Romeward Bound: Evaluating Why Protestants Convert to Catholicism

Ex-Protestants offer numerous reasons for their shift to Rome, but the arguments are far from cogent.

The Wizard of Oz has fascinated adults and children alike for many years. You know the story well: a farm girl from Kansas finds herself in the middle of an unwelcomed adventure in an attempt to find the fanciful wizard, who, she hopes, will help her return home. After many trials and tribulations, she, along with her newfound friends, ultimately arrives at the Emerald City only to discover, much to her chagrin, that the "wizard" was really no wizard at all. He wasn't much of anything. In modern parlance, he was a wimp.

Believe it or not, many-a-Protestant claims to have experienced a disenchantment similar to that of Dorothy. And like the disenchanted Dorothy who just wanted to go home, so too these disenchanted Protestants want to go home. The home these Protestants long for, however, is not the home they left behind. These Protestants are Romeward bound.

True, the number of Protestant converts to Catholicism is less than the other way around. And there are less actual converts to Rome today than during previous points in the history of Catholicism. Nevertheless, there is something unique about this modern conversion phenomenon, since "the kind of converts appears to be quite different, with fewer obligatory conversions for such reasons as marriage. A significant number of Protestant evangelicals...are among those moving to Rome...."

That's right. Many evangelical Protestants are converting to "Roman obedience." Or, in the words of one such convert, they are "getting churched" or "poping." Jocularity aside, it is important for Protestants to come to grips with the reasons why these Neocatholics have set their compasses toward Rome, because only then will Protestants be able to see some of the shortcomings of their espoused faith. Only then will they be able to meet the needs of those who are "taking the plunge."

So why have Neocatholics chosen to plunge into Catholicism? For many reasons. This study culls such reasons from numerous twentieth-century Neocatholic conversion accounts as featured in a variety of sources. To be sure, each account reflects the nuances and idiosyncrasies of its author. Nonetheless, the accounts often ripple together, creating points of similarity along the way. What are these points of similarity? Why Rome, you ask? Allow Neocatholics to explain for themselves the reasons why they have found their home in Rome.

Above all else, Neocatholics embrace the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church and contend that this Tradition sets the Catholic Faith apart from its Protestant counterpart. Catholicism is far "richer" than anything Protestantism can offer -- so the story goes -- since only Rome can lay claim to apostolic succession and living Tradition as an infallible guide to interpreting Holy Writ.

Neocatholics time and again state that only Rome is the true church, since only Rome can lay claim to apostolic succession dating back to Peter -- the rock -- per the sixteenth chapter of Matthew ("...you are Peter and upon this rock I will build My church..."). Convinced that only the Roman Catholic Church is rooted and grounded in this ancient apostolic tradition, Neocatholics claim that "there is no fully Christian church but the one that was there from the beginning...." By cutting itself off from this unbroken chain of succession dating back to Peter, Protestantism was adrift from the beginning. And given the maturity of the "Mother Church," the Protestant Reformation was really "nothing more than a kind of teen-age rebellion...."

While Neocatholics rightly call the bluff of the zany ways some Protestants have interpreted Matthew 16 through the years, and the a-historical, if not un-historical, faith of other Protestants, the Neocatholic appeal to apostolic succession and antiquity is unconvincing, to say the least. From an exegetical perspective, such Neocatholics beg as many questions as do their less astute Protestant counterparts.

Even supposing our Lord referred to Peter as the "rock" upon which the church would be built, Neocatholics simply assume that Christ thereby gave Peter papal authority, as opposed say, to representative authority as one of many apostles who together formed the foundation of the early church (Eph. 2:20), Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. Neocatholics also assume that this passage grants a right of succession from Peter onward. Until and unless Neocatholics can prove that Christ, in Matthew 16, specifically granted Peter papal authority and that Christ thereby intended to establish an unbroken chain of apostolic succession from Peter onward (both of which are read into the text), they have not met the exegetical burden that is incumbent upon them.

Neocatholics also err when they proffer that Rome has carved out a unique position in the history of the church. Is Rome really the church, par excellence, dating back to "antiquity"? Despite Neocatholic protestations to the contrary (yes, Neocatholics do "protest" too! ), ironically the Catholic view of church history is the view that is truncated since, along with dispensationalism, Catholicism simply assumes that the church sprang up in the first century A.D. A truly Reformed view of church history, though, marks the beginning point of the church far before that first Easter morn. On a truly covenantal view of church history, the church -- the covenant people of God -- did not rush on the scene in the first century A.D. Thus, if Neocatholics really want to appeal to antiquity to justify their faith, then they should be Reformed Protestants. But a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of weak Protestant minds, right?

Neocatholics not only appeal to apostolic succession and to the antiquity of the Roman Catholic Church; they also claim that Scripture was never intended to be the believer's sole guide for all of faith and practice, for all that he believes and does. Just as love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage, so we are told that Scripture and Tradition belong together as well.

Some Neocatholics, for example, claim that Christ left a church, not a book, and that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is illogical because the formation of the canon (i.e. what we recognize as Scripture) was itself a monumental act of the church. Thus, we are told that an infallible Bible requires and presupposes an infallible church. This argument, though, fails to differentiate between recognition of the divine imprint which already existed in Holy Writ and creation of Holy Writ. The church didn't create Scripture; it simply recognized the divine imprint and authority Scripture already possessed because it was and is the very Word of God.

At this point, Neocatholics reason that the church is a necessary guide to the meaning of Scripture. To prove this claim, at least one fairly prominent Neocatholic -- Sheldon Vanauken -- argues that if the Constitution, as a relatively simple human text, needs the Supreme Court as its interpretive guide, then all the more does Scripture need the Catholic Church as its interpretive guide. The less-than-perfect Supreme Court, though, has often arrogated to itself powers nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution. When, in fact, the Court has ignored the limits the Constitution has placed upon it, the Court has ended up adding to the text rather than interpreting what the text actually says -- all, mind you, in the name of "interpretation." In law, we call this phenomenon judicial tyranny. What shall we call it in theology?

