Thoughts On A day of Catholic Radio

212 thoughts on “Thoughts On A day of Catholic Radio”

1. … Or “the Mother of the Man Jesus”?

   Or what?

   LikeLike

2. So, what would YOU call Mary instead of “the Mother of God”? Would you call her “the Mother of Christ”? 🙂

   LikeLike

3. How can you honestly believe in the teachings of the RCC?

   I mean: Purgatory
   Prayers directed to Mary
   The Papacy is of pagan origin. [The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phoca.]
   Worship of the cross, images and relics.
   Holy Water??
   Canonization of dead saints
   Celibacy – Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles.
   The Rosary
   Indulgences
   Transubstantiation?!?
   Referring to Mary as the Mother of God”

   and the list goes on and on and on………………

   LikeLike

4. I think I wrongly overlooked the word “sola” in Justin’s rebuttals.

   I am not claiming that Paul taught “justification by faith alone.” I have never said that in any of my posts. I’ve been saying that Paul taught that a man is “justified by faith” (dikaioutai ek pisteôs). My mistake for misreading Justin.

   What I would say to Justin, though, is that his statement that “Protestants are like JW’s in their historical knowledge!” is fallacious. Think Everett Ferguson. Alister McGrath. Jaroslav Pelikan (who, though he became Orthodox for the last few years of his life, was up till then a Lutheran = Protestant and certainly not JW-ish in his historical knowledge). Michael W. Holmes. Henry Chadwick. Etc.

   LikeLike

5. Your two statements are incompatible, sir.

   LikeLike

6. lol, who says that? A bunch of fringe scholars in evangelical-only seminaries? How many of them are Jewish? (answer: none, and for good reason), the reality is that these scholars are being attentive to only a select batch of scholarship (their own) and making their own case to themselves and their choirs. But not one Jewish scholar buys that the idea that Judaism ever taught “works righteousness” (as is needed for a Reformation reading), not one. They have always been rooted in the Old Testament teaching of grace, and the fact that they have been saved by grace. Their desire for works is not salvific, because they know who saves them (God), and that they don’t “earn” this status (like a good Pelagian, or maybe a Muslim). That is their teaching to this very day! Call a Rabbi and see!

   Like I said, I’m not saying you can’t pull the Protestant view out of some sections of Paul’s text, however, one can’t just take those couple texts and ram them down the neck of every other text that doesn’t mesh with it. Like I said this approach comes from a faulty theory about the clarity of Scripture (and has caused Protestants no small amount of headaches over the past 500 years). Furthermore, when you look down the history of the church you see no one, no one, teaching justification as “an essential doctrine” as the Reformation would propose it to be. That is a big problem to Protestants, especially in light of the fact that they suffer from sever historical amnesia, for the only reason that they INSIST that they know what the text is saying properly. Forget the difficulties in the text about free-will and predestination, or the fact that Paul is using paradox at points in his argument (no, instead war between the Calvinists and the Arminians!). Forget the fact that Jews never taught that works made you righteous. No instead insist that one can sit down by themselves, not read it in context (whether the Jewish context or the early Church context) and just “understand it”. Forget that James says that one is “justified by (faith and) works” (though he just says works). Don’t heed Peters admonishment to be careful in terms of perverting or mishandling Paul’s writings. No, instead stick you head in the proverbial hole and pretend one knows what they are talking about!

   Let me propose why the early Church saw Paul as teaching Paul as talking about Jews and Gentiles. Because he was! I know, it’s not all that novel, but it sure explains a lot! In fact, it explains 1500 years of Church teaching in all places! (not just the West or the Medieval West, though including them).

   What I’m looking at is the historical realities, and how these historical realities came to be. Why did no one teach justification by faith alone before the Reformation as an essential doctrine. Here, easy answer, because Paul didn’t! I may LOOK like he did, and some people might genuinely be persuaded that way, but “looks can be deceiving” and in the end you go back to that boring old trick of “reading it in context”. All of a sudden it ALL makes sense, the ongoing teaching of the Church, the Jewish insistence that they don’t teach works righteousness, the whole shabang! Or, go on being an a-historical Protestant, resembling the techniques of the JW’s and insist your right! (funnily enough, like the JW’s!)

   At the end of the day, one can’t persuade someone that the Sun doesn’t go around the earth, or that the earth isn’t flat, if they are convinced in their own mind that it is.

   LikeLike

7. Actually, scholars now think that the vast majority of Jews in the Empire did become Christians, but that’s neither here nor there. You are right that just because a majority thinks one way, does not make it right. Same arguement could be used by the Jews today about Christianity.

   However, the lack of anyone ever reading the Bible as teaching sola fides until the 16th century is suspicous. It’s not like this was a minority opinion the whole time through that got slowly corrupted. Nobody read Paul that way, and there are still Christians (the majority of them, though you are right that is no proof of anything) who read Paul as affirming the New Testaments overall message of a neccesary relationship of faith and works. This is why Trent anathamized sola fides, incidently, because it can and has led to fideism.

   LikeLike

8. Sam Urfer says: December 15, 2009 at 5:01 pm Yes, Eric, but the majority of Christian scholars throughout the ages and today do not agree with the Reformation reading of Paul. We can all point to scholarship that agrees with our point of view, but what matters is what is true. Which is why I’m Catholic and not Protestant.

   The majority of Jews didn’t accept Jesus as the Messiah.

   The majority of Jesus’ disciples didn’t believe that He would rise from the dead.

   Which is why I don’t automatically accept majority opinions.

   LikeLike

9. Yes, Eric, but the majority of Christian scholars throughout the ages and today do not agree with the Reformation reading of Paul. We can all point to scholarship that agrees with our point of view, but what matters is what is true. Which is why I’m Catholic and not Protestant.

   LikeLike

10. The fact that Judaism didn’t teach “works righteousness”…

    There are scholars and arguments that disagree with your assertion.

    LikeLike

11. My main point is this: if this doctrine (so essential to historic Protestantism) is so essential to the faith once delivered to the saints, why do we not see it ANYWHERE before the Reformation? Does that not just strike you as plain odd? Does it not spark something in you to reevaluate how your reading your text? I did me, and it still does. And no I’m not Catholic, but I’m very close to Orthodox.

    LikeLike

12. No actually the whole Church DID hold to a common view interestingly enough, and it wasn’t justification by faith alone (unfortunately for those who wish it were – read the entire Protestant Reformation). The Church had a remarkably similar soteriology from Egypt to Greece to Italy to Russian to North Africa to everywhere we look – even when they were no longer a part of the same church bodies they still held the same soteriology. The a-historical Protestants (like their deformed brethren the JW’s, who also say the church “fell” in 325 at Nicea) don’t want to either know this or hear it, but it is in fact the truth of the matter. When it comes to the issue of interpretation, we have to have some medium to get to our end results, and the Protestant one is just not a useful one (partly because it presupposed a simplistic theory on the clarity of Scripture, a clarity that is just not there on many topics (this one included), as much as they would like it to be).

    You may not think your saying that the Church universal was fallen, but your doctrine is saying that, and Luther said that justification by faith alone was “THE” doctrine upon which the Church either stands or falls, leading to the ludicrous idea that the Church was fallen for 1500 years (the only possible and logical followup to such a doctrinal statement) – contrary to Jesus promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. My original post was to Johnston and it still stands, it read,

    “LOL, Johnston, tell everyone where the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is taught before the Reformation? Protestants are like JW’s in their historical knowledge!” (and yes that question mark should have been a period)

    Otherwise I agree with Sam when he says,

    “Funny, I thought the foundational truth behind Christianity was the Incarnation, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Silly me!”

    which is why I was laughing at Johnston’s assertion that “true Christians” believe as Protestants do, it was humorous, and still is!

    I didn’t once say Paul taught the doctrine, though certain parts of his writing my be appropriated to say that (I do believe), but is not the best overall reading of Paul. Paul, as Peter warns, is a difficult read, and one needs to be careful in coming to too hasty conclusions about the point Paul is trying to make (which is almost always Jew/Gentile relations, not the abstract theological “doctrine of justification alone”). The fact that Judaism didn’t teach “works righteousness” should push against the Reformed reading of the text as well, but hey then we’d have to study something (gasp) outside the BIble! Like (gasp!) history! Let’s not let history help us in reading a historical document! Nope we wouldn’t want to do that! Then we wouldn’t be historically retarded, and theologically divided! (this same line of thought can be applied to a whole score of other issues as well)

    LikeLike

13. I’ve read Paul. He does not teach justification by faith *alone*, anymore than James or Jesus do. Indeed, you have to contradict the epistles of Paul to get that.

    LikeLike

14. Justin says: December 15, 2009 at 10:36 am So what your saying is that the entire Church from the time of Paul until the Reformation (1500 years) was teaching a false gospel? Cause that’s where you have to logically take that one…

    No, that’s not what I’m saying. We know “the entire Church” did not hold all things in common, so to claim that “the entire Church” believed or didn’t believe something, or did or didn’t do something, and to hence accept or reject or question a belief or practice or argument on the basis of what “the entire church” supposedly did or didn’t believe or practice is a strange argument/defense, IMO.

    LikeLike

15. …and if you answer that question I’ll give you my take on Paul’s letters there…

    LikeLike

16. So what your saying is that the entire Church from the time of Paul until the Reformation (1500 years) was teaching a false gospel? Cause that’s where you have to logically take that one…

    LikeLike

17. Well, at least you don’t exclude Paul from your explanation of by whom and when “justification by faith” was believed.

    As for its essentiality to the faith – Paul considered it essential, and pronounced an anathema on any person teaching a gospel different from or contrary to one that teaches that a person is dikaioô-ed “ek pisteôs“.

    Read Romans and Galatians without any preconceptions or assumed definitions of what “justify/justification” means. I.e., don’t automatically assume it means, or read it to mean, “to make someone righteous” or “to declare someone righteous,” etc. Just read it for what it says, and see whether or not Paul teaches that a person is dikaioô-ed by pistis and that dikaiosunê comes by/from pistis. You can define dikaioô and dikaiosunê and pistis and pisteuô later, for the question of what Paul means by those terms is a different question from whether he teaches a Gospel of dikaiosunê ek pisteôs.

    LikeLike

18. What I’m getting at is that the insanity of claiming that “Justification by Faith Alone” is essential to the faith when no one (no one!) between Paul and the Reformation seemed to understand “this essential doctrine”. So, I repeat the question, if it’s so essential (ESSENTIAL) why don’t we see it before the Reformation? Here, I’ll repeat it again just in case, if it’s so essential to the “true faith” why don’t we see it before the Reformation, anywhere, East or West?

    The reality is, it’s not essential to the faith, only to Protestantism, because Protestantism is an a-historical work like the JW’s. One must insist that between Paul and the Reformation the Church was “fallen”, something Jesus explicitly says would not happen.

    LikeLike

19. Yes, it has. Hence my reference to Trent.

    It’s nice to see scanning your linked article that some Reformed recognize that justification does, indeed, require works.

    LikeLike

20. For the whole faith and works thing – that has been dealt with biblically, ensure you read this :

    Click to access jer_alder.Faith.Works_1.pdf

    LikeLike

21. Further reading for the curious, even if it has a proof-texty flavor: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/justification.html

    LikeLike

22. “Because in Christ Jesus, having circumcision or not having circumcision are equally of no profit; but only faith WORKING THROUGH LOVE.” (Galatians 5:6)

    “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” (Romans 6:16)

    For just a couple of examples that the writings of St. Paul are rather amenable to the Tridentine interpretation, just as easily, if not much more, as it is to the Reformed.

    LikeLike

23. Justin says: December 14, 2009 at 7:35 pm If it’s so important why don’t we find it anywhere before the Reformation?

    We do find it – e.g., in Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians and to the Romans. To the best of my knowledge, those were written before the Reformation. 😀

    LikeLike

24. I believe that Justin is saying that one must question whether it is of any importance at all, given the lack of historical or Biblical basis for the radical Sola position. Justification by faith, sure, absolutely. But faith without works is dead. Hence, the canons of the Ecumenical Council of Trent.

    LikeLike

25. By a repentant faith, I can only assume that you mean “faith with works”, ala the Epistle of James (you know, in the Bible?), which makes the whole question slightly bizarre, really.

    LikeLike

26. If it’s so important why don’t we find it anywhere before the Reformation?

    LikeLike

27. Justin,

    Your statment with a question mark no makes no sense at all really.

    I did not comment on the historical areas of the doctrine but rather its vital importance.

    Cheers

    LikeLike

28. The RCC is not something you want to be converting to.

    Seek Jesus.

    LikeLike

29. LOL, Johnston, tell everyone where the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is taught before the Reformation? Protestants are like JW’s in their historical knowledge!

    LikeLike

30. I guess there are many parts of that foundation! 🙂

    I’d submit that unless one believes, understands (and actually IS), that is is by faith alone [a repentant one- not a hypocritical one!] that we are justified in the sight of God, all is else is false.

    The cry of the reformers is to be the same for any Christian today.

    That includes that; the RCC is not a part of thr bride of Christ.

    A spirit of rank ecumenicalism abounds here- and according to holy Scripture it ought not be.

    Soli Deo Gloria

    LikeLike

31. If you’ve got time you might check out Peter Kreeft’s Lecture on ecumenicism. As an evangelical I can absolutely get behind everything this fine Catholic scholar puts forth here:

    http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/03_ecumenism.htm

    I read it while listening to it so I didn’t miss anything.

    LikeLike

32. What an extraordinary post. Kindness, intelligence …are you married?

    LikeLike

33. Ahem:

    “To all intent and purposes, mutual recognition of each others Mysteries already exists between us. We do not have communion in the Mysteries, but we do recognize each others Mysteries”, declared Archbishop Hilarion (Alfeev) on the air during a broadcast of the program “The Church and the World” on the television channel “Russia”, on October 17th (video and text, http://vera.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=237432).

    “If a Roman Catholic priest converts to Orthodoxy, we receive him as a priest, and we do not re-ordain him. And that means that, de facto, we recognize the Mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church”, explained Archbishop Hilarion.

    Responding to the question of whether Roman Catholics can receive Communion from the Orthodox, or Orthodox Christians from the Roman Catholics, Archbishop Hilarion said that such giving of Communion should not take place, inasmuch as “eucharistic communion has been broken” between the Orthodox and Roman
    Catholics. But, at the same time, he made clear that in some cases such
    Communion is possible: “Exceptional cases occur, when, for example, a Roman Catholic is dying in some town where there is no Roman Catholic priest at all in the vicinity. So he asks an Orthodox priest to come. Then in such a case, I think, the Orthodox priest should go and give Communion to that person.”

    http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/archbishop-hilarion-alfeev-on-catholic-sacraments/

    It’s not as black and white as all that.

