Why Are So Many Evangelicals Turning to the Catholic Church?

[alwayswill]

Why do they become “none”? Are they still interested in God? Or just drifting away? I don’t believe that they are leaving over doctrinal disputes. I think they are leaving because the Church has high moral standards.

They want “more” but what does that mean? More coffee bars in the lobby? More modern music? More “fellowship” with other church members?

Or is it simpler?

More acceptance of contraception.
More acceptance of divorce and remarriage.
More acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage.

People don’t tend to leave Catholicism because they are deeply troubled by questions about the filioque or transubstantiation or infallibility.

There is little offered by Protestantism that cannot be found in Catholicism, but there is much in Catholicism that is lacking in Protestantism.

This comes from the NCR website: ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/hidden-exodus-catholics-becoming-protestants

"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.

 

[fred_conty]

I wonder how many Catholics would turn away if they actually saw Jesus standing in church and preaching. I believe in that case we would start turning them away because there wouldn’t be enough room in church to hold them all.

Which means … the real presence is not really appreciated because Jesus really is in our Church on Sunday, every Sunday. And if we believed and conveyed that ourselves, our churches would be packed.

“Bring us back, O God of hosts: let your face shine on us and we shall be saved.”
Psalm 79

 

[Reuben_J]

This comes from the NCR website: ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/hidden-exodus-catholics-becoming-protestants

"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.

Noted. And quite rightly too.

Thus it tells that the Catholic Church has to be more active, Bible trained, has fiery speakers and preachers in their priests (and laypeople). And because these are lacking, Catholics left for Evangelicals because they can find them there.

One consolation that we can get out of this is that at least it is not about truth and doctrine. It is basically that the Catholic Church, that is, some of its parishes, have become complacent.

And you can’t do that. Where is your children and youth program? What do you do to those who do not come to mass? Is there any outreaches to them? What about the quality of your homilies? Are there activities in the parishes that can generate interest in the spiritual consciousness?

 

[Porknpie]

not everyone believed in transubstantiation and/or the real presence. .

Susan, who were the Christians before 1000 ad that didn’t believe in the Real Presence…that Christ was speaking symbolically, that the bread and wine were not his body and blood? Yes, the metaphysical explanation came later (transubstantiation).

Berengarius… Wyclif… sure, even today there are those who rebel against the teaching of the Church. It’s been that way for 2,000 years. Yet the Written Word says that we should be all of one faith with no dissensions.

10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

 

[MartinJordan]

Susan, who were the Christians before 1000 ad that didn’t believe in the Real Presence…that Christ was speaking symbolically, that the bread and wine were not his body and blood? Yes, the metaphysical explanation came later (transubstantiation).

Berengarius… Wyclif… sure, even today there are those who rebel against the teaching of the Church. It’s been that way for 2,000 years. Yet the Written Word says that we should be all of one faith with no dissensions.

10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

MJ

 

[Dorothy]

Noted. And quite rightly too.

Thus it tells that the Catholic Church has to be more active, Bible trained, has fiery speakers and preachers in their priests (and laypeople). And because these are lacking, Catholics left for Evangelicals because they can find them there.

One consolation that we can get out of this is that at least it is not about truth and doctrine. It is basically that the Catholic Church, that is, some of its parishes, have become complacent.

And you can’t do that. Where is your children and youth program? What do you do to those who do not come to mass? Is there any outreaches to them? What about the quality of your homilies? Are there activities in the parishes that can generate interest in the spiritual consciousness?

Thankfully, bible studies and youth programs are abounding in the area I live in. My parish in particular has a vibrant bible study for adults, and youth programs from pre-kindergarten through college. Also, the Ascension Press bible study with Jeff Cavins started in the cathedral here many years ago, and has spread to other parishes. I have attended those and have been helped very much by them.

Since we are the Church we need ourselves and others to look into and bring these studies into our parishes.

 

[susanlo]

Susan, who were the Christians before 1000 ad that didn’t believe in the Real Presence…that Christ was speaking symbolically, that the bread and wine were not his body and blood? Yes, the metaphysical explanation came later (transubstantiation).

Berengarius… Wyclif… sure, even today there are those who rebel against the teaching of the Church. It’s been that way for 2,000 years. Yet the Written Word says that we should be all of one faith with no dissensions.

10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

2 of the most notable are Tertullian and Augustine.

