The hidden exodus: Catholics becoming Protestants

NCR ^ | Apr. 18, 2011 | Thomas Reese

[Gamecock]

Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why.....

The number of people who have left the Catholic church is huge.

We all have heard stories about why people leave. Parents share stories about their children. Academics talk about their students. Everyone has a friend who has left.

While personal experience can be helpful, social science research forces us to look beyond our circle of acquaintances to see what is going on in the whole church.

The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life has put hard numbers on the anecdotal evidence: One out of every 10 Americans is an ex-Catholic. If they were a separate denomination, they would be the third-largest denomination in the United States, after Catholics and Baptists. One of three people who were raised Catholic no longer identifies as Catholic.

Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why. But the U.S. bishops have never devoted any time at their national meetings to discussing the exodus. Nor have they spent a dime trying to find out why it is happening.

Thankfully, although the U.S. bishops have not supported research on people who have left the church, the Pew Center has.

Pew’s data shows that those leaving the church are not homogenous. They can be divided into two major groups: those who become unaffiliated and those who become Protestant. Almost half of those leaving the church become unaffiliated and almost half become Protestant. Only about 10 percent of ex-Catholics join non-Christian religions. This article will focus on Catholics who have become Protestant. I am not saying that those who become unaffiliated are not important; I am leaving that discussion to another time.

Why do people leave the Catholic church to become Protestant? Liberal Catholics will tell you that Catholics are leaving because they disagree with the church’s teaching on birth control, women priests, divorce, the bishops’ interference in American politics, etc. Conservatives blame Vatican II, liberal priests and nuns, a permissive culture and the church’s social justice agenda.

One of the reasons there is such disagreement is that we tend to think that everyone leaves for the same reason our friends, relatives and acquaintances have left. We fail to recognize that different people leave for different reasons. People who leave to join Protestant churches do so for different reasons than those who become unaffiliated. People who become evangelicals are different from Catholics who become members of mainline churches.

Spiritual needs

The principal reasons given by people who leave the church to become Protestant are that their “spiritual needs were not being met” in the Catholic church (71 percent) and they “found a religion they like more” (70 percent). Eighty-one percent of respondents say they joined their new church because they enjoy the religious service and style of worship of their new faith.

In other words, the Catholic church has failed to deliver what people consider fundamental products of religion: spiritual sustenance and a good worship service. And before conservatives blame the new liturgy, only 11 percent of those leaving complained that Catholicism had drifted too far from traditional practices such as the Latin Mass.

Dissatisfaction with how the church deals with spiritual needs and worship services dwarfs any disagreements over specific doctrines. While half of those who became Protestants say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teaching, specific questions get much lower responses. Only 23 percent said they left because of the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality; only 23 percent because of the church’s teaching on divorce; only 21 percent because of the rule that priests cannot marry; only 16 percent because of the church’s teaching on birth control; only 16 percent because of the way the church treats women; only 11 percent because they were unhappy with the teachings on poverty, war and the death penalty.

The data shows that disagreement over specific doctrines is not the main reason Catholics become Protestants. We also have lots of survey data showing that many Catholics who stay disagree with specific church teachings. Despite what theologians and bishops think, doctrine is not that important either to those who become Protestant or to those who stay Catholic.

People are not becoming Protestants because they disagree with specific Catholic teachings; people are leaving because the church does not meet their spiritual needs and they find Protestant worship service better.

Nor are the people becoming Protestants lazy or lax Christians. In fact, they attend worship services at a higher rate than those who remain Catholic. While 42 percent of Catholics who stay attend services weekly, 63 percent of Catholics who become Protestants go to church every week. That is a 21 percentage-point difference.

Catholics who became Protestant also claim to have a stronger faith now than when they were children or teenagers. Seventy-one percent say their faith is “very strong,” while only 35 percent and 22 percent reported that their faith was very strong when they were children and teenagers, respectively. On the other hand, only 46 percent of those who are still Catholic report their faith as “very strong” today as an adult.

Thus, both as believers and as worshipers, Catholics who become Protestants are statistically better Christians than those who stay Catholic. We are losing the best, not the worst.

Some of the common explanations of why people leave do not pan out in the data. For example, only 21 percent of those becoming Protestant mention the sex abuse scandal as a reason for leaving. Only 3 percent say they left because they became separated or divorced.

Becoming Protestant

If you believed liberals, most Catholics who leave the church would be joining mainline churches, like the Episcopal church. In fact, almost two-thirds of former Catholics who join a Protestant church join an evangelical church. Catholics who become evangelicals and Catholics who join mainline churches are two very distinct groups. We need to take a closer look at why each leaves the church.

