacred Scripture to mean?

ty23: 2. Your second rebuttal contained your first of many complete misinterpretations of his post, whether on purpose or not. Pastor Furtick at no time held Elevation Church up as the only credible worship experience, or even the best worship experience. Your attempt to impune him with your comment about his declaring the standard for worship experiences is just off. His post as a whole was doing exactly the opposite. And, as a matter of clarification, which you seem to be in dire need of, is that Pastor Furtick very clearly condoned and encouraged those who were ‘looking’ for the body in which they could best plug in. His feeling about the terminology of ‘church shopping’ was only an indication of the attitude that the visitor had towards Elevation and the other churches she had been visiting.

RNW: If understood me to be saying that Pastor Furtick was holding up Elevation Church “as the only credible worship experience” then I am very glad to have the opportunity to clarify what I believe. I believe that Pastor Furtick, as a representative of many other Protestant pastors, believes that the “worship experience” at Elevation Church to be one among many equally valid expressions of worship. My problem with that is that I don’t think that there are “many equally valid expressions of worship.” And it was against THAT idea that I was railing. I wanted to know what was so wrong about that woman’s criteria for choosing among many equally vaild forms of worship experience. If Pastor Furtick had suggested that Elevation Church had the ONLY valid expression of worship, I would have posted quite differently because we would have been in agreement on that point but differed in the matter of his authority to start his own church. I objected to his approval of some types of “church shopping” but not others.

ty23: You completely took his comments out of context to satisfy your opportunity to rail on about your idea of worship, which leads us to…

RNW: And I would like to gently suggest that you really have no idea what motivated me to write the post that I did. If you believe that I took his comments out of context you are, of course, free to believe that. Please do not ascribe motive.

ty23: 3. You don’t think worship should be meaningful to you? So I guess your weekly mass, your personal time with God, even the maintenance of this blog are meaningless to you. Doubt it. You find great meaning in your walk with God, as do many other Catholic churchgoes, I assume.

RNW: Actually I attend daily Mass as often as possible and not just Mass on Sunday. Practically speaking, that means I attend Mass twice a week. And what I meant was that we should not seek worship experiences that are “meaningful” to us personally. We are not the center of the universe. God is. God defines what worship is and whether or not we find it meaningful is immaterial. Cain offered a sacrifice in worship that was more meaningful to him personally than Abel’s. (Genesis 4:3-6) It didn’t work out very well for him. Lord only knows what Nadab and Abihu were thinking when they tinkered with God’s instructions. Their story is told three times in the Old Testament. Name another OT story told THREE times. There may be one or more, but I can’t think of them off the top of my head.

I did not say that my worship wasn’t meaningful. It is deeply meaningful to me but it wasn’t always that way. You see because I had made an idol of my intellect and understanding, God called me to the Catholic Church ahead of my grasp of Catholic worship and doctrine in order to help me to smash those idols. (“I’ll do whatever you tell me to Lord, as long as I understand it.” is NOT obedience. As a parent, I can tell you right now what kind of reaction my children get when I am told that they will NOT obey until I have satisfied their understanding.) Disobedience causes deafness and idols are not only blind, but they cause a sort of spiritual blindness. In my deaf and blind state, my perception was that Catholic worship was not meaningful and I cried to the Lord in agony more than once and begged Him to allow me to return to the familar places I once walked. But He knows better than I, what is food for the soul. The Grace I received through obedience to his clear leading in my life and through that, the obedience to the Church He placed in authority over me, and the healing Grace of the Sacraments allowed me eventually to smash the idols that my intellect and understanding had become. Worship has become meaningful to me because it was exactly the right food for my soul. The Eucharist is food for YOUR soul too. You are probably an excellent and holy Christian. I am deadly serious when I say that you are likely a better, more charitable, and more holy person than I am. True Worship and the Eucharist and the Sacraments would allow you, by God’s Grace, to be stronger and more holy still.

ty23: But, let’s be honest, your doctrine has proved itself to be anything but meaningful to thousands, maybe millions of people who have left the Catholic church to find something that actually spoke to them. Statistics prove that the growth of forward-thinking protestant churches, particularly in the South, as being filled with people, particularly from the North, who have left the catholic church to find something that was MEANINGFUL to them. Something that they could NOT just sit through and walk out the door unchanged. Your own church statistics tell the story of thousands, millions, of members on church rolls, while only a fraction actually attend services. Granted, that is the case in every denomination, but I guarantee you it’s not the case at churches who are looking to reach people far from God as opposed to sticking to old customs, traditions, and doctrine which has proved to be ineffective in reaching today’s world.

