Posted on 09/18/2020 7:30:03 AM PDT by MurphsLaw
Evangelical Protestant flagship periodical asks:
“Why do evangelicals convert to Catholicism and how should we respond?” by ED STETZER
Evangelicals Becoming Catholics: Former CT Editor Mark Galli
This Sunday, September 13, a man named Mark will become confirmed as a Catholic. Why is this significant?
Mark Galli, who will be confirmed under the name of St. Francis, is a former Presbyterian pastor and editor-in-chief for Christianity Today. Additionally, as RNS noted, for a few days last December, he was perhaps the best-known evangelical in the nation calling for the impeachment and removal of Donald Trump from the presidency.
Galli, however, says the timing of his conversion to Catholicism two months before the next election is for personal reasons. After 20 years in the Anglican Church, he believes moving to Catholicism is not a rejection of evangelicalism but instead taking his existing “Anglicanism deeper and thicker.”
His faith journey has taken him from Presbyterianism to becoming an Episcopalian, then Anglican, with a brief interlude of attending the Orthodox Church. This runs counter to trends in the U.S.; Currently for every one convert to Catholicism, six leave the tradition. But notable Protestants, from Elizabeth Ann Seton and John Henry Newman, to G.K. Chesterton, Francis Beckwith, and Tony Blair. The RNS article observed:
Some converts are drawn to the beauty of Catholic ritual. Others to the church’s rich intellectual tradition or the centrality of the Eucharist, the bread and wine used for Communion, which Catholics believe becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
That was part of the reason for Galli, but his fatigue with evangelicalism contributed as well. “I want to submit myself to something bigger than myself,” He said, a dding:
One thing I like about both Orthodoxy and Catholicism is that you have to do these things, whether you like it or not, whether you’re in the mood or not, sometimes whether you believe or not. You just have to plow ahead. I want that.
Why do Evangelicals Become Catholics?
A CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE Beauty: In the National Catholic Register, an article on the book Evangelical Exodus: Evangelical Seminarians and Their Pathsto Rome noted beauty as one reason. No less than ten Southern Evangelical Seminary students contributed to this book, as did Francis Beckwith of Baylor.
Editor (and convert) Douglas Beaumont observed:
In Protestantism, there’s a tendency to dismiss any reason other than the intellectual. But as human beings, we’re both physical and spiritual creatures. In the Catholic Church, he found, intellect and reason are respected; but the Catholic Church is also more beautiful and more historical. There is an attractive package which draws the spirit, combining art and music and beauty, a long history, and tradition, with solid intellectual arguments.
Spirituality: Scott Hahn, another former evangelical now Catholic, in his chapter “Come to the Father: The Fact at the Foundation of Catholic Spirituality,” in Four Views on Christian Spirituality, notes the great diversity of expressions of spirituality from the . . . silence of the Trappists and the Pentecostal praise of the Charismatic Renewal; the rarified intellectual life of the Dominicans and the profound feeling of the Franciscans; the wealth of the knights of Malta and the elected poverty of the Missionaries of Charity; the strict enclosure of the Carthusians and the world-loving secularity of the Opus Dei; the bright colors of Central American devotional art and the austere blocks of the German cathedrals; the warrior spirit of the Templars and the serene pax of the Benedictines; Ignatian detachment and Marian warmth.
He argues this shows the richness of Catholic spirituality which “presents a forest indiscernible because of the variety and number— and even the age— of its trees.”
For the rest of the insightful conversion story written from an Evangelical Protestant perspective trying to understand why the editor of his magazine would convert to Catholicism—click here. - https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2020/september/latest-evangelicals-becoming-catholics-mark-galli.html
Where do us Catholics go now that the Catholic Church has increasingly ceased to be Catholic?
In fact, in the case of many of our leaders, I’m not sure they are even generically Christian, let alone in communion with the actual teachings of the Catholic Church.
I went to mass again, after a break, and was greeting with teachings and a class about supporting BLM and a priest who hates me because I am a white English speaker. No thanks.
Better question...
Why have tens of millions of Catholics come to saving faith in Christ and left rome...
... in South America alone.
These days a person would need to be crazy to become a Catholic when even the pope isn’t one.
That’s not a very interesting question. Consider the current performance of a certain bishop of South American origin, extrapolate to a whole continent, and you have your answer. Bad leadership can run any organization into the ground. Plenty of evangelical churches have been run into the ground in precisely the same way.
