Priest telling potential converts to remain protestant

[dch1983]

Maybe because they refuse to believe ALL things the Catholic Church requires them to believe in order to be Catholic. It is very much so way better for Protestants to remain Protestant if they refuse to believe 100 percent of what the Catholic Church requires someone to believe in order to be a Catholic.

Most likely Scott Hahn, at the time he was told this from a priest also did not believe some of the things the Catholic Church requires one to believe, such as the Immaculate Conception, Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff as decreed by Vatican I, Sacrificial nature of the Mass and other big hurdles a Protestant MUST overcome in order to become a Catholic.

Remember: It has been said that the vast majority of Protestants who seek to convert to Catholicism only do so after much deliberation, prayer, and soul searching. It has also been said that Protestant converts make some of the best Catholics.

I think that the BIG problem in the past 30 years is Protestants refusing to believe 100 percent of what the Catholic Church teaches
and still converting therefore resulting in a Protestant looking new liturgy and church buildings.

Ken

Please explain what you mean here. How are Protestant laity converts to blame for the altering of the liturgy? I am very interested to know how you came to this conclusion. Does the Catholic Church allow Protestant converts to redesign the liturgy?

I really don’t like to hear people accuse converts of not believing all of Catholic teaching, especially when many Catholics do not adhere to Catholic teaching on various issues or even know why the Church teaches what it does (none of whom have I met on this forum, I’m very happy to say).

 

[glimmer]

Probably because the priest didn’t want to do any work.

That’s what I think! So does he have to answer to God for that at the Judgment?

 

[glimmer]

When someone is seeking to change religions or accept a new one. They’re leaving their previous community to seek another. Having a Priest give the impression that they either don’t care or reject you is just hurtful.

This would never happen among Protestants, i don’t think. They are always clamoring to get you into their fold. I wonder what these various priests had in common? Large parishes? Lots of people to serve? Didn’t want another? Disillusioned with the faith themselves?

 

[glimmer]

I have heard the dopey practice of telling people to stay where they are defended on the grounds that we need to respect the traditions of others, to avoid “triumphalism.”

I was at a Catholic Charismatic meeting one time and someone brought up a question of whether to convert. This one fellow who was a native of that particular Catholic church said that he got chills whenever people talked about leaving where they were and going elsewhere. “Bloom where you are planted,” he said, picking up on the Charismatic lingo of the day. I concluded that he must not believe in anything Catholic. Rather odd, wouldn’t you say?

Oh, yeah…and there was this other lady who converted when she married her husband. I asked her some question (I forget what it was now) and she said, “Well, I don’t believe everything like the Catholics…” It struck me that Catholics weren’t very Catholic or that they were ashamed of Catholicism or something. I could never figure out what the deal was.

 

[Milliardo]

I was assuming that had been done - FWIW, it could be that the individual is going through a pro-Catholic craze; that’s not faith.​

Perhaps, or perhaps not, but certainly we can build on that curiousity, if they are willing. Many people who have become curious of the Catholic Church do so because something about it got their attention, and then made some research, most likely. From there slowly curiousity can turn into belief. It is a process, and a priest who is open about it can help those curious in this process.

And surely it does not follow that because someone enquires, they therefore have faith ?

Of course not; there are many reasons why one should be curious, and certainly not all of them are because of faith. Some might be out of pure curiousity, with no other intent in mind. Others are fro study, or for research, etc. Though even in those cases, a priest who is willing to help will be of much greater asset, and can turn such curiousity into belief.

And it may not be the Will of God for that person to become a Catholic; or not then.

We cannot totally say that it might not be His will, but then again wouldn’t it be logical that God would be more approving of someone who inquires about His Church? All things considered, I would think that He would show that person when to enter, but that would again take a process of realization and discovery, not flat-out rejection.

 

[valient_Lucy]

The priest’s job is not to show you that he cares or to make you feel accepted. The priest’s job is to minister the Word and the Sacraments and exercise the power of the keys.

Church-hopping is a deadly disease of American Christianity. Priests are right to discourage it.