RNW: Ok let’s be honest, shall we? I think you are grossly myopic in this opinion. I think you are extrapolating forward from your tiny experience and drawing sweeping conclusions. The Protestant tendency to reject literal, visible unity in favor of some insipid symbolic sort tends to handicap you when looking at the Catholic Church though and so perhaps your myopia is understandable. The Catholic Church is ONE church that is 2,000 years old and is presently worldwide with over a billion living members. When you add to that number all of the Catholics who have died in the faith in the last 2,000 years and throw in all that they did for the Kingdom, together with what my living brothers and sisters in the Catholic faith are accomplishing worldwide and that statisics you believe prove your point about “forward thinking Protestant churches” really don’t mean a lot to me. I will be the first one to stand up and rant about some of the current problems in the Catholic Church. And in fact, if you think that my previous post qualified as “ranting” (you certainly accused me of that enough times) then let me tell you what happens when I deliver my opinion to fellow Catholics on my “pet” problems in the Church. That said. Whatever those problems are, they are hardly a blip on the radar screen compared to the scope of Catholic history. I know that they will be remedied because Our Lord promised that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church He built on Peter the Rock. Problems in the Church do not give me license to usurp the Apostolic Authority handed down through that 2,000 years and go start the First Church of Red Neck Woman any more than “problems” in my marriage give me license to go find a husband that understands me better and try again on that whole marital covenant thing. There is only ONE Bride of Christ and you can leave her if you wish, but there is no divorce and if you pretend otherwise it is the equivalent of spiritual adultery.

And as long as we are being honest, what has your doctrine given us? Church splits? (30,000 plus denominations and counting.) Congregational bickering and fighting. Vigorously growing churches only to be destroyed by scandal and sin with members sent out to re-make the wheel and start over again? I’ve been part of vibrant, growing, churches like Elevation. I know how good it makes you feel. You are looking on the present success of Elevation and churches like it and ignoring the rest of what sola scriptura has delivered. Tell me today what exactly your definition of a forward thinking Protestant Church is and then come back to me in 500 years (I won’t even make you wait 2,000) and we’ll compare what has been done for the kingdom by the Catholic Church in that time and by those churches that fit your definition.

I receive Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity each and every Mass (providing that I am not in need of Sacramental Confession and have fasted appropriately). I assure you, that you cannot have an encounter that intimate with Our Lord and leave unchanged unless you are denying the Eucharist as St. Paul warned about in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. I suspect that each and EVERY Catholic you have every met that left the Catholic church claiming to be “unchanged” was guilty of receiving the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. Strong words I know, but to be Catholic and to *deny the Real Presence and receive the Eucharist anyway is a very grave matter. *Please also let me differentiate between outright denial and those doubts of faith that we all have. It is sufficient to say “Lord I believe. Help Thou my unbelief.”

ty23: 4. Your take on worship is simply put, incorrect. While God spoke very clearly about sacrificial worship in the Old Testament, He also spoke very clearly through His Son and His disciples in the New Testament. Jesus paid that sacrifice once and for all. We don’t have to come before Him beaten, guilty, and downtrodden. We are called to come to Him convicted of our sin by His Holy Spirit, and seeking His forgiveness, but at the same time praising Him for the fact that “there is now no condemnation”. I know that this challenges your doctrine on repentance, pennance, the whole Rosary thing, confession, etc, but let me just make one blanket statement, again, one we will just agree to disagree: not BIBLICAL. Those practices are the product of Man, not God. Worship is as decribed in the Bible, a joyful, praise-filled time to thank God for what He has done in our lives. Doesn’t it just feel better, and sound more like our God, to spend the majority of our worship experience, whatever the methodology, praising and thanking Him then to spend it getting beat over the head with church-inspired guilt and the need to count beads and recite prayers. JUST TALK TO GOD, TELL HIM YOU’RE SORRY, TELL HIM YOU’RE GRATEFUL, TELL HIM YOU LOVE HIM!!! You don’t need Mary or Peter to deliver the message for you.