    LikeLike

34. Yeah, but a part of the lack of common ground was precisely that certain aspects of the Reformation were equally unacceptable to the Orthodox as they were to the Tridentine Fathers (Patriarch Jerimias II referring to *at least* seven Mysteries, for one).

    LikeLike

35. Funny, I thought the foundational truth behind Christianity was the Incarnation, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Silly me!

    Also: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

    It is possible to rationalize this verse in a Protestant scheme, but by the time you are through, you’ve agreed with Trent anyway, so why get hung up on it?

    The real issue, as it always was, is authority, not justification.

    LikeLike

36. As a convert to RC, I think you’re absolutely right about point 3 – there is a real difference. But I’m not sure that relates to the mission of EWTN except on shows like “Journey Home”. And on that show, I think they do get into the experiential differences occassionally…although it very much depends on the guest. I”m very interested in this topic, but I don’t expect EWTN to program much with a lazer focus on it. But I do think it is fascinating and also a real emotional/cultural/spiritual issue for protestant converts and also for Catholic-Protestant understanding.

    Actually, there is a good video called “Common Ground-What Catholics and Protestants can learn from each other” where a priest is “interviewed” by an evangelical pastor (they are friends). The priest (John Riccardo) grew up in a mixed faith family – he gets the thing you are talking about. The video is not part of EWTN or available there. I think you can google it and find it on Ninevah’s Crossing. You might like this.

    I think there is a lot to your other points. I enjoy Catholic Answers, but agree sometimes they are a little too confident in certain answers that are not quite right. Ironically, Jimmy Akin is normally one of the best. Father Groeschel has always been my favorite and I have listened to his series on the Trinity a zillion times.

    LikeLike

37. Anyone care that the RCC teaches that justification by faith is anathema?!?!

    Did you get that; the foundational truth behind all that Christanity is, is deemed anathema by the RCC.

    Oh, ecumenical. Thats right.

    LikeLike

38. I went to Mass today and heard that our diocese (which includes the entire State of Maine) is going to be sponsoring a Catholic radio station. I don’t know when it will begin but there are pledges being made for a period of five years to pay for this and other programs. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. Maybe it will just be the Catholic radio station that other states currently have. I don’t know how all that works.

    LikeLike

39. I’m very curious to know what you meant by: “There has developed a significantly different experience of the church, the Gospel and the Christian life in these two traditions. It’s not simply a multiple choice question, but two very different ways of living, trusting and being a Christian.”

    I’m Catholic myself, and I’m very interested in how a Protestant experiences “the mysteries of Christ, the church and personal faith.” Care to elaborate?

    LikeLike

40. Get better soon I Monk, because your post has become over run by the nuts plugging their points

    LikeLike

41. You are right, Charles, that the cultural context is very important to keep in mind when one is reading the Scriptures and that is something that we Catholics complain about non-Catholics not understanding as well!

    It is interesting to see how Christ operated in this cultural climate. There can seem to be somewhat of a tension between his doing that which the culture dictates and that which is the will of God beginning from the time of his conception. If one looks at that event, one can see the difficulty that Mary and Joseph faced due to cultural mores. If I remember correctly, and I am not a scholar by any means but merely a Christian who has striven on my own to understand the faith, the correct “punishment” for a woman who became pregnant by someone other than he to whom she was betrothed , was stoning. Imagine the shame for Joseph upon being told that piece of news. Scripture says that he decided to divorce her quietly but chose not to after the angel assured him that all was well. There has been speculation as to why he would want to divorce her, but the explanation I appreciate the most is that he felt unworthy to be part of such an enormous event–the incarnation of God himself.

    As far as the wedding at Cana, we see in that event something deeper than just sparing anyone embarrassment at insufficient wine. Again, I hope that I am not misstating anything since I am going from memory from things I have heard or read from quite some time ago. The turning of water into wine was chronologically the first miracle that Christ publicly performed. We see in that the first step in his public life, the path which led ultimately to the Cross on Calvary. So, we see that as a big deal. We see a deeper exchange in the words between Christ and his mother than what appears on the surface. We see the Blessed Mother acknowledging that that is the moment in which her Son is going to begin his walk to his death.

    What I have come to understand as a convert is that the Church has been praying about and meditating on these Scriptures for two thousand years and has a depth of understanding that is awe-inspiring. Not to mention that we also have capital “T” Tradition which is a verbal understanding that has been passed on from generation to generation that supplements and often clarifies that which the Scriptures state. Obviously, if Scripture were so easy to understand on its own, we would not have thousands of denominations all claiming to base their teaching on the Bible who disagree tremendously about very important things.

    You are very correct in your assessment of Christ’s “bucking the system” and how it shows that not only the powerful or “chosen” have access to God. He made it very clear that he has a special love for the lowly and despised.

    I disagree, however, in your assessment of Mark 3, if it is looked at from the perspective of the quotes I gave previously as well as it being an opportunity for Christ to explain how we are all called to be part of God’s family.

    LikeLike

42. I know, Richard about the “language barrier”. I was a convert from a totally non-religious home so all of the Christian lingo was “Greek” to me! I often suggest to those interested in the Church who have little exposure to either Catholicism or Christianity to get a catechism for children since they often do an excellent job of simply explaining the faith and gradually introducing the unique words and definitions.

    And don’t worry, depending on the document and the author, we Catholics can have a difficult time understanding that which comes from the Vatican! However, I have learned that even though I may not understand everything in a document, there is plenty that I do understand and often wish I didn’t since it entails me changing some part of my life.

    LikeLike

43. Read the Introduction and first chapter of Neusner’s book (which, by the way, was written “For H. E. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who teaches the simple but governing truth that hermeneutics is the child of theology, and exegesis, the grandchild”) and you will find yourself alternately laughing and crying. 🙂 1994 Trinity Press International ISBN 1-56338-074-9. You’ll never look at rabbinic “insights” re: the New Testament the same again.

    LikeLike

44. Dave, I haven’t read or heard Fr. Groeschel, but you really think he may be a docetist?? I went and found the definition of docetism: “An opinion especially associated with the Gnostics that Jesus had no human body and only appeared to have died on the cross.” I did read the beginning of one of his books on Amazon and I can see that he may be an “inclusivist,” but I would be surprised that a priest getting the “imprimatur” on his books would be a docetist. (I was going to type a bunch of stuff here about what “imprimatur” is, but anyone who does not know can go to dictionary.com or elswhere.)

    LikeLike

45. “What We Cannot Show, We Do Not Know.”

    A nice motto for apologists of every stripe.

    LikeLike

46. As a former RC and now an evangelical, I used to listen to official Orthodox program on the the local evangelical station, and they would tell me things like how I needed to develop a personal relationship – with departed saints! At least they did not try to substantiate it with Scripture, in which no one ever prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord.

    I find it grievous when RC’s attempt to justify things like clerical celibacy, when they just admit its authority really is their Perpetuated Petrine papacy an that which flows from it.

    As for Mark 3:31-35, (cf. Mat. 12:46-48; Luk. 8:19-21) while the word can mean cousins, the only reason to go against the most natural inference is in order to defend the perpetual virginity of Mary, which itself is contrary to the basic description of marriage, (Gn. 2:14) as it leaves out the sexual cleaving, which Jesus also affirmed, (Mt. 19:4,5) and Paul, (1 Cor. 7:2) and which is why Rome is against birth control. Meanwhile, a strong witness for Christ having brothers and sisters is the prophecy of Christ, “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.” (Psa 69:8)

    As for the poster who described his grief over isolation, institutionalism, liberalism gone wild in Catholicism, i certainly can concur, having remained in Rome for 6 years after becoming born again, with the unique changes in heart and life manifesting a clear contrast. Though i still need much growth in grace.

    I left in answer to sincere prayer, due to my desire to serve Christ, with the deadness and doctrinal problems of Rome also becoming manifest, ,and God has clearly confirmed that i made the right decision. And while i certainly find things like praying to Mary as unBiblical, unnecessary and slighting Christ, yet the key issue is what Rome officially teaches, amidst her multitudinous promulgations, and what she effectually conveys as the means of salvation, which is confidence in ones merits and esp., the power of the church. . As Teddy K illustrated, the main message is that as long as you die in the arms of Rome, there is strong assurance will be forgiven. Those who convert from Rome to become conservative evangelicals are the ones who seem to be more targeted.

    If Rome did not teach her souls that they (the majority) became Christians via paedobaptism, and effectually and pointedly called for personal repentance and faith,as sinners who have absolutely nothing to merit eternal life by, r escape their just punishment in Hell fire, so that souls experience the new birth with its resultant dramatic changes, then there could be some basic fellowship in the spirit, things such as clerical celibacy, or even transubstantiation notwithstanding.however, is more problematic).

    LikeLike

47. Yep. While four cups are now drunk at the Seder (one explanation being that they stand for the four terms of redemption spoken of in Exodus 6:6 7), some think that only two cups were drunk at that time, and that the four cups date from a later period. Also, authorities differ on the names used to designate the cups.

    As for the value of rabbinic literature informing our knowledge of the New Testament, Jacob Neusner wrote a scathing attack of the rather facile use made of it by some NT scholarship in his book Rabbinic Literature & The New Testament: What We Cannot Show, We Do Not Know.

    Shalom!

    LikeLike

48. An odd column and even more unusual responses. The writer did little to detail what he actually heard on Catholic radio. He also picked a really bad feast day to be listening and needed to listen to more representative days in order to get a fair feel for what is being programmed.

    Some of the respondents don’t seem to understand the difference between the Catholic Church on paper and the living body of people in the pews (a typical problem with outsiders trying to look in to the Catholic faith). EWTN represents the day-to-day believer and has historically been at odds with the Catholic Bishops, who have objected that EWTN has not been more orthodox (often out of jealousy of the network’s success). Just as CNN, MSNBC or Fox News don’t always uphold the official U.S. government view, so Catholic networks and programs don’t always preach the official Church position. That’s good for the Church that the people’s voices are heard instead of it being another case of indoctrination.

    Catholic radio is going the way of Christian radio, with a diverse group of programs that all provide specific slants and none of which represent the entire Church. To expect Catholic radio to constantly reflect official Church doctrine is naive and holding it to a standard that none other is held to. It also would make for incredibly boring radio.

    LikeLike

49. Just for the record, Julie, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus and St. Cyril of Jerusalem do not equal “all Christendom.”

    I’d suggest doing some comparisons with writings from the churches of the East–start with Aphrahat for example. By doing your own research, rather than relying on what other people are telling you, you’ll find that there was actually a rich diversity of views within Christianity from the beginning.

    LikeLike

50. So, back to the topic….

    When traveling by car between Northern California and Southern California, I used to catch John Martignoni (an EWTN apologist) quite often. The number of inaccurate statements that flowed out of the radio during that single hour was quite amazing. I remember one day when he was arguing with a caller as to whether parts of the New Testament had been found at Qumran–and Martignoni was asserting the affirmative! For the life of me I can’t imagine why EWTN pays his for making up ideas off the top of his head–and it’s even sadder that apparently no one at EWTN is well-informed enough to realize this.

    The term “Protestant” is a favorite apologetic straw man with the EWTN/Catholic Answers crowd, though. They pick and chose oddities from various denominations and produce a monolithic “Protestant” which is naturally quite easy for them to undermine. I can guarantee that whenever they say “Protestants believe X…” the next words out of their mouths will be an error of generalization.

    Scott Hahn is more of a biblical theologian than a biblical scholar. In terms of being able to write about the Bible in ways that are interesting to the average Catholic, he does a pretty good job and has revived interest in the Bible among Catholics, which is a plus. The theology itself though is a curious blend of reformed covenant theology and medieval sacramental thinking, but whatever–I guess it works for him because he’s from a reformed background.

    BUT I think it’s fair to say that virtually every time Hahn or his disciples (Brat Pitre and Michael Barber) start delving into anything involving “Jewish Tradition”–Hahn’s argument about the four cups of the Seder is a perfect example–they really go off the scholarly deep end by taking Jewish sources that are sometimes 1,000 years after Jesus and imputing them back onto a first-century Jewish milieu. And they don’t tell you that that’s what they are doing–which is dishonest.

    I like Fr. Groeschel quite a bit, though at times I think he’s a not-so-closeted Docetist.

    LikeLike

51. EWTN also doesn’t have any music programming. Not that catholic radio should go “K-LOVE”, but there is a lot of excellent Catholic music out there which puts your typical, smarmy, shallow K-Love yuck to shame, but it’s pretty difficult to find.

    Couple promising sites:

    http://www.catholicmusicnetwork.com
    http://www.catholicinternetradio.com

    LikeLike

52. Thanks for the feedback, Lauretta. You’re right that the phrase in 3:21 is ambiguous – thanks for noting it. I’m sure you’re aware that the NT was written in Greek, not Latin, but in the Greek it is literally “those from among him” or “those belonging to him” (or something like that), apparently a common phrase for “family” or “relatives”. That’s my own reading, which is admittedly poor, and heavily dependent on the standard lexicon!

    On the “envoy” issue in verse 31, I’m simply following what seems to be the plain sense of the language. In other words, I don’t see “shouting” implied in any of the following translations. On the contrary, I see the party wishing to avoid over-publicizing its presence:

    The New American Bible:

    31 His mother and his brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent word to him and called him.
    32 A crowd seated around him told him, “Your mother and your brothers 12 (and your sisters) are outside asking for you.”

    The New Jerusalem Bible:

    31 Now his mother and his brothers arrived and, standing outside, sent in a message asking for him.
    32 A crowd was sitting round him at the time the message was passed to him, ‘Look, your mother and brothers and sisters are outside asking for you.’

    The NASB, the most literal “Protestant” Bible:

    31 Then His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.”

    However, I’ll even admit that this is ambiguous as well. But how one takes either of these issues is really irrelevant. Cultural context – and Jesus’ reply – make the meaning apparent. It is well known that the ancient Mediterranean world, including Israel/Palestine, was thoroughly saturated (as it is to a lesser degree today) in values of honor and shame. These cultural values informed almost everything that was done publicly. This is what frustrates me in discussions with Catholics, especially when it comes to Mary. You seem to speak as if Mary existed in a cultural vacuum, completely insulated from any prejudiced influence of fallen society. Her behavior in the Gospels, however, often makes her seem as much a slave to her culture as anyone around her. To use your example, at the Wedding of Cana, far from “schooling” Jesus on the Father’s will, she is simply saving face: “Son, they’re running out of wine, they [or we, or both] are gonna look like fools!”

