Posted on 08/05/2010 12:36:10 PM PDT by NYer
Is there a growing trend of Evangelicals converting to Catholicism? Many think so, including this recent article:
[There is a large] community of young believers whose frustration with the lack of authority, structure, and intellectualism in many evangelical churches is leading them in great numbers to the Roman Catholic Church. This trend of “Crossing the Tiber” (a phrase that also served as the title of Stephen K. Ray’s 1997 book on the phenomenon), has been growing steadily for decades, but with the help of a solid foundation of literature, exemplar converts from previous generations, burgeoning traditional and new media outlets, and the coming of age of Millennial evangelicals, it is seeing its pace quicken dramatically. [source]
The article gives the example of many such notable Evangelical converts from our generation, such as Scott Hahn, Marcus Grodi, Thomas Howard, Francis Beckwith and others. (It also mentions Patrick Madrid, but he is actually not a convert, from what I understand.)
The common threads that seem to be drawing many of these Evangelicals into the Catholic Church are its history, the Liturgy and its tradition of intellectualism.
So is this trend significant? Or is it dwarfed by what seems to be many more Catholics who seem to lose their faith or become complacent with it?
According to a 2009 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, four people leave the Catholic Church for every one person that joins it. Keep in mind that this stat doesn’t count those born into Catholicism as “joining” it. However, it’s still a sad statistic. But we shouldn’t be misled by it.
There are also studies that show Catholicism has a higher rate of retention than all other religious groups. In other words, when people convert to Catholicism, they don’t do so because they didn’t like where they were and just wanted to try something new. Their conversion is deliberate and intentional and they generally stick with it. On the other hand, when people leave the Church, they generally drift around a bit from one denomination to another. This says a lot. The Catholic convert is actually experiencing real, lasting conversion. Those leaving the Church seem to be lost and searching souls that most likely had no idea what they were leaving in the first place.
I’ve long noticed, as have many others, a kind of trend as well. It’s not so much from “Evangelicals” converting to Catholicism necessarily. It’s that of intellectuals converting to Catholicism. And that’s not to say these intellectuals were strictly intellectual. But I mean it to say that they took their reasons for believing very seriously. We only have to look back a few generations to find Chesterton, Merton, Newman, etc. as part of the same trend.
In my own experience, I’ve seen that more people who convert to Catholicism do so on account of their reason. Whereas those that leave the Church do so based on some emotion or negative experience associated with the Church.
When I ask an evangelical why they left the Church. The answer is almost always an emotion. Something made them feel a certain way. Or they just didn’t like the way something was done in Catholicism. Or it didn’t suit their lifestyle. Or some other experience made them feel nice.
There is a long list of protestant (and other) leaders and scholars who have converted to Catholicism. The list for those going the other direction is devastatingly short.
This is why I think we are seeing, and will continue to see even more, protestant thinkers converting to Catholicism. Protestantism is running its course. All the protest is getting tired. And they are running out of places to find answers that don’t lead them deep into Church history, back to the ancient liturgy, and into the intellectual tradition that ultimately leads to one place: Rome.
Protestantism has drifted far enough away from orthodox Christianity that it can now look back at the trees and recognize the forest. And if you’re not entirely in the Catholic Church, that just might be the next best place to be…
“There are two ways of getting home; and one of them is to stay there. The other is to walk round the whole world till we come back to the same place; and I tried to trace such a journey in a story I once wrote. It is, however, a relief to turn from that topic to another story that I never wrote. Like every book I never wrote, it is by far the best book I have ever written. It is only too probable that I shall never write it, so I will use it symbolically here; for it was a symbol of the same truth. I conceived it as a romance of those vast valleys with sloping sides, like those along which the ancient White Horses of Wessex are scrawled along the flanks of the hills. It concerned some boy whose farm or cottage stood on such a slope, and who went on his travels to find something, such as the effigy and grave of some giant; and when he was far enough from home he looked back and saw that his own farm and kitchen-garden, shining flat on the hill-side like the colours and quarterings of a shield, were but parts of some such gigantic figure, on which he had always lived, but which was too large and too close to be seen. That, I think, is a true picture of the progress of any really independent intelligence today; and that is the point of this book.