RNW: I hear your passion and conviction. I am sorry to have to tell you this but all those things you said weren’t biblical…Yes, they are. Let’s start with ‘repentence.’ In the SAME paragraph that you say that my doctrine on repentance is “not BIBLICAL” you tell me to “TELL HIM YOU’RE SORRY” Where I’m from, saying you’re sorry and meaning it is a synonym for ‘repentance.’ Nevertheless, I assume you’re not really saying that repentance isn’t biblical and what you meant was that Sacramental Confession isn’t biblical. First, let me say that Catholics DO confess their sins directly to God. The role that Sacramental Confession plays in all of that goes far beyond the scope of this post. However, I take issue with the idea that it isn’t in the Bible. Confessing sins to someone else AND receiving forgiveness and the necessity of repentance (of which penance or attempting to correct the wrong is a part) is recorded in Sacred Scripture. Our Lord and Savior in John 20:22-23 breathed on the apostles and gave them the power to forgive sins. The only other place that God breathes on man is in Genesis 2:7 where he breathes life into Adam. The forgiveness of sins breathes new life into US! If Jesus didn’t intend for the Apostles to hear other people’s sins, why is this event recorded in John? Why not instruct the Apostles (and record it accordingly) not to forgive sin but to assure the faithful that all they needed to do was to go to God in prayer and “TELL HIM YOU’RE SORRY”? I cannot ignore the importance of that passage of Sacred Scripture as I did when I was a Protestant. And what about St. Paul who speaks of a Ministry of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5:17-20?.  In James 5:13-15, we see recorded in the early church that this Ministry of Reconciliation has been expanded to include presbyters (priests), because the prayer of the priest causes sin to be forgiven. Protestants often translate the word presbyter as ‘elder’ but the Catholic word for ‘priest’ comes from that Greek word. And it is bishops (who have Apostolic authority) and priests who hear Sacramental Confession and IN THE NAME OF JESUS, forgive sins. Jesus also speaks very clearly about repentance in Luke 13:2-5:

He said to them in reply, “Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were greater sinners than all other Galileans? By no means! But I tell you, if you do not repent, you will all perish as they did! Or those eighteen people who were killed when the tower at Siloam fell on them  –do you think they were more guilty than everyone else who lived in Jerusalem? By no means! But I tell you, if you do not repent, you will all perish as they did!”

The rosary is a meditation on the Gospels. I find it hard to declare meditating on the Plan of Salvation as unbiblical, but you are entitled to your opinion. I blogged about Repetitive Prayer very recently and so I won’t go there again today. As for Mass being about counting beads, reciting prayers, and my personal favorite “getting beat over the head with church-inspired guilt”, I have to say that I don’t think you have ever been to a Catholic Mass or if you have, had it adequately explained to you. In fact, once you understand the Catholic Mass you’ll find it is all about Jesus and not at all about Mary and the saints and all about forgiveness and mercy….no bead counting, and no “getting beat over the head.”

ty23: 5. The church that Jesus founded: Jesus didn’t die to protect books, doctrine, Eucharists or anything else that you hold up in place of real life change.

RNW: No. He died to give us the Eucharist. “This is my Body which is given up for you.” and “This is the Blood of the Covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” AND He said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” We see in Acts that the earliest church DEVOTED themselves to the “breaking of the bread” and to “prayers.” Are you devoted to the breaking of the bread? Where is that DEVOTION in the average Protestant worship service? And I did not say that Jesus died to protect any of those things. I said that your brothers and sisters who passed the Christian faith to you, who faced torture, and starvation, and death, and loneliness died to pass those things on to you. I sorrow to my bones that some reject their sacrifice as unnecessary.

ty23: He died so that all men could be free of the bondage of sin and experience a fullness of life that is impossible without Him.

RNW: Agreed. 

ty23: He didn’t die so that one mighty ‘church’ could be the end all for all things holy, and be the only source from which the world should take it’s direction.

RNW: How many churches did Jesus found? Here are some more questions. Does doctrine matter? I think the evidence says that it does. If it doesn’t then, church splits are even more gravely sinful because they are based on something that doesn’t matter. If doctrine DOES matter, then there really IS a right answer and since there is only ONE God, and ONE Bride of Christ, there doesn’t seem to be room for differences in worship and doctrine, no matter how snarkily you care to characterize it. I would phrase it differently and with more charitable language but yes, I do believe that He died so that “ONE mighty church could be the end all for all things holy, and be the only source from which the world should take it’s direction.” What do you suggest is the purpose of Christ’s Church if not to be Holy and a source of direction for the world?