    As I mentioned, Jesus’ reply in Mark 3 makes this clear. Since Jesus, as we see time and time again, was *not* a slave to his culture, and constantly challenged the reigning assumptions of the day, he does not do what is expected of him – ie., getting up, leaving at once with his family, making appropriate penance for his “bad behavior, and trying to rebuild his, and his family’s, honor. Instead, in a statement thick with irony, he declares that his true family are the ones who obey God rather than the blind dictates of human culture. It’s ironic because what his family is apparently expecting of him would be a major hindrance to the progress of the will of God in Jesus. He knows this, and I’m sure the message wasn’t completely lost on everyone that day.

    This bucking of the honor game, by the way, helps to explain why Jesus’ followers included so many of the “marginalized” of society, as the game itself often served the ends of the rich and powerful, and the maintenance of whatever honorable status they had. There was very little “upward mobility” in that environment. Jesus message was attractive because in part it said “That’s okay, you don’t need it! You have access to God’s Kingdom anyway. Blessed are you.”

    Jesus’ statements in Mark 3:31-35 really make no sense without considering the context of honor and shame.

    LikeLike

53. I think you make a good point Lauretta. “Shop Talk” as we call it in our industry is often unintelligible to those “outside” the “club.” That’s why I’ve spent nearly ten years studying the Catholic faith. It has really helped me understand what is really being said. We often use the same language as you, but so often the meanings are so much different. And so often our meaning is the same but the words are different. And I see your point. Catholic stations should be reaching out to Catholics. Lord knows Catholics need to bone up on their church. (wink)
    But, and it’s a BIG but…ahem…when a show or book is geared to those outside the Catholic church, it would sure help to cross the language “shop talk” barrier to make things a bit more clear. I wish the Vatican did this more often. But that’s another issue.

    LikeLike

54. Charles, you got a lot out of those passages that I did not get! Concerning MK3:21, I looked at four different translations to see how “family” was translated. Two of them said family, one said friends and one said those close to him. I have the Latin but since I don’t read Latin, I cannot say how it was phrased there. So, there can be discussion as to just who were the people that were concerned about Christ’s sanity.

    Moving on to MK3:31, I saw no expression of shame mentioned or that the Blessed Mother sent an envoy. It said that the Blessed Mother and Christ’s brethren were standing outside shouting for him and the crowd inside passed on the message to Jesus that his mother and brethren were outside. Not to mention that there was nothing to connect them as being the family in the earlier passage. It is entirely possible that this second group had heard about the first group’s reaction and came to show their support for Christ. It could easily be read either way and we don’t know for sure from merely reading the text.

    Here are some quotes from the Navarre Bible Commentary on these passages:

    “Jesus did not say this to disown his mother, but to show that she is worthy of honour not only on account of having given birth to Jesus, but also because she has all the virtues” (Theophylact, Ennarratio in Evengelium Marci, in loc.)

    “Therefore, the Church reminds us that the Blessed Virgin ‘in the course of her Son’s preaching received the words whereby, in extolling a kingdom beyond the concerns and ties of flesh and blood, he declared blessed those who heard and kept the word of God as she was faithfully doing'” (Vatican II, Lumen gentium, 58).

    Also, to state that the Blessed Mother is sinless, does not mean that she was also omniscient. Scripture shows, as in the Annunciation and the finding of Christ in the Temple, that, at times, she does not fully understand what God is saying or expecting, so she asks. When it is explained, however, she is totally obedient. There are times in Scripture, as in the wedding feast at Cana, when we see that she clearly understands what is to happen and reveals that to her Son by her encouragement. She is fully human with all the limitations that entails but those limitations are not sin.

    Thank you for promoting this discussion of our Lady on such a beautiful feast day–Our Lady of Guadalupe!

    LikeLike

55. Interesting discussion. I love some shows on EWTN, and others not. It really bugs me that Al Kresta, who is great when interviewing his guests, gives out his 800 phone number 30 times each show. We get it AL!!

    I’ve put together some quick hit Catholic Theology based on the bible at http://www.catholicbible101.com
    Check it out….

    Pax Christi – Jude

    LikeLike

56. Very true, Julie, and it was this same early Church that decided which writings were inspired and should be added to the canon of Sacred Scripture–what we today call the New Testament. So, it would make sense that if one accepted this Church’s decision on Scriptures, one would also accept what this same Church had to say about all of the issues you just mentioned. Which Church today has continued to do that?

    LikeLike

57. Wrong….

    LikeLike

58. With all due respect, your view of Christian history is misguided. I would suggest that you read some of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. For instance, as early as the year 110, the word “Catholic” was used by St. Ignatius of Antioch to describe the Church. St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John the Apostle. You can also look at the writings of St. Irenaeus who wrote about the Eucharist in the year 195. St. Cyril of Jerusalem also wrote at length about the Eucharist in the year 350. In the year 392, St. Augustine wrote about the authority of the Catholic Church. You will see that all throughout Christendom, there was unity in belief and doctrine. From east to west the Church was united under the primacy of Peter beginning in the Acts of the Apostles. In the early days, the church was being persecuted and the bishops and popes were being martyred. Heresy was springing up all over. It was the Catholic Church that preserved the teachings of Christ and the Apostles and in turn has handed the Truth down to every generation. In the age of information, there is no need to say, “my view of Christian history is….” History speaks for itself. And it’s available for all to know.

    God Bless. 🙂

    LikeLike

59. Church history is like laws and sausages – i.e., one is better off not knowing how it’s made. 🙂

    LikeLike

60. Oh dear. I can’t imagine how there were ever any schisms and splits. God have mercy on us all.

    LikeLike

61. I would assume, R.C., that the standard apologetic issue raised by Mark 3 is the presence of “brothers” and, in some translations, “sisters” of Jesus, and how that jives with the supposed “Perpetual Virginity” of Mary. There are, as Michael hinted, standard Catholic responses to this typical Protestant objection.

    However, of much greater interest to me, and I think much more confounding for the Catholic elevation of Mary, is why the family of Jesus is mentioned at all. In Mark 2:15, we are told that Jesus was followed by, and ate his meals with, many “tax collectors and sinners”. In chapter 2 and 3 he repudiates the religious authorities, and their Sabbath regulations. In 3:13 he selects an inner circle of disciples – as if this “carpenter from Nazareth” believed himself to be some sort of Rabbi. He’s already performed healings and miracles, and cast out demons, by this point as well. So all of that brings us to 3:21, where “when his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, ‘He has gone out of his mind’ “. The implication is that he is bringing *shame* upon his family within their community, and they’ve set out to put a stop to it. We would say, today, that he was “giving them a bad name”, although the consequences were much more serious in their culture.

    The culmination of this familial strife begins at 3:31, where it’s made explicit that his “family” is his *mother* and brothers, who won’t even make themselves fully known by coming to Jesus personally, so great is the potential for increased social shame. Instead they send an envoy to deliver their message, which you can bet was a bit more wordy than “Your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside, asking for you.” Jesus’ reply to this, as is so often the case in the Gospels, is deeply ironic and implicating, once you know the context.

    All that to say, unless you believe that Mary is utterly opposed to the family’s behavior the whole time, but powerless to stop it, then you have to assume that *she is ashamed* of her son as well – and therefore much more concerned, at least at that moment, about her status in the eyes of her neighbors, than doing, and allowing Jesus to do, as he says, “the will of God”. This flies in the face of what I gather to be the Catholic position – that is, that based on Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, sanctifying grace from birth, sinless life, etc., she fully cooperated with and supported Jesus at every moment of his mission and purpose, never attempting to obstruct the Father’s will for the Son. Not so here, it would seem. Her nature appears to be as fallen as all the rest of humanity.

    This interpretation takes no “stretching” at all, as I see it. It’s clearly what Mark is implying.

    LikeLike

62. Thanks. I’ll check it out. He used to be the priest at my friend’s parent’s church. I guess he changed to a church on the other side of town. They miss him a lot. If he were mine, I’d miss him too. He’s a good and gentle teacher.

    LikeLike

63. I just stumbled across another Catholic Network. IT looks slick and well done. I can’t vouch for content, but it looks pretty good. It’s Catholic TV.com or http://www.catholictv.com/home.aspx
    IT’s an alternative to EWTN.

    LikeLike

64. Yes, it was uncalled for by me, regardless of the reason or the reason(s) suggested by others. My apologies to one and all, RC and otherwise.

    And to answer Patrick Lynch’s later question re: “what the heck” you mean in your final statements, I take them to mean that even if I didn’t ask for God’s mercy and forgiveness for myself, you would do so for me.

    Pax

    LikeLike

65. Gideon-

    “The Eastern Orthodox admit that the Bishop of Rome originally held the primacy in the Church and that Constantinople was in error at various times. What they cannot explain is what changed so that all of a sudden they can disregard the authority of Rome and must instead follow the lead of Constantinople.”

    Yes they can explain that. The Orthodox hold, and have always held, that Rome had a special place in honor, but not in authority. “First among equals” was the idea. The Orthodox stress the “equals” part.

    LikeLike

66. Well said, Knight Hospitaller. This Orthodox Christian seconds the motion.

    LikeLike

67. One thing I think that might be helpful in understanding Catholic programming is to look at its intended audience. It has seemed to me that the focus for most of EWTN programming is those who are already Catholic and the goal is that of catechizing. Unfortunately, most Catholics are very ignorant about their faith, therefore, the programming can’t be extremely in depth or the vast majority of those listening would not understand what was being said.

    Another Catholic radio network, found on channel 159 Sirius, seems to me to be much more geared toward the non Catholic or lapsed Catholic. It seems focused much more toward evangelizing. As a convert of many years, this station has little appeal for me.

    However, I seldom hear anything that I don’t already know on the EWTN programming either. If one wants to learn about Catholicism at a deeper level, the radio and television programming is insufficient. One needs to go to other sources, some of which have already been mentioned. The internet is wonderful for this.

    LikeLike

68. “If you don’t, be assured that I and others will handle that for you lest your outrage go unanswered before God.”

    What the heck does that mean, bro?

    LikeLike

69. I suspect, the rudeness was in response to the overt proselytizing going on my some of the latter comments here. This is not a place for it normally.

    My view of Christian history is that prior to the Great Schism you had a unified Christianity with some smaller sects who had broken off earlier. After the Schism, you have the Catholic church (Roman as well as the Eastern rites) and Orthodox. The Pope is simply the patriarch of the West, just as there is a patriarch in Constantinople and Russia.

    LikeLike

70. It never ceases to amaze me how fur, spittle and tomatoes splatter when apologetical arguments, uh…excuse me…discussions are raised between Catholics, Orthodox and Non-Catholics. A real fun Jesus shaped discussion…(duck)

    LikeLike

71. joel:

    Perhaps I exaggerated a bit, but it was not as much an exaggeration and distortion as the comment I was responding to.

    And to clarify: I was NOT criticizing the poster’s/commentor’s “statement of faith.” What they wrote was not a “statement of faith,” but a demonstrably false historical and theological claim.

    LikeLike

72. Reply to “Not RC” @2009-12-11 10:57am:

    You refer to an occasion when “there were 3 popes at the same time”; are you raising that as a serious argument, or just a friendly “tweaking” of Catholics which you know gets their goat, but which you also know doesn’t constitute a serious objection?

    In case it’s the former, let me suggest that it’s better suited for delivery as the latter. (Especially since it’s fun, if a slightly guilty pleasure, to tweak apologists of any stripe, provided it’s in good humor and without malice.)

    Anyhow, the question of who occupies a particular office is necessarily a matter of the rules established beforehand for the filling of that office. I can claim I’m president of the U.S. and so could twenty other people. It could become a fad. Some of the claimants could achieve celebrity status; one or more of them could attract a cult following; the world might even observe that amongst the presidential wannabees there were some folk whose talents exceeded those of the actual president in various ways. And of course a pretender with a sufficiently large and sufficiently armed following could perhaps kick the real president (Obama) out of the White House and occupy the Oval Office and whatnot. But the real president would still be Obama, since he’s the one selected by the electoral college; the other various claimants weren’t. If the usurper killed him, the real president would not then be the usurper, but Joe Biden (ye gods).

    So my sense is that the various simultaneous claims to the bishopric of Rome are not, in-and-of-themselves, problems provided the correct forms were followed for obtaining the office. And as with Highlander, “there can only be one,” so if the selection and installment of a second or third or fourth guy followed the correct forms in every other way but took place when the office wasn’t vacant, then one of the correct forms (vacancy of the episcopate) wasn’t followed and it didn’t count.

    LikeLike

73. And thank you sir for your kind remark! It’s good to have someone laughing with me, rather than at me – or do I mean that the other way round, if I’m trying to get you to laugh at something? 🙂

    LikeLike

74. I’m curious about the supposed implications of Mark 3. iMonk seems to suggest that Jimmy Akin did a lame job responding to a question about it. Fair enough; I’ve heard Jimmy Akin respond in an outstanding way to a lot of questions, but everyone can have a bad day.

    But what was the question? I don’t see anything much in Mark 3 that can be ginned up into an argument against a Catholic dogma without a lot of stretching. Had I been in Akin’s shoes, far from scrambling for an answer to a serious challenge I’d never previously heard, I might instead have been nonplussed, straining to understand why the passage was raised as a challenge at all.

    R.C. is my initials, BTW. I’m not trying to contrast myself from “Not RC.” Although, I have to admit that he’s not me and I’m not him we are not all together and neither of us is the walrus, goo goo g’joob.

    Anyway….

    Anyone want to let me know about this Mark 3 issue?

    LikeLike

75. From then until today there has been a continuous unbroken line of authority.

    Especially when there were 3 popes at the same time…. 🙂

    LikeLike

76. From then until today there has been a continuous unbroken line of authority.

    Especially when there were 3 popes at the same time…. 🙂

    LikeLike

77. I wish EWTN represented the church in America as it really is, my experience as a convert has been isolation, institutionalism, liberalism gone wild. Yes I love Mass, but the communion of the saints that we speak about is lost in fundraisers and funerals. It was much easier when I had my camp of like minded zealots. I have groan personaly but the growth has been like learning how to live with chronic back pain. To all considering the cross, all the standard hangups were for me no big deal once I was in, but when I entered the church I woke to a progressive liberal communion, this has been a sentence of suffering for me, to other christians perhaps liberation from rigidity. I think of Scott Hahn teaching in his conservative charasmatic bubble glorying in the joy of Rome and asking myself how Scott would fair if he had to sit in the pew and submit to the Rome I live with.