Edwin

I agree that priests should discourage a “church-hopping” attitude, and must make sure that every potential convert is converting for the right reasons, and is committed to fulling living the Catholic Faith. I’m not a big fan of people converting because their spouse or future spouse is Catholic. I think that’s a wrong reason, and I think that such conversions actually cheapen the Catholic Faith and conversions. They add to the idea that changing church’s is as simple as changing toothpaste, and that truth should take a back seat to fuzzy feelings.
I also think that church-hopping is symptomatic of two things 1 lack of understanding or apathy to church doctrine, and 2 a selfish view of church.
By the first, I mean the fact that not many people really understand the difference between a Methodist and a Calvinist, or between a Lutheran or Episcopalian and a Baptist. Many people don’t worry too much about the different doctrinal beliefs in the various churches, largely because of the second reason.
2 People tend to approach churchs with a selfish attitude, looking for what they can “get out of it,” and not thinking about what they can give to God and to the Church. When we look at the Church as a form of entertainment, then we are more willing to church hop. (I am not saying that I am free of either of these temptations, but I am simply pointing out that they do exist, both in myself and others.)
A person should become Catholic because they believe and profess everything that the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God, and that the Church really is the Church that Christ founded. Any other reason is just inadequate.

 

[glimmer]

Church-hopping is a deadly disease of American Christianity. Priests are right to discourage it.

Edwin, you and I would probably disagree about the merits or lack thereof of church-hopping. (I find no scriptural basis for the topic, quite frankly, either pro or con–probably because it could not have existed in a day in which there really was one church per city.) But I do have one pet peeve about American Christianity which may be the flip side of church hopping.

There are many Christians who are faithful to remain in the church of their choice (THEIR choice) for years on end. They will drive across town or out of town to get there. And on their way to the “right” church where they have been so faithful for 10 years, they will pass up many Christian people (whom God also loves) who actually live closer to them, who may even travel in circles that interconnect with their own. In America, we demand control over all outcomes from how many children we shall have to which of 15 brands of deodorant we shall use to which group of Christians we shall meet with (those with contemporary worship styles vs. traditional, etc.). Even among Catholics, if they don’t like the church of one parish, they will pull the consumer plug and just go to another one.

We had a tornado in my town a few months ago with a lot of damage to people’s properties. Some people had little-to-no damage. The neighbors just sort of looked over the fence at each other and said, “Take pictures so you’ll get more money from your insurance.” They can drive across town to the church of their choice. But, no, they cannot walk next door to offer a hand to a neighbor whose property needs to be cleared of debris. Many of their neighbors are fellow Christians.

What is wrong with people?

 

[KyrieEleison]

***ecumenism ***

is the problem!!

 

[inJESUS]

why don’t you report these priests?

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Priests have actually told people not to convert because it wouldn’t be good for “ecumenism.”
How dare they? Thank God they are FEW and FAR BETWEEN.
I remember reading, within the past year, an article on the Internet where an Eastern Orthodox priest was told NOT to convert to Catholicism for ecumenical reasons. He was so offended that he converted to the Traditionalist movement.
Telling people not to convert is a sacrilege and, thank God, I believe it is a relatively rare occurence.

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)

 

[fix]

Perhaps, or perhaps not, but certainly we can build on that curiousity, if they are willing. Many people who have become curious of the Catholic Church do so because something about it got their attention, and then made some research, most likely. From there slowly curiousity can turn into belief. It is a process, and a priest who is open about it can help those curious in this process.

Of course not; there are many reasons why one should be curious, and certainly not all of them are because of faith. Some might be out of pure curiousity, with no other intent in mind. Others are fro study, or for research, etc. Though even in those cases, a priest who is willing to help will be of much greater asset, and can turn such curiousity into belief.

We cannot totally say that it might not be His will, but then again wouldn’t it be logical that God would be more approving of someone who inquires about His Church? All things considered, I would think that He would show that person when to enter, but that would again take a process of realization and discovery, not flat-out rejection.