Still other Neocatholics such as William Reichert argue that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura leads necessarily to an "incipient subjectivism" since without Tradition, each man becomes his own authority and interpreter of Scripture. According to this view, the history of Protestantism is the outworking of this incipient subjectivism.

This argument, though, is riddled with error (objectively speaking, of course!). For starters, it is based on the fallacious assumption that a plurality of interpretations necessarily entails subjectivism, what we shall refer to as the pluralism-is-subjectivism fallacy. Just because there are many interpretations competing in the Protestant marketplace of ideas does not mean that every one of those interpretations is false (or, conversely, that none of those interpretations is true). Much the same can be said, for example, about political pluralism in America today vis-a-vis Christianity. Just because we allow propagandists of all sizes, shapes, and colors the opportunity to offer their wares in the marketplace of ideas, does not mean that they are all false. They can't all be false, since we know that Christianity is true. As Scripture itself declares, "let God be found true, though every man be found a liar" (Rom. 3:4 -- There I go again with that annoying Protestant habit of appealing to Scripture!).

Not only does this argument assume that a plurality of interpretations necessarily leads to an incipient subjectivism, it also assumes that this so-called subjectivism proves the objectivity of Tradition. Even assuming for argument's sake that Protestantism leads to subjectivism, however, Reichert's argument does not prove the objectivity of Tradition. At best, this argument leads to the conclusion that Protestantism involves the subjectivity of the many whereas Catholicism involves the subjectivity of the one (the Pope speaking ex cathedra) or the few (the Magisterium). Thus, this argument begs the crucial question at issue: that Rome is the one and only objective guide to the meaning of Holy Writ.

The upshot of all this is that Reichert erroneously assumes that a plurality of interpretations necessarily entails subjectivism and that such subjectivism proves the objectivity of Tradition.

Even as Reichert attempts to refute the doctrine of Sola Scriptura by arguing that it leads to an incipient subjectivism, so he also argues that Protestants deceive themselves by believing that Scripture is their ultimate authority. According to Reichert:

Not only does Reichert attack a straw man, he also unabashedly leaps to a conclusion based upon a hasty generalization and anecdotal "evidence." Is it really true that "in all of our daily experiences" the word "authority" means only a person or an institution empowered to enforce a rule? Reichert should know better. As an attorney, his own daily experience betrays his bold rhetoric. Attorneys, for example, quite frequently refer to case law in a given jurisdiction as "binding authority" or to case law from another jurisdiction as "persuasive authority." But attorneys aren't the only ones who speak this way. Philosophers frequently use the word "authority" in a technical way to refer to the ultimate standard of knowledge in a particular worldview, what is known as an epistemological or epistemic authority. Thus, Protestants who speak of Scripture as an authority speak quite accurately since, Scripture, as God's Word, is their epistemological authority -- their standard for all of faith and practice.

Aside from erecting a straw man, and reasoning hastily from anecdotal evidence, Reichert also fatally misunderstands the Protestant doctrine of the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture. Enter 2 Peter 3:16, where Peter writes that some of the things in the Pauline epistles are not easy to understand. Contrary to Reichert's skewed assumption, the Protestant doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture doesn't hold that Scripture is always easy to understand. What it does teach is that since God chose to reveal Himself by means of propositional revelation, He has given His people the means of understanding that revelation such that the true believer has no need of anyone else -- let alone a Magisterium or Pope on high -- to teach him. After all, Peter could not speak of Scripture-twisting without first presupposing that there is a correct way to go about interpreting Scripture. And what is the correct way to do so? To take what the alleged first Pope taught on its face? Or to subject even what he taught to the supreme standard of Scripture as did the noble Bereans (Acts 17:11)? Much to Reichert's chagrin, then, this passage nowhere even remotely suggests that Tradition is a necessary or legitimate authority co-equal with Scripture.

While Reichert appeals to irony in an attempt to chide Protestants, he is the one who ironically ends up engaging in sleight of hand. If Roman Tradition is co-equal with Scripture pursuant to Rome's view of twin authorities, then there is no need to appeal to Scripture ostensibly to prove the authority of Tradition. Yet, Neocatholics constantly do so. And that's the real problem: the extent to which anything is put on par with Scripture -- be it human reason, the Book of Mormon, charismatic revelations, or Tradition -- is the extent to which that "other" authority ends up displacing Scripture. And to the extent that Scripture is not self-sufficient and all-sufficient is the extent to which it is rendered futile and unnecessary. It is also the extent to which Scripture disappears. Just say the magic words: "Abracadabra and Ex cathedra!"

Any time you adopt a "Scripture and..." theory, you must also conjure up a companion theory to explain all of those apparent discrepancies between what Scripture says and what your other (read: ultimate) authority says. The same is true with Catholicism no less than with the Mormon faith. Of course, even if Neocatholics realize that many Catholic doctrines cannot be found explicitly in Scripture, mum is the word. Well not exactly mum. How about a mustard seed?

Displaying more exegetical ingenuity than even some Protestant televangelists, Reichert has the answer: the parable of the mustard seed. According to Reichert, the parable of the mustard seed explains why the Catholic church of today doesn't look like the early New Testament church. "The fact that the seed became a tree," reflects Reichert, "does not prove its development was illegitimate." He continues by noting that the

Another Neocatholic, Dale Vree, also advances the doctrinal development argument. To raise the ante just a bit, however, Vree doesn't waste his time with mustard seeds. Vree concentrates on what he sees as a global doctrinal development in Scripture: that is, since the Bible itself contains doctrinal development over time, then we should not be surprised to find such development in the Roman Catholic Church. To that end, Vree touts that the God of the Old Testament is a "tribal, vengeful, forbidding, and warlike God while the God of the New Testament is universal, forgiving, loving, and peace loving." And Vree's doublevision-bordering-on-polytheism is supposed to convince us that the trappings of Marian theology, icons, indulgences, purgatory, priestly celibacy, and the rest are justifiable? Is this theology or comedy?