Fifty-four percent of both groups say that they just gradually drifted away from Catholicism. Both groups also had almost equal numbers (82 percent evangelicals, 80 percent mainline) saying they joined their new church because they enjoyed the worship service. But compared to those who became mainline Protestants, a higher percentage of those becoming evangelicals said they left because their spiritual needs were not being met (78 percent versus 57 percent) and that they had stopped believing in Catholic teaching (62 percent versus 20 percent). They also cited the church’s teaching on the Bible (55 percent versus 16 percent) more frequently as a reason for leaving. Forty-six percent of these new evangelicals felt the Catholic church did not view the Bible literally enough. Thus, for those leaving to become evangelicals, spiritual sustenance, worship services and the Bible were key. Only 11 percent were unhappy with the church’s teachings on poverty, war, and the death penalty Ñ the same percentage as said they were unhappy with the church’s treatment of women. Contrary to what conservatives say, ex-Catholics are not flocking to the evangelicals because they think the Catholic church is politically too liberal. They are leaving to get spiritual nourishment from worship services and the Bible.

Looking at the responses of those who join mainline churches also provides some surprising results. For example, few (20 percent) say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teachings. However, when specific issues were mentioned in the questionnaire, more of those joining mainline churches agreed that these issues influenced their decision to leave the Catholic church. Thirty-one percent cited unhappiness with the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality, women, and divorce and remarriage, and 26 percent mentioned birth control as a reason for leaving. Although these numbers are higher than for Catholics who become evangelicals, they are still dwarfed by the number (57 percent) who said their spiritual needs were not met in the Catholic church.

Thus, those becoming evangelicals were more generically unhappy than specifically unhappy with church teaching, while those who became mainline Protestant tended to be more specifically unhappy than generically unhappy with church teaching. The unhappiness with the church’s teaching on poverty, war and the death penalty was equally low for both groups (11 percent for evangelicals; 10 percent for mainline).

What stands out in the data on Catholics who join mainline churches is that they tend to cite personal or familiar reasons for leaving more frequently than do those who become evangelicals. Forty-four percent of the Catholics who join mainline churches say that they married someone of the faith they joined, a number that trumps all doctrinal issues. Only 22 percent of those who join the evangelicals cite this reason.

Perhaps after marrying a mainline Christian and attending his or her church’s services, the Catholic found the mainline services more fulfilling than the Catholic service. And even if they were equally attractive, perhaps the exclusion of the Protestant spouse from Catholic Communion makes the more welcoming mainline church attractive to an ecumenical couple.

Those joining mainline communities also were more likely to cite dissatisfaction of the Catholic clergy (39 percent) than were those who became evangelical (23 percent). Those who join mainline churches are looking for a less clerically dominated church.

Lessons from the data

There are many lessons that we can learn from the Pew data, but I will focus on only three.

First, those who are leaving the church for Protestant churches are more interested in spiritual nourishment than doctrinal issues. Tinkering with the wording of the creed at Mass is not going to help. No one except the Vatican and the bishops cares whether Jesus is “one in being” with the Father or “consubstantial” with the Father. That the hierarchy thinks this is important shows how out of it they are.

While the hierarchy worries about literal translations of the Latin text, people are longing for liturgies that touch the heart and emotions. More creativity with the liturgy is needed, and that means more flexibility must be allowed. If you build it, they will come; if you do not, they will find it elsewhere. The changes that will go into effect this Advent will make matters worse, not better.

Second, thanks to Pope Pius XII, Catholic scripture scholars have had decades to produce the best thinking on scripture in the world. That Catholics are leaving to join evangelical churches because of the church teaching on the Bible is a disgrace. Too few homilists explain the scriptures to their people. Few Catholics read the Bible.

The church needs a massive Bible education program. The church needs to acknowledge that understanding the Bible is more important than memorizing the catechism. If we could get Catholics to read the Sunday scripture readings each week before they come to Mass, it would be revolutionary. If you do not read and pray the scriptures, you are not an adult Christian. Catholics who become evangelicals understand this.

Finally, the Pew data shows that two-thirds of Catholics who become Protestants do so before they reach the age of 24. The church must make a preferential option for teenagers and young adults or it will continue to bleed. Programs and liturgies that cater to their needs must take precedence over the complaints of fuddy-duddies and rubrical purists.

Current religious education programs and teen groups appear to have little effect on keeping these folks Catholic, according to the Pew data, although those who attend a Catholic high school do appear to stay at a higher rate. More research is needed to find out what works and what does not.