Along these lines Cardinal Ratzinger said this:

What disturbed me was the notion that it harbored, that faith is a burden which can hardly be borne and which no doubt was intended only for stronger natures—faith almost as a kind of punishment, in any case, an imposition not easily coped with. According to this view, faith would not make salvation easier but harder. Being happy would mean not being burdened with having to believe or having to submit to the moral yoke of the faith of the Catholic church. The erroneous conscience, which makes life easier and marks a more human course, would then be a real grace, the normal way to salvation. Untruth, keeping truth at bay, would be better for man than truth. It would not be the truth that would set him free, but rather he would have to be freed from the truth. Man would be more at home in the dark than in the light. Faith would not be the good gift of the good God but instead an affliction.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

Now, he was not talking specfically about Prostestants in this case, but does it not apply?

If someone approaches a priest and seeks conversion is it not wise to determine where they are at currently and try to encourage more prayer and study with the goal ALWAYS being to hope for full communion?

 

[dch1983]

I agree that priests should discourage a “church-hopping” attitude, and must make sure that every potential convert is converting for the right reasons, and is committed to fulling living the Catholic Faith. I’m not a big fan of people converting because their spouse or future spouse is Catholic. I think that’s a wrong reason, and I think that such conversions actually cheapen the Catholic Faith and conversions. They add to the idea that changing church’s is as simple as changing toothpaste, and that truth should take a back seat to fuzzy feelings.
I also think that church-hopping is symptomatic of two things 1 lack of understanding or apathy to church doctrine, and 2 a selfish view of church.
By the first, I mean the fact that not many people really understand the difference between a Methodist and a Calvinist, or between a Lutheran or Episcopalian and a Baptist. Many people don’t worry too much about the different doctrinal beliefs in the various churches, largely because of the second reason.
2 People tend to approach churchs with a selfish attitude, looking for what they can “get out of it,” and not thinking about what they can give to God and to the Church. When we look at the Church as a form of entertainment, then we are more willing to church hop. (I am not saying that I am free of either of these temptations, but I am simply pointing out that they do exist, both in myself and others.)
A person should become Catholic because they believe and profess everything that the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God, and that the Church really is the Church that Christ founded. Any other reason is just inadequate.

Aren’t you a recent convert from a Protestant denomination yourself? Do you consider yourself one of the few who was actually called to convert the right way? I don’t think we’re talking about people who convert for the conveniences it will bring in marriage, or anything else like that. We’re talking about people who genuinely want to learn more about and consider the Catholic faith, and who seek out a priest to discuss this with. And my impression was that we were ALSO talking about a priest welcoming such dialogue, not making the determination that someone is not ready to convert. I completely agree that priests should discourage “church-hopping” and that the Catholic faith should be taken very seriously. But a priest not even welcoming such a discussion in the first place, simply because he cannot be bothered with it, is the problem here.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Aren’t you a recent convert from a Protestant denomination yourself? Do you consider yourself one of the few who was actually called to convert the right way? I don’t think we’re talking about people who convert for the conveniences it will bring in marriage, or anything else like that. We’re talking about people who genuinely want to learn more about and consider the Catholic faith, and who seek out a priest to discuss this with. And my impression was that we were ALSO talking about a priest welcoming such dialogue, not making the determination that someone is not ready to convert. I completely agree that priests should discourage “church-hopping” and that the Catholic faith should be taken very seriously. But a priest not even welcoming such a discussion in the first place, simply because he cannot be bothered with it, is the problem here.

I was referring to a poster who was talking about church-hopping, and not to the OP, where priests discourage converts because they disobey the Church and likely do not believe that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded. I agree that there is no reason to tell a convert to simply “be a good Protestant or Hindu” or anything else, because there is no need to convert, or no advantage to being Catholic. I agree that the priest likely rebels against other aspects of Church teaching, and that these priests should be disciplined.
However, I do stand by my statement that a person should not convert simply out of convenience for a family. I don’t think that converting to a spouse’s faith out of convenience is a good reason. If my future husband is not Catholic (which I doubt) I would not ask him to convert simply for my sake. I would tell him that, if he decides that the Catholic Faith is true, and that the Church is the Church that Christ founded, then he can convert. But not before.

 

[Holland]

Maybe the priest just wants him to make sure he’s doing it for the right reasons. Converting is a serious process, it needs to be taken seriously, and it’s very important that the person who will be converting is certain that it’s what they want to do and that they will be able to live as a Catholic for the rest of their life.