Sometimes Neocatholics argue against Sola Scriptura by appealing to the jumble of Protestant denominations and sects. Sometimes, though, they appeal to Protestant sectarianism as independent proof of the alleged inadequacy of Protestant theology as a whole. Believe it or not, one Neocatholic actually had time to count all of the Protestant denominations and sects, claiming that the grand total is over 25,000!

This Neocatholic argument suffers from almost as many flaws as the total number of sects Protestantism has allegedly spawned. For the sake of brevity, we will concern ourselves with only a few of these flaws. Even interpreting this argument in its most charitable light by granting its premise (that there are a huge number of Protestant denominations), the conclusion does not ineluctably follow on the basis of the premise (i.e. that Protestantism is false and Catholicism is true). This argument is a textbook example of a non-sequitur.

But the premise can't get off scot-free either. This entire argument is based on the hidden assumption that because X precedes Y that X was the cause of Y. Just because Protestantism (and Sola Scriptura) preceded rampant sectarianism doesn't prove that the former caused the latter, especially since many of the "Protestant" sects don't adhere to Sola Scriptura in the first place. In fact, many of them have an authority structure more similar to Catholicism ("Scripture and...") than to Protestantism (Sola Scriptura), albeit with a different "pope" and "magisterium."

And just when Neocatholics thought it was safe to bash Protestantism again, they get pulled under the water by the jaws of their own rhetoric. Rearing its ugly head one more time is the pluralism-is-subjectivism fallacy. Just because there are many Protestant denominations and sects does not prove that all of those denominations and sects are false. Nor does it necessarily prove that Rome is true. Thus, while plurality is not necessarily an indicator of falsity, uniformity is not necessarily an indicator of truth.

Perhaps most fallaciously, though, this argument assumes that institutional unity is a virtue in and of itself. But there is another Biblical dynamic Neocatholics should consider: truth (or doctrinal purity). The simple fact of the matter is that truth sometimes divides. And that division is not necessarily to be eschewed. After all, didn't the real Head of the church once say that He came not to bring peace but a sword? Truth, you see, is not to be sacrificed on the altar of misguided ecumenicism.

While high church liturgy, is a common feature of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, as well as most Anglican and Lutheran churches, it also separates Roman Catholics & Co. from most of their Reformed and Evangelical Protestant counterparts. In Evangelical Is Not Enough, Howard claims that evangelicalism has terribly missed out on something special by rejecting liturgy. Neocatholics pick up this ball and run with it, contending that Protestantism has missed out on the fullness and richness of high church liturgy, and in particular, the glory of the Mass and the Eucharist.

By extolling the splendor of Roman Catholic liturgy, Howard isn't referring to ceremonial dazzle. Rather, he refers to the "vision" of the Roman Catholic Church. Describing this vision, Howard writes:

Still another reason why Neocatholics are drawn to liturgy is that the liturgy, for the most part, is the same no matter which Catholic church a parishioner attends. The Catholic can worship at most any Catholic Church and discover there basically the same order of worship, the same symbolism, and the same ritual. Crudely analogous is the joy and delight weary road travelers experience when they spot the golden arches, since they know that the Big Macs will always taste the same! Sameness, however, is no guarantor of propriety. After all, something can be the same and yet be erroneous, in which case it would simply be the same old error uniformly committed.

While some Neocatholics weaned themselves away from liturgy during their evangelical years, only to discover how much they really missed it, and others are attracted to the sameness of the Mass, still others are drawn to the Mass because they have developed a cultured appreciation for the symbolism and beauty of liturgical worship. It would be mistaken, however, to think that aesthetic appreciation is the only reason why liturgy appeals to some Neocatholics. Not all Catholic liturgy resembles Easter morning Mass at St. Peter's basilica. One Neocatholic humorously made this point by claiming that those who think all Masses imbue an equal sense of aesthetic satisfaction obviously haven't been to the local Catholic church! A point well-taken. But whether the Mass resembles Easter morn at St. Peter's basilica or not, the real question is whether the Mass accords with what God has commanded His people in Scripture regarding how they are to approach Him in worship. Besides, as we have already noted, liturgy is not unique to Rome.

Some Neocatholics also see in the Mass the opportunity to worship God emotionally as well as intellectually. After describing how he was immeasurably influenced by C.S. Lewis' "rational approach" to Christianity, where faith and reason are not antithetical to one another, Floyd Newman has written that the Mass provided an opportunity to blend heart and mind. He continues by noting:

The Mass and the Eucharist really can't be separated since the latter is the central act -- the climax -- of the former. Scott Hahn links the Mass to the Eucharist by telling how he attended a noontime Mass and saw the religious devotion of rank-and-file workers, with their heads bowed and their hearts stirring. After regularly attending Mass, he recalls that the Eucharist became the all-controlling, essential pursuit of his life.

As with the attraction to the Mass in general, so there are many reasons why Neocatholics are drawn to the Eucharist in particular -- why they embrace transubstantiation and believe that at the sound of the bell, the substance of bread and wine turn into the physical body and blood of our Lord.

One Neocatholic, for example, claims that it was impossible for him to get along without the Eucharist since he would get homesick apart from it. Hahn claims that he was attracted to the regularity of the Eucharist as over and against most Protestant churches which, on the whole, have communion only a few times each year. Not every Protestant church, though, partakes quite so infrequently. There are, in fact, Protestant churches which partake of the Lord's supper weekly. So what's the real reason why Neocatholics are drawn to Catholicism through the Eucharist?

Many Neocatholics claim that Scripture itself teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation in the sixth chapter of the gospel of John. Protestants are literalists elsewhere, Neocatholics clamor, except when it comes to interpreting Christ's words about being the bread of life, about eating His flesh and drinking his blood.

