Posted on 06/15/2014 4:12:26 AM PDT by markomalley
There was the man inspired by the written words of Pope Francis. There was the agnostic professor. And there was the widow of a Baptist preacher.
All of them Tennesseans, and all of them recent converts to one of the world's oldest Christian faiths.
In the South, Catholicism is growing. The Diocese of Knoxville was recently ranked among the top 10 in the nation for its rate of adult conversions.
All Southeast Tennessee Catholic parishes, including Chattanooga's, fall under the umbrella of Knoxville's diocese, one of 195 in the United States. A diocese is a geographic collection of parishes grouped together under the governance of a bishop. And many of the dioceses producing the most converts to the church are right here in the South, according to a recent study by Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate.
Rates of Catholicism have always been strong in the Northeast and Midwest. But not in the protestant-heavy South.
So it's no wonder that Catholicism is growing faster here.
Mark Gray, a senior research associate at the Georgetown Center, said marriage is a common driver of Catholicism, as non-Catholics marry Catholics. And in Tennessee, non-Catholics and Catholics are more likely to marry simply because there are not enough Catholics to marry only other Catholics.
In the Volunteer State, about 8 percent of people are Catholic. That compares with 40 percent in Massachusetts and the national average of 24 percent.
"Tennessee is the third-least Catholic state in the country, which is exactly where we would expect these conversions to occur, because that 8 percent are likely marrying non-Catholics," Gray said.
In the Catholic Church, conversion is a commitment. It's more formal and involved than switching from one protestant church to another. And conversion is a commitment to the faith, not necessarily a particular church.
Before joining the church, converts take part in a college-like class that can last from nine months to a year.
"It is a very long program, and it's not something we take lightly, nor do the people becoming Catholic take it lightly," said Marvin Bushman, the director of religious education at Cleveland's St. Therese of Lisieux. "It is a big commitment."
Knoxville Bishop Richard F. Stika said the church is growing from rising minority populations, mainly Hispanics. Knoxville recently established a Vietnamese parish. And this part of the country is attracting more retirees and families, many of whom are Catholic.
"We're a growing Church, both in people who are choosing to become Catholic as well as people moving in from out of town," Stika told the diocesan newspaper, The East Tennessee Catholic.
At St. Therese, Brenda Blevins oversees the Catholic conversion program, called the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, or RCIA. The Diocese of Knoxville, which includes 47 parishes, receives about 350 adult converts each year through RCIA.
Some come after marrying or dating a Catholic, but Blevins said many of their recent converts were single. And the RCIA program doesn't want people to just marry into the church.
"We want people to be here because they want to be and because they feel a call," she said.
And each convert has his own story. There are the college-age brothers who just joined together. And the widow of a Baptist minister who married a Catholic. Some come from protestant churches; others have never been baptized into any faith.
"I think part of the reason the Catholic Church is growing so much in Southeast Tennessee is because Southeast Tennessee is part of the Bible Belt," Blevins said. "And there are a lot of faithful Christians here."
So your basis for assurance of Truth is yourselves? Surely you must understand it is the infallible magisterium, not the body of Christ in general. This continues to look like avoidance of answering the question. You answer is what the Byzantine Rite describes. ("The Church, by nature and duty, from time to time - to settle controversies - ..have assembled in synods to discuss the disputed points and to decree and interpret the correct meaning of those truths. In doing so, the synods of the Fathers, as a whole and as individuals, have believed that their decisions are infallible. Their decisions, however, are not considered permanent until they are accepted by the "Conscience of the Church," the whole body of the faithful, clergy and laity, who must give their consent." - http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7063)
So to be clear, the infallible magisterium being referred to is that of Rome, which declares something infallible and then the faithful are bound to give assent to it as being so.
Not sure what you mean by "an assuredly infallible magisterium". Not every level of teaching is infallible.
What is why i said "if conditionally." as it is a given that not all RC teaching is infallible, though assent of mind and will is required for non-infallible official teaching. It is the infallible magisterium that RCs so often invoke in response to Scriptural proofs contrary to RC claims, arguing that the Catholic church gave us the Bible and thus we need to submit to her. Thus i am dealing with the fundamental presuppositions behind this polemical assertion.
In other words, there are understandings which are the fruit of study, prayer, and the workings of the Holy Spirit which become manifest over a period of time; they are logically required by, or reasonably inferred from, the solid evidence of Scripture and Sacred Tradition; and they cannot contradict this evidence.