 

ty23: TAKE YOUR DIRECTION FROM HIM! Yes, the Bible is a tough read, but most of the time it’s pretty clear what God intends for His people. Do we really think that God’s plan was that there would be one guy, who if enough people thought he was alot like Peter, could sit in Peter’s chair and cast down direction depending on the current social and political climate, or how he personally felt about an issue. GOD’S WORD DOESN’T CHANGE! So we don’t need to look to some figurehead who is going to express a point of view that in most probability will contradict the guy that came before him.

RNW: Well I do take my direction from Him and the Bible. Jesus didn’t mince words when He said He would build His church on Peter the Rock. You’re absolutely right it IS clear. Jesus said “EAT my flesh” and “Drink my blood.” and let disciples LEAVE rather than say “Wait I was just speaking symbolically.”  He said “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven.” too. It was only as a Protestant that I needed someone to help me understand that those passages didn’t mean what it looked like they were saying. I also think you grossly misunderstand the role of the Pope and what the doctrine of papal infallibility means and doesn’t mean. And frankly, you’re right. Unless Jesus’ hand was in it, one Pope probably would contradict the ones who came before him. But that isn’t the case and given how grossly sinful and self-centered some of the Popes have been, it should give you pause that Catholic dogma and doctrine doesn’t change. Our understanding may grow as in the case of the doctrine of the Trinity which was not dogmatized immediately, or the canon of Sacred Scripture but growth in understanding is not contradiction. Please understand that there is a difference between Tradition with a capital ‘T’ and tradition with a small ‘t’ Small ‘t’ tradition or church discipline like priestly celibacy may change but dogma, such as the Trinity is NOT contradicted.

You also say “Do we really think that God’s plan was that there would be one guy, who if enough people thought he was alot like Peter, could sit in Peter’s chair and cast down direction depending on the current social and political climate, or how he personally felt about an issue. GOD’S WORD DOESN’T CHANGE!” I find no small amount of irony in this particular part of your statement. You’re right. God’s WORD doesn’t change. Why should worship of Him change based on “current social and political climate and how one feels personally about it.”?

ty23: 6. Pet doctrine. Pastor Furtick wasn’t protecting HIS pet doctrine, He was protecting THE doctrine upon which the local church was based. The idea that Jesus intended for the church to reach lost people. That’s the flat out Bible-based, no arguing with it purpose of the church: to reach those who do not know him. That’s what everything most forward-thinking churches revolve around. My experience with the Catholic church is that it is just that, ‘pet doctrine’ (because it’s not biblical), that would prevent it from doing much of anything to reach lost people. How many first time guests did you have this past week? How many people who have been away from the Lord, and have reconnected, not just out of guilt, but out of a longing for a MEANINGFUL relationship with God, brought them through the doors of a church for the first time since their parents stopped forcing them to go to mass? Let’s not even argue that. An impactful church is a growing church, a growing moveme nt of people seeking God, regardless of denomination. Today’s Catholic church does not fit in that category.

RNW: He’s NOT protecting his pet doctrines? Well then, I will save a place for him in the Catholic Church. And although I am certain that you think I am willfully misunderstanding you, I assure you that I am not. If he is not protecting his pet doctrines, then there is no barrier to him reconciling with the Catholic Church. However, I suspect that your remarks reflect his thinking on various Catholic doctrines and just as YOU disagree, so does he. And since he has assumed the authority to establish his own church based on his own understanding of those doctrines rather than serve in unity with his brothers and sisters in Christ. That is protecting them.  Pastor Furtick for all his sincerity and probably good heartedness, has no greater claim to authority of his particular interpretation of Sacred Scripture than any of the pastors of any of the over 30,000 other Protestant denominations that also claim to be proclaiming “THE doctrine upon which the local church was based. The idea that Jesus intended for the church to reach lost people. That’s the flat out Bible-based, no arguing with it purpose of the church: to reach those who do not know him.” And I must also say, that the fact that you claim membership in a church at all is prima facie evidence of the Catholic Church’s understanding of the purpose of the church and its 2000 year commitment to reaching the lost. That you have the Bible, is a gift from and rests on the authority of the Catholic Church that established the canon to begin with. It is a gift from those Catholic monks that gave their eyesight by working themselves to exhaustion to preserve those Sacred Scriptures in the 1400 or so years before Gutenburg. That you have a church is a gift from the first 1500 years of Catholic missionary work to spread the gospel in the known world. I assure you, that the Catholic Church is indeed cognizant of the exhortation to “go into all the world” and reach the lost.