The Catholic church is hemorrhaging members. It needs to acknowledge this and do more to understand why. Only if we acknowledge the exodus and understand it will we be in a position to do something about it.

[roamer_1]

[roamer_1:] In my mind, that premise is undeniable - and the resulting conclusion must follow.

And therein lies your problem....

Well, thanks for the demonstration of your capacity toward acerbic wit (and I was already aware of that capacity, by the way) - It was cute, but unproductive. : )

[Natural Law]

"Catholics always end up in such a mess because they don't know Scripture."

Do you never get tired of repeating that lie? First, there is the Bible itself, Canonized and produced by Catholics. Then, there is 2,000 years of Catholic teaching and literature concentrated upon Scripture, and lastly you are rebutted with Scripture by Catholics daily yet you persist in that like some kind of mantra or incantation. Do you believe that if you say it often enough it might become true?

I refer you to the Scripture that I assure you Catholics know well:

"But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator." - Colossians 3:8-10

(BTW - you need to update your ping list. Some of those you think are sympathetic have either died, deserted or defected).

[daniel1212]

Disagreements under different models of supreme authority At left below is a list of things which one Roman Catholic apologist states Protestants can disagree one amongst themselves, and to the right is my list of things Catholics do and can disagree on amongst themselves. Both lists are incomplete and both can be added to, but these do seek to focus on more common or evident things. While the major focus here is between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, yet as the latter is not one church but many, but in which their chief defining characteristic as regards authority is the supremacy of Scripture, then a more fitting comparison is between them versus churches which effectively hold to “sola ecclesia,” that the church is the supreme doctrinal authority on earth (seeing as it claims to infallibly define what constitutes Divine revelation, and its meaning, and thus it defines itself as assuredly infallible, and under which conditions). Thus the first list on the right is a short list of things which Catholics can disagree on, followed by things Roman Catholics can disagree on (not all they do disagree on without real discipline, which would also be extensive). Among Catholic churches the Roman church is effectively as one denomination, regardless of her universal elitist claims, though sola ecclesia is also the model under which most “cults” operate. And as the essay which follows* further explains, both Catholics and Scripture Protestants hold to a supreme doctrinal authority, but both see disagreement and divisions, the differences being in degrees, while as in the beginning of the church, authenticity is established upon Scriptural attestation, with it being supernaturally established as the assured Word of God. This basis must allow competition, but is one in which evil is overcome by good, not by the sword of men, or "walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. " (2 Corinthians 4:2) Thus the church began in dissent from those who could lay claim to historical decent, (Mt. 23:2) and as being the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ, (Rm. 9:3:2; 9:4) and recipient of promises of Divine presence and guidance, (Dt. 4:31; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34, etc.) but who presumed an assured veracity which required obedience as unto Biblical law, but which reproved them, though writings were established as Divine and Truth was given and preserved without an assuredly infallible magisterium of men.

Things Protestants can disagree on: 1. Once Saved Always Saved 2. Universal versus Limited Atonement 3. Infant Baptism 4. Form of Baptism (e.g. full immersion vs pouring) 5. Whether Baptism is necessary in ordinary circumstances 6. Whether the Lord's Supper is purely symbolic or some sort of 'real' presence 7. Divorce and Remarriage 8. Whether icons/pictures of Christ are allowed 9. Which doctrines are perspicuous/essential 10. Whether Charismatic Gifts of the Spirit have ceased 11. Whether instruments are allowed in church 12. Female ordination 13. The "biblical" form of church government 14. Sunday versus any day worship / Whether the Sabbath is still in force in some sense. 15. House churches versus dedicated congregational churches 16. Dispensationalism 17. Rapture/Tribulation 18. Imputed Active Obedience 19. Whether traditional categories like Person/Nature are true/valid 20. Mary being "Mother of God" 21. Mary's Perpetual Virginity 22. Whether Inspiration of Scripture is plenary or limited to faith and morals 23. Whether one can/should pray to the Holy Spirit 24. Whether Sola Scriptura applied during the time of Christ and the Apostles 25. How to define/understand Sola Scriptura, especially as it relates to Creeds and Councils 26. Should Christians engage in politics, civil service, etc. 27. Whether Christians should pray the Our Father 28. Whether prayer should be only spontaneous 29. Whether keeping the Commandments is necessary for salvation 30. Whether illness, suffering, poverty, etc, are due to sin or lack of faith 31. Whether Free Will and Double Predestination are true or not 32. Whether Mark 16:9-20, John 8:1-11, etc, are actually part of Scripture 33. Which translation of Scripture should be normative (e.g. KJV) 34. Which Protestant denominations are to be considered "Christian"

