|
Anonymous wrote:
Dear Mike,
My son's girlfriend has gotten involved with an evangelical group called, Hillsong,
and listens to them as though they speak ex-cathedra (from the Chair of Peter). To
my mind, they misinterpret the Gospels. According to her, the group says:
- we don't need priests to give the Holy Sacraments
- the Host doesn't need to
be blessed, and
- anyone can take it anywhere . . . even to their home
Well, it is usual for Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist to take the Eucharist
into people's homes, but you are correct in that it is not right to reserve the
Eucharist in a home without the permission of the bishop; this protects against
sacrilege (surely she believes in that).
Obviously she needs to be challenged to think critically. What happens in situations
like this is that the group meets a lot of unmet emotional needs in the person,
and this makes them much more trusting and inclined to believe what they teach.
In some cases this can serve for good, but in this case it's not so good. I encourage
you to try with charity to address the errors involved, but I wouldn't hold much hope
of breaking her of the group's force, short of deprogramming, which would only
be appropriate if it was truly a cultic group.
I don't know where your son stands, or how old he is, but I would recommend
that you focus on inoculating him. Unless he has already taken what she has said hook, line, and sinker, it will
be easier to educate him. Your priority at this point is keeping him from being
won over by her.
My impression is that he's a practicing Catholic taken by surprise
at his girlfriend's turn, and is asking you for advice. That would be an excellent
position to be in. Start studying Catholic apologetics: (how to defend and explain
the faith) with him. Go over these and other common objections. Encourage and
support one another. Also study the Early Church, that way she will be focused
on doing what the early Church did. Like many, she is probably unaware that the early Church
believed what Catholics believe.
For example, in the middle of the 2nd century, St. Justin Martyr explained both:
- How the Church baptized, and
- celebrated
the Eucharist.
He says clearly that the rebirth referred to in John 3:6 which
Evangelicals love to associate with a commitment to Christ and often an accompanying
emotional experience refers instead to Baptism, as we believe. He also taught
that the Eucharist is transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ at the prayers
of the presider, and that we do not hold it to be common bread and wine but in
fact the Body and Blood of Christ.
St. Ignatius of Antioch in 110 A.D. condemns those
who deny the Real Presence of Christ.
St. Clement of Rome, in the first century
(around 80 A.D. I believe), strictly delineates a religious hierarchy so strong it
echoes the Old Testament worship. He calls the Eucharist a sacrifice (something
Evangelicals consider blasphemous because they misunderstand it), as does the Didache, another first century document. The Didache, by the way, endorses Baptism
by pouring as is common in our Church, and it also urges people to pray the Our
Father three times a day, something virtually no Evangelical would counsel.
The
practice of confessing one's sins to a priest is found in the Shepherd of Hermas, written in the early 2nd century. And, by the way, during this same time, the books
of the New Testament were still being debated, and wouldn't officially be put
to rest until the very late fourth century, — a century when many fundamental
Christian doctrines were still being hashed out.
My point is that long before
she had her Bible and the faith Evangelicals consider to be essential to orthodoxy,
the Church believed a substantial amount of what we as Catholics believe today.
Note that she will not accept these Fathers as proof of a doctrine;
at this point the goal is to disarm her since she's undoubtedly been taught that
we invented these things in the Middle Ages.
Anonymous wrote:
Apparently they
say we don't have to be all religious
I suspect what they mean is that inner transformation of
the heart is important, not external piety, which is certainly a biblical concept. I can't
be sure though, and they often tend to be obnoxious about it.
Anonymous wrote:
or need a church building. What utter heresy!!
I'm not sure I agree on this one. Church buildings are nice, and important,
but it's possible to celebrate the Mass outside (That's how the Pope often does
it when he visits other places).
For that matter, it's possible to celebrate it
in a conference room or wherever, even a home (though you need the bishop's permission).
I wouldn't advocate going back to the days without church buildings though, just
for the sake of spurning church buildings.