I could not agree with you more. I have a cousin, who along with her husband, spent a year in instruction to become Catholic. They became Catholic but within a year they were off doing something else. Her husband is now some sort of minister in another church. My family is heartsick over this.

 

[corvidae]

***ecumenism ***

is the problem!!

Addition

False Ecuminism is the problem.

A lone Raven

 

[Contarini]

Let me explain what I mean by “church-hopping” a little more.

American (or modern Western generally) non-believers commonly assume that we are all autonomous individuals, and that no community can have any authority over us. Therefore, religion is a crock because it involves a bunch of old guys (in most cases) telling us what to believe.

American Protestants commonly assume that we are all autonomous individuals, and that only God can have any authority over us. This authority comes through Scripture, which we interpret by the guidance of the Holy Spirit given to each of us. Therefore, Catholicism is a crock because it involves a bunch of old guys telling us what to believe.

“Conservative” American Catholics commonly appear to assume that we are all autonomous individuals by nature, but that God has mercifully provided the One True Church, which can tell us what to believe. If we don’t belong to the one true Church, we are nice Enlightenment individuals and can’t do anything but follow our private judgments. This private judgment will hopefully lead us to conclude that Catholicism is true, at which point we surrender our private judgments and become good Catholics. Catholics who don’t do this are called “Cafeteria” Catholics and aren’t really Catholic at all.

From my perspective, the similarities among these three views (with regard to the process by which we come to know the truth) are far more striking than the differences. All of them assume Enlightenment individualism as the norm. Conservative Catholics simply believe that we are delivered from this individualism through the intervention of a supernatural, infallible Church.

I think the Enlightenment view is radically wrong from the start. Thomas Kuhn’s *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions *had a much better handle on the process by which we come to know the truth (though unlike Kuhn, I am willing to speak of “coming to know the truth”). We all have “paradigms,” and these paradigms function in the context of certain communities. Within those communities, there is a shared set of rules governing how we look at the world. Enlightenment individualism is itself a paradigm, governing the community known as the modern, secular West. Within that community there are various sets of religious beliefs possible, and the assumption is that we are all responsible for picking and choosing the particular religious community that fits the beliefs we have come to on our own.

Genuine conversion is not a matter of deciding “my beliefs line up with the Catholic Church, so I’ll become Catholic.” It is always (according to Kuhn, speaking of science) a result of an acute crisis that threatens our former paradigm, combined with the presence of an alternative paradigm that possesses superior explanatory power (I’m making this sound very cerebral, but of course it involves more than just thinking about theories of the universe). The state in which Enlightenment individualism says we always exist is in fact a crisis state (I’d suggest that this is one reason why modern people are so stressed all the time). It’s not normal.

So if priests turn people away, it may be because they don’t think their paradigms are truly in crisis. I was discouraged by an Orthodox priest once for that reason (I’m pretty sure), and I had a Catholic priest as a philosophy professor who kept warning me against hasty conversion. In both cases I don’t think this was because they didn’t believe their respective Churches had the fullness of the faith. In the case of my professor, I know that he thought my interest in Catholicism was “curiositas”–intellectual restlessness and love of novelty.

This isn’t necessarily about whether you understand all the doctrinal issues correctly. It’s a spiritual thing.

Edwin

 

[dch1983]

I was referring to a poster who was talking about church-hopping, and not to the OP, where priests discourage converts because they disobey the Church and likely do not believe that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded. I agree that there is no reason to tell a convert to simply “be a good Protestant or Hindu” or anything else, because there is no need to convert, or no advantage to being Catholic. I agree that the priest likely rebels against other aspects of Church teaching, and that these priests should be disciplined.
However, I do stand by my statement that a person should not convert simply out of convenience for a family. I don’t think that converting to a spouse’s faith out of convenience is a good reason. If my future husband is not Catholic (which I doubt) I would not ask him to convert simply for my sake. I would tell him that, if he decides that the Catholic Faith is true, and that the Church is the Church that Christ founded, then he can convert. But not before.