Things which Catholics can disagree on The contents of the Biblical canon Purgatory Original sin Baptism of desire Form of Baptism Universal papal jurisdiction and supremacy Papal infallibility The nature of transubstantiation, and manner of reception Allowance of Icons Divorce and Remarriage Faith and Reason The Development of Doctrine The Atonement Whether the Catholic charismatic movement is to be allowed Whether instruments are allowed in church Clergy – qualifications/Priestly celibacy What Tradition teaches Church fathers (who they all are, and taught) Dates of Feasts The Church Deification The Holy Church Canons The nature of the Sacramental Mysteries The number of Sacraments Beards Various other practices The Filioque; the Trinity Immaculate Conception The sinlessness of Mary Eschatology Ecumenism Who is primarily at fault for the Catholic schisms Whether Vatican Two and many post V2 teachings deviate from official Roman Catholic teaching (which opens up a whole new series of things which Catholic can disagree on under sola ecclesia. ( http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/charmov.aspx; http:/http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/charmov.aspx/www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html, etc.) Things which Roman Catholics can disagree on: Which things Catholics can disagree on, and how much The infallible or non-infallible nature of multitudes of teachings, including in the catechism and if Vatican Two was Whether all that Trent defined was infallible Whether the Pope is subject to Ecumenical Councils Meanings of infallible or non-infallible teachings How many verses of the Bible have been infallibly defined. What degree of assurance the Imprimatur and Nhil Obstat provide Whether the stories of Adam and Eve, Jonah and the fish, Balaam and the donkey, the conquests of Samson and Joshua, and other accounts are literally true The meaning of inerrancy of Scripture Which Bible version is the most faithful to Catholic teaching Whether the approved notes in Catholic Bibles are sound What Trent's affirmation of the Vulgate entails What the guidelines on interpretation mean and allow Meanings of multitudes of Bible verses Darwinian evolution vs not-Darwinian evolution Geocentricity or Heliocentricity How many bishops are necessary for this Collegial infallibility to be ensured? What Extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Lumen Gentium really means (status of Protestants) What the “subsits” in Lumen Gentium means, versus “is” Whether all the anathemas of Trent still stand and what they entail Who all the church Fathers are. What the Fathers taught What Tradition exactly is and means Whether Tradition is the second of a two-part revelation (known as partim-partim), or if both forms of revelation contain the entirety of God's revealed truth. What happens to unbaptized babies What salvific merit means What the distinction between contrition and attrition entails Whether “not by works” refers only to the works done under the Law Infallibility of canonizations What conditions for annulments mean Whether the brethren of Mary were cousins or from Joseph via a previous marriage Whether Mary was a dedicated temple virgin before her marriage to Joseph Whether the Ark of the Covenant prefigures Mary Whether the term “Co-redemptrix” departs too much from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers Whether 1 Cor. 3:10ff is actually about purgatory What the suffering of purgatory is Many aspects of Eschatology What mode of predestination is right - ie Molinism vs Augustinian Other aspects of Predestination Capital punishment Whether the Virgin Mary died and then was assumed or whether she was assumed before death What mode of predestination is right - ie Molinism vs Augustinian When a Catholic council first formulated its present canon Whether the canon of Trent is the same as that of Hippo. Whether Roman Catholicism promoted slavery How to reconcile Roman Catholic teaching both advocating and censuring freedom of religion, torture, etc. Whether all charismatic practices are of God Political activism Ecumenism, and how much fellowship with the Orthodox is good.

The (Orthodox?) author of the first image argues,

Churches in doctrinal agreement with the Patriarch of Constantinople, are the actual direct descendants of the State Religion of the Roman Empire, founded under the authority of the Patriarch and the Emperor in Constantinople (starting with Constantine), while modern Roman Catholicism, far from being Christianity "fused with the Roman Empire," is the religion of the Bishops of Rome who repudiated the authority of the Roman Emperor and excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople.” (http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#pope)

The author of the one on the left contends,

“The problem is obvious - Rome, sedevacantists, traditionalist Catholics, Pope Michael-ists, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, and various other churches with incompatible teachings all appeal to this set and limited corpus of Scripture and Tradition. It would appear that the criticism against Sola Scriptura of multiple denominations applies to the Roman and EO rule of faith as well.

