Posted on 08/02/2010 3:13:20 AM PDT by markomalley
The problem is that swimming the Bosphorus would actually land one in Üsküdar (on the Asian side). I would think that would be the wrong direction, wouldn't it?
Maybe swimming the Golden Horn...
;-)
Evangelicals like me who become Catholic tend to regard it as an advanced form of their previous Christian practice. Most conversion stories address this in some form - so now, I am Evangelical PLUS.
This is so consistent that there is now a whole internet body of literature by Evangelical converts saying, "OK, now I'm in the REAL Church - can we talk more about Jesus?"
I'm coming to the Catholic tradition late in life, from a basically Calvinist - Evangelical background.
I cannot imagine how a cradle Catholic with no religious education outside of CCD and the Mass can possibly have a proper Christian formation. I have 5 daughters, 4 of whom are in various levels of CCD, and the level of ignorance among their classmates on the most basic Christian doctrines is astonishing.
Catholicism makes sense to many Evangelicals, exactly as described in the article, as an "add-on" or upgrade to their already well-established faith.
But if my children didn't go to a Christian school and didn't get Bible study at home, despite receiving the sacraments, they wouldn't be Christians at all.
Hopefully this will get some discussion here.
"Reformed/Protestant" (16th century, those that trace denominational and creedal roots back to the Reformation),
"Evangelical" (17th century, like xzins' Wesleyans/Methodists or the Baptists, largely anabaptist, that arose after the Reformed groups);
"Restorationist" (19th century, independent "first century style" churches / denominations that can be traced back to the Stone/Campbell movement in NY's Hudson River valley); and
"Charismatic" (20th century, any "Spirit-led" but anti-creedal church or denomination that followed or appeared alongside the Restorationists, but especially those that originated with the "baby boomer" generation i.e. the Calvary Chapel/Vineyard churches).I'm honestly not sure where I'd place groups like the "emergent churches" or even the Warren / Osteen style megachurches. They lack the strong theological distinctives (Calvinism, creedalism) that characterizes the earlier groups, and the strong cultural distinctives (display of charismatic gifts, fierce cultural isolationism) that characterizes the later groups. I tend to think that they should get their own category, but I usually lump them under the "evangelical" label because they usually associate themselves with that group socially.
I think that the term "fundamentalist" could really fit in any of those categories, as it refers to a rather dogmatic, strict adherence to the teachings of a particular belief...rather than defining a specific belief in of itself.
Our parish in Tulsa had some high-profile converts, including Protestant ministers and professors. I think this was largely due to our deacon’s owning the Catholic bookstore in the city! In my current parish, the people I see going to RCIA tend to be married to Catholics already in the parish.
I think that is a marvelous way of looking at it.
I cannot imagine how a cradle Catholic with no religious education outside of CCD and the Mass can possibly have a proper Christian formation. I have 5 daughters, 4 of whom are in various levels of CCD, and the level of ignorance among their classmates on the most basic Christian doctrines is astonishing.
I would doubt that there would be a Catholic on FR who would disagree with you. The level of catechesis both through CCD and in Catholic schools is appalling.
The trouble is that this is the second, and, in some cases, the third generation who never have been educated in their own faith. And so parents have a hard time taking on their responsibilities as the primary educators of their children because they don't know either.
(In fact, I have been prayerfully considering taking on a seventh grade CCD/pre-confirmation class for just that reason)
As an evangelical who swam the Tiber 16 years ago, perhaps I shouldn't answer this, but I'm going to anyway. 4 of the 5 named either influenced my decision to plunge into the Tiber waters , or helped acquaint me with the new territory when I emerged on the Roman shore. To the list of 5 I would add one more, Father Richard John Neuhaus. John Michael Talbot's music introduced me to the strong scriptural base of Catholic thought while I was still a Lutheran. Father Neuhaus, a Lutheran scholar I admired for his "First Things" journal, challenged my locked in thought patterns when he went to Rome. Catholic friends loaned me Scott Hahn's conversion story on tape when I began to question my own path. Thomas Howard was there to offer clarification with his book "On Being Catholic" which I read shortly after my confirmation. Marcus Gordi's "Journey Home" has become the one "must watch" program on our weekly television schedule. None are "squishy" in my view.
I love the Protestant’s use of the phrase “crossing the Tiber.” Martin Luther lied about ever having gone to Rome, and all his slanders about the papacy were just that: slanders. The phrase “crossing the Tiber” echoes Martin’s misconception that the Vatican was in Rome, and therefore “crossing the Tiber” meant entering “the whore of Babylon.”
The truth is that the Vatican exists in perpetual exile from the city of Rome, across the Tiber. To cross the Tiber to enter into the Catholic Church, then, means to depart from Babylon and join Saint Peter in exile.