    LikeLike

78. Michael, I will pray for your swift recovery. I do not mean this as an apologetic, as my road seems to be leading me to the “via media” of “Oxford Movement” style Anglo-Catholicism, but do you ever listen to the Orthodox podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio or myocn.net? Fr. Stephen Freeman on AFR, who someone else mentioned, seems to have an incredibly sweet spirit. I think you’d find these podcasts miles from the dreadfully catechized Ethiopian Orthodox student you’ve mentioned in previous posts. If you find any audio by Kallistos Ware, jump at it. Even though I’m not Orthodox, his talks and writing about the love of God went a long way toward saving my faith when I was seriously considering tossing my hands up in despair. Their really seems to be a very irenic tone among many of the Orthodox podcasters on these two sites, especially compared to what you have described of RC radio in this post. Of course, many Google searches for Orthodox topics will bring up orthodoxinfo . org, which you’ll want to avoid like the plague unless you want to hear a lot of ranting about church calendars, beard length, and “true” Orthodoxy.

    LikeLike

79. Martha, thank you for bringing a chuckle to my morning. I absolutely love your sense of humor in these comments!

    LikeLike

80. There is nothing false about this statement. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ himself when he appointed Peter as the head of the church. From then until today there has been a continuous unbroken line of authority. That is what makes the church “One, holy, catholic (universal) and APOSTOLIC….” Every other denomination has broken AWAY from the Catholic church. But she, in all her beauty and authority, still stand. And she will until the end of time.

    Remember….The Truth is the Truth even if no one believes it, and a lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.

    Peace Brother…

    LikeLike

81. Christopher, I have also been doing a lot of studying on the church fathers and early church history over the past few months — not so much to make a choice between Catholic or Reformed theology, but rather to try to figure out and account for many of the stark differences and contradictions I see between both the Catholic and Protestant traditions and what I read in the gospels and the writings of the apostles. Basically, I’ve been looking for the origins and the hows and whys of the changes that took place during those first few centuries of the church. And, though I hate to say it, I’ve found some of the most unbiased, eye-opening information from secular scholars in this field of study.
    One thing I’ve discovered is that, even in those first centuries, there was some seriously absurd religious nonsense going on in mainstream Christianity — stuff that rivals a lot of the junk you’ll find on Christian TV these days. Another thing that has made itself clear to me, is that the early church was in a state of constant argument with itself, and many of those arguments were over things Christianity is still arguing about to this day.
    I guess I’m cautioning against too romantic a view of the early church and the early church fathers. Just like us, they were struggling to work out how the gospel and the teachings of Christ and the apostles should be applied in everyday life and in the continuing life of the church. And in that mix, one can find situational adjustments, cults of personality, influences from the prevailing culture, the influence of government and economic realities, strange religious tangents, the gradual evolution of institutional structures and theological contructs, and that age-old tendency to move from invention to popular practice to sacred tradition — basically the same dynamics that are still taking place in Christendom today.
    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not promoting a purely cynical view of church history. I just think that what we’ve been given in the NT writings and in the gift of the Holy Spirit really are sufficient guides when it comes to following Christ, both individually and collectively as the church. When it comes to everything else in church history and tradition, I think those things should be examined closely through the lens of Christ’s teachings, His example, and His character.

    LikeLike

82. I’m an Orthodox Christian who surfed over out of curiosity after reading Patrick Madrid’s blog. An absolutely delightful experience, to see Protestants and Roman Catholics discussing issues in such a positive and mutually-respectful tone! Then farther along I was chagrined to see flashes of acrimony between a Catholic and an Orthodox believer (or perhaps simply an Orthodox “defender”!).

    The old disagreements still fester, and for important, substantive reasons, but I can only pray – and I do daily – that the Holy Spirit will work within Pope Benedict and our Orthodox hierarchs in such a way that we may again become one Holy and Apostolic Church of those who believe and commune in the True Presence, along with our long-separated Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian brethren. Wishful thinking, perhaps – but definitely a fervent prayer. I’m Orthodox to the core, but I’m also the only Greek Orthodox I know with a “Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club” beer stein.

    But back to the original point: I enjoy EWTN programming a great deal, particularly Fr. Groeschel and Fr. Pacwa. I’m also enthusiastic about Patrick Madrid. He comes across as a thoroughly decent and caring man, and an excellent RC apologist. Scott Hahn is very learned, careful and clear in his reasoning – and kind. I respect and get a real kick out of Fr. Corapi – he’s sometimes a bit over the top in the flair and dramatic delivery departments, but I know he’s sincere. He’s fighting the good fight against a common enemy, and I can enthusiastically second much of what he says.

    I understand and don’t get too ruffled when the apologists misrepresent or overlook the Orthodox Church – it’s their show, after all – but Jimmy Aiken gets switched off when I hear him assuring his Catholic listeners that it’s OK for them to take communion in an Orthodox liturgy (under certain circumstances), but neglects to mention – or perhaps care – that it’s definitely NOT OK as far as the Orthodox are concerned. As if the Orthodox opinion doesn’t count. That re-opens old wounds, I’m afraid, which does not speak well of me, to be sure. But I could easily listen to Catholic radio all day, Michael – with much more pleasure and (I believe) profit than any Evangelical programming I have encountered.

    I suppose it all boils down to issues of depth, humility and love. The ancient churches flow broad and very, very deep, and I can expect to find discussions that display a cognizance of scripture AS WELL AS familiarity with the post-apostolic fathers, the lives of the saints, a deep devotion to the Theotokos, and 1500 years of church history and thought that I look for in vain in Evangelical programming. Huge differences still exist between the Eastern and Roman churches – in theology and practice, ethos and overall mindset, but I find the articulate expressions of those differences enlightening and very engaging.

    I have to admit that some of the EWTN apologists seem to come up a bit short in the humility department, at least as compared to many Orthodox broadcasters. And humility doesn’t seem to even be on the Evangelicals’ radar screen, but maybe I’m not listening to the right programs. Perhaps most importantly, I catch glimpses of profound, life-changing love for our Lord and for every one of His children as expressed by Fr. Groeschel and Fr. Pacwa, which helps me to feel a little more “at home” in spite of all the Western theologizing, hairsplitting and bravado.

    I agree with you about the distressing prominence of marriage-related questions and resulting strife and confusion on EWTN. The Orthodox approach marriage difficulties very differently – I would say with every bit as much concern and pain when things are not working out, but with – dare I say? – what seems to me to be a great deal more individual focus, and pastoral approachability and flexibility on the local level. From inside the Church, it comes across as much more loving, and less structural and legal. But I would never allow myself to interpret the hearts of the RC hierarchs and say that the Orthodox priests and bishops love more and the RC less. I can only believe that they are expressing real love, and concern for their parishioners’ eternal welfare, by applying the canon law of the Roman church in the way they are instructed. And that canon law is complex enough that many, many callers are desperate for solid information.

    As far as Orthodox programming goes, I second the recommendations of dear Fr. Stephen Freeman’s podcast/blogs (“Glory to God”), as well as many of the other offerings to be found on Ancient Faith Radio. Michael Gallatin is another good one. I particularly like the easy going, couple-of-guys-chatting approach of the two broadcasters in “Our Life in Christ”.

    Michael, I can’t assess whether Catholics have a good understanding of Protestantism. I KNOW that many Orthodox – especially those in Orthodox countries who have limited or no contact with actual Protestant believers – can have a very distorted view of Protestantism, and a real, visceral and perhaps justified fear of Protestants and their growing influence in Orthodox countries – especially in those countries whose populations have been so traumatized (and so abysmally catechized) after generations of communism and the martyrdom of thousands upon thousands of Orthodox Christians. They form their views of Protestantism from popular culture or alarmist media reports of the antics and beliefs of some of the wackier of the 30,000-plus denominations or sects, without seeing first-hand the deep love of Christ and the scriptures that so many Protestants hold.

    I suppose I’ve blathered on too long. Thank you for a great blog, Michael – you’ve attracted a marvelous group of commentators. Here’s an impertinent suggestion from an absolute newbie: how about going on a pilgrimage to Mt. Athos – the Holy Mountain – and writing about it? I’d love to hear the thoughts of a Baptist iMonk after an encounter with some heavy-duty hagiorites! We’re talking monks’ monks here…an incredible experience, to be undertaken only after some serious preparation.

    LikeLike

83. Now you’ve crossed the line. First you spit on the lady, now this. No gentleman you. You should think twice before descending into disrespect and blasphemy. You know well that we Catholics believe that God himself is present in that “cracker.” We believe that that the consecrated host is the body, blood, soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the ordinary appearance of bread and wine (quite a Biblical view — see St. John chapter 6, etc. — as informed by Tradition). Regardless of what you believe (or don’t, Mr. “NOT”), at the very least you owe your RC brethren an apology. Better yet, you’d get on your knees and ask God for mercy and forgiveness. If you don’t, be assured that I and others will handle that for you lest your outrage go unanswered before God.

    LikeLike

84. What a wonderfully charitable reply to a loving overture by Julie. Using the Orthdox Churches as a counter-example of continuity back to Christ simultaneously proves and misses her point, as does your screen name. As for who split from whom, I wonder how many Catholics identify themselves as “Not Prod” or “Not Greek” –roll eyes–

    LikeLike

85. Christopher,

    As a “reverted” Catholic, I can safely say that, aithough you may wish you were wrong about where your studies are leading, you aren’t. It’s a thrilling and frightening journey and you have my sincerest prayers and best wishes.

    As for the mission of these ministries, I’m selfishly glad that many are dedicated to addressing separate brethren, because of the gifts that they bring with them. Many “Catholics” need reevangelizing as much as the rest of the world needs evangelizing. Protestant converts to the Church, like Scott Hahn, have done a marvelous job of it (as well as helping practicing Catholics realize what they already have). As for bringing the light of Christ to others, maybe that will be your particular assigment. 🙂

    In Christ,

    David

    LikeLike

86. It makes you wonder what evangelical radio would be like if some of these same comments were applied to it. Rather than building their own little media empires and egos, what if evangelicals used radio time to talk about Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Wesley, C.S. Lewis, etc? Hard to make money on public domain writings, I guess…

    LikeLike

87. Not RC, dude, I could be wrong, but there seems to be a hurting in you, brother. And, not that I speak, in any way, for the Catholic Church, but I’m sorry for whatever brought you to this point.

    LikeLike

88. I just listened to Catholic Answers podcast that I believe iMonk referred to in the article, the one with Jimmy Akin answering the question on Mark 3:21ff, and I think Jimmy answered it quite well. To me, he didn’t seemed stumped or speechless, he only paused momentarily, which I took to mean he was just gathering his thoughts.

    Otherwise, I thought the article was very perceptive and had some good insights into Evangelical / Catholic relations. As a Catholic I found it very encouraging.

    I was also referred by Patrick Madrid’s blog and will return to this site more often.

    LikeLike

89. You can also listen to Fr. Rutler’s weekly sermons on his parish’s web site: http://www.oursaviournyc.org/

    You’ll have to register, but it’s free. Once you get on the page for Audio, scroll down for the most recent sermons.

    LikeLike

90. Your remark about Catholics knowing little about other Christian experience is by design, of course. We were not taught a course in comparative religion; we were taught Catholicism. We were not taught about various ways of worship; we were taught Catholicism. Looking back over the last five decades, that concept seems to have worked for us, but not perhaps so well for our ability to evangelize other communities in the Church. But the education was for the townsfolk so to speak, and not so much for the soldiers, who were indeed taught to know and to engage outside our belief.

    Thanks, everyone for the links mentioned here in the discussion; thanks as well for the generally civilized discourse I’ve enjoyed reading.

    As Patrick Coffin says,
    In our common Saviour,

    Ken

    LikeLike

91. Though I do not moderate this blog, let me agree with iMonk on this one!

    LikeLike

92. Hmm, you might want to do some checking on the history of the Reformation. There were both Calvinist and Lutheran delegations sent to the East by the Reformers trying to seek common ground (of course, none from the Radical Reformers). The Anglican liturgy brought back some “Orthodox” movements to the Western liturgy.

    They were not ultimately able to find common ground, but neither was there the strong rejection of Orthodoxy like there was of Roman Catholicism.

    LikeLike

93. Richard,
    I’m not sure how accurate that 75% non-attendance figure is, and it’ll vary from place to place. However, it’s a pretty big figure in some places, and it’s a sign of a problem that’s not exclusive to Catholics. I saw a column a couple of years back in a national Catholic weekly paper on reason why Catholics leave their church, and the list was thought-provoking, What it left out, however, was even more interesting because it points out how big the problem is – a failure to evangelize. If failing to evangelize doesn’t even make the list, it’s because it’s “not on the radar” in a lot of places.

    In my experience, it’s not something I hear on Radio Maria often, and we don’t see much about it on EWTN. However, I don’t spend a lot of time with either, so it may be there a lot more than I recall.

    It’s a fundamental teaching in the RCC that the church exists to proclaim the gospel. Paul VI wrote passionately about this back in the 70’s and every pope since then has stressed the importance of that task.
    It is, after all, the “great commission.” Ask the average guy after Mass why the church exists and you’ll get a lot of answers (I’ve asked, and I’ve heard them), but rarely will you get that one.
    We have a lot of work to do on this in my church at the grassroots level. But then, we’re not alone.

    (Full disclosure here – I am a Catholic, evangelized by lay Catholic missionaries on furlough back in the mid-80’s. I spend a lot of time working in the charismatic renewal, trying to raise a unified vision of the need to evangelize.)

    IMonk, get well soon! All of us here are praying!

    LikeLike

94. Been there, done that, bought the pyx, ate the cracker, yada yada yada.

    LikeLike

95. Sorry, I am truly not picking a fight. I am merely sharing what I believe.

    Not RC, the question is not what arguments you use but whether they’re internally consistent. The Eastern Orthodox admit that the Bishop of Rome originally held the primacy in the Church and that Constantinople was in error at various times. What they cannot explain is what changed so that all of a sudden they can disregard the authority of Rome and must instead follow the lead of Constantinople.