The Romanist or Orthodox might object: "But we're not in communion with those schismatics/heterodox/heretics!" Now, what if I were to reply, as a member of a Southern Baptist church, that, have no fear my non-Sola Scripturist friends, my church holds that everyone who's not a member of a Southern Baptist church is a schismatic/heterodox/heretic too? Would that make our Romanist or Orthodox friends feel better?

Or would that make them criticise us even more strongly: "See? You Sola Scripturists can't even hold communion with each other!"? Yep, my money's on that one, too. We're darned if we do and darned if we don't, but somehow if the Romanists or Orthodox don't hold communion with these other churches, that's just fine. Such special pleading is just...special...

If you want to compare unity and disunity, compare the adherences to the competing rules of faith. Or compare churches, like the Roman Church to the Southern Baptist Convention or the Pope Michael Catholic Church to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. What do we find, if we do this?” (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/12/special-pleading-of-sola-ecclesia-ists.html)

*Roman Catholicism represents one church whereas Protestantism consists of many, and for the typical Roman Catholic apologist Protestantism can represent whatever “Christian” church is not of Rome or not in formal communion with her. A better comparison would be between churches which

A. hold Scripture as the supreme doctrinal authority, and,

B. those who hold that the church is.

A. Under the first model, evangelical-type denominations and churches typically have a central magisterium, and overall affirm the Apostle's Creed and or Scripturally substantiated conflating statements defining who God is and what Christ did and related basic truths, especially the primacy of Scripture and salvation by grace to save the damned and destitute sinners, (vs. some hope in earned credits and or the power of the church), under the premise that Scripture is the assuredly infallible Word of God, and standard for obedience and testing truth claims, which Scripture abundantly affirms, conflation upon which (in text and in power) the church began, in critical dissent from those who were the instruments and stewards of explicit Divine revelation, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and possessors of historical decent. (Mt. 23:2) (Yet writings were established as Divine, and truth was preserved and given, without an assuredly infallible magisterium as per Rome, as God is able to raise up from stone children of Abraham: Mt. 3:9)

And under this model, assent of these basic truths by leaders is required and is overall manifest, among other ways, in a shared common contention against those who deny these common essentials (“cults”), as well as against certain traditions of men by Rome. This contention is done by spiritual means, though at times in the early stages of reformation it followed Rome in also using the sword of men.

Evangelicals also exhibit and enjoy an active substantial transdenominational fellowship of the Spirit with each other, as shown in manifold ways, and which testifies to greater unity in moral values and basic truths than among Catholics), as a result of a shared Scripturally based conversion and relationship.

It is outside core truths that they do have the most disagreement, though in varying and limited degrees (which historically has largely been due to commitment to doctrine, versus the complacency typical among Catholics), and which has often resulted in formal divisions. However, this typically has not negated the aforementioned fellowship and contention for core essentials and the basic gospel of grace while the real division (besides from cults) is between them and institutionalized churches which foster perfunctory professions and confidence in one's own church or merit for salvation, and liberal moral views. And as Christ promised division (Lk. 12:51) and as such is necessary for beneficial unity, (1Cor. 11:19) this ability enables them to separate from critically aberrant or dead churches to practice living faith, while traditional Roman Catholics must tolerate those whom they call CINOS, but whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death. And most who leave Rome for evangelical churches testify that they do so due to spiritual lack, not doctrines in particular.

Under this model, believers do not claim to be assured infallible, though that does not disallow that they can speak verifiable Truth, but veracity is based upon Scripture being the only transcendent material authority which is wholly inspired by God, and was established as such due to its Divine qualities, as Christ and the church was also.

B. Under sola ecclesia, members are also required to assent to certain core truths defined by their magisterium, though this is one of implicit faith that the extraordinary magisterium is infallible and Rome is the OTC. And as a result it wars (in much of Rome's history by physical force) against others who affirm many of the same core truths but who deny Catholic distinctives and submission to her.

Outside infallibly defined truths (and even what these consist of and their full meaning), there can be and are varying degrees of disagreement (including how much is allowed ), while great liberty to interpret the Bible in attempting to support Rome (as they understand her) is allowed.

Under this model believers are to look to the magisterium which claims assured infallibility at its highest levels, yet its students cannot claim infallible understanding of its teachings, and its teaching is quite limited (very little of Scripture has been officially defined), while there is disagreement over how much has been infallibly or officially taught, and its meanings, with most of what Roman Catholics believe and practice coming from the Ordinary magisterium. Things not officially taught are more than most realize, though lack of great interest doctrine makes disagreement much less manifest.