I’m cool with “Orthodox” as a denominational term. Orthodox churches are, in fact, catholic, and Catholic churches are, in fact, orthodox. Terms such as “Church of Christ,” “[Redacted] Bible Churches,” “Church of God in Christ,” “Disciples of Christ,” and even “Presbyterian,” and “Episcopalian,” bug me more, since the Catholic Church is presbyterian, episcopalian, reads the entire bible (and not just portions redacted by those who denied Christ, after his death), etc.
The lumping of evangelical and fundamentalist into Protestant is no Catholic invention! “Protestant” meant someone who “publicly declared” their differences from Catholicism, initially referring to their objections to the Diet of Speyer in 1529. Calvinist, Lutheran and Anglican movements all identified with the movement, as did successive groups emerging from those traditions, such as Methodists, etc.
Various non-Catholic groups do not fit, or may not fit, into the term, “Protestant”:
1. & 2. Orthodox and Oriental churches predate doctrinal separations from the Catholic church, and therefore are regarded by just about no-one as Protestant.
3. Anabaptist churches dubiously claim that they have existed since before the Nicene Council in the fourth century, representing “primitive” Christianity, and hence rejected the notion that their faiths are protesting against anything. Following them, several Baptists churches have rejected the “protestant” label, although most schemes of categorizing churches regard Baptists as Protestants.
4. Restorationist churches, such as Mormons and 7th-Day Adventists, while not insisting as Anabaptist churches do, that they persisted throughout the Christian era, nonetheless do claim that they represent a restoration of primitive Christianity.
5. Many Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox churches reject several religious movements, such as Mormons, as lacking critical elements of Christianity, such as Trinitiarianism. For this reason, they are counted as quasi-Christian, and therefore outside Protestantism. This is made still less controversial by the fact that many such churches are Restorationist, and reject the label “Protestant,” anway.
6. Lastly, two movements within the Anglican church have led it to be placed outside Protestantism by many, despite its historical and doctrinal similarities. Many Anglican apologists, confronted with a movement back towards Catholic sensibilities, differentiated themselves from Catholicism by maintaining that the papacy had only recently asserted authority over England (11th century) at the time of the 16th century schism. (This is ironic, since Canterbury was established precisely as a means for Rome to reign back in the Irish Religious Orders, who, like modern religious orders, answer to their own “ordinaries,” rather than the “secular” bishop.) Also, as their theological and ecclesiastical affililation to the Catholic/Orthodox churches grew, they saw themselves as neither Catholic, nor Protestant, but as the middle way, the “Via Media.”
What an interesting insight!
I converted to Protestantism (Baptist) in 1987 (then to Charismatic/pentecostal in 1992). I was raised Catholic. For me, Catholicism was dry and sterile. There was no relationship with God there was only follow the rules. Having a personal relationship with Christ was never, ever mentioned at any of the parishes I attended.
I was not actively proselytized by anyone at the first church I attended. My conversion came about from a Christmas gift that my fiance gave me. A bible.
"Hmmm" I thought, "What do I do with this?". We had a bible in our house when I was a kid. The big, choke-a-mule, left open on the bookstand and never ever moved sort. BUt this was different. This was a book. So what do you do with a book? You read it.
Somewhere between Genesis and Revelation I came to understand that God wanted more from us thanjust following the rules. God wanted to know each of us on a personal basis through His Son Jesus. This was a radical idea to me. Needless to say I listened to the call of the spirit and become saved.
(Please note that there are saved Catholics (and lost Protestants) I just had never met one to my knowledge at that time)
The trouble is that this is the second, and, in some cases, the third generation who never have been educated in their own faith.
Faith is not hereditary. If they haven't been taught, if they do not believe, then they are not a part of the faith no matter how many generations have been believers before them.
And so parents have a hard time taking on their responsibilities as the primary educators of their children because they don't know either.
This is true.
I know a lot of people who feel that way. I find it really to be a shame. But, again, that comes down to a really poor level of catechesis. Catechesis is not only learning the rules and regs. It is not only memorization. It is helping a person know how to establish that close personal relationship with the Triune God.
Sterile: just praying the Rosary prayers. Active, deep, and very rich: praying the Rosary prayers while actively meditating on the events of our salvation highlighted in the mysteries of the Rosary.
Sterile: going to Mass every Sunday and Holy Days and waiting until it is over with...so you can get on to softball practice.
Active, deep, and very rich: going to Mass every Sunday, Holy Days (and maybe even on weekdays)...praying beforehand...reading and pondering on the Scriptures presented in the Liturgy of the Word...and offering yourself as a living sacrifice to God (Rom 12:1) up on the altar with the Victim...
Sterile: going to confession when absolutely required and listing all the sins you commit, waiting for the priest to absolve you.