This again is superficial, as it does not consider how one even knows if writings are Scripture, and do not contradict what is taught. You go off in giving a description of a process you have been taught, but what is the basis for your assurance that RC doctrine is true?
If it is by objective examination of the evidences then you are as an evangelical. But RCs tell us that cannot be the basis for determining Truth, but i need to submit to the infallible magisterium, as it has historical descent as the instrument and steward of revelation. Why is it so difficult to affirm or deny this?
..the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
At this point, I must break off unfinished
It is indeed, and it is dark, but maybe tomorrow when more light can be seen.
Sure you are. Or are you saying you could be wrong?
Then what is your point?
And then...
...and the creation and legitimate(?) expansion of those earlier teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, bringing much extra 'doctrine' and human teachings over time, using human interpretation of the people who actually wrote the "books" of the Bible to pass on those new optional teachings to the world of Catholicism.
No; he isn't.
If he were; I'm SURE it would have been posted, BOLDED and perhaps even colored to easily prove it to those who could NOT find it, in what Dan had posted, without 'help'.
I never said it wasn’t God who forgives. Please don’t put works in my mouth. It’s so dishonest.
I see. In other words, seeing as we ALL have to answer at judgment day, you agree with me.
I'd say having that to answer for at judgment pretty much evens out the Protestants' lack of external instrumentality.
I see. In other words, seeing as we ALL have to answer at judgment day, you agree with me.
What does that even mean? I can't make head nor tails of it other than the fact that it sounds very childish.
I'm not Protestant, as you know (I hope). Catholicism, Protestantism, and all forms of chrstianity are wrong. But at least Fundamentalist Protestants don't claim the Bible is full of errors, mistakes, and mythology--unlike your co-religionists.
Well, when you believe your own propaganda, what do you expect?
But, they don't crow. Neither do other denominations. Baptists seek to bring souls to Christ. That can mean any number of churches with the Gospel as foundational truth, not just their own
Amen.
Indeed i do not claim to possess assured formulaic infallibility, which Rome has infallibly decreed she has. Thus my appeal for assurance of Truth must be to substantiation from a wholly Divinely inspired source of Truth. That is the point.
Do you possess assured infallibility, or is your appeal to a wholly Divinely inspired source of Truth?
assurance of Truth must be to substantiation from a wholly Divinely inspired source of Truth.
Substantiated according to whom? Would that be the same daniel1212?
Seems the point is still: their basis for assurance should be an internet persona called daniel1212.
Nice try at twisting what I posted. And what’s that whne again, dishonesty?
It is both amazing and grievous what submission to Rome and letting her enslave minds does to them. If a person makes a claim based upon what a a wholly inspired source states then he is accused of claiming assured infallibility himself, which is perverse logic. According to your logic, to make any claim is to claim infallibility, while if not, then one cannot have assurance of Truth. If you hold to either then argue for it.
But you refuse to answer the question as to your basis for your truth claims. Are you claiming infallibility based upon what a wholly Divinely inspired source states. If not, what is the basis for the credibility of your Truth claims made for your source, and why is it superior than appeal to a wholly Divinely inspired source?
What won't you just answer the questions regarding the presuppositions behind your reasoning??? Why is this so difficult or avoided?
Latinos are turning not just to Protestantism but to its evangelical strain for a variety of reasons. Above all, Latinos who convert say they want to know God personally, without a priest as a middleman. More than 35% of Hispanics in America call themselves born-again, according to the Pew Forum, and 9 out of 10 evangélicos say a spiritual search drove their conversion. “People are looking for a real experience with God,” says Paredes. That direct experience comes largely from exploring the Bible. “We do the best to preach with the Bible open. When they read the Bible, they find a lot of things they didn’t know before. They may have had religion, but they did not have an experience.”
Pew:
Chapter 4: Conversion and Views of the Catholic Church
By an overwhelming majority (82%), Hispanics cite the desire for a more direct, personal experience with God as the main reason for adopting a new faith. Among those who have become evangelicals, nine-in-ten (90%) say it was this spiritual search that drove their conversion.
I'm assuming you claim to have the correct answer to your own question: "What is the basis for your assurance of truth?"
Or at least what you think the correct answer is.
The answer you've given thus far reduces to: their basis for assurance should be an internet persona called daniel1212.
If this is what your view of the correct answer is, it would be difficult not to propose an answer that would be an improvement. I'll be happy to, but, first, to clarify, is this your best attempt at the correct answer? Is this the one to beat?