Tertullian:
“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure.” - Against Marcion Book 4, Chapter 40
newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm

“He says, it is true, that “the flesh profits nothing;” but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, “It is the spirit that quickens;” and then added, “The flesh profits nothing,”— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” In a like sense He had previously said: “He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.” Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be “the bread which comes down from heaven,” impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling” - On the Resurrection of the Flesh - Chapter 37
newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm

Augustine:
“Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true?** For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all**. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood, in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith.” - Letter 98 - Section 9
newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm

“Chapter 16.— Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.
24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” - On Christian Doctrine Book 3
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

More Augustine - earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm
david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html

Summary by 20th Century Patristic Scholar - archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n451/mode/2up

 

[Lenten_ashes]

2 of the most notable are Tertullian and Augustine.

rl]

Been refuted before but I’ll do it once more:

Tertullian makes clear in multiple places that he believed that Jesus communicated his true body and blood under the “figures” or appearances of bread and wine:

On the Resurrection of the Flesh (ca. AD 200), chapter 8:

The flesh, indeed, is washed, in order that the soul be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also maybe illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God. They cannot then be separated in their recompense, when they are united in their service.

On Prayer, Of Stations (Fasting), chapter 19:

Similarly, too, touching the days of Stations, most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the ground that the Station (fast) must be dissolved by reception of the Lord’s Body. Does, then the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to God?

On Modesty, chapter 9:

He (the prodigal who comes back to Christ) receives again the pristine garment,–the condition, to wit, which Adam by transgression had lost. The ring also he is then wont to receive for the first time, wherewith, after being interrogated, he publicly seals the agreement of faith, and thus thenceforward feeds upon the fatness of the Lord’s body—the Eucharist, to wit.

Similarly, St. Augustine also believed in the Real Presence. For example:

Sermons 234, 2 (ca. AD 400):

The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize Him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body.

Explanations of the Psalms (ca. 400) 33,1,10:

Here, St. Augustine comments on Psalm 119:109 in the Vulgate. The modern translations will more accurately say I hold my “life,” or my “soul” in my hands, or, “my life is at risk.” The Vulgate says, “And he was carried in his own hands.” This is the text St. Augustine would have known. He comments:

"And he was carried in his own hands.” But, brethren, how is it possible for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can be carried in his own hands. How this should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said: “This is My Body.” For He carried that Body in His hands.

catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/did-tertullian-and-st-augustine-deny-the-real-presence

And It’s doubtful that Tertullian should even be considered anything but a heretic to begin with. But, another topic for another day

 

[susanlo]

Been refuted before but I’ll do it once more:

And It’s doubtful that Tertullian should even be considered anything but a heretic to begin with. But, another topic for another day

Did anyone accuse him of being a heretic for his Eucharistic understanding? I think it was because he associated himself with the Montanists. I think his teaching on the Eucharist was accepted in his day. He was allowed to teach that understanding and not be called a heretic for expressing it.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I have no experience with Catholic schools but I will trust you on that, L A.

I sense you are right about Confession, even though I haven’t done it before. When I confess my sins to God, I believe in my heart that He forgives me but I get a feeling like something is left “undone” if you will – that I can’t quite put my finger on.

I sometimes wonder if I would’ve sinned less often in my youth and young adult years if I had had the accountability that I feel must exist with the sacrament of Confession.
In other words, how many people might think twice before sinning if they knew that had to “spill the beans” to their pastor or another human who represented Christ in this world and not just go to God on their own?

Looking back on it, I probably would have sinned less often although I can’t be totally sure. What I am trying to say is that I think Confession might have a ‘deterrent’ effect as well as a “coaching” effect, but then I might be wrong. Just curious what your thoughts are on that.

You probably would have sinned less if you were confessing, Tommy. You know the early Christians confessed not only to the priest, but the entire congregation! Open confession stopped only because non-Christians were coming to the services to get dirt on people.

It stands to reason that your premise is correct and that Jesus intended us to go to confession for those reasons, why else does he tell the apostles to retain or forgive sins unless they are first hearing said sins?

When that priest raises his hand, looks you in the eye and absolves you, it’s a spiritual experience that cant really be put into words. It really does feel like the Lord is the one looking at you in there. We had one guy in RCIA who went to first confession, and he said he actually felt a comforting hand on his shoulder during the process, and of course nobody is in that box with you on your side. And he was a very sane and intelligent individual who i trust would not lie about something like this.

God bless you on your journey, friend.

 

[susanlo]

Been refuted before but I’ll do it once more:

And It’s doubtful that Tertullian should even be considered anything but a heretic to begin with. But, another topic for another day

Which one of these quotes you shared expresses that the bread and wine change substance and become literal flesh and blood?