When you can't read, it's easier to fall back on the belief that half the truth can come from tradition (Catholicism). When you can read and you take advantage of that by reading Scripture, you learn that some of what's taught as "truth" by tradition contradicts the Bible.
The minister is secondary. My own parish priest is a putz, but I go to commune with my High Priest who is present there in the Eucharist
Yet only in orthodoxy, which includes the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental churches, you get to commune with the Lord in the Euch7, in a deep relationship with your creator, who cares who is the current 266th bishop of rome, he will pass away but our Lord remains forever in His church
“ Plenty of evangelical churches”
South America isn’t a church.
It’s a continent.
+100 million gone
Very good insight.
It is when I read Scripture that I came to saving faith.
When I had assurance of salvation, as I read Scripture, I realized I had to go to a church that taught the truth.
Best.
Yes. It is big news when an “evangelical” gives up Christianity and becomes a Catholic. It’s not news when it goes the other way, because it happens thousands of time each day.
That doesn’t address my point.
Plenty of Catholics read just fine, and can easily see through the logical and historical contradictions of sola Scriptura. How could the Church have existed for 1500 years prior to the invention of printing, without which widespread literacy and personal ownership of Bibles was impossible?
“Yet only in orthodoxy, which includes the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental churches, you get to commune with the Lord in the Euch7, in a deep relationship with your creator,
Not so. This is simply a claim made. It is false.
An evangelical does NOT give up Christianity when he/she enters into communion with the Church... and keep in mind, for over 1000 years, there was only the one Church of Christianity
As the article states of the subject...Catholicism is not a rejection of evangelicalism but instead taking his existing “Anglicanism deeper and thicker.”
As Peter Kreeft famously said, he "became a better Protestant" in his conversion to the Church.
Mark Galli's conversion is newsworthy as he was long time non-Catholic Pastor and editor of an influential magazine...that required a ton of personal sacrifice to convert...Conversely- most Catholics who leave the Church or "lapse" as we kindly say is mainly because of their Spiritual laziness... we all have it.. some just more than others that cause them to deny the obligation of attending Mass, receiving the Sacraments and DOING the things the Church requires of us....and that is basis of this post - Faith that requires something from us..
In my life experiences, which include family, those who leave The Catholic Church do so because they want Less from their Church...not more.
Spiritual laziness.
All true.
Also, Jesus started it so how could it be anything less than wonderful?
This is usually true. It's very sad as well. Maybe they listened to Satan.
Galli, however, says the timing of his conversion to Catholicism two months before the next election is for personal reasons. After 20 years in the Anglican Church, he believes moving to Catholicism is not a rejection of evangelicalism but instead taking his existing “Anglicanism deeper and thicker.” His faith journey has taken him from Presbyterianism to becoming an Episcopalian, then Anglican, with a brief interlude of attending the Orthodox Church.
Well that figures, having gone downward from Presbyterianism to becoming an Episcopalian, then an Anglican, and then a brief interlude of attending the Orthodox Church, and rejecting Trump (as we were electing a pastor, versus the best captain among two choices to sail the ship starboard to our desired national destination), and which fosters the election of the liberal alternative, then he continues his apostasy by becoming a Catholic, joining a church which a near majority vote liberal.
Are you sure you want to use this guy to promote your church? He is actually another argument against joining it. Besides the distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels), why would we conservative evangelicals want to be become brethren with this man?
This runs counter to trends in the U.S.; Currently for every one convert to Catholicism, six leave the tradition.
And far more become evangelical then convert to Rome.
In Protestantism, there’s a tendency to dismiss any reason other than the intellectual.
"Protestantism?" That is not synonymous with being evangelical, and is so bread a term as to become meaningless here, and this the polemicists is engaging is sophistry.
In the Catholic Church, he found, intellect and reason are respected; but the Catholic Church is also more beautiful and more historical.
Really? You mean perfunctory professions and a few lackluster singing of hymns (I speaks as a former altar body, CCD teacher and lector, and one of my former priests used to cajole us by saying, "sing like Protestants) in a 45 minute Mass is to be preferred over up to 45 minutes of heart-felt singing and intercession for healing, and actual preaching? No wonder so many RCs leave for evangelical faith, as I did.