The point of this book, in other words, is that the next best thing to being really inside Christendom is to be really outside it. ” - G. K. Chesterton (Everlasting Man)
Hbr 7:15 — And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest
This is really sad.. my friend.. This is talking about Christ. a PRIEST..not priests.. Hebrews is about Christ
The OT priesthood was a TYPE of Christ ..offering a sacrifice for sin.. The priesthood type was fulfilled at the cross ... God put an exclamation mark on the destruction of the type when he destroyed the jewish priesthood in 70 ad
God clearly outlines the roles in the new church in the NT and there is no priesthood
I think this post is a violation of the rules.. but let me respond anyway..
There is no such thing as an annulment in scripture,.. the entire procedure is like most Catholic doctrine made up out of whole cloth
God has never given the church permission to break His word.. he says "What God has joined together let no man put asunder " So to get around the appearance that the church actually follows the word of God it develops annulments.. that for a price will give you a Catholic wink and nod at your divorce
God will not be mocked ...lots of folks will find that out at some point
1 COR 13:2
I probably should not hold my breath wating for you to post; Exodus 20:16 Deuteronomy 5:20 to GailA and metmom.
I also noticed that you left out Matthew 3:7, Matthew 23:33, and Luke 3:7. You know what is really funny is the way you quasi christians like to sling the verse without writing them out, making me actually turn on my digital Bbile and go and read it, well two can play that game.
BTW ever hear of something called Tough Love?
Well, you don’t know the people I’ve spoken to, do you?
The priesthood was established by Christ at the Last Supper when He commanded the apostles to "Do this in Commemoration of Me." Yet your scriptural challenged interpretation can't fathom the words of out Savior. In the end maybe your group lacks competence and must remain in this perpetual state of blissful ignorance but continue to pray to the Spirit for wisdom. God bless.
A more callous group of people claiming to be followers of Christ exists. There’s nothing more condescending and judgmental than a Catholic who thinks they’ve arrived. The whole religion fosters a superior to thou attitude.
Yes, and they don't see it.
I do hope that you are following the Lord and his Word via a local church.
FWIW, I won't answer most of the responses in this thread - they are essentially knee-jerk responses and there's little interest on their part for genuine discussion or dialogue. If any of them wish to have a dialogue they can use FReepMail.
The bitter/sweet water is from James 3. It's about the tongue. Take a look.
Doesn't say much for a "universal" religion that it can't appeal to simple people who weren't born into it.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Yes, I am.
In light of your first comment to Rnmom, she’s not the one looking foolish.
The kind of language you’re using, on the Religion Forum no less, shows who’s the adult in that conversation.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Are you saying that if you are not Catholic, you are not saved? That seems to be what you are saying.
First of all, I don’t need lessons on FReeping from the likes of you. Who I ping or don’t ping, and why, is my business, not yours.
Second, as with all carnal people, you can’t see anything but your favorite issue...that of being a victim flack. Abuse was never the point of my post.
“Abuse” in this case is a red herring, as leaving a bad marriage is nothing new to Catholicism. Any Christian worthy of the name, Catholic or otherwise, knows marrying another while the original spouse lives constitutes adultery.
THAT is the crux of the matter, AND what was “volunteered.” To try to make anything else the focus of attention is prima facie evidence of duplicity...and I don’t worry about “etiquette” when referring to those who are double-dealing.
I said nothing thatr could be considered Potty mouth
Most of the Catholics attitudes and behavior on this forum is the reason I’d never go back if all else were equal.
A more callous, judgmental group of people I’ve never met, and being raised Catholic I DO know what I’m talking about.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.