Tertullian was considered a heretic for his association with the Montanist movement. It had nothing to do with him expressing that the Eucharistic elements were a figure.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I’m a cradle Catholic and couldn’t agree more about the annulment process. To me it was a costly hassle indeed and hassle it was. I had major issues with this and for two years I attended a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Catholic Church (of course I never communed in the LCMS) The Lutheran Pastor there told me that he had converted four couples to the LCMS who were there simply in his opinion because they disagreed with the process of obtaining an annulment. Their disagreement had led them down the path that the Church does not have the authority to impose such obligations thus opening their hearts to another faith.

That’s a small sample but that was his experience too. I do believe many leave for this reason. I have no stats.

Hi Mary.

I still have issues with the Church on this.

I do not understand why i even had to do anything at all since it was just a civil marriage and I was not a baptized Christian at that time.

Gay folks get “married” now too at court houses. Does the Church require a annulment for them as well? And if so, then they are acknowledging the validity of that union.

I almost dropped out of RCIA and became Eastern Orthodox over this issue. I wish the Church would make more common sense reforms with this kind of stuff.

Anyway, Pope Francis seems to understand this and is working to improve policy without surrendering on morality.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Which one of these quotes you shared expresses that the bread and wine change substance and become literal flesh and blood?

Tertullian was considered a heretic for his association with the Montanist movement. It had nothing to do with him expressing that the Eucharistic elements were a figure.

Where does the Bible say the word Trinity? It doesn’t but it’s spelled out for you in other ways.

I don’t think there is much of a difference between consubstantiation and transubstantiation.

I think “real presence” Protestants and Catholics are splitting hairs, for the most part…

 

[rcwitness]

Did anyone accuse him of being a heretic for his Eucharistic understanding? I think it was because he associated himself with the Montanists. I think his teaching on the Eucharist was accepted in his day. He was allowed to teach that understanding and not be called a heretic for expressing it.

I believe there is a genuine (and very important) aspect of recognizing the symbolic nature of His Eucharist. And that is because His true body and blood reminds us what was accomplished through them. They also symbolize the completeness and wholeness of God’s one and only true Son.

Did you not offer the apology quote from an early Saint, who said those who receive Holy Communion must accept all that is Taught? This Teaching is what His Eucharist symbolizes! This is why bread is used. Bread symbolizes doctrine. So when we eat a communion Eucharist, we are accepting all that that leadership is Teaching. Or, that those leaders are valid successors of the Apostles.

Have you heard how the term symbol originated?

from Latin symbolumtoken, sign, symbol, from Greeksymbolon,literally, token of identity verified by comparing its other half, fromsymballeinto throw together, compare, fromsyn-+balleinto throw

When an object and it’s “other half” are thrown together.

The Eucharist is ordinary bread (which symbolizes the sustenance of life and work of our hands) which when it is combined with the Word of the Lord, it is made Holy. Mere bread alone will do anything for our eternal salvation. It is the Word of God that gives life.

In Eucharist communion, we are professing how the Word became flesh and accomplished the will of the Spirit. And in doing so, was put to death so that we could have life.

His Eucharist has the symbolism of all that Jesus did, and said, and is.

 

[Reuben_J]

When that priest raises his hand, looks you in the eye and absolves you, it’s a spiritual experience that cant really be put into words. It really does feel like the Lord is the one looking at you in there. We had one guy in RCIA who went to first confession, and he said he actually felt a comforting hand on his shoulder during the process, and of course nobody is in that box with you on your side. And he was a very sane and intelligent individual who i trust would not lie about something like this.

And how true it is. I have been to Confession perhaps million of times, and I thought I had gone through it all, but each time when I came out of the confessional, it was always an awesome experience that no word can sufficiently describe. It never failed. Load and load is taken off the shoulder, and the experiences healed and rejuvenated.

 

[susanlo]

You probably would have sinned less if you were confessing, Tommy. You know the early Christians confessed not only to the priest, but the entire congregation! Open confession stopped only because non-Christians were coming to the services to get dirt on people.

I don’t know exactly why they stopped, but in the early centuries there was public confession for sins which generally consisted of murder, adultery and idolatry. They would then have a penance and separation of communion for 10-20 years. They were only allowed 1 confession/penance after baptism. If they committed any of these sins (murder, adultery or idolatry) again they were excommunicated. For small sins (venial sins), these were dealt with in private prayer.

It stands to reason that your