Show me a list of “notable Catholics” leaving to become Evangelicals? You will be hard pressed to come up with a list. But a list of notable Protestants converting to Catholicism is as long as your arm. People who think and research gravitate to the true Church. Americans don’t, by and large, think.
You keep telling yourself that!
So 10s of millions of Hispanics count for nothing because they are not "notable"?
Fortunately, God is "no respecter of persons." Every soul is precious to him.
I've seen a list of catholic priests who left posted on FR, but it was attacked as people who wanted to marry or were not "catechized correctly." By your standard, it would seem they are "notable."
I think you kid yourself.
You may be right.
This is even BETTER!!!
If you wish to quote others, have the courtesy to attribute the quote, rather than continue marching along the paths of plagiarism and semi-plagiarism.
Romanists ballyhoo and parade converts to their cult/borg, and those swimming the other way are more likely to leave the borg behind, while "Rome" downplays/ignores or else characterizes any and all whom do leave Romanism as being "poorly catechized", or worse...
Also being ignored or downplayed, is a list much "longer than your arm" of those who have dug deep into history and scripture -- who DO NOT convert to Roman Catholicism, yet are free as a bird to do so, unlike those of "Rome", such as cradle Catholics who would need first to wrap their mind around the fact that not all which they have been told about the RCC by those of the RCC is truth-- needing to carefully sift through huge piles of "stuff" to find that truth --- while Christ Himself still is Truth Himself, as can be found in the Scriptures --with the mixture of those two identities ("Church" & Christ) being extremely difficult to differentiate for many -- that blurring of identity being a thing of great subtlety, having truth [again] mixed with sundry forms of error.
It can be difficult to sort out, with it much easier to just surrender to the borg, to stay in a "cult" than to escape from one...
Meanwhile, within the ranks (of the RCC) are a very many who are at odds with that ecclesiastical body's teachings in one form or another, yet remain associated with the RCC -- when if they were honestly neutral while doing this "thinking and research" probing you speak of, would be able to see what many outside Romish confines can see, which among other things are the double-sided complexities which arise when attempt is made towards reconciling conflicting information within Roman Catholicism itself, which interestingly enough can rather mirror differences that can be seen when comparing various scripture passages regarding salvation itself, and is somewhat again mirrored within Protestant differentiation between so-called Calvinists (following or much inspired by Augustine, echoed in many aspects by Aquinas) and Arminians (not to be confused with "Arians") which latter (Arminians) are possibly shades more synergistic (somewhat similar to some schools of "Catholicism") in their description of what role man and man's own will plays in their own salvation than the former (Calvinists) --- who's own acceptance of there being any true form of "synergy" between man and God being entirely reliant upon first there being a re-birth or rejuvenation (if but by degree even?) brought-back-from-dead spirit of man, for the dead can not "respond" at all... (1 Corithians 2:14, Galatians 5:17) -- thus leaving synergy impossible but for that which has been brought to life by the breath of God.
Perhaps both camps can share some fundamental agreement between themselves, particularly when a more "hyper" view of predestination is not clung to. Though for that consideration -- since God does know the end of all things, from somewhere near the beginnings --- "predestination" view can logically enough fit, when the actions and choices of man are allowed to be made from man's own less-than omniscient perspective, while yet what the results shall be are in fact known to God before we are even born, without there necessarily being an entire fatalistic surrendering along line of "it is the Will of Allah'" or some-such.
That either of these "schools" or approaches towards faith (in Christ) are more similar to one another than they are to Roman Catholicism may make it that much easier for the Romanist to condemn -- but when they did and still do -- they condemn their own Church "Doctors" and the earliest of Christian traditions for sake of clinging to the image of mantle of infallibility.
That many "converts to Rome" fall prey to the 'round and 'round circular explanation apologetic (for those things peculiar to Roman Catholicism) which a large number of Romanists have built up over the centuries, does not make the body of apologetic itself "truth" any more than Muhammadans putting trust in Islamic explanations make all which Islam claims is truth, be in actuality unvarnished truth, for even there...it can much depend upon whom is asked what particular question or set of them.
Islamists also like to claim (when they can) that converts from among "preachers" of other faiths prove their own superiority.
Does it make it so?
To label converts to one's own ecclesiastical community to be the thinking type, but those outside -- not, is quite often just so much confirmation bias.
Examples like Steve Ray (and most of the others who are held up as being some sort kind of geniuses) offer little more than well-polished repackaging of a body of [Romanist] apologetic which existed long before they were born.
Being good little moderately well organized "parrots" does not make them into being "deep thinkers", for much of the Romanist apologetic has been thoroughly shredded, time and again for those who have learned to not fall for all the weak argumentation and lawyerly double-talk which relies time and again on specious definitions and artful dodginess to make the case...
Rather, mere thinking and researching can equate to "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 3:7) But if true searching leads souls to the true Church, then Rome cannot be it, as not only does this mean that souls come to know Truth by the evangelical means of objective examination of the evidence - which honestly brings me to see more certainly the critical contrast btwn the NT church and Rome - but this is not what a faithful RC is to engage in so as to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching.
Or are you advocating an evangelical means of obtaining assurance of Truth which Truth means rejecting that means of assurance of Truth?
Meanwhile, it is also rare to see notable Mormon leaders or JW's becoming evangelicals, are like leaders in Rome, they have chosen deception over Truth. while it was the learned who mostly rejected the Lord Jesus, while "the common people heard him gladly." (Mark 12:37)