I recently read Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam which includes a speech and a letter written by then Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now our Pope. In it he gives what I thought was a very insightful analysis of the protestant movement:
Today’s [religious] panorama is quite varied. To do it justice we would have to go well beyond the scope of this short statement. Despite the apparent diversity of the phenomena of state churches, evangelical movements, secularization, and the search for a renewal of the faith, Protestantism as a whole seems to be characterized by a consciousness of its profound intertwining with modern culture. This is both its strength and its weakness, since the fatal tendency to conform to the times – which led Protestantism to the brink of dissolution during the Enlightenment – is alive and well today, as the traditional Protestant churches in the United States demonstrate. Protestantism has thus become, for the most part, a cultural fact: it is somehow still called Protestant, although no longer connected to any particular denomination.
In this regard, the words of the former Prime Minister of France, Lionel Jospin, are telling. He called himself an atheistic Protestant. He characterized his atheism in terms of his Protestant cultural origins. I say this because Protestantism – given its openness toward the modern culture, which it helped mold to a remarkable extent – could appear to be the ideal representative of a civil religion. Yet its current crisis and the deep transformations it has undergone demonstrate that “de-confessionalization” does not automatically produce something that resembles a broad Christianity encompassing other denominations.
Today, in the old confessional churches of Protestantism, there is a steady, disconcerting loss of vitality. Free churches of an evangelical model are being formed that their enemies call “fundamentalist,” but that are nonetheless able to attract thousands of people in search for a solid foundation in their lives. Statistics tell us that the more churches adapt themselves to the standards of secularization, the more followers they lose. They become attractive, instead, when they indicate a solid point of reference and a clear orientation. An ambiguous light is thus cast upon the concept of civil religion: if it is no more than a reflection of the majority’s convictions, then it means little or nothing. If instead it is a source of spiritual strength, then we have to ask what feeds this source.
In my mind when you conform to the times – such as allowing contraception, abortion, divorce and homosexuality – you choose to put God second. In other words, rather than offend people, you ignore Truth. Rather than call people to sacrifice for their beliefs, you choose to maximize something other than God. This is the problem of many protestant churches that are now even changing their worship to accommodate the whims of those who want church without wanting obligation, sacrifice, or change.
God bless,
Jay
I think for those who don't believe in the Real Prescence the *fundamentalist* megachurches are a great option to *typical* protestant denominations.
My 7 yr old asked me the other day..."who has the best fathers (preachers)...I said the focus is Christ not the preacher and for us Christ is the Eucharist. Since only the Catholics have the true Eucharist there is no need to rate the pastor. I am there to reflect on scripture and to receive Christ."
But for our separated brethren who do not share our Faith but rather a belief in symbolism, I think the megachurches are doing a great job of evangelism to their systems. I think they are taking (man's) attention to modernism in all forms and giving it to man with some dynamic scriptual interpretation (traditions). I agree with your post that they are pretty close to the Catholic (Apostolic tradition) tree on many points and have attracted a growing fold. Replacing the Real Prescence with real Rock n Roll and Plasma TV has even attracted *Catholics* who do not believe in the Real Prescence...(ya I know they were not *Real* Catholics then)...but this is the measure of faith they have and with hope, it grows.
In Love
when we were one
I find it interesting that Benedict XVI attributes the success of Evangelical Churches over their "confessional" Protestant brethren to their courage in promoting gospel values over worldly values.
When it came to abortion, homosexuality, and divorce the Evangelicals chose "a solid point of referene and a clear orientation" while the liberal Protestants "adapted themselves to the standards of secularization". Even in the area of contraception, the Evangelicals (God bless them) have proven slower to accept them than the rest of the world.
In Canada, an Evangelical doctor was brought before the courts for refusing to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried people (discrimination). I think the compromise ultimately reached between the courts and the doctor was that the doctor could not dispense contraceptives to anyone at all.
In related news, I have now heard (from an eyewitness) of a priest in my city who has, in his homily, made his parishoners aware that the Catholic Church stands opposed to the use of contraceptives. Praise God. I would have paid money to be there.
Rumors have it this priest was, before ordination, almost kicked out of seminary for his outspoken support of the Magisterial Teachings. The Bishop had to personally intervene to save this man from expulsion by telling him to keep his trap shut until he got ordained. A shrewd bishop covertly teaming up with a loose cannon priest. This is history in the making.
“The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one. Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”
-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88
Why do you guys have this "apologetics" site up and running?
Jacob,
Just because you can't be defined as a "heretic" in the traditional sense doesn't mean you still don't need the Eucharist, Confession, and the other Sacraments. You are still outside the Church Christ created and are missing out on the spiritual riches open to you.
I highly recommend you read Why we do this for more thought in this direction. We're not just here to help heretics, we're also here to help those who are simply outside Christ's Church because of ignorance.
God bless,
Jay
Jacob
"Why do you guys have this "apologetics" site up and running."
see 1 Pt 3:15
In Love
when we were one
Jacob, thank you for sharing Cardinal Ratzinger's most profound thoughts on Protestantism.
It makes much clearer the statement from the Second Vatican Council about how one cannot charge today's Protestants with the sin of separation. It also explains why converts no longer have to make a "formal abjuration of heresy" when they enter the Roman Catholic Chuch.
Though if Ratzinger is right to say that the current "categories" do not adequately describe Protestantism, perhaps we need some new "categories" and need to rephrase our apologetics material using the new "categories".
In Theology of the Body, John Paul II introduced categories beyond the "juridico-casuistic" (his words, note mine) when discussing marriage and sexuality. Perhaps Benedict XVI will introduce new categories when discussing ecumenism and apologetics.
We certainly live in interesting times.