Active, deep, and very rich: valuing your relationship with God above all else and rushing to confession when your actions have wounded that relationship in order to establish it. Truly examining your conscience every day to see where you have fallen short of what God holds for you, feeling genuinely contrite at that point, and truly resolving to live the fullness of what God has given us. Truly recognizing that the priest, acting in persona Christi capitas, is ministering healing to your soul and being able to feel totally clean from the inside out when you walk out.
And so on.
I have seen SO MANY Catholics who fit inside the first category (what you called accurately sterile) that it breaks my heart.
I was not actively proselytized by anyone at the first church I attended. My conversion came about from a Christmas gift that my fiance gave me. A bible...The big, choke-a-mule, left open on the bookstand and never ever moved sort. BUt this was different. This was a book. So what do you do with a book? You read it.
And that is sort of a funny thing. Were you, before you left, aware that there are indulgences offered for daily Scripture reading and meditation on the Scriptures? If not, it wouldn't surprise me, as most Catholics are, in fact, unaware of that fact. And, again, it shocks me when I consider it. How many Catholics don't realize that their faith is founded in the words and deeds of Christ, given to the apostles, recorded in that book, and passed on from generation to generation? How can they possibly have a true understanding of their own faith without cracking open that book?
Needless to say I listened to the call of the spirit and become saved.
Well, I am very glad to hear that. I think it is a tragedy that you had to leave the Church in order to do so. It is a real indictment against those of us who are in the Church. Both in how you were taught as a youth and then how poorly you were shepherded as a young adult. And I think it is a real lesson that we should all take to heart. Not only one for the clergy, but one for the laity as well.
You wrote:
“Having a personal relationship with Christ was never, ever mentioned at any of the parishes I attended.”
Probably because that terminology was never used by Christians until a handful of years ago. It certainly was never used before 1850. The way evangelicals speak about “Having a personal relationship with Christ” has nothing to do with the Bible (the terminology is entirely foreign to scripture), has no place in tradition and seems to have been invented only recently in the last few decades. Maybe that’s why you never heard it discussed that way in a 2,000 year old Church.
I’m just sayin’...
I wouldn’t be good enough for any of the religions in existence today. I’d end up screwing up one or more of their “must do” lists. I can’t imagine trusting some human to “absolve” me when I could well find out later he was after the boys. I’d forget to do something or another or being human slip up on one of the rules. I’m just going to believe what Jesus said. He paid the price and all I have to do is trust him. He said when I go to the Father I should go in his name. Nothing more, nothing less.
Regardless of the words used, the concept has always been in the bible. Abraham and David were described as friends of God. A friend is more than just someone who obeys. A friend has a personal relationship. God desires us to be in personal communion with Him. This personal aspect was totally missing in Catholicism as I experienced it.
That is not to say that no others may have experienced it. Their mileage may vary.
legitimate evangelical scholars? Or were they squishy people who you are better rid of in the first place?
Being a "legitimate scholar" does not exclude an individual from being a "squishy person" whose departure does not surprise. Witness Richard Neuhaus.
What is an "evangelical"? Who isn't one?
That's the reason I'm asking the question. I see the claim made and, frankly, if both sides' claims were factual, I would imagine that 100% of Catholics would belong to something else within 10 years and 100% of non-Catholics would be Catholic within 10 years. So I was asking for actual reports from the ground rather than relying upon a magazine article.
Church attendance and membership numbers are as squishy as gun crime numbers from the Brady Campaign.
You wrote:
“Regardless of the words used, the concept has always been in the bible. Abraham and David were described as friends of God. A friend is more than just someone who obeys. A friend has a personal relationship. God desires us to be in personal communion with Him. This personal aspect was totally missing in Catholicism as I experienced it. That is not to say that no others may have experienced it. Their mileage may vary.”
I think it must. Old catechisms used to say:
“Q. How does the Sacrament of Penance remit sin, and restore to the soul the friendship of God ?”
Friendship with God.
and another:
“Surely then a very special grace, or gift, of God is necessary for us, in order that we may continue, persevere, faithfully in God’s friendship until the end.”
It wasn’t as if the idea was out there.
evangelical and fundamentalists together under the broad term of Protestant.
The use of the term "evangelical" has changed over time. It was once a synonym for Protestant. The modern use and modern distinction from "fundamentalist" is a 20th century American thing.
See Darryl Hart, Deconstructing Evangelicalism.
I think that's the point. If any of us were "good enough," we wouldn't need a savior, would we? I don't know about you all, but that's what's taught by the Church.
When somebody talks about "good enough," though...I hearken back to the words of St. Paul:
2 Cor 12:9 And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for you: for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 For which cause I please myself in my infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ. For when I am weak, then am I powerful.
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.