68% of those raised Roman Catholic still are Catholic (higher than the retention rates of individual Protestant denoms, but less than Jews at 76%). 15% are now Protestant (9% evangelical); 14% are unaffiliated. Pew forum, Faith in Flux (April 27, 2009);https://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/27/faith-in-flux3">https://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/27/faith-in-flux3
51% of Protestants from a different Protestant denomination cite a lack of spiritual fulfillment as a reason for leaving their childhood faith. 85% say they joined their current denominational faith because they enjoy the services and style of worship. Only 15% left say they left because they stopped believing in its teachings. ^
Those who have left Catholicism outnumber those who have joined the Catholic Church by nearly a four-to-one margin. 10.1% have left the Catholic Church after having been raised Catholic, while only 2.6% of adults have become Catholic after having been raised in a different faith.^
Over 75% of those who left Catholicism attended Mass at least once a week as children, versus 86% having done so who remain Catholics today.^
Regarding reasons for leaving Catholicism, less than 30% of former Catholics agreed that the clergy sexual abuse scandal played a role in their departure. ^
71% of converts from Catholicism to Protestant faith said that their spiritual needs were not being met in Catholicism, with 78% of Evangelical Protestants in particular concurring, versus 43% of those now unaffiliated. ^
Only 23% (20% now evangelical) of all Protestants converts from Catholicism said they were unhappy about Catholicism's teachings on abortion/homosexuality (versus 46% of those now unaffiliated); 23% also expressed disagreement with teaching on divorce/remarriage; 16% (12% now evangelical) were dissatisfied with teachings on birth control, 70% said they found a religion they liked more in Protestantism.
55% of evangelical converts from Catholicism cited dissatisfaction with Catholic teachings about the Bible was a reason for leaving Catholicism, with 46% saying the Catholic Church did not view the Bible literally enough.
81% of all Protestant converts from Catholicism said they enjoyed the service and worship of Protestant faith as a reason for joining a Protestant denomination, with 62% of all Protestants and 74% Evangelicals also saying that they felt God's call to do so. ^
More, by the grace of God.
There are none, correctly understood, but the Catholic alternative is the problem, thus the following questions:
1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving what He told man as well as what man does: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or "it is written/Scripture?"
3. Which came first: the written word of God and an authoritative body of it, or the NT church?
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating her claims to the nation that was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture subject to testing by the oral words of men or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source on what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scripture must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards it being express Divine revelation, and which formally and materially provides for what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace?
11. What oral source has spoken to man as wholly inspired the public express word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?
How could the Church have existed for 1500 years prior to the invention of printing, without which widespread literacy and personal ownership of Bibles was impossible?
Easy, because SS does not mean you must necessarily read Scripture in order to hear the essential gospel message and morals believe in the risen Lord Jesus who saves sinners on His account. SS missionaries have long preached to souls that had no Bibles, even in their own language. And God always provided enough revelation for soul to be save by, but He also gives more grace.
However, God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;
And SS is partly established upon the clear testimony of a multitude verses showing the only substantive body of Divine revelation that is affirmed as wholly inspired word of God is Scripture, (2 Tim. 3:16)
And which provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the gospel and thus the church. (Romans 1:1,2; 16:26) Therefore it was Scripture that the Lord Himself invoked, from defeating the devil (Mt. 4) to correcting Jewish leaders (Mt. 22) to substantiating His messiahship and ministry ("in all the Scriptures") and which He opened the minds of the disciples to them, who did the same. (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.). And to which even the veracity of the oral preaching of apostles was subject to testing by. (Acts 17:11)
For as is abundantly evidenced by a multitude of Scripture texts, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and established Word of God.
And while as said, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, to which Catholics vainly appeal to in attempting to support their oral tradition, yet popes and ecumenical councils do not speak or write as wholly inspired of God in declaring what the word of God is.
Meanwhile, the sufficiency of Scripture is not to be restricted to what it formally or explicitly provides, but it must include that which is materially provides, including reasoning and the illumination of the Spirit by which truths may be "by good and necessary consequence may [not necessarily will be by all] be deduced from Scripture" - including with "a due use of the ordinary means" - to "synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith... (Westminster Confession of Faith) In addition to which are the abundant commentaries that SS believers have provided, which refutes the "Bible alone is to be read" strawman. Also, there are even SS Pentecostals who do not see SS as opposing private revelation.
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.