As with other Neocatholic arguments we have examined so far, this one, even if true, does not prove that Roman Catholicism, as a whole, is true. A part is no substitute for the whole. This literalist argument also equivocates between the belief that Scripture is literally true and the literal interpretation of Scripture. While Protestants believe that Scripture is literally true, they quite correctly disavow the notion that Scripture is always to be interpreted literally. Right-thinking Protestants, unlike the straw men Neocatholics prop up, believe that Scripture, like any work of literature, must be interpreted in light of its local context (including its literary, historical, grammatical, and logical contexts), as well as in light of the broader context of Scripture as a whole (i.e. what parallel passages teach). The sixth chapter of John is no exception.

High steeples. Glorious columns. Stained glass windows. No doubt these are beautiful things to behold. Not surprising, then, many Neocatholics describe how they were drawn to the richness of Catholic symbolism expressed in the architectural beauty of Catholic churches. Howard, for example, describes how, when only a sniveling twelve year old boy, he stumbled into a dark building lit only by a "religious light" streaming through the stained glass windows. It wasn't until later in life, that Howard realized the full impact of this childhood event.

But Howard is not the only Neocatholic who was awestruck by the beauty and symbolism of Roman Catholic churches. Vree, while in high school, also "wandered into Catholic churches a couple of times" and learned the following lesson:

Vree then exclaims that the candlelight, kneeling saints, statues, and wonderful altar colors excited his primitive sense of worship.

Whereas Howard was a young boy and Vree was an adolescent when they each stumbled into a Roman Catholic church, yet other Neocatholics such as Dan O'Neill and Reichert fell in love with the beauty of Roman Catholic churches as full-fledged adults. Reichert, for example, recalls sitting in a Catholic chapel in Europe where he became entranced by Gregorian chants and thought that he must have been "listening to angelic conversation."

While the melody is the basically the same, some Neocatholic accounts vary the chorus just a bit.

Glenwood Davis, Jr., relates how he derived a sense of religious inspiration from the nativity scene his father set up each year during the Christmas season. Ever the inquisitive youth, Davis noticed that passersby gazed intently -- almost worshipfully -- at this nativity scene, leading him to conclude retrospectively that he could "sense something other-worldly" in this nativity scene. What made it all come together for Davis? Let him explain:

At least two other Neocatholics inform us how they literally became enlightened while visiting a local Catholic church. Jim Forest, for instance, relays the following account: One afternoon when I was praying in the chapel, I felt as if I were in a river of light. Opening my eyes, I found that indeed I was. Light of a deep golden color was pouring through the lancet of the window over the Mary altar on the right side of the church, and I was in the center of its narrow path. I closed my eyes and enjoyed being bathed in light.

Forest recounts that when he searched for a rational explanation, he could find none (since it was overcast), thus leading to the implied conclusion that this was a miracle verifying the truth of Catholicism.

On a somewhat less miraculous note, another Neocatholic recalls that when he was in a Catholic church one day, his attention became fixed on a very simple statue of the Virgin on the left side of the church.

Moreover, for every Neocatholic who tingles when he walked into a Catholic cathedral, church, or chapel, there is a Reformed Protestant who rejoices in the regulative principle of worship and the symbolism of true worship by relying upon the graces God has provided in His Word and in the sacraments of baptism and communion. Even one Neocatholic, who expected to see a miniature St. Patrick's Cathedral, was impressed when, still a Protestant, he found a Roman Catholic Church of "shocking simplicity" with "none of the creepy-mysterious atmosphere that had both repelled and allured me on previous excursions into Catholic churches."

In passing we must also note that lavish churches, while architecturally and aesthetically pleasing to some, come with a hefty price tag. True enough, Protestants who live in glass houses -- like Rev. Schuller in his Crystal Cathedral -- shouldn't throw stones. But advancing the kingdom of God and meeting the needs of others often compete for the same limited resources. Ironically, it is some of the more socially liberal Neocatholics -- like Vree -- who seem most enthralled with such lavishness as long as it's inside a Roman Catholic Church!

Whatever else can be said of Neocatholics, one Neocatholic himself has written that "[o]n the whole they seem to be socially liberal, yet theologically conservative in outlook...." Another Neocatholic dresses the same point in slightly different garb by distinguishing between evangelicals who have spirituality without social concern and theological liberals who have social concern without spirituality. Only the Catholic Church, we are told, has both. Still other Neocatholics speak of the need for "Christian social action", tout the "social conscience" of the Catholic Church, or advocate "proletarian consciousness". Neocatholics who lean to the left thus see in Rome the opportunity to be switch hitters, the opportunity to be "socially Left, theological[ly] Right."

To be sure, many evangelicals bat from the right side of the plate: they are theologically and politically conservative. In fact, they often arrive at their conservative political conclusions by adopting patently non-Christian premises. And worse yet, since ideas have consequences, many evangelicals have failed to exercise Christian charity and compassion in addressing various social ills such as poverty and homelessness. But that is a far cry from swallowing leftist utopianism whole hog.

Many Neocatholics, though, are still gulping. But while they rightly fault their evangelical counterparts for buying into the non-Christian aspects of their political conservatism, Neocatholics themselves often buy into the non-Christian aspects of political leftism. Their leftism, to be quite blunt, is often born of an unparalleled theological naivete. Vree, for example, contrasts what he sees as the social implications of Calvinism (which, according to Vree, focuses on individual pursuit of prosperity) with Catholic "proletarian consciousness" (which focuses on struggling together for a better world).

While Calvinism sanctions private property and godly stewardship, the Calvinist view of industriousness (i.e. an aspect of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, sometimes known as the Protestant work ethic) is no more responsible for the abuses of capitalism than is the Calvinist view of Christian liberty responsible for alcoholism. The one simply does not entail the other. To boot, Vree also bespeaks a profound ignorance of the covenantal -- community -- nature of true Calvinist theology which eschews the radical individualism he attempts to eviscerate. Thus, Calvinism is not inherently individualistic, let alone individualistic in its pursuit of prosperity.

Far worse than attributing the abuses of capitalism to Calvinist theology, Vree's leftism is ultimately based on a mistaken theological premise: that God has a "preferential love for the poor." Scripture, however, informs us that God is no respecter of persons. As such, true Christianity refuses to romanticize either wealth or poverty (Prov. 30:8-9). A consistently Christian worldview should agree with political conservatism and liberalism only to the extent that such political views are Christian. And this spins us around, just one more time, to the intractable question of authority.