    Faith must be reasonable, because God is reasonable. Faith must be internally consistent because God, the Logos, is internally consistent. If you gave yourself time to seriously examine the claims of the Catholic Church, you would gradually realize not only the internal consistency, but also the beauty of its teaching. I know because this happened to me.

    In the teaching of the Catholic Church, the Logos that is from eternity to eternity reveals Himself just as He did in that night which we are about to celebrate in a couple of weeks’ time. But when you seek this revelation, take care to make yourself small and humble, for He only reveals Himself to simple shepherds.

    LikeLike

96. Imonk,
    I wanted to recommend a catholic site that I get my daily meditations from. It is the Word Among Us
    The website is http://www.wau.org
    It has been my companion for over 18 years now. I think you will see their writings are very enlightening, and spirit filled. They have a devotional I get mailed out to me.
    Lynne

    LikeLike

97. Again, you’ll get two different answers depending on whether you ask a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Christian. You apparently give the Roman Catholic answer. The Eastern Orthodox would just as strongly and believably say that the Roman Catholics are wrong.

    What one says depends on what Kool-Aid one drinks.

    LikeLike

98. If there is any kind of argument between Orthodox and RCC we will close the thread. Take it elsewhere.

    LikeLike

99. For what its worth, (and since we’re passing links), you might also be interested in a recent article by Bryan Cross and Neal Judisch that wrestles through Mathison’s book from a Catholic perspective. I’ve been a big Mathison fan for a while, but I really appreciated this conversation. I hope you find it helpful…

    Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority, by Bryan Cross and Neal Judisch
    http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/

    Mathison himself is even beginning to dialogue in the comments that follow.

    LikeLike

100. “you’ll get two different answers depending on whether you’re asking a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Christian.”

     Sure, but the Eastern Orthodox are wrong – because it is Rome that has the primacy, always had and always will. This was widely accepted in the first Christian centuries, and it is still theoretically the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox, though there were, and are, very differing views as to what that means in practical terms. Both Western and Eastern Catholics believe it must necessarily mean that the Bishop of Rome holds the final say in matters of doctrine, which implies divine protection from serious error. And this is really the only way the word ‘primacy’ makes sense.

     Besides, Constantinople frequently lay in schism and even heresy with the rest of the Church and is really not a credible candidate for a champion of orthodox Christianity.

     LikeLike

101. “you’ll get two different answers depending on whether you’re asking a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Christian.”

     Sure, but the Eastern Orthodox are wrong – because it is Rome that has the primacy, always had and always will. This was widely accepted in the first Christian centuries, and it is still theoretically the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox, though there were, and are, very differing views as to what that means in practical terms. Both Western and Eastern Catholics believe it must necessarily mean that the Bishop of Rome holds the final say in matters of doctrine, which implies divine protection from serious error. And this is really the only way the word ‘primacy’ makes sense.

     Besides, Constantinople frequently lay in schism and even heresy with the rest of the Church and is really not a credible candidate for a champion of orthodox Christianity.

     LikeLike

102. I don’t know that calling someone’s statement of faith as “total b.s” speaks well of whatever faith you are following, Not RC.

     LikeLike

103. iMonk,

     Very intelligent and sincere reflections. I wholeheartedly agree with you that some ‘apologists’ have an unfortunate tendency to believe that everything in the Catholic faith can be deduced by referring to more or less obscure passages in the Bible. It can not. I suspect it is a tendency especially seen by converts from Protestantism who can’t quite let go of their former Bible-toting ways.

     The Catholic faith was certainly held by those who wrote the Bible, but they did not have the time nor the space to expound it in all its details, so in their writings they focused on the most pressing concerns of their own time. The rest would have to be left to future generations who continued in their mode of thinking.

     LikeLike

104. Gideon:

     That’s a big and highly-qualified “If” you’ve got there. Take the “Who split from whom?” question, for example. I.e., you’ll get two different answers depending on whether you’re asking a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Christian. 🙂

     LikeLike

105. Well – that was perhaps a slightly simplistic statement but there are surely better ways one could point that out.

     Certainly there are particular churches – such as those of Alexandria, Athens, Damascus – that are as old as the Church of Rome, but that is not the point here. If one considers that the Catholic Church is the universal Church founded by Christ and consisting of all the local churches founded by the Apostles (in many different places near-simultaneously) which have kept communion among themselves and the principal see of Rome to this day, and the other churches and denominations (such as the one you mention) have split from her by-and-by to go their own way, well then one can certainly say that the Catholic Church is the only church that has existed from the beginning.

     LikeLike

106. Just the mere fact that the Catholic Church is the only church that has lasted from the days of the apostles and continues to last is a testament unto itself. And it will, because Jesus promised that it would.

     The total b.s. and outright falsity of this statement staggers the imagination. Tell the above to the Syrian Orthodox Church, for example.

     🙄

     LikeLike

107. Out of all the postings on this blog, this one made me smile…”I feel like I’ve stumbled into an Evangelicals Anonymous meeting….”

     It is truly heart warming to hear such honest assesments of Protestants who are searching for the Truth. I pray that all of my separated brothers and sisters will be led to the Fullness of Truth in the Catholic Church.

     And remember… there is only one Truth. God can not be divided. Just the mere fact that the Catholic Church is the only church that has lasted from the days of the apostles and continues to last is a testament unto itself. And it will, because Jesus promised that it would.

     May God bless us all on our journeys.

     God Bless.

     LikeLike

108. brian,

     Before this post, I had always thought only Catholics watched EWTN. I know a lot of Catholics who watch/have watched Mother Angelica or Fr. John Corapi. I’ll go in spurts where I’used to watch it all the time and then the local cable company moved it from channel 17 to like channel 492. Unfortunately, since the channel is so remote, I don’t ever get that far. I would venture to think there are more Catholics than Protestants watching.

     LikeLike

109. Hello Raymond. I don’t want to get into a big dicussion here due to the overall subject matter of the blog, but for a good explanation of what I’m talking about you can go to the White Horse Inn and read this fine article http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=19&var3=authorbio&var4=AutRes&var5=17
     It is a good explanation that is often missed in the debate on Sola Scriptura.

     LikeLike

110. I also heard a great broadcast hosted by Bishop Michael Sheridan. I don’t know if it was aired nationally.

     LikeLike

111. Having spent a good deal of time studying Christianity in a Postmodern world, I am really thinking about your comment. Of course, I think that critics of Emerging/Emergent Church would say that this alliance among various churches is just an effect of a postmodern sense that everything is the same.

     LikeLike

112. Well, this sure is an interesting read. I found you via Patrick Madrid’s blog just now. As the host of Catholic Answers Live (Channel 160 Sirius, catholic.com or ewtn.com at 6 PM EST) it’s a unique privilege to be able to check out what our Protestant and Orthodox listeners are thinking and saying — mainly to one another, which makes it all the more candid and fresh. Some of the comments made here made me wince, but partly because the truth sometimes makes me wince.

     Mostly, though, since I personally know almost all the Catholic figures critiqued here, I’m grateful to observe the honest feedback. It’s always interesting to see how people’s response to our show is invariably related to whether they catch snippets here and there, or listen to most of the program, say, by podcast. Either way, it’s a true education to read the comments.

     BTW, Mr. Madrid is appearing on the show at 7PM EST tonight for an hour of Q&A Open Forum action! So give us a call. Give your toughest question a chance at bat by calling toll free 888-318-7884.

     In our common Savior,

     Patrick Coffin
     San Diego, CA

     LikeLike

113. “A caller asked him about Mary’s behavior toward Jesus in Mark 3.”

     Michael, did you mean Jesus’s behavior to Mary? If it was Mary’s behavior to Jesus I’d have been stumped too. 😉

     As far as his behavior towards Mary, I’ve heard both that he was praising her (because she did the word of God) and that he was opening up “close relations” with anyone who did the will of God.

     It’s also been pointed out to me that the scene ends immediately after this, which could indicate that he left shortly thereafter to be with his natural family.

     LikeLike

114. Hey Michael, Looks like you made the big time…again. Patrick Madrid cruised by this blog of yours and mades some comments about you on his blog. http://patrickmadrid.blogspot.com/

     LikeLike

115. In my neck of the woods, the Antiochians seem to be reaching out to the non-traditionally Orthodox ethnic groups. The Antiochians seem to be more open about evangelization perhaps than the other groups you mentioned.

     LikeLike

116. eh, but some of those elements apply to the Eastern Catholics (like the Chaldeans, and Syro-Malabar among other sui generis Catholic churches).

     LikeLike

117. Yes, there are reasons, but so many of those reasons have been rendered moot since then. The PR didn’t just occur for theological reasons (or at least it didn’t have legs due to theological reasons), it occurred due to political control (not really an issue now) and the rise of the individual (Enlightenment).

     Among the Catholics, the Counter-Reformation and VII largely seems to have reconciled the Church with the Enlightenment.

     I’m really unqualified to speak about the Orthodox Christian Church, I know they are based on different cultures than the Latin West and therefore don’t base themselves as much on rationalism as the West does.

     LikeLike

118. Someone gave me “Arise from Darkness” after I lost my infant daughter. Many books didn’t do anything for me; that one was quietly helpful. Really some beautiful passages in it.

     LikeLike

119. You can also access the three sets of the series at http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/selectseries.asp, Just click on any one of the series and you get a set of shows from that year.

     LikeLike

120. Patrick:

     You will not get the same opinion from many Orthodox, though. Former Baptist and now EO Clark Carlton writes:

     “The similarities between a conservative Roman Catholic such as Hahn and a liberal Protestant such as Spong are more than superficial. In his classic introduction to Orthodoxy, Bishop Kallistos Ware quotes the nineteenth-century Russian theologian Alexis Khomiakov:

     All Protestants are Crypto-Papists. To use the concise language of algebra, all the West knows but one datum a; whether it be preceded by the positive sign +, as with the Romanists, or with the negative -, as with the Protestants, the a remains the same.

     “In other words, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are but two sides of the same coin. They may present different faces, but the underlying substance is the same.

     “This explains why many conservative Protestants are attracted to Rome. Allegiance to Rome allows them to overcome the inherent inconsistencies in Protestantism without having to abandon the basic presupposition of Protestantism, namely that Christianity is an ideology derived from a text.”

     Also, while the Roman Catholic Church will allow its members to participate in the Eucharist at an Orthodox Church out of necessity, and because it regards the Orthodox Eucharist as a valid sacrament, the reverse is not true. Orthodox Christians are NOT allowed to commune at a Roman Catholic Church, an Orthodox priest is NOT allowed to give the Eucharist to a Roman Catholic regardless of what the Catholic’s priest or bishop has permitted, and the Orthodox Church does NOT regard the Roman Catholic Eucharist as a valid sacrament; at best the EOC is agnostic about its validity.

     Some of the major differences in belief and praxis between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church include:

     Theological Differences
     Filioque
     The Papacy
     Purgatory
     Original Sin
     Atonement
     Indulgences
     Divorce, indissolubility of marriage
     Saints after 1054

     New Roman Dogmas
     Papal Infallibility
     Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary
     Assumption of the Virgin Mary

     Christian Practice
     Fasting
     Chrismation separated from Baptism becomes Confirmation
     Communion of infants
     Form of Baptism: immersion vs. pouring
     Leavened vs. unleavened bread for the Eucharist
     Communion in both the Body and Blood
     When does the transformation of the Bread and Wine take place?
     One Liturgy a day vs. several Masses
     Unction vs. Supreme Unction (I think the correct term is “Extreme Unction”)
     Married vs. celibate clergy
     Sign of the Cross
     Legalism
     Priestly misconduct
     Varied forms of piety
     Icons vs. Statues

     LikeLike

121. Christopher:

     Re: The Orthodox Church – There’s Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, and An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St John Damascene – both available to read online for free (Google to find them).

     Yes, the claims of all the Apostolic Churches are somewhat mitigated by studying beyond the apologetically-offered readings and excerpts.

     I am not defending or promoting Eastern Orthodoxy vis-a-vis Roman Catholicism, just reminding yourself and others that it makes similar claims to being Christ’s True and Apostolic Church, and appeals to many of the same sources in doing so; but because its presence in the U.S. is so tied to ethnicity, most Americans who aren’t born Greek or Russian or Romanian, etc., don’t even think of considering it, or wrongly assume that it’s just like the Catholic Church, only with icons and without the Pope.

     LikeLike

122. Oh, BTW Richard, you are correct in your assesment of the 75% of Catholics who don’t go to Mass being in deep doo doo. Pray for them to come home and PRACTICE their faith.

     LikeLike

123. http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/series_index.asp?pgnu=2&T1=

     Scroll down a bit, it’s in alphabetical order. EWTNs audio library is hands down the best reason for owning an mp3 player I’ve ever found.

     LikeLike

124. Richard,
     You state that only the Scriptures are the Infalliable Foundation of Truth, Ah but the rub comes in Who Do You Go To in Order To INTERPRET said Scriptures?? Your own interpretation? You set yourself up as your own Pope and Church Council. Your Pastor? You do the same for him. The Holy Spirit? Has the Spirit been guiding all these different churches in different directions for the last 500 years? Is Christ divided? God Forbid! I reject Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide because they go against both Faith and Reason. I Timothry 3:15 The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth.. Nowhere in Scripture does it state that Scripture is by itself the sole authority for faith and morals (II Timothy 3:16 can’t be used because when Paul wrote, the only Scriptures (canonically) had was the Old Testament, or the Hebrew Scriptures.)

     I am glad that your prayer and devotional life has turned your life around, Praise God, I ask for your prayers for me too.

     I am sorry that you reject the Church’s teaching, but that is your decision, follow God with all your heart, but remember, Jesus entrusted Peter with the Keys of the Kingdom, said that He would build his Church on him (whether you want to say it was Peter’s confession or not doesn’t matter, Peter still became the leader of the Church) and down through the ages we have had a growing living vibrant Church (not without controversy, sinners, in fighting), but still lead by the Spirit and has never waivered from teaching the Truth.

     God Bless you, truly.

     LikeLike

125. EricW,

     I actually have been looking into Eastern Orthodoxy, as well as Catholicism, but I’m finding (and I mean this in all respect) that the reality behind the claims of “the Church of the early Christians, still holding to the ancient Faith” is much more complicated than it first appears. This is also true, to some degree, for the Catholic Church, but there seems to be more disagreement among the Orthodox about what even constitutes “official Church teaching and practice.”