Under sola ecclesia there are also formal divisions, consisting of many disagreements as to what Tradition, history and Scripture teaches. In addition, under the broader model of sola ecclesia is seen the greatest aberrations, as this is what cults effectively operate under (in which the “Living prophet” and the WTS elders and equivalents being as infallible type popes).

Therefore both Catholics and SS Protestants hold to a supreme doctrinal authority, but both see disagreement and divisions, the differences being in degrees. While evangelical churches ordain pastors, and uphold the principle of the magisterial office, and historically do not follow the error of Rome as regards things such as fostering faith in one's own merit and the power of the church for salvation, and regeneration via proxy faith, and praying to saints, etc, yet they do lack a centralized leadership overall (which should be a goal, though only based on spiritual basis for authority), except in their own denominations.

However, regardless of her denials, Rome also is effectively only as one denomination, and her leadership is hardly one of spiritual power, and she cannot even exercise authority over the EOs, who also claims to be the OTC in particular.

Nor is the organizational and doctrinal unity of Rome necessarily greater in conformity than in cults, or what can be under any one particular denomination.

In addition, unity based on required assent of faith is inferior in quality, if not quantity, to that which is the result of the Berean heart and method, however more difficult and rare that is.

In the end, Truth was never and is not established and preserved via an assuredly infallible perpetual magisterium, but by writings being supernaturally established as Divine, and men of God being established as such due to conformity to them in word and in power, and therein is the contest.

And it is only insofar as the gospel manifests that it is the power of God unto salvation, with its manifest regeneration and living by faith, does it evidence itself to be the church of the Living God, grounded in and upholding the Truth, versus institutionalized ritualized religion. May its tribe increase, wherever it meets.

[presently no screen name]

Daniel!!! What a piece of work. It’s book quality! I just scanned it, now need to read it. THANK YOU!!

[roamer_1]

[roamer_1:] Please reiterate or explain your thought a bit more... IOW: Huh?

You take a, for lack of a better term, philosophically literalist position on being born again. I do so with regard to the Body and Blood, though in point of fact neither of us are pointing to an action recognizable by a third party as what we describe.

You. can not, at least while maintaining any kind of intellectual integrity, claim your "second birth" is in any sense literal, while also denying my assertion consuming the bread and wine is literally consuming the Body and Blood, without cutting off the interpretational limb you're standing on.

Ahh, I see what you are driving at - I accept the term 'philosophically literalist' - And therein lies the difference:

You [...] claim your "second birth" is [...] literal [...]

Sorry to chop your quote up so much but the above is the root of your comment...

'Born Again' is merely a popular phrase to denote a process - No one I know would take that process as a literally physical thing. There are certainly physical aspects to it... the baptism is certainly a physical representation of what is going on spiritually, and powerful spiritual forces can effect emotional and physical responses in the body, but the mechanism, as it were, is certainly spiritual.

The circumcision is a good example: While the physical aspect of the circumcision cannot be denied, it is *not* the physical aspect that is necessary. It is only representative. YHWH has declared it is the circumcision of the heart that He desires, and that, as a point of fact, must certainly be the important part...

To wit: I do not claim that my 'second birth' is literal in the physical sense...

I think you have fallen into a mental snare that often accuses literalists and fundamentalists - That as literalists, we *must* take the literal sense. That is not true. We tend to take the literal position as the first or most desired position, but no one supposes that one can take the entirety of the Bible as wholly literal. The literal position is taken first - but if that cannot make sense, or doesn't seem to make sense, the spiritual aspect is then considered.

Perhaps that is why we are quicker than most to scoff at transubtantiation - A definition whose explanation is so convoluted that it required an invented name and page upon page of explanation to arrive at it's meaning - A literalist orientation strains at accepting such convolutions. Our own collective experience has taught us that bending and twisting the Word to fit is never profitable. The simplest and most elegant interpretation is usually the best.

After all, the 'milk' of the matter can be understood by a child - The Torah was read in it's entirety to the people every seven years in part so that the children born in the interim would hear the words of YHWH. That infers the child would be able to grasp it. And no doubt there is 'meat' - I have spent the greater portion of my life peeling the onion-like layers of the Bible. But while endeavoring to eat the meat of it, it is always needful to remember to wash it down with the milk, lest one would choke. : )

[Natural Law]

"What a piece of work."

It certainly is a piece of something. It doesn't prove anything other than the Catholic point that Scripture is NOT self interpreting. It proves that even if one accepts Sola Scriptura, one needs an equally infallible teaching authority in order to not be in error on significant issues of dogma and doctrine. After I clean up the errors in the "what Catholics can disagree on" lists I will probably use this in my RCIA and apologetics classes.