While political leanings heavily influenced some Neocatholics to jump ship, cultural connections have caused them to swim across the channel -- what Vanauken refers to as the English channel. Emphasizing the cultural influence of Anglicanism, Cardinal John Henry Newman, a nineteenth century Anglican convert to Catholicism, once astutely observed that Anglicanism is neither "a system of religion nor a body of truth but a feeling, a tradition, its roots intertwined with associations of national history and of family life." "You do not learn it," he continued, "you grow into it; you do not forget it, you grow out of it."

One convert to Catholicism from the ranks of the Eastern Orthodox clergy, continues much in the same vein by noting that Anglicanism is "a kind of national spirit....Its state connection molded Anglicanism into a national religion intended to encompass every Englishman's private search for God."

To understand why some Anglicans seem more disposed to Rome as opposed to Wittenberg or Geneva, it is important to note that while the Anglican Church was at one time heavily influenced by Lutheran and Calvinistic thought (and in some cases still is), the Oxford Movement of the early nineteenth century, led by Newman, revived the Anglican Church's Catholic heritage in many instances. Those who longed for this Catholic heritage, quite naturally, either already viewed or came to view the split with Rome not as a boast but as a tragedy. For them, the Anglican church was the via media, the half-way house, between the Catholic heritage they longed for and the English culture they lived and breathed.

Given Anglicanism's cultural milieu and its theological heritage, it both surprising and unsurprising, that many Anglicans, including Anglophiles like Howard and Vanauken, have found their way across the English channel. While Anglican churches sympathetic with Rome offered a distinctively British worship, they nonetheless served as a primer on many Catholic distinctives. But true Brits who find themselves attracted to the distinctively British character of Anglican music, prose, liturgy, architecture and hymnody are not the only ones who have swum across the English channel. Much the same can be said of non-Brits as well, many of whom were members of Episcopalian churches in America. To use a slightly different metaphor, Anglicanism, in a very real way, has served as training wheels helping to stabilize quite a few Neocatholics on their road to Rome. Cultural influence aside, what really caused both true-Brit and non-Brit Neocatholics to turn to Rome, though, was their antipathy for Anglicanism's "different theology," that is, the "neo-modernist" tendency in Anglican theology which forsook the Book of Common Prayer, defended the ordination of women, and approved divorce, abortion, and homosex (including the ordination of those who commit homosex). Rather appropriately, Vanauken observes that he did not leave the Anglican Church; the Anglican church left him.

We heartily applaud those who parted ways with the neo-modernist "different theology" of Anglicanism. But as with so many of the Neocatholic arguments we have already seen, this argument does not tip the scale in the direction of Rome.

Pope-Pourrie Aside from the many reasons evaluated above, Neocatholics offer a hodge-podge of other reasons for converting to Rome.

While Vanauken jocularly refers to the Protestant-to-Catholic conversion process as getting "poped," many such converts, including Vanauken, express the deepest admiration for the current pontiff, Pope John Paul II, claiming that he is one of the reasons why many Neocatholics have converted to Rome. In a private letter to a Protestant-about-to-be-Catholic, Vanauken pontificates (a little papal humor never hurt anybody) that "since John Paul II mounted the chair of Peter, the tide is setting strongly toward Rome. I hear of conversions on every hand."

Beating the papal drum further, Vanauken has elsewhere written that "[t]he joyful radiance of John Paul II's appearance among us [gave] this sheep [Vanauken] intimations, however faint, of what the second coming might be like." Not able to contain himself, Vanauken calls the current pope the "white knight of Christianity", and argues that his election actually proves the Holy Spirit's continued guidance of the Roman Catholic Church.

Vanauken does not stand alone in claiming that Pope John Paul II is one of the main reasons why many Neocatholics have converted. Elena Vree has written that

Vanauken not only appeals to the one (the Pope), he also appeals to the many -- the masses -- by claiming that Catholics outnumber Protestants by at least two to one. More generically, former Christian rock star-turned-Franciscan monk, John Michael Talbot, claims that there "is no larger unified group of professing Christians on the face of the earth" than Catholics. While arguments appealing to the masses are quite frequent in Neocatholic literature, such arguments just don't add up.

At absolute best, appealing to the masses is an argumentum ad populum -- appealing to the people to determine the truth. Such appeals are dangerous if for no other reason than that public opinion polls are no indicator of truth. Before you jump aboard the Neocatholic bandwagon, consider the form of this argument which basically holds that if more people believe X as opposed to Y, then X must be true and Y must be false. On that reasoning, Christianity would be false since approximately two-thirds of the world's population is non-Christian!

Beyond embarrassing themselves with such elementary blunders, Neocatholics who appeal to the masses also assume that they are comparing apples with apples when they are really comparing apples with oranges. Were they to read the small print in the almanac charts they banter about so freely, they would see that the number of Roman Catholics worldwide includes infants whereas the number of Protestants generally includes only "adult" members. The point in dispute is not whether children should be counted as part of God's family. The point is that you can't make a meaningful statistical comparison between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant churches, since the Roman Catholic Church includes under its umbrella many who have no affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church today, whereas the Protestant church figures generally account only for those who have such present affiliations!

When we examined the love at first sight and twilight zone accounts above, we saw that a few Neocatholics claimed to have experienced miraculous or near-miraculous appearances of light, either pouring through stained glass windows or beaming on statues of Mary. Stranger things have happened. One Neocatholic, for instance, claims that God personally confirmed the truth of Catholicism to him and communicated to him the role he was to play in the Roman Catholic Church. My personal favorite, though, was the cameo appearance of Joan of Arc who appeared to one Protestant-about-to-be-Catholic in a dream and exclaimed "I never expected you to be here [Rome]."