     For example, to read the writings of adherents to the ROCOA (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia), the “true Othodox Faith” always has been, and is still, quite conservative. However, when I perused one Greek Orthodox Church of America website, the tone and content seemed to be much more theologically liberal (a stance of “Christian inclusivism,” when it comes to salvation, and allowance of contraception in certain situations).

     By contrast, while *individual Catholics* may be more theologically “conservative” or “liberal,” I can at least read the Catechism and get a definitive view of the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Such a definitive view is much more difficult to find (in my personal experience) within Orthodox Christianity.

     LikeLike

126. This consideration also goes to the heart of what separates the viewpoints of what the Catholics call churches vs. what the Catholics call ‘faith communities’ – we don’t fundamentally or subliminally think of one another as in competition. Catholics aren’t in a race with the Coptics to see how many people we can get to agree with the sublimity of our principles, and our parishes don’t campaign and feud amongst each other for the hearts and minds of wavering Christians the way American Protestant churches seem to. We’re not so individual-oriented, not so individualistic – despite, and in relief of the fact of the Roman Catholic church’s ancient self–regard as being the original church that Christ founded.

     Just something to think about.

     LikeLike

127. ” Pelikan has said that he had known or felt for many years that he would become either Roman Catholic or Orthodox. That he chose against Rome does or should mean something.”

     I don’t know that many Catholics would consider a conversion to Orthodoxy as a choice ‘against’ the Catholic faith. From Wikipedia, so salt to taste: “the official Catholic teaching is that the Orthodox are schismatic meaning that there is nothing heretical about their theology, only their unwillingness to accept the supremacy of the Pope which is presented in Catholic teaching as an ecclesiological issue, not a theological one.”

     Ecclesiastical orneriness (if you will) notwithstanding, the Eastern Orthodox are as ‘Catholic’ as the Romans are – in our opinion anyways.

     LikeLike

128. BillyHW, it has got to be the long sermons in the Protestant tradition that toughened the iMonk up to the point of being able to handle a full day of religious broadcasting.

     By contrast, we weak, feeble Papists with our three to five-minute homilies are too soft and delicate to deal with that kind of punishment 🙂

     LikeLike

129. JoeA, as far as I’m concerned, we’re not mediaeval *enough*.

     Certain traditionalists seem to want to revert back to the presumed Golden Age of the 1950s; *I* want us to go back to the 1250s 🙂

     Well, a period stretching from around the 10th – 14th centuries, anyways.

     Speaking of which… you may have seen our guy wearing the Papal mozzeta (either the white Easter one, or the fur-trimmed red velvet winter one) and he particularly wears the camauro (the fur-trimmed red velvet hat, which some in the media called his “Santa Claus hat”) in cold weather, but unlike his predecessors from the 12th century up to the time of John XXIII he never seems to wear them together; the day he does, I can die happy 😉

     LikeLike

130. My studies are leading me to the impression that at least certain beliefs of the early Christians (100-300 A.D.) appear to be much more “Catholic” than “Protestant” (the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, justification being initially based on faith but *continued* through faith and works). Now, I could be wrong in these impressions. For many reasons, part of me hopes that I am. I’m still reading and researching from both sides of the Tiber.

     Yes, you are entering strange but wonderful waters.

     But don’t read just from both sides of the Tiber. If you believe these things are integral to true, historic Christian faith, then you also owe it to yourself to read and research the Eastern Orthodox Church and the so-called “Oriental” Orthodox Churches, including the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Churches, etc., before concluding that the Roman Catholic Church is and must be the one church founded by Christ. After all, Jaroslav Pelikan, who was the world’s foremost Lutheran authority on Martin Luther and his works, and wrote a classic series on the history of Christian tradition and doctrine, joined the Eastern Orthodox Church (OCA) in 1998 a few years before he died. Pelikan has said that he had known or felt for many years that he would become either Roman Catholic or Orthodox. That he chose against Rome does or should mean something.

     Also, don’t uncritically accept that what these churches and their apologists claim for themselves and the pedigree of their beliefs and practices was indeed in the early church believed everywhere, always, and by all (or by nearly all). Read some counter opinions by early church scholars like Paul F. Bradshaw, J.N.D. Kelly, and Everett Ferguson.

     Blessings to you!

     LikeLike

131. One other name to throw into the mix that I’ve found very good in Catholic broadcasting is Fr. Robert Barron out of Chicago. He’s most easily accessed, I think, on the internet at http://www.wordonfire.org/. I listen to his podast regularly. He is easily accessed on You Tube as well.

     One other thing that bothers me a bit about some of what I’ve been reading. I can agree with many of the pro and con arguments for or against Catholicism or visa versa. What bothers me are some of the things we call each other. I have great respect for my Catholic brethern as well as my Reformationist friends. When you look at what is required to become a priest or, more so, a Bishop, you have to come away with a great deal of appreciation for their academic preparation. We Protestants may enter the ministry with little or no education to several years in seminary. Priests are studying a minimum of 8 years before they are let loose. Many study longer, especially if they have other disciplines to follow. I listen to Fr. Groeschel and marvel at his handle on theology, philosophy and psychology. The writings of many of the earlier Catholic writers show enormous intellectual understanding. Which is why I pay a lot of attention to what they say. Pope Benedict can’t be taken lightly. He’s a great theologian.
     My biggest beef with RC is they are lousy communicators of their faith. I suspect that may be a recent problem given the fact they once were leaders in education. That may be improving with the likes of Fr. Barron, but it’s coming slowly. But I will not call them disrespecful names. Even the term “papist” bothers me.
     As for false teaching? Well, for me the jury is out. I’m still asking myself whether the doctrine is more important than the person of Jesus. What does Jesus see when he sees a Catholic? My sense is that he sees more of his children than we see from our doctrinal lenses.

     LikeLike

132. I prefer to read books and articles, rather than to listen to sermons and lectures; hence I tend to avoid religious talk radio and podcasts. But I strongly commend the podcasts of my good friend, Fr Stephen Freeman: http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/freeman.

     Recently, though, I have found myself listening to the music offered by Ancient Faith radio. Though the Byzantine chant often sounds harsh to my ears, I do very much enjoy and am edified by the Slavonic chant and hymns.

     LikeLike

133. ISTM that if a person believes that:

     * the bread and wine do or must become the Real body and blood of Christ (i.e., there is a change in the bread and wine), and
     * an integral part of one’s salvation process is the regular preparation for and act of eating and drinking the flesh/body and blood of Deity, and
     * an apostolically-traceable ordained priesthood is a required component in authorizing and overseeing and effecting the salvific change in the bread and the wine, whether by the priest’s pronouncing the words of institution (RC Church) or by the priest’s calling upon the Holy Spirit to effect the change (EO Church),

     then s/he will have to be in either the RC Church or the EO Church, for s/he believes that s/he needs the above to be saved and to be in the Body of Christ. (Or if not the RC Church or the EO Church, one of the so-called “Oriental” Orthodox churches, if one accepts or doesn’t have a problem with their non-Chalcedonian Christology.)

     While I think it’s possible to believe in points 1. and 2. without believing in point 3., to be RC or EO one must also believe and accept and affirm point 3., for in these churches the mystery (sacrament) of the Eucharist is not separable from the mystery of the priesthood.

     Or so I think.

     LikeLike

134. I am a Reformed Baptist who has been studying the writings of the early Church Fathers for a few months. In the last five years, I have known few people who have been more convinced of the Biblical truth of Reformed theology than I am– but that *may* be changing. This is potentially earthshaking for my life and more than a little frightening.

     My studies are leading me to the impression that at least certain beliefs of the early Christians (100-300 A.D.) appear to be much more “Catholic” than “Protestant” (the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, justification being initially based on faith but *continued* through faith and works). Now, I could be wrong in these impressions. For many reasons, part of me hopes that I am. I’m still reading and researching from both sides of the Tiber. However, if many people in my church knew that I were even wrestling with these questions, I have no doubt that they would see me as being in a place of potentially “abandoning the Gospel”– and I would understand their concern, having emphatically shared that point of view myself for years. I haven’t made any decisions yet though– there is much more reading, thinking, and praying to be done. I may still “stay Reformed”– we shall see!

     About EWTN and Catholic Answers, I do agree that they have their flaws. I would love to see more of a combination of Biblical and historical scholarship and genuine Christian humility– kind of a cross between Scott Hahn and Father Groeschel (I’m reading Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home, and I’m actually finding it to be, yes, emotional in some places, but also quite thought-provoking– not at all an “in-print Chick Flick,” as another person here described it). I do not see EWTN as being “too conservative.” Maybe I am just missing certain shows or series that have bothered people, but on the whole, I see the programming as being neither more nor less conservative than the Pope himself.

     I do wish, though, that there were more of an emphasis (on both EWTN and Catholic Answers) on reaching those who have not yet heard the Gospel. Catholic Answers, in particular, seems to be much more oriented towards “helping Protestants find the fullness of the Faith” than about bringing the light of Christ to those who have not yet heard the Good News of the Gospel.

     LikeLike

135. reading these posts make me wonder if more non-catholics watch EWTN than Catholics? It’s terrible that the catholic stations seems to help, inspire, & make people think they need to be catholic (not that there is anything wrong with that! )— but the evangelical stations seem to depress, upset & make people think this can’t be the way of life. I have seen one of these health & wealth preachers in a huge golden chair begging for money with a woman with big purple hair & I said to myself—if the reformation brought this maybe it should have never happen! of course, this is only a gut reaction not my true belief, but nothing would make a catholic believe he was in the one true church than to compare their station with evangelical stations. —just saying. peace

     LikeLike

136. I hadn’t thought of the passage in quite this light before. An interesting perspective! Thanks for posting it.

     LikeLike

137. Can’t people just preach a message without getting fake dramatic, repeating themselves or taking weird sidetrips through various anecdotes?

     this would make a fine T-shirt….a little wordy perhaps; I’ve thot the same thing about a zillion times. it’s like adding crackers to ground sirloin….what’s the point ?

     Greg R

     LikeLike

138. I think that the lack of awareness of how Church, the Christian Life, relationship with Christ, is lived and experienced in other traditions is not a strictly Roman Catholic problem, but is true of most Evangelicals as well.

     I have noticed with a mixture of amusement and sadness the way people from different traditions use the term “Christian” in different countries. Here is how it’s in Austria:

     — When most Evangelicals speak of Christians, they mean Evangelicals.

     — When most Catholics and Lutherans speak of Christians they mean anyone baptized as an infant who hasn’t intentionally repudiated that event. Sometime they differentiate into “Catholic Christians”, “Protestant Christians” (meaning Lutheran/Presbyterian) and “Orthodox Christians”. They are rarely aware that there are others as well; if they are aware, they don’t know what the difference would be between Mormons, Baptists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Pentecostals, Adventists, Charismatics, etc.

     There is not much Christian Radio in German-speaking Europe (either Catholic or Evangelical); there is however a very interesting satellite TV station, “Bibel-TV”, which combines Catholic and Evangelical programming into an interesting mix. I won’t name names, because they are mostly in German and probably not known across the pond. But EWTN is producing a growing number of German programs, and there are some German Evangelical broadcasters as well.

     LikeLike

139. you probably already have it, but Nouwen’s “Bread for the Journey” is one of the best devotionals I’ve ever (almost) read. Well worth the money, the entries are short and ‘bunched’ thematically.

     Peace on earth
     Greg R

     LikeLike

140. Protestants who go to Rome or Constantinople because of the perceived and real problems with Protestantism – doctrinal craziness, multitudinous denominations, deviant theologies (Prosperity Gospel, etc.) – are simply trading one set of theological and ecclesiastical and unscriptural problems for another. Whether their reasons are emotional (a la Scott and Kimberly Hahn – Rome Sweet Home can be described as an in-print Chick Flick) or personal or intellectual, there are reasons the Protestant Reformation took place, and trying to stuff those reasons under the Pope’s beanie or hide them under Patriarchal vestments or behind clouds of incense does not make them go away.

     LikeLike

141. Trooper, I think this is why many of us are looking at the RCC right now = predestinarian cockiness.

     LikeLike

142. With 30,000 different protestant denominations it’s getting difficult for us to get the programming we want too 😉

     LikeLike

143. Joanie, You have to see it on EWTN. 11 pm (10pm CST) Eastern Time on Tuesday nights. I have not seen the show downloadable anywhere.

     LikeLike

144. Or even get along with those within our own jurisdiction, at times.

     LikeLike

145. Yes, too much of EWTN has fallen into the culture warrior approach. But, this also explains why they seem to be chastising their own hierarchy and their own theologians all too often. There is a bit of the “I am preserving really true Catholicism.” We have similar people in Orthodoxy as well.

     As well, they have seemed to almost be rejecting major parts of Vatican Council II at times.

     Nevertheless, as versus decades of evangelical radio and television, they were the first serious attempt at a Catholic network rather than just isolated programs.

     LikeLike

146. I see one of the books that Fr. Benedict Groeschel wrote is After This Life: What Catholics Believe About What Happens Next which just came out in September of this year. I may read that one. But I think I would like to read MANY of his books! Do those of you who have read his books have a favorite to suggest?

     LikeLike

147. I love Henri Nouwen too. I have heard of Jean Vanier, but had not read things written or said by him. But I love what this quotation from him at http://www.silk.net/RelEd/ezinevanier.htm:

     “Love has a transforming power. It is first and foremost a revelation of a person’s essential, fundamental beauty and value. If nobody reveals to children their innate beauty and value, they will never know the importance and the meaning of their life. They will hide behind sulking, depression, violence, aggressive attitudes or will try to prove their brilliance. When they are listened to and loved they begin to discover what it means to be human. Little by little they become more trusting and want to live more fully. They realise they do not have to defend or prove themselves or always be at the centre of the stage; they have a place, they belong.”

     This is an important thing for parents, teachers, pastors to remember.

     LikeLike

148. Taylor, I went to that page and I see the description of the episodes that he has done, but is there a way to actually view or hear those episodes, do you know? Thanks!

     LikeLike

149. I’m curious — Are there any truly diverse examples of Christian media out there, apart from this blogsite? The biggest part of Christian TV seems to be dominated by the prosperity gospel, and while watching EWTN can sometimes be interesting for a Prostestant (and less stomach-turning than watching some name-it-claim-it guru pronounce healing for an unnamed person in the viewing audience), I just don’t have the background to really relate to most of their programming.
     While I realize that the current media trend is to focus on a specific demographic and then cater to the views, preferences, and tastes of that demographic, I just think it would be cool to hear from a wider, more various cross section of global Christianity — and not just the Americanized versions. Is there anything like that out there on radio, TV, or internet?