It also proves that Protestants, by definition, are a pretty disagreeable lot. After you get past the unity of not accepting the authority of the Church or the Apostolic Tradition Protestants don't agree on much else to the point that even calling them an identifiable group is a stretch.

Peace be with you.

[presently no screen name]

infallible teaching authority

Jesus took care of that - John 14:26 "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

John 16:7 "But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you."

After I clean up the errors in the "what Catholics can disagree on" lists I will probably use this in my RCIA and apologetics classes.

IOW, you plan on having all catholics agree with you, i.e. all not properly catechized?

Hopefully, you were humble and asked permission to do so and, also, given credit to our own Daniel - after all, you wouldn't want others to think it was your hard work!

"What a piece of work."....It certainly is a piece of something.

Something you plan on using!

[daniel1212]

Your response is simply another example of your refusal of objectivity, and as before, to acknowledge anything that impugns your church, as the fact is that the list shows that Catholics under sola ecclesia can also be “are a pretty disagreeable lot” on what their Church, and Tradition, History and Scripture teaches.

And which your own attempts to to clean up the errors in the what Catholics can disagree on” according to how you see it, can illustrate.

And while your point is that Scripture is not self interpreting, neither is the supreme authority for Catholics, with its “formulations” etc. that has resulted in the SSPX and sedevacantist dissent, in commitment to historical RC teaching.

[roamer_1]

Not to mention that if Christ had cone that, He would have been a liar because of what He said here.

Matthew 5:17-20 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

EXACTLY so. That particular passage, if taken to heart, cuts through every tradition... Watch out though as it will certainly send you down the rabbit hole - DO and KEEP the law seems antithetical to the Christian mindset... but the words of the Master cannot be denied.

Catholics always end up in such a mess because they don't know Scripture.

It is more like they are trained not to believe their lying eyes... It is frustrating.

Then they spew some more nonsense that it's just *a mystery* of *the faith*.

That particular phrase always perks my ears, as one normally finds a kernel of paganism at it's core - Regardless of the sect or confession. The Mystery of Babylon lives in such things.

Long and short of it is the bread and wine remained bread and wine as a symbolic representation of the new covenant, just as the bread and wine of the Passover was a symbolic representation of the Passover.

Absolutely - Though if you care to dig a bit, those two may well be the same thing... Irregardless, your statement is true.

[presently no screen name]

I refer you to the Scripture that I assure you Catholics know well:

Satan knows Scripture - it's applying it, obeying it with the KNOWLEDGE of God's Word is the FINAL Authority that tells if one really KNOWS it! It's living It, not, merely, quoting It that separates those who KNOW from the 'know nothings'.

1 John 2:5,6 "But if anyone obeys HIS WORD, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are IN HIM: Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did."

First, there is the Bible itself, Canonized and produced by Catholics.

That is a damnable untruth - and that alone shows how deceived catholics are. It was written by chosen men of God, such as Moses, Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit! Long before the counterfeit church came into existence. The WORD always was, before it was written, and always will be. And that same Holy Spirit dwells in God's own Who teaches them HIS WORD.

[Natural Law]

"And which your own attempts to to clean up the errors in the what Catholics can disagree on” according to how you see it, can illustrate."

It really suggests a lack of humility that whenever I attack your argument you respond by attacking me rather than my points. We are never going to agree and your chances of changing my mind by the volume of your posts is zero. Your scholarship pales in comparison to that of the Early Church Fathers, the doctors of the Church, the Episcopacy that forms the Magisterium, and the various saints and intellectual giants upon whose writings I have based my interpretation of Scripture.

I respect you and your right to have your own opinions, I just don't respect them. At least we are making progress in that you are no longer defending the notion that Scripture can be self interpreting.

Peace be with you.

[Natural Law]

"The WORD always was..."

I'm pretty sure we have been over this ground before. The WORD is not words. The origin is LOGOS, not EPOS. A logos is a term for a principle of order and knowledge. THE LOGOS is Jesus. Scripture is the inspired writings which make up the Old and New Testament. Scripture, words, are a reflection of the WORD and but a fraction of the Logos.

Peace be with you.