Anonymous wrote:
- How can I tell her that the Eucharist does have
to be blessed by a priest or it is invalid, and
where is a reference for this in the Bible?
You will not find that in the Bible, at least not in any persuasive form but St. Ignatius of Antioch in 110 A.D. said to consider that Eucharist valid
when it was celebrated by a bishop or one he designates. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans)
Let only that Eucharist be regarded as legitimate, which is celebrated under [the presidency of] the bishop or him to whom he has entrusted it.
Letter to the Smyrnaeans. 8:1;SCh 10,138
Catechism of the Catholic Church CCC 1369
Now, we can argue that we need to bless it, at the very least, because Jesus blessed
it, and told us to do the same. Actually, technically it says he gave
thanks, which is arguably a form of blessing, but this was a Passover seder,
and they definitely explicitly bless them there so I'm not sure why she argues
that the bread doesn't need to be blessed.
Anonymous wrote:
I
think Hillsong has hijacked her brains. She has
fallen for their nonsense hook, line, and sinker.
They told her how to speak in tongues and now she
babbles a lot, and my son is getting impatient
with her.
Please tell me that speaking in tongues is not
important and not salvific.
In the scheme of things, speaking in tongues is not important. It may be important
to the individual as a confirmation of God's existence and love, but it is not
salvific, and St. Paul makes the point that love is superior to speaking in tongues
(1 Corinthians 13:1), and so is prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:5). Moreover, the Church that seemed
to speak in tongues the most
(the Corinthians) also seemed to be the most immature
church.
Here is my recommendation. Use this as an opportunity to study the Scriptures
and go deeply into your faith. Get two resources.
- Catholicism
and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating available from Catholic Answers;
- the
second is the conversion story on tape of Dr. Scott Hahn
Presbyterian
minister becomes Catholic. [text version] [debate]
Scott Hahn is a fantastic resource. He was an anti-Catholic Protestant minister
who set out to prove once and for all that the Catholic Church was wrong, and
ended up converting. If you don't want to listen to the tape (and I highly recommend
you do), the book form is Rome Sweet Home.
Study these things with your son. If you do nothing else read these two books
but I recommend you read a few others as well:
I also recommend soaking in a number of conversion stories, which often have
a wealth of apologetics information, though not as much as straight apologetics
books. There is a series of books with short conversion stories edited by Patrick
Madrid called, Surprised
by Truth. That should keep you busy. If you want a longer one, a book
that precipitated the conversion of a friend of my is, Born
Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie.
I can recommend other books as well, depending on where your interests lie,
such as sources for the early Church fathers and books on dogma and doctrine.
And of course, don't forget to study the Scriptures. Focus on the New Testament
given your time constraints. Going into an argument with an Evangelical over
what the Bible teaches without having read the New Testament is like
going into battle unarmed. I'm not saying don't do anything until you've read
the whole New Testament, but if you want to be prepared to discuss this stuff,
knowing as much of it as possible is essential. Not to mention salvific. :-)
Also, when you talk to her, try to find out what is right and true in what she says,
or if not in what she says, at least in her intentions. Openly acknowledge to
her that her conclusions are not warranted. Don't fall
into the trap of defending the indefensible, either. Catholics have committed
a number of atrocities over the years and we don't need to whitewash them.
For example, if she says,
Pope Alexander was a very wicked man.
don't say:
I resent
that comment! or
Oh come on, how bad could he have been?,
rather say:
Yes, you are right, he was a bad man, but Christ never promised we wouldn't
have any bad popes. Infallibility does not mean popes will not sin, only that
they will not teach error when they speak ex cathedra.
If she gets into areas of history you are unfamiliar with, say,
Well I'm
not familiar with that incident, so I can't comment; if what you say is true,
it does sound wrong, but there is another side of the story, and there are often
misunderstandings about these things.
Sorry for the long reply, but I hope you found it informative and helpful.
Eric Ewanco
|