     LikeLike

150. If you liked the writings of Henri Nouwen, you might like the work of Jean Vanier. They knew each other. When Father Nouen was becoming famous as a writer and as a teacher of theology in the Ivy Leaque Divinity Schools, he felt a need to put aside all the attention and to find a way to serve Christ in a ‘more meaningful setting’.

     Jean Vanier helped Father Nouen to come and care for the severely disabled in a Christian retreat. And there, in caring for the needs of a profoundly handicapped young man, Father Nouen received the fulfillment that all the applause of those at Harvard and Yale could not give him.

     LikeLike

151. Having grown up in a Catholic part of NYC I was exposed to Catholic culture from early childhood. The little I’ve listened to RCC radio or to EWTN I would agree that it’s a mixed bag. But I will say that I am glad they don’t ever have the abomination of the prosperity “gospel” on their stations. That’s to their credit no matter what. Back home in Staten Island I typically found the best resources were always available at the local Catholic bookstore more than any Protestant ones around. I knew I’d always find a good J M Talbot album! And I’ve been immeasurably blessed by the writings of Henri Nouwen. He has enriched my Christian walk beyond words.

     LikeLike

152. I was convicted to become a Catholic, in a large part, by listening and reading the thoughts of the current Pope, Joseph Ratzinger. I would include Scott Hahn and Fr. Groeschel in the mix that helped, as well. Anyway, with Holy Week coming up, there’s going to be some quality Papal programming, so TiVo the Holy Father and see where it leads you. I find him to be amazing.

     During a portion of my “journey,” I’ve listened to a lot of evangelical radio, most of which I’m embarrased to even note. I did know, briefly, when I was young, the owner of a evangelical radio station in Texas. This was in the 80s when the concept was new. This guy was one of the most unpleasant jerks that I’ve ever run into = full of predestinarian cockiness and judgement that made most unbelievers prefer to stay unbelievers, and I don’t blame them. So, I’ve got some biases.

     LikeLike

153. Seeing a number of you saying how great Fr. Benedict Groeschel is makes me want to listen to him too. (I see online that he has written a number of books too.)I checked online though and Maine doesn’t have any Catholic radio stations. (I see I can listen to some things on the internet) We do have EWTN on cable and I have that. I have stopped at the channel a few times and liked a couple things, but it seems the things I don’t have as much interest in are on during prime time when I would be apt to check them out. I did see Scott Hahn once and though I read two of his books and liked them just fine, his talking didn’t draw me in enough to stay on the channel. I saw The Journey Home once and that was kind of interesting. I would be interested in a show about church history, ancient Christianity. I don’t care to watch the rosary being said and don’t care about watching Mass. (I like ATTENDING Mass, though, when I can.)

     I have found that when I am listening to the radio and land on a Christian station, most of the time I can’t stand the voice of the guy talking and I leave right away.

     LikeLike

154. By removing my last comment does that mean that you are in agreement with the RCC?

     LikeLike

155. I like your response, pl. This is a good way to look at it.

     LikeLike

156. Fr. John’s a friend of mine. He actually did my wedding and baptized my daughter. Great priest. It’s interesting to hear a Protestant opinion of him. FYI…He has a DVD that he did with a local minister called Common Ground.

     I haven’t seen it but it’s supposed to be a great video. Here’s the website: http://www.protestantcatholic.com

     LikeLike

157. Nearly two months ago when the Vatican announced the “ordinariates” for Anglicans, several very dear Catholic friends emailed me to ask when I was “coming back”. My honest response: every time I feel the urge to swim the Tiber, I watch EWTN for several hours and the impulse to journey to Rome is quelled. Their response to me: For heaven’s sake stop watching it.

     I share Michael’s positive views of Fr. Groeschel and Scott Hahn. (Father Groeschel’s graciousness and occasional crankiness are a delight, and I benefit much from the depth of his spiritual teaching.) Fr. Corapi can hold my attention for a while until his smiling at his own cleverness begins to be a bit tiresome. Occasionally, I appreciate the discussion on The Journey Home, but for the most part, EWTN depresses me. Their presentation of the Mass could stand some improvement, and their homilies need to find their inspiration more in the Scriptures than in Papal pronouncements.

     LikeLike

158. Try Internet radio. There have to be some Jewish broadcasts and podcasts online.

     LikeLike

159. Both you Catholics and Evangelicals are lucky to have radio for your religious needs. If I want to listen to Jewish radio, I’ve got a couple hours on Sunday morning on a station that’s so week, I need a loop antenna on my AM radio to get it!

     LikeLike

160. Bishop Sheen was a culture warrior in his time though. He hated Communism with a passion and didn’t like non-conformity at all.

     LikeLike

161. I find his habit of raising his voice and getting all dramatic when he wants to make a point to be affected and annoying. It just sounds fake.

     On the other hand, there’s an Evangelical preacher (can’t remember his name) that repeats himself when he wants to make a point and I find that fake and affected too.

     Can’t people just preach a message without getting fake dramatic, repeating themselves or taking weird sidetrips through various anecdotes?

     Like maybe a factual reading of a passage of Scripture, then maybe an explanation of what it might have meant to people of that historical time period, maybe what some Great Christian thinkers have thought of it and finally a practical modern application of it.

     LikeLike

162. Fascinating.

     LikeLike

163. ?

     LikeLike

164. ?

     LikeLike

165. I actually prefer the local RC radio station to the local evangelical station. I don’t listen to either very often, but if I’m in the car at the right time of day I LOVE to catch Fr. Jon Ricardo doing RCIA lectures on Ava Maria. I’ve only disagreed with him twice. The first time I was on board until he picked on Martin Luther. I disagreed with his conclusion, of course. I don’t recall exactly what the other disagreement was but it was something not-too-important in the grand scheme of things. I had heard the same mini-subject taught differently just days before. I shrugged it off. You should try to catch him sometime. He’s wonderful. He makes me want to be Catholic… until I remember the Pope and the Marian doctrines and the lack of justification by faith…

     LikeLike

166. I could not agree more. They def need some more meat on that menu.

     LikeLike

167. I tend to think Father Corapi is the best of all EWTN has to offer.

     LikeLike

168. I wish EWTN both radio and TV be a little less conservative and a little more Traditional.

     Some times I would say may be 20% of the time the presentation and people are too fluffy for my taste.

     Still I think that for the most part they do a great job.

     LikeLike

169. Well, you got Mass for the Holy Day of Obligation. I’m impressed! 🙂

     You’ll be glad to hear that tomorrow is the date of your favourite Marian feast day, the feast of Our Lady of Loreto. I know it’s your favourite, because I see you often mention the Holy House of Loreto 😉

     LikeLike

170. I came to see another response to the Mark 3 passage. Here’s Jesus surrounded by people who want to know him, to learn from him, to be right next to him and soak up his presence. As he’s teaching them, his family arrives to claim a special right to his time and attention.

     Normally, family would take precedence over strangers. But Jesus is saying, “You ALL are in my inner circle. Of course my family is especially important to me, but so are you.”

     It’s as though Jesus were revealing that they all could have a special, close relationship with him. He wouldn’t exclude them to go with his family – they were now all family to him.

     LikeLike

171. A lot of these emails urge EWTN to be more sensitive to what it says and how it sounds, to reach out to other Christians. That’s probably a fine thought, but you have no idea how much value a thoroughly Catholic station, with all of its “in words” and “in phrases” means to a returning Catholic like I was.

     I needed to soak in Catholicism: Catholic culture, theology, literature, prayer, devotions, history and domestic practices, to re-examine everything I was taught as a child. EWTN was very useful, along with the Catholic blog world. I didn’t need anybody questioning whether the Rosary is relevant; I needed someone to tell me that it was scriptural and what its history was. I need to hear about Lepanto and the Dominicans and the miracles, to sort through them with my adult mind, not my childhood parochial school linear understanding. You might say that you don’t know from Lepanto; truly, I don’t care – we can both look it up and I did and if they hadn’t reminded me of it, I wouldn’t have had that extra color and life to add to my understanding.

     EWTN and Relevant Radio (Catholic radio in my area) have been terrific, even if certain hosts and hours are either snores, dated, or a little creepy.

     LikeLike

172. Fr. Rutler, for the record is a former Episcopalian priest, who was ordained a Catholic priest in 1981 by Cardinal Cooke. He is the pastor of the Church of Our Saviour at 38th and Park Avenue, NYC. Excellent speaker, with very proper English “Oxbridge” accent and mannerisms, having spent many years at Oxford, as well as the Gregorian and Angelicum Univerisities in Rome.

     LikeLike

173. Yup, like Rutler too. At first I thought he was terribly dry, but when I actually started to listen, he made a lot of sense. Now I like him. He makes me think.

     LikeLike

174. Father Benedict Groeschel is probably one of the best demonstrations of a Christian taking up his cross (and not trying to take up Christ’s cross) and following Jesus. He’s also an excellent example of the Franciscan tradition of preaching the gospel always, and using words when necessary. Fr. Benedict is one of the founders of the C.F.R. (Community of Franciscans of the Renewal) which was a spin-off of the OFMCap (Capuchin Franciscans) which was a spin-off from the OFM (Order of Friars Minor aka Franciscan Friars). Was just on their site, and they have sever friaries in the greater NYC area, three of which are in the Bronx. They live amongst the poorest of the poor. I feel at a loss if/when I miss Fr’s talks on EWTN (radio or TV).

     As for the others, I have to cringe on occassion too, although I don’t agree with IMs friends that EWTN is the distorted picture of the church. Is EWTN conservative? Definitely. However, in Catholic terms, EWTN is, if anything, an orthodox organization, adhering to the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Roman Church. IMHO, if you want a truly distorted picture of the church, you should read the National Catholic Reporter (known by the more orthodox Catholics as the “National Catholic Distorter.”)

     LikeLike

175. If ya’all get a chance please check out Christ in the City on EWTN with Father George Rutler. Hands down my favorite thing on EWTN with Journey Home being second.

     http://www.ewtn.com/series/ChristintheCity/index.htm

     LikeLike

176. Brian, I am the same way. I am a somewhat conservative lutheran, (albeit soft on RCC) and I would take EWTN over anything on the evangelical stations.

     LikeLike

177. http://www.hulu.com

     LikeLike

178. Yup, I like Ancient Faith too. Especially Michael Gallatin, Lawrence Farley, Dr. Jeannie Constantinou and Thomas Hopko among others. I think the Orthodox have better theology than their Latin Lung. But due to their autocephalus natures, they fight like cats and dogs and just can’t seem to get along with anyone.

     LikeLike

179. I love Father Groeschel. He is a humble man. It’s not so much what he says (I agree with most of it), as his demeanor and his non-verbal Christianity on EWTN. He has a presence that is transcendently Christian, so he appeals to people of many denominations. You can’t fake that kind of presence, and it is not something easily explained or understood.

     Michael, we are praying for you.

     LikeLike

180. I enjoy the good speakers on EWTN, though as a Lutheran they sometimes dont ‘get it’, their view of Luther and the Lutheran church is often very simplistic if not wrong. Still there are some great Christian apologists like Father G. Their strong outspoken defense of life issue is appreciated also.

     I had fun one day in the car switching between EWTN and the local Evangelical station. EWTN had a preacher on Holy Poverty and the Evangelical Station had a Gospel of Wealth preacher – it was great going back and forth every minute or so to hear the exact opposite things being preached, nevertheless EWTN got it right the evangelical did not.

     Also, despite what imonk has found, the depth of the catholicity and understanding of tradition and history on the Roman Catholic stations beats circles around the Evangelical stuff I hear – except for two lone lights, The White Horse Inn and Issues Etc. I also appreciate the acknowledgement of the existence of Sacrament and Liturgy as opposed to contempo worship stuff.

     Hey imonk, try listing to ‘Christian Pirate Radio’ all day once and see what you think – its the conservative Lutheran online station.

     LikeLike

181. While you’re laid up, if you have a PC nearby, you can listen to various podcast teachings from “the other lung” here:

     http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts

     Ancient Faith Radio also streams their programs; click on the link at the above page for “Radio.”

     LikeLike

182. Catholic radio is a mixed bag. I regularly listen to it during my commute to and from work.

     On the whole, it has further convinced me NOT to become Catholic.

     There is often a bit too much of “The Pope/Catechism says it. I believe it. That settles it!”

     That, and some laughable apologetics and Scripture-twisting that would suffer the same fate at the hands of a knowledgeable person as Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel do at the hands of Internet Infidels.

     Scott Hahn is enjoyable and winsome, even when he’s wrong. But some of the others, not so much.

     LikeLike

183. My Pastor (former Catholic, now SBC) and I both listen to the local Catholic station – better and worse than the local “evangelical” station(s). My observation

     Catholic radio has a lot of people talking with people about their faith.

     Evangelical radio as a lot of people talking to (or at) others. Plenty of good shows (Haddon Robinson is one of my favs) – but tend to be telling us what to believe like a professor or pastor from the pulpit – no interaction.

     LikeLike

184. I feel like I’ve stumbled into an Evangelicals Anonymous meeting–it’s so great to find that I am not the only Evangelical who listens and learns from EWTN. I enjoy Groeschel always and although I like Corapi a lot he tends to be a little too Marian for my tastes, but after all, I am having to overcome a virulent anti-Catholic upbringing.

     I’ve read that in the closing days of the Wild West, Indian tribes who were former enemies found themselves as allies. In a postmodern world, I think we evangelicals have better things to do than take potshots at our Catholic brethren. “He who is not against us is for us.”

     LikeLike

185. I’m a Presbyterian and I agree with most of the above comments. I’ve been a fan of Fr. Benedict Groeschel for years, he is one of the great teachers/spokesmen for Christianity. Thanks, Michael for encouraging both “sides” to learn from each other.

     LikeLike

186. I subscribe to one of those TV satellite services. They group all the religious stations together. Against all the wild folks on the non-Catholic stations, EWTN almost always comes across as tasteful and peaceful.

     I’ve been praying for you. A couple of years ago I was laid up in the hospital for two weeks with gall bladder related problems of pain and swelling. I finally stabilized and was sent home. Six weeks later they took the darn thing out; good ridance!