It seems like we miscommunicated a little, and I apologize for that. I agree completely with everything you say here. Thanks!

 

[Image_of_God]

Let me explain what I mean by “church-hopping” a little more.

American (or modern Western generally) non-believers commonly assume that we are all autonomous individuals, and that no community can have any authority over us. Therefore, religion is a crock because it involves a bunch of old guys (in most cases) telling us what to believe.

American Protestants commonly assume that we are all autonomous individuals, and that only God can have any authority over us. This authority comes through Scripture, which we interpret by the guidance of the Holy Spirit given to each of us. Therefore, Catholicism is a crock because it involves a bunch of old guys telling us what to believe.

“Conservative” American Catholics commonly appear to assume that we are all autonomous individuals by nature, but that God has mercifully provided the One True Church, which can tell us what to believe. If we don’t belong to the one true Church, we are nice Enlightenment individuals and can’t do anything but follow our private judgments. This private judgment will hopefully lead us to conclude that Catholicism is true, at which point we surrender our private judgments and become good Catholics. Catholics who don’t do this are called “Cafeteria” Catholics and aren’t really Catholic at all.

From my perspective, the similarities among these three views (with regard to the process by which we come to know the truth) are far more striking than the differences. All of them assume Enlightenment individualism as the norm. Conservative Catholics simply believe that we are delivered from this individualism through the intervention of a supernatural, infallible Church.

I think the Enlightenment view is radically wrong from the start. Thomas Kuhn’s *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions *had a much better handle on the process by which we come to know the truth (though unlike Kuhn, I am willing to speak of “coming to know the truth”). We all have “paradigms,” and these paradigms function in the context of certain communities. Within those communities, there is a shared set of rules governing how we look at the world. Enlightenment individualism is itself a paradigm, governing the community known as the modern, secular West. Within that community there are various sets of religious beliefs possible, and the assumption is that we are all responsible for picking and choosing the particular religious community that fits the beliefs we have come to on our own.

Genuine conversion is not a matter of deciding “my beliefs line up with the Catholic Church, so I’ll become Catholic.” It is always (according to Kuhn, speaking of science) a result of an acute crisis that threatens our former paradigm, combined with the presence of an alternative paradigm that possesses superior explanatory power (I’m making this sound very cerebral, but of course it involves more than just thinking about theories of the universe). The state in which Enlightenment individualism says we always exist is in fact a crisis state (I’d suggest that this is one reason why modern people are so stressed all the time). It’s not normal.

So if priests turn people away, it may be because they don’t think their paradigms are truly in crisis. I was discouraged by an Orthodox priest once for that reason (I’m pretty sure), and I had a Catholic priest as a philosophy professor who kept warning me against hasty conversion. In both cases I don’t think this was because they didn’t believe their respective Churches had the fullness of the faith. In the case of my professor, I know that he thought my interest in Catholicism was “curiositas”–intellectual restlessness and love of novelty.

This isn’t necessarily about whether you understand all the doctrinal issues correctly. It’s a spiritual thing.

Edwin

I most sincerely agree with you here. The Protestant Churches are a means to salvation. The Protestant must sort things out with God an must see the Catholic Church as really the full truth. If they cannot see the Church is the truth then they should not convert. If they see the truth in the Church, because God has openned their eyes, then they should most definitely not ignore the Holy Spirit and they should convert.

 

[valient_Lucy]

It seems like we miscommunicated a little, and I apologize for that. I agree completely with everything you say here. Thanks!

No problem. It happens sometimes. I’ve done that myself.

 

[giuseppeTO]

My husband is a Baptist and has been reading Catholic material and watching The Journey Home. He has seen a couple of times and I have as well, that when a potential convert has gone to visit with a priest, the priest has advised him/her that they should remain protestant and be a good protestant and that the priest should remain a good Catholic priest. This was mentioned in Scott Hahn’s conversion story as well as others. Why would a priest say this?

This is the new post-Vatican II religion at work, religious indifferentism. All religions are equal to Catholicism, salvation can be attained through all forms of Protestantism, Judaism, Hinduism, etc (the message of Assisi). No more need for missionaries, except to distribute condoms in the jungles of Africa.