Wake up! For every Catholic that claims to have been bathed in light, experienced divine extra-biblical revelation, or dreamed a little dream of Rome, there are hundreds if not thousands of Pentecostal or Charismatic Protestants who would claim to have had even more dramatic experiences. Both Protestants and Catholics who appeal to the ethereal realm need to realize that "even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor. 1:14), as evidenced from the fact that even pagan animistic cults claim guidance from similar "revelations." We need to build our houses on a firmer foundation, which, of course, means that the Catholic and the Protestant, once again, must decide what serves as the ultimate foundation of their respective faith-systems. In other words, they must answer the intractable question of authority.

Howard has written that if he said "no" to Rome, he would have to reckon with the likes of "Augustine and Bede and Gregory and Aquinas and Erasmus and Thomas More and Ignatius and Bellarmine and Bossuet and Suarez and Newman and Chesterton and Knox for starters...." Then he quickly adds that doing so would make him nervous. While many of these names head the list, still other Neocatholics appeal to other influential Catholic scholars or authors such as Day, Derrick, Greene, Howard, Jurgin, Keating, Kreeft, Merton, Sheed, Shrack, Waughn, and others.

The only problem with the name dropping argument is that it cuts both ways. Protestants, in fact, can "see" the Neocatholic ante and "raise it". Just consider those who brilliantly carried the Protestant torch such as Luther, Bucer, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Goodwin, Owen, Perkins, Sibbes, Ames, Chemnitz, Dabney, Thornwell, Spurgeon, the Hodges, Warfield, Young, Wilson, Machen, Murray, Berkhof, and Van Til.

But do names really matter? What really matters is whether the message these theological greats heralded is true. And that spins us right around -- again -- to answering the intractable question of authority. You see, Neocatholics have to name drop because name dropping is built into their ultimate authority (Tradition). When all of their rhetorical dust settles to the ground, however, the only true authority left standing is God speaking to His people through His veritable Word.

Sadly, some distorted versions of Protestantism soured many Neocatholics, particularly when it comes to the ever-infamous list of Fundamentalist taboos. One Neocatholic, for example, came to abhor the notion of "a deity who hated movies, cards, and dancing, a cruel being who held out the offer of heaven much like a carrot on a stick for a stubborn mule." Quite correctly, Neocatholics criticize Fundamentalist legalism for failing to recognize the goodness of God's creation and the liberty that is ours in Christ.

The problem with appealing to the distortions of Fundamentalist taboos is that such an appeal doesn't prove Protestantism, as a whole, to be defunct. Nor does it prove Catholicism to be true. In other words, you don't need to become a Catholic to overcome Fundamentalist legalism. Reformed Protestants have been perhaps the greatest champions of Christian liberty, teaching that Christians are free to enjoy all things that God doesn't forbid in Scripture (i.e. as long as they do so within the limits that God has prescribed in Scripture). This goes for drinking and dancing as well as music and movies and a host of other activities. So this is actually an area where Reformed Protestants and Catholics agree, albeit formally.

One reason, but certainly by no means the primary reason, many Neocatholics turn to Rome is the at-homeness they feel with Catholicism. For them, Rome is their final resting place, a place where they claim to have achieved a sense of cognitive rest. Longing to come home to this place of cognitive rest, one leading Neocatholic reminisces about a moment of deep personal crisis when he wanted to become a Catholic, despite the fact that he had previously decided to wait for several more months before converting. During this time of deep soul-searching, he felt a divine nudge, an internal sense of God saying "What do you want?" to which he answered, "That's easy, I want to get home...." And getting home to the alleged truth of Catholicism is, in a sense, what Neocatholicism is all about: not only getting home, but attempting to help other Protestants do the same.

In this article, we have had an opportunity to travel alongside a handful of Protestants who claim to have found their home in Rome, to see exactly why they have gone home to Rome. Summing up why he was Romeward bound, one Neocatholic simply exclaims that he fell in love with everything Rome had to offer:

I prefer to categorize Protestants as those who know what the Reformers were protesting. By that definition even though I was born into a Protestant family that did not make me a Protestant; I became a Protestant sometime after I was saved & remain one today. The difference between my belief & yours is immeasurable.

I have copied a portion of a sermon from John Gill (1671 – 1771), a Protestant by my definition, which carries within it an expression of the good news reveled to me & others by the Holy Spirit at a time of Gods choosing.

http://pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_13.htm

2 CHRONICLES 16:9
For the eyes [o]f the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect towards him.

..........
..........
I. What we are to understand by the eyes of the Lord?
..........
..........
It is further said of the eyes of the Lord, that they try the righteous. His eyes behold, and his eye-lids try the children of men. The Lord tries the righteous; he distinguishes them from others, even in the way of his providence; for though he is the Saviour of all men, yet especially of them that believe. He distinguishes them by the gifts of his grace; which he makes them partakers of, while others al[r]e not: so that they have abundant reason to say, with admiration Who hath made us to differ? In this sense are we to understand the eyes of the Lord, as they are concerned with his own people; which are no other than his all-seeing providence, accompanied with his love and mercy towards them.

Now these eyes of his love and mercy were set upon them from everlasting, in his eternal councils and decrees. He loved them with an everlasting love. He looked upon them and chose them, in his Son, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and happy. He blessed them with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things in Christ. Jesus. He gave them grace in Christ before the world began. He put them into the hands of his Son, made them his care and charge; and said unto him, as their surety, Feed the flock of slaughter. To which he agreed, and said, I will feed the flock of slaughter; even ye, O poor of the flock.