My husband was born and raised in the bible belt, and your experience matches his very much. Not liking what was going on in the Pentecostal churches, he stopped going to church as a teenager. Many years later, after trying out Baptist churches and a few others, he is now a Catholic.
Objection. Asked and answered.
The only thing grievous around here is to see such obsession. It’s like a program waiting for a certain input so it can fulfill the rest of its programming. And no matter what input it receives its just not quite good enough to allow for the execution of the torrent of instruction that is sure to follow once the “correct” inputs are applied.
A mind enslaved to the scratched CD in their head. Playing the same 2 seconds of a song over and over again. Sad.
This is one of the best replies I’ve seen to daniel’s challenge, which he issued to you earlier and repeats despite the precise point you make here.
No evidence is apparently good enough for him other than to agree with his interpretation of Scripture. That is his “basis of infallibility” as best as I can tell.
He claims it’s just Scripture. He claims his basis for Truth is the written Word. But what he continually refuses to acknowledge is that it is his *opinion* of Scripture that is ultimately his “basis”.
I’ve tried to demonstrate this to him using personal experience, our own shared experience (in past discussions) and reason. But to no avail. Perhaps though it is simply a matter of repeating the question you (D-fendr) formed so succinctly: “I’m assuming you [daniel] claim to have the correct answer to your own question: ‘What is the basis for your assurance of truth?’”
I just don’t know how helpful it is to continue to repeat the question when it’s obviously not answered, at least not that I can see.
What is the answer to your own question Daniel? Are you going to claim it’s Scripture, again, for the umpteenth time, as if the Bible gets up off the table, talks to you in an audible voice, and tells you, “No you’re reading me wrong. This is how I should be read...”?
OK, it's Monday. Back to work!
"So your basis for assurance of Truth is yourselves? Surely you must understand it is the infallible magisterium, not the body of Christ in general. This continues to look like avoidance of answering the question. You answer is what the Byzantine Rite describes.("The Church, by nature and duty, from time to time - to settle controversies - ..have assembled in synods to discuss the disputed points and to decree and interpret the correct meaning of those truths. In doing so, the synods of the Fathers, as a whole and as individuals, have believed that their decisions are infallible. Their decisions, however, are not considered permanent until they are accepted by the "Conscience of the Church," the whole body of the faithful, clergy and laity, who must give their consent." - )
Yes, and thanks for the quote. It's actually not from the "Byzantine Rite" but rather from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese.
The Byzantine Catholics would express it largely the same way, with this caveat: The quote you offered seems to require a contemporary consensus for the faithful "who must give their consent." The Catholic Church would say this consensus cannot be merely contemporary, but must follow a "Hermeneutic of Continuity," --- it must show a continuity through the ages. The sensus fidelium" is inherently conservative, not innovating, since it has its roots in Apostolic times.
I'm not saying the Orthodox would disagree with this: I'm just making a distinction between "sensus fidelium" across a couple of millennia, and a contemporary opinion poll. The Church is not a democracy.)
Catholic Byzantines appreciate the role of the Bishop of Rome, whose calling is to "confirm the brethren".
So this is an excellent reference, and it's good to know you're conversant with reputable Orthodox/Catholic sources.
"So to be clear, the infallible magisterium being referred to is that of Rome, which declares something infallible and then the faithful are bound to give assent to it as being so."
Yes, but I presume when you say the infallibility "of Rome," you mean the infallibility "of the Church" whose leading See is in Rome.
Infallibility is not a personal characteristic of a pope, as if he were an all-purpose oracle. Infallibility of itself is a characteristic of:
The papal infallible Magisterium has been exercised only very rarely in history, possibly only once since the dogmatic decree on infallibility itself, which came in 1870 (although the kernel of this is the Petrine Ministry as spoken by Our Lord in the NT.) That one time would be Pope Pius XII's 1950 declaration on the Assumption of Mary.
Most of what the Pope proclaims infallibly, is not so from the "ex cathedra" aspect, but from the much larger "Ordinary and Universal Magisterium." An example would be Pope John Paul II's apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on reserving priestly ordination to men alone. We receive this as being infallible, but via the Ordinary Magisterium, inasmuch as it has always been thus throughout the history of the Church, based on Our Lord's example.
In other words, Pope John Paul was not saying "I have the authority to decree this," but "I don't have the authority to change this."
For the other instances --- there is no official complete list, but this is as good as any--- Instances of Infallible Declarations
Now I have to go make some Mint-Pistachio Pesto. Please feel free to follow up when you can.
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.