     LikeLike

187. I have found that if you want to learn the Catholic faith, EWTN and Catholic Radio are not the best places. You simply cannot scratch the surface in the timeframe they have, even over a period of time. Three minutes on CA to try and explain some things is just not enough. If you really want to learn something you have to listen to things in depth. I have been listening to an 85 part radio program about the history of the Christian Church, and given that it’s 85 hours long, the equivalent of a couple of semesters, there’s some great insight there. The apologists at CA are great in longer format. Many priests, given a few hours and a topic, can give better understanding of the Catholic Church. The whole point of both EWTN and the more local entities is to get you interested, to whet your appetite. They are, in a word, a good start.

     LikeLike

188. As a former Catholic, I’m not enthusiastic about the church. They’re still in the Middle Ages as far as I’m concerned, and their meddling in govt – unlike JFK’s promise that he’d never allow the church to dictate policy to him – violates the very heart of the separation of church and state.

     LikeLike

189. I listen to EWTN pretty much all day at work and while I could nod at a lot of what you wrote, some of it had me wondering if we were listening to the same station (marriage questions to apologists … yeah, I’ve certainly heard them, but the majority of what I’ve heard has to do with other issues altogether, e.g., indulgences, purgatory, etc.). Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

     Have you listened much to Patrick Madrid (on Thursdays at 3 PM ET) or Steve Wood (also on Thursdays at 2 PM ET)? Mr. Madrid in particular seems to have all his ducks in a row, and is a humble and gracious host to boot. Steve Wood is an ex-Presbyterian minister and is very meticulous and thorough in his understanding and research.

     Grace and peace to you!!

     LikeLike

190. There’s a lot of cultural warfare stuff on EWTN radio. I can’t fault them; the Catholic church is really stepping up to defend life during the health care debates. But I wish there was more programming describing ancient or patristic perspectives on the faith.

     The Bishop Sheen recordings are great. So are the rebroadcasts of Mother Angelica. And yes, I listen to the afternoon reciting of the Chaplet of Divine Mercy and the Rosary.

     They do need to think about how to reach the unreached, rather than just getting more evangelicals to jump the Tiber.

     LikeLike

191. I have much the same thoughts as you do on the subject, IM. No-one could be more staunchly committed to Reformed theology than I am, but I am, as you said, a “soft sell” on Catholicism, mainly because of the obvious depth revealed in the writings of Catholics through the ages and because of the richness and historical continuity in Catholic worship. It’s that worship richness that makes watching EWTN so enjoyable to me (and why, even apart from the goofball theology, I can’t watch the Protestant networks for more than a minute or two without being repulsed).

     I appreciate your observation that it’s helpful when Catholic apologists make clear they’re leaning on tradition. Many of the Scriptural “proofs” for specific Catholic ideas seem to me rather contrived—looking to fit Scripture to a preconceived idea rather than really reading what the plain sense of the text says. If there’s honesty about the ultimate source of an idea (tradition), it does make it easier to discuss. Just because it’s a tradition (rather than Scriptural) to me doesn’t automatically invalidate something, but it’s helpful to make the origin clear.

     One program on EWTN I enjoy is the Journey Home. Although I disagree with a lot of the thoughts and conclusions, I find there to be a good “Spirit” at work there and it’s interesting to hear the very good discussions that take place. I’ve never listened to Catholic radio.

     LikeLike

192. A whole day of Catholic radio?
     5000 years off of Purgatory for you 😉

     LikeLike

193. Yeah, he puts me under too Michael. I enjoy Fr. Roderick’s Breakfast show. His take on games and the movies are often funny, although sometimes tedious. Other SQPN shows are like the TV and radio, a mixture of bad and good. Greg and Jennifer Willit’s program taped off their Sirius radio show entitled Catholics Next Door can be downright hilarious.
     Since I’ve discovered shows like the White Horse Inn and those like it, I listen much less to the Catholic shows.

     LikeLike

194. (disclaimer: I work in Evangelical Radio)

     First off, I pray that the Lord will continue to bless you and your family during this time.

     Thanks for doing this! I listen to our local Catholic station at times as well and have some of the same thoughts — more to appreciate, more to disagree with.

     1) As for us, when we’re given an hour free this month we’ll be broadcasting college’s Christmas Concerts with orchestras and choirs. It’s not the same, to be sure, but it is a celebration nonetheless. They’re rather traditional, with Scripture readings and the narration of Luke 2.

     3) On of the things I’ve noticed about Evangelical Radio is that it seems to have similar faults: little history (save a few heroes), and little understanding of where they came from. Luther taught Justification by Faith, but what does that mean? With so many singers and preachers on the air from indy churches, you’d think that The Church started when they started their plant a few decades back.

     4) I think this is a common theme on all of Christian Radio, I’m guessing about half of our shows get into marriage/family issues as a main theme. We have at least one live national Marriage call-in show on daily. As a single person, this does get a little old.

     5) I will say this about the Evangelical apologists: They have their answers down. Some, like Ravi, can knock it out of the park. Others have an answer and it may be totally bananas. Like all good entertainers (and “Radio Host” certainly qualifies, TV/YouTube host doubly so) they probably can find a way out of tough spot when needed.

     Listening to our local Catholic station, I realize that there are things I like about it and they’re doing things I wish we would attempt. But I also realize the grass isn’t greener over there: they have their own celebrities doing sermons, own celebrity converts, own self-help shows, and own pet issues that overshadow the greater message.

     LikeLike

195. I love Fr. Corapi. He kicks butt without apologies. He reminds me sometimes of the good old time Protestant evangelists. Only Fr. Corapi usually makes more sense. His personal testimony is a powerful testament of what can happen to a life given over to his Savior.

     LikeLike

196. I’m with Martha. Wow, you are to be commended sir. There’s some good stuff on EWTN radio, but much of it is a boring snooze-fest.

     LikeLike

197. As a Catholic who does listen to Catholic radio often, I find your points spot on. I consider myself rather orthodox when it comes to Church teaching and I believe that they try to keep their programs orthodox but have a tendency to fail due to the natural bias of the program.

     I think Catholic radio greatly depends on the personality. I think some personalities are really worth listening to and some are almost embarrasing to have on the airwaves. Personally, I do like listening to Fr. John Corapi. When he’s on, it’s always a treat. Groeschel is great. Scott Hahn is fascinating albeit a little deep and Catholic Answers is hit or miss (although usually Jimmy Akin is pretty good–perhaps he was having a bad day.)

     An honest assessment which can probably be said of Evangelicals as well is that SOMETIMES…it seems like the programming is more out of love of the Church (or in a Protestant’s case–love of Scripture) that it is love of Christ. To improve Catholic radio (and probably all religious programming) would be to remember that Christ is in the center of the broadcast. Not His word or His church.

     LikeLike

198. Glad to hear things are moving in a good direction, Michael. I’ve definitely been praying for you and will continue to do so – stuff sounds like no fun at all.

     All day Catholic radio – Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy – LORD have MERcy! Add factoid: I could handle that much better before I came back into the Catholic Church than I can now. Being wound up in it from the inside and hearing all that is an interesting animal.

     I was nodding my head at pretty much all of your assessments up there. My head turns crooked the most at many of those you hear who would have you think that anything other than the precise way they look at the Catholic faith is an outlandish and heretical scandal. Simply put – weird. And I’m not advocating some waaay out, crazy liberal dealio.

     Benedict Groeschel is the real deal if you ask me. He knows what he’s talking about and the Love of Christ shines through in his words, along with the deep Wisdom of the Holy Spirit. If only some of the converts could catch what he’s got – that would be a good thing.

     I think your #3 is very important as well. I’ve said this before and been jumped on because of it. I’ve seen this for many years – in the years I was inside and while I was outside the Catholic arena – that Catholics can generally be very insular. They know about themselves (as much as they do) – they know their culture and religious language. They generally know very little of other Christian experience. Take a poll – seriously. So, often, when Catholics speak of other Christians and they’re experience of the faith, of Christ, of being a Christian, it’s as if they’re speaking of some people-group in a far away land in the jungle, that they have never visited. It’s a bit different for some of the converts. Then, all too often, you get a perspective that is so triumphalist that everything in their former Christian experience is seen to be illegitimate and pitiful in comparison to what they’ve now found in Catholicism. While I understand some of the comparison, this is unfortunate. And not all of them do this, for the record. I’ve just heard it so often to make it notable. Groeschel is a great example of a Catholic teacher who doesn’t speak in this way.

     OK – enough from me on this blustery day. God’s healing power continue to work in you, Michael. Hope to hear good news soon. Peace.

     LikeLike

199. Fascinating report, iMonk. I don’t think I could spend more than about an hour listening to Roman Catholic radio. Heck, I don’t think I could last even an hour listening to evangelical talk radio!

     John Michael Talbot is one of the greatest evangelists for Roman Catholicism I know, since I was deep in the heart of fundamentalist evangelicalism when he showed me that there was more than I had known. Music is amazing that way.

     LikeLike

200. Akin can be very evasive. He’s bright, but there are times when he leaves me scratching my head. I’ ve found myself yelling at the radio with what I know to be the answer while he’s mumbling to find an answer.

     LikeLike

201. Scott Hahn is prolific and an enjoyable guy to listen to and read. His Salvation History website is filled with his theology. You can see it at http://www.salvationhistory.com/. I don’t agree with him as I don’t think he really understood his own Presbyterian Reformed theology as well as he thinks. But he is a fun guy and I enjoy him.

     Mark Shea is a bit of a nut, but has some good stuff. His books are interesting and well researched.

     LikeLike

202. The standard Catholic response is that Jesus is actually praising his mother here, for she did the will of God in her life, which, beyond just her motherhood of Christ, made her God’s child.

     Jimmy Akin is sharp and knows much more of the Faith than I do, so I am surprised this stumped him.

     LikeLike

203. I’m with you Brian. Evangelical radio and television have been hijacked by the kooky “blab it and grab it” gang. I’m so tired of the bleached blondes and blow dried hucksters on PTL and all their clones. At least with EWTN you get some good grounded guys like Fr. Groeschel, who has to be my favorite.

     LikeLike

204. i have found Fr. Benedict Groeschel to be one of the best christian speakers on television( though i don’t believe he has much competion out there). He gives great advise to people for spirtual growth, & you can see that he has lived a devout Christian life. he almost never comes across as trying to convert non-catholic Christians & spends alot of time showing what “separated brethren” (yes he does say the phrase) & catholics have in common. I have always felt better about the wider Christian Church when i have watched his show. by the way I’m a mennonite but I would watch EWTN over any evangelical, family, televangelist station or show out there. am I the only non-catholic who feels this way??? peace

     LikeLike

205. I’ve listened to a few of the Catholic Answers programs such as Mark Shea’s “This Rock” and a couple of segments with Scott Hahn. I was impressed with both. I don’t know if I could do a whole day though.

     I would be interested to hear that explanation of passage in Mark 3 though.

     LikeLike

206. Michael, I tend to agree with you on your overall reaction to EWTN and their clones. I’ve watched and listened to EWTN for several years now. (I’m a committed Presbyterian and hold to the Reformed faith as best as I understand it.) There are a number of goofballs for sure. Some of the Catholic Answers hosts couldn’t talk their way out of a paper bag. Sister Ros. Moss being one of them. I’ve never seen anyone say “I don’t know” as much as she does. I’ve personally met the founder of Catholic Answers, Karl Keating. In person he is a warm genial guy whom I could really enjoy sitting and discussing theology with over a tall brew. He is knowledgable but comes across wooden over the air waves. Tim Staples is perhaps their best known apologist who sounds very knowledgeable but, I don’t think he has a handle on what the reformed faith teaches as much as he thinks. The rest of the bunch vary from great to forgettable. But on a whole, they present a pretty fair, though conservative, view of the Mother Church. Their This Rock magazine which you can read on their website is packed with great reading.
     EWTN has lots of programming that I find just down right boring. Some of the speakers use so much “inside” church language that it makes them totally incoherent to the non-Catholic. I’ve enjoyed the stories of converts to the faith on Marcus Grodi’s Journey Home Program. Marcus is an ex Presbyterian who has a large ministry to pastors coming into the church or thinking about it. His journal is interesting.
     I fell in love with the foundress of ETWN Mother Angelica only because she is such a cute Italian spitfire who was willing to spit in the faces of the Bishops to establish her empire. Fr. Mitch Paqwa is an interesting guy who seems to have inherited the mantel of leadership on EWTN for a lot of their outreach.
     I could go on and on. EWTN was largely responsible for resurrecting personal liturgical praying and devotion which has literally turned my life around and given me a profound love for God. However, their arguments against Protestantism and foundational doctrines have failed to convince me of the supremecy of Roman Catholicism. I find them to be quite wrong on Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. And that is major with me. I reject the authority of the pope and magisterium as infallible. Only the scripures are the infallible foundation of truth. And to say that it’s not expressed in scripture is a circular argument which is a different subject altogether.
     Finally, if the fullness of truth is in the Catholic church, then 75 percent of Catholics who don’t attend mass are in deep doo doo. That doesn’t speak well for them.
     So, great folks, but flawed.
     Sorry for the extended response, but I’ve watched these guys for many years now and have come away unconvinced.

     LikeLike

207. Listened to “Under the Hood” last week. Put me to sleep 🙂

     LikeLike

208. Yes, I would agree with your assesment.

     One of the things you have to understand is that both EWTN and Catholic Answers have pretty strict magisterium with the Magisterium. There are certain authors/writers/figures you will never hear on these stations because they are deemed insufficiently orthodox.

     If you’re *really* bored, do check out the SQPN podcasts, which present a really wide variety of Catholic voices. My favorite is the history-oriented “Catholic Under the Hood” –

     http://sqpn.com/category/educational/catholic-under-the-hood/

     LikeLike

209. Pingback: iMonk: Thoughts on a day of Catholic Radio « Thoughts From A Ragamuffin

210. We have no TV, my eyes won’t let me read much, and I’ve gone through all the decent movies. Desperate!

     LikeLike

211. A full day listening to Catholic radio? Michael, you’re taking the penitential aspect of Advent way too far!

     I’m nearly afraid to ask do you feel any better, or has this set your recovery back? 😉

     LikeLike

212. I found our local Catholic radio station about a year ago, and find some of it quite interesting — much like evangelicals, it seems that only the most conservative ones make it onto the radio. And this is good and bad, I suppose, but as you say, EWTN and Ave Maria represent a particular strain of American, conservative Catholicism.

     But I often learn something when I listen to the Catholic station, as well as the podcast producer SQPN. And I like learning.

     LikeLike

Comments are closed.