His eyes are upon them in time, even as soon as they are brought into the world. He takes them under his special protection, from their mother’s womb; so says the apostle, Who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace. Not that he called him by his grace as soon as he was born; but so early he distinguished him by a special providence over him, in order to his being effectually called by grace in due time. This he observes concerning others, as well as himself. Who hath saved us, and called us; saved us to be called; saved us, in a special providential way. The Lord’s eyes are upon all his people in a peculiar manner, as soon as they are born; and all the while they are in a state of unregeneracy. This is remarkably manifest in the case of the apostle Paul, I am now speaking of. What notice is taken of him in the sacred history, before he was effectually called by grace! When Stephen, the proto-martyr, was stoned, it is said, the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul: and, further it is observed, that Saul was consenting unto his death. There were multitudes consenting unto his death besides Saul; but he is particularly taken notice of, that the grace of God might be magnified in his conversion. It is further said, Saul made havoc of the Church. Saul was breathing out threatening and slaughter against the disciples of Christ. Thus you see what notice was taken of him; how God’s eye was upon him, even before he was called by grace; and that because he was a chosen vessel of salvation. So our Lord said to Nathaniel, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee. Before he was called either in a ministerial way, or effectually by the grace of God, the eye of the Lord was upon him. The Lord’s eyes are upon all his people, even in this state, until the time comes in which they are to be effectually called. There is a time for every purpose under heaven; and there is a time for God’s calling his people by his grace; for they are all of them called according to his purpose. Now till this time Jehovah waits; waits to be gracious to them; waits as it were with longing eyes, till the time is up; and with respect to some, he waits even till the eleventh hour: and his long-suffering towards his people, whether it be longer or shorter, always ends in salvation; for the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is willing that all should come to repentance. When the set time is come, he passes by them, looks upon them; and his time is a time of love. He looks upon them not with loathing and contempt; but with commiseration. When no eye pities them, he looks upon them; and shews mercy to them. He looks upon them, while in their blood, and says unto them, live; and washes them from all their pollutions and defilements. He looks upon them, when in the hands of Satan; and snatches them from thence: observes them to be as brands in the burning, and takes them from thence. He looks upon them, and sees them in a pit, wherein is no water; in the mire and clay; and taking them from thence, he sets their feet upon a rock and establishes their goings. Thus he looks upon them with an eye of pity and compassion.

The Lord’s eye still continues upon his people after conversion. He watches over them night and day, lest any hurt them. They are en graven upon the palms of his hands, and their walls are continually before him. As the Lord said concerning the temple at Jerusalem, Mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually (1 Kings 9:3); so his heart and his eyes are perpetually upon them: and, as it is said of the land of Canaan, The eyes of the Lord are always upon it, from the beginning of the year, even to the end of the year: so the eyes of the Lord are upon his people, not only from the beginning of one year, to the end of it, but from the beginning of their life, unto the end of their days. Let us now inquire,
..............
..............
..............

St. Francis DeSales to the Protestants of Geneva
CHAPTER III

THE PRETENDED REFORMERS HAD NO IMMEDIATE OR EXTRAORDINARY MISSION FROM GOD.

THESE reasons are so strong that the most solid of your party have taken ground elsewhere than in the ordinary mission, and have said that they were sent extraordinarily by God because the ordinary mission had been ruined and abolished, with the true Church itself, under the tyrannv of Antichrist. This is their most safe refuge, which, since it is common to all sorts of heretics, is worth attacking in good earnest and overthrowing completely. Let us then place our argument in order, to see if we can force this their last barricade.

First, I say then that no one should allege an extraordinarv mission unless he prove it by miracles: for, I pray you, where should we be if this pretext of extraordinary mission was to be accepted without proof? Would it not be a cloak for all sorts of reveries? Arius, Marcion, Montanus, Messalius- could they not be received into this dignity of reformers, by swearing the same oath?

Never was any one extraordinarily sent unless he brought this letter of credit from the divine Majesty. Moses was sent immediately by God to govern the people of Israel. He wished to know his name who sent him; when he had learnt the admirable name of God, he asked for signs and patents of his commission: God so far found this request good that he gave him the grase of three sorts of prodigies and marvels, which were, so to speak, three attestations in three different languages, of the charge which he gave him, in order that any one who did not understand one might understand another. lf then they allege extraordinary mission, let them show us some extraordinary works, otherwise we are not obliged to believe them. In truth Moses clearly shows the necessity of this proof for him who would speak extraordinarily: for having to beg from God the gift of eloquence, he only asks it after having the power of miracles ; showing that it is more necessary to have authority to speak than to have readiness in speaking.

The mission of S. John Baptist, though it was not altogether extraordinary, -was it not authenticated by his conception, his nativity, and even by that miraculous life of his, to which our Lord gave such excellent testimony? But as to the Apostles,- who does not know the miracles they did and the great number of them? Their handkerchiefs, their shadow, served for the prompt healing of the sick and driving away of the devils; by the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done amongst the people (Acts xiv. 5) and that this was in confirmation of their preaching S. Mark declares quite explicitly in the last words of his Gospel, and S. Paul to the Hebrews (ii. 4) How then shall those who in our age would allege an extraordinary mission excuse and relieve themselves of this proof of their mission? What privilege have they greater than an Apostolic, a Mosaic? What shall I say more. If our sovereign Master, consubstantial with the Father, having a mission so authentic that it comprises the communication of the same essence, if he himself, I say, who is the living source of all Ecclesiastical mission, has not chosen to dispense himself from this proof of miracles, what reason is these that these new ministers should be believed an their mere word? Our Lord very often alleges his mission to give credit to his words: As my Father hath sent me I also send you (John xx. 21); My doctrine is not mine, but of him that sent me (ibid. vii. 16); You both know me, and you know whence I am; and I am not come of myself (ibid. 28). But also, to give authority to his mission, he brings forward his miracles, and attests that if he had not done among the Jews works which no other man had done, they would not have sinned in not believing him. And elsewhere he says to them: Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? Otherwise believe for the works themselves. (ibid. xiv. 11, 12). He then who would be so rash as to boast of extraordinary mission without immediately producing miracles, deserves to be taken for an impostor. Now it is a fact that neither the first nor the last ministers have worked a single miracle: therefore they have no extraordinary mission. Let us proceed.

I say, in the second place, that never must an extraordinary mission be received when disowned by the ordinary authority which is th eChurch of Our Lord. For (1.) we are obliged to obey our ordinary pastors under pain of being heathens and publicans (Matt. xviii. 17): - how then can we place ourselves under other discipline than theirs? Extraordinaries would come in vain, since we should be obliged to refuse to listen to them, in the case that they were, as I have said, disowned by the ordinaries. (II.) God is not the author of dissention, but of union and peace (I Cor. xiv. 33), principally amongst his disciples and Church ministers; as Our Lord clearly shows in the holy prayer he made to his Father in the last days of His mortal life. (John xvii.)