[daniel1212]

It really suggests a lack of humility that whenever I attack your argument you respond by attacking me rather than my points NL, seriously, it is you who most often respond to my arguments and those of other's arguments with personal attacks, and your estimation of scholarship in the past has been shown to impugn yours, yet fail to apologize when shown you are wrong, even if you consider that fact to be a personal attack. And yet, as the Lord showed, personal attacks are not necessarily wrong if they are shown to be warranted. As for rejecting that Scripture can be self interpreting, that was your charge, and my point is that RCs do not have an assuredly infallible interpreter for their supreme authority any more than we claim to have one for Scripture, but which does not disallow Catholics may correctly understand their magisterium, nor do i reject that Scripture can be self interpreting, and that one can discern Truth apart from an assuredly infallible magisterium (though the teaching office is overall necessary ), and if it were not then souls would not have been saved prior to the church of Rome, nor would the noble Bereans be convinced of the veracity of the apostles message. And that Scripturally, Truth is established upon corroboration with Scripture, in text and in power.

[presently no screen name]

YOU "trying" to instruct me? LOL!

JESUS IS THE WORD - your 'natural mind' CANNOT understand the spiritual things of God! Say it over and over - "The WORD always was..."

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God."

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

How did HE do it? HE SPOKE it into existence.

Genesis 1:3 And God SAID, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Psalm 33:9 "For HE spoke, and it came to be; HE commanded, and it stood firm".

Psalm 148:5 "Let them praise THE NAME OF THE LORD, for He commanded and they were created".

"The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us."

Peace be with you.

You can't give what you don't have.

I have the peace of God that lives within me. Peace is the fruit of the Spirit.

[Natural Law]

"YOU "trying" to instruct me?"

No, I merely state the truth, what you do with it is between you and the God who gave you freewill.

Maranatha

[Natural Law]

"YOU "trying" to instruct me?"

No, I merely state the truth, what you do with it is between you and the God who gave you freewill.

Maranatha

[metmom]

You. can not, at least while maintaining any kind of intellectual integrity, claim your "second birth" is in any sense literal, while also denying my assertion consuming the bread and wine is literally consuming the Body and Blood, without cutting off the interpretational limb you're standing on.

While you, on the other hand, take the consuming the bread and wine as literally consuming the Body and Blood, and yet do not take the second birth as literal. The very same situation that you condemn roamer for is what you do yourself and cut yourself slack with.

How does that work again?

FWIW, Jesus Himself said that a man MUST BE born again. Read John 3 before disparaging the second birth any more. It is real and it is literal as Jesus stated it as a fact.

[metmom]

First, there is the Bible itself, Canonized and produced by Catholics.

So what? Even if that claim were true, it doesn't go to follow that something that happened hundreds or thousands of years ago has any particular effect on any individual Catholic. It's not like present day Catholics in their individual daily lives by osmosis absorb some special ability to know Scripture because of some writing of it by someone who died ~2,000 years before they were born.

That's a totally bogus and irrelevant argument to use against the fact that the average Catholics has virtually no decent working knowledge of Scripture.

And where might that be found? Has the Catholic church published a commentary yet?

and lastly you are rebutted with Scripture by Catholics daily yet you persist in that like some kind of mantra or incantation.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Catholics rarely use Scripture. They use the *church fathers*, various and sundry popes, the prophet du jour that we're expected to acknowledge and accept as if there is some credence to their utterings, but RARELY do they use Scripture and in the times they do, they take a verse, or part of a verse, out of context and act as if they expect others to not see what they're doing.

[Natural Law]

"FWIW, Jesus Himself said that a man MUST BE born again..."

FWIW, you are making the same mistake that Nicodemus made. The Greek adverb used, "anothen", means "from above".

Peace be with you.

[Natural Law]

"....average Catholics has virtually no decent working knowledge of Scripture...."

And you know this how? I read the Bible every day, when I can't I listen to an audio bible both ways on my 45 minute commute. I attend Mass every day in which there are three Scripture reading and a homily that explains them. I teach RCIA weekly in which Scripture figures prominently and I attend classes for Diaconate formation which have entire semesters dedicated to the Scripture. I also read a lot of writings of the Doctors of the Church, the Early Church Fathers, the saints and Papal encyclicals. Collectively these are far more informative than commentaries compiled by amateurs and backwoods scholars. These practices bring me into regular contact with many similar Catholics. Most of the Catholics we encounter on Free Republic are far more familiar with Scripture than the so-called average Catholic you keep referencing.

I bring this up to point out that there is no such animal as an average Catholic. Your repeated attempts to characterize all Catholics as your mythical average Catholic would be laughable if they weren't intended to be so hurtful. You aren't hurting me with your slander and you can't hurt the Church either. But you can and are hurting yourself with your lack of charity and benignity.

"The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit." - Galatians 5:19-25