ty23: 7. Let’s take a break on this one, keep it lighthearted. I know firsthand that Pastor Furtick does not play all his favorite songs, his staff and leadership prepare songs that speak to today’s churchgoer and most effectively create a WORSHIP EXPERIENCE that will impact them and stay with them throughout their day, their week, weed it’s way into their relationships, you name it. He also does not sit down in front. By the way, if nothing else, shouldn’t our time with God, as a collective body of beleivers and those seeking new life be classified as an experience? What a great way to put it. Wouldn’t you want to leave church on Sunday, feeling like you had one of the best experiences of your life? Wouldn’t you want to be searching for the words to describe what you EXPERIENCED to your friends and family. I’ll bet the Sermon the Mount was an experience!

RNW: Very well. I was speaking figuratively and I apologize for not making that clearer. I assume that Pastor Furtick does have some say-so in the selection of music and even if his criteria is NOT to choose simply his favorite song, I believe my point stands. He does choose or at least exercises authority over those who do choose. And I really don’t care if he sits in the front or the back, or paces the aisles if you have them. The point is that he has some criteria for choosing and orchestrating as he does and if he can choose then so can this other woman he took issue with. You may call your church service whatever you like, but if you do not do what Jesus commanded when he said “Do this in remembrance of me.” it is not True Worship…no matter what it makes you feel like. As a young person, I often felt like I was “in love.” It was a chemical experience and not at all what I now share with my spouse of 20 years. What felt like love, gave way to the reality. Yes, I still “feel” like I am in love just as I often “feel” a wonderful experience at Sunday Mass. However, the “feelings” of love are just that. Feelings. And not true love that persists no matter how many dirty socks are on my floor. My “feelings” of the experience of worship are wonderful and lovely. They are only “feelings” and are immaterial to whether or not I am experiencing True Worship. I often “felt” like I was in love before I was married and experienced true covenantal love, it was not actually love but the feeling of it. I similarly experienced feelings of “worship” before I reconciled to the Catholic Church and experienced True Covenantal worship. My feelings about what I experienced before were not an indicator of the reality.

ty23: 7. [SIC] In your last rant, you get all over this “understanding of scripture” thing, and basically, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The idea that we should find a church that lines up with OUR understanding is totally backwards, but your assumption about the average protstant is no worse than anyone’s assumption’s about the average Catholic. You see, the thing is, we need to stop looking at Joe Protestant, or Cathy Catholic; they’re fine, they know God, right. So let them bicker about how someone preaches or how someone sings, or whether or not father so and so has a good voice to sing during mass. The point is, and the point Pastor Furtick was making with the post as a whole, is that the church isn’there for that conversation. We’re not here to debate theology, we’re not here to please Joe or Cathy’s intellect, we are here to reach lost people. So, what Pastor Furtick was saying was…if you are Joe or Cathy, please don’t come in here with your preconceived notions of how church should be done, making sure that it fits your man-made mold of what you are comfortable with. Joe can go to the little baptist church on the corner that has 75 people coming, maybe 500 on the membership roll, and get on the list for the next pot-luch dinner. Cathy, can head back to mass, say a few verses that make her feel good, that qualify her as guilt-free until the next confession, and just like Joe, head out Monday morning completely unchanged and completely ill-equipped to affect the world aroud them for the Glory of God.

RNW: If Pastor Furtick is not here to debate theology,  then WHY doesn’t he reconcile to the Catholic Church and reach the lost from there? We could use his enthusiasm for reaching the lost. Again, I am not willfully misunderstanding. The truth is, that theology DOES matter to Pastor Furtick or he would be also be about the business of uniting Our Lord’s church. He wouldn’t become Catholic, because he disagrees. And that is because to him, and to you, and to me….doctrine matters no matter how we try to paint the picture otherwise.
 

ty23: RNW, I hear your passion, I hear you conviction, and I hear how much you love the church, you’re just all riled up about the wrong thing. Pastor Furtck’s rant was the result of his desire to REACH lost people, not build a case for the sound doctrine of the protestant church. You seem to be much more concerned with the inner workings of the church, than actually being part of the church changing lives. Stop reading about Alex Jones, stop linking to websites that will never be seen by someone who has never known Christ and start looking for those who are far from Him, and do something to help Jesus Christ intersect their life. Heck, take them to mass, help them read the Bible, give them some sound guidance on how to seek God in a new and exciting way, just don’t bog them down with doctrine, ritual, or talking points about what they should say to anyone challenging the Catholic church. We are called to live for GOD, and in some ways we do that through our church, but we are not called to live for our church instead of Him.

RNW: I am sorry but I do not think that getting riled up about Unity in Our Lord’s Church when He prayed for our visible unity on the night before he was excuted, is getting riled up about the wrong thing. Jesus said that our UNITY would be a witness to the world. He said “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.” Don’t you see that unity is an essential part of reaching the lost? Jesus said so. We aren’t reaching as many people as we could because we have abandoned that visible, concrete unity that Jesus intended as public witness for us in favor of something else and then we walk around pretending that it isn’t important. And the only way back to unity is to stop pretending that we’ve already got it and all we have to do is go about the busines of reaching lost souls. We don’t have it. Doctrine does matter and until we sit down and go about the hard work of regaining that unity we are going to lose still more souls because Jesus knew our witness depended on that unity.

ty23: Many people are looking to leaders like Pastor Furtick to make a dent in their lives, in their communities, in the world they live in. This Sunday, I would challenge you to ask your priest what your church has cooked up to reach your local community. What ground-breaking, life-changing, impossible to ingore risk is your church taking to ensure that you are fullfilling the Great Commission as a church? Will he have an energetic response, will he call Rome, or will he just explain how your congregation is going to continue doing the same thing you always do, and just hope that some stanger walking by the church feels tingly and decides to step inside. Whatever side of the conversation you are on, let’s all just get busy working to make God’s church what it was designed to be…His plan A, B, C, and D to reach the lost.

RNW: Well I will be meeting my Priest long before Sunday arrives and thank you, but I don’t need your challenge. I have spent many hours in our church meeting the needs of our community. It isn’t a new program, it’s the same old one and we call them the Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy just plain old feed the hungry, help the poor obtain their medicine, help find a refrigerator or a couch for that newly single mom etc. Jesus set up many of the basics of that program in Matthew.  We pray a lot at our church too. Our chapel is open 24 hours a day from Monday to Thursday…you’d be surprised who gets all tingly and comes in during the wee hours. I had a lovely talk with a Presbyterian lady from 2-4 am about a week ago who just needed someone to pray with. We’re working on having the chapel open with someone praying inside 24/7. It’s not a particularly new or brightly packaged idea, just a a time-tested old one.  And when I was at the church Saturday to join in a group prayer, our pastor was showing someone around the parish who was walking by and decided to “step inside.” And we don’t need to call Rome about it either, they’re doing the same thing. Sure God regularly raises up saints among to remind us even more about the value of quietly going about the business of loving the unloved. Mother Teresa springs to mind. We in the Catholic Church have a rich tradition of saints, both those with and without a capital ‘S’, who have come up with more ways to feed the hungry, love the unloved, meet the needs of the poor, care for the sick, clothe the naked, build up communities, and otherwise reach the world for Christ than Pastor Furtick and the Elevation Church would be able to carry out in several lifetimes.

ty23: Come to Elevation. I guarantee you’ll have a meaningful experience.

RNW: Thank you for the kind invitation but I would rather have the food that Jesus intended for my soul, that the Apostles taught us about, and that Catholic martyrs throughout the centuries have died for than any “experience.” I will leave you with this quote:

“What if the world desired to be fooled?….what if for a generation or two before his [the antichrist's] appearance, the formation of Catholics were to fall into confusion? What if a generation of religious illiterates had been formed, unable to distinguish between religious truth and religious sentiment?” Father Elijah in Father Elijah: An Apocalypse by Michael D. O’Brien

And these thoughts about it. It is the confusion of religious sentiment with religious truth that I am “ranting” about. I believe that is exactly what you are confused about. And I know you disagree.