How then should he authorise two sorts of pastors, the one extraordinary, the other ordinary? As to the ordinary- it certainly is authorised, and as to the extraordinary we are supposing it to be; there would then be two different churches, which is contrary to the Most pure word of Our Lord, who has but one sole spouse, one sole dove, one sole perfect one (Cant. vi.) And how could that be a united flock which should be led by two shepherds, unknown to each other, into different pastures, with different calls and folds, and each of them expecting to have the whole. Thus would it be with the Church under a variety of pastors ordinary and extraordinary, dragged hither and thither into various sects. Or is Our Lord _divided (I Cor. i. 13) either in himself or in his body, which is the Church?-no, in good truth. On the contrary, there is but one Lord, who has composed his mystic body with a goodly variety of members, a body compacted and fitly joined together by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part (Eph. iv. 16).

Therefore to try to make in the Church this division of ordinary and extraordinary members is to ruin and destroy it. We must then return to what we said, that an extraordinary vocation is never legitimate where it is disapproved of by the ordinary.

(3.) And in effect where will you ever show me a legitimate extraordinary vocation which has not been received by the ordinary authority. S. Paul was extraordinarily called -but was he not approved and authorised by the ordinary once and again? (Acts ix. 13). And the Mission received from the ordinary authority is called a mission by the Holy Spirit (ibid. xiii. 4.). The Mission of S John Baptist cannot properly be called extraordinary because he taught nothing contrary to the Mosaic Church, and because he was of the priestly race. All the same, his doctrine being unusual was approved by the ordinary teaching Office of the Jewish Church in the high embassy which was sent to him by the priests and Levites (John i. 19), the tenor of which implies the great esteem and reputation in which he was with them; and the very Pharisees who were seated an the chair of Moses,- did they not come to communicate in his baptism quite openly and unhesitatingly? This truly was to receive his mission in good earnest. Did not Our Lord, who was the Master, will to be received by Simeon, who was a priest, as appears from his blessing Our Lady and Joseph; by Zachary the priest; and by S. John? And for his passion, which was the principal fulfilment of his Mission,-did he not will to have the prophetic testimony of him who was High Priest at that time.

And this is what S. Paul teaches when he will have no man to take the pastoral honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was (Heb v. 4) "For the vocation of Aaron was Made by the ordinary, Moses, so that it was not _God who placed his holy word in the mouth of Aaron immediately, but Moses, whom God commanded to do it: Speak to him, and put my words in his mouth; and I will be in thy mouth, and in his mouth (Ex. iv. 15). And if we consider the words of S. Paul, we shall further learn that the vocation of pastors and Church rulers must be made visibly; and so with Our Lord and Master; who, being sovereign pontiff, and pastor of all the ages, did not glorify himself, that is, did not take to himself the honour of his holy priesthood, as S. Paul had previously said, but he who said to him Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee; and, Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech. I beg you to ponder this expression - Jesus Christ is a high priest according to the order of Melchisedech . Was he inducted and thrust into this honour by himself? No, he was called thereto. Who called him? His eternal Father. And how? Immediately and at the same time mediately: immediately at his Baptism and his Transfiguration, by this voice: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him; mediately by the Prophets, and above all by David in the places which S. Paul cites to this effect from the Psalms: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee: Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech. And everywhere the vocation is externally perceptible: the word in the cloud was heard, and in David hear and read; but S. Paul in proving the vocation of Our Lord quotes only the passage from David, in which he says Our Lord had been glorified by his Father; thus contenting himself with bringing forward the testimony which was percepible, and given by means of the ordinary Scriptures and the received Prophets.

I say, thirdly, that the authority of the extraordinary mission never distroys the ordinary, and is never given to overthrow it. Witness all the Prophets, who never set up altar against altar, never overthrew the priesthood of Aaron, never abolished the constitutions of the Synagogue. Witness Our Lord, who declares that every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation, and a house upon a house shall fall (Luke xi. 17). Witness the respect which he paid to the chair of Moses, the doctrine of which he would have to be observed. And indeed if the extraordinary ought to abolish the ordinary, how should we know when, and how, and to whom, to give our obedience. No, no; the ordinary is immortal for such time as the Church is here below in the world. The pastors and teachers whom he has once given to the Church are to have a perpetual succession for the pei fection of the saints . . . till we all meet in the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a peifeet man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ. That we may not now be children, tossed to and fro, an d carried about with every wind -i doctrine, in the wickedness of men and in their craftiness (Eph. iv. 1) Such is the strong argument which S. Paul uses to prove that if the ordinary pastors and doctors had not perpetual succession, and were liable to have their authority abrogated by the extraordinary, we should also have but an irregular faith and discipline, interrupted at every step; we should be liable to be seduced by men, whe an every occasion would boast of having an extraordinary voeation. Thus like the Gentiles we should walk (as he infers afterwards) in the vanity of our mind (ibid. 17), each one persuading himself that he felt the movement of the Holy Ghost; of which our age furnishes so many examples that this is one of the strongest proofs that can be brought forward in this connection. For if the extraordinary may talge away the ordinary ministration, to which shall we give the guardianship of it - to Calvin or to Luther, to Luther or to Paciomontanus, to Paciomontanus or to Brandratus, to Brandratus or to Brentius, to Brentius or to the Queen of England? - for each will draw to his or her side this pretext of extraordinary mission.

But the word of Our Lord frees us from all these difficulties, who has built his Church an so good a foundation and in such wise proportions that the Bates of hell shall never prevail against it. And if they have never prevailed not shall prevail, then the extraordinary vocation is not necessary to abolish it, for God hateth nothing of those things which he has made (Wis. xi. 25). How then did they abolish the ordinary Church, to make an extraordinary one, since it is he, who has built the ordinary one, and cemented it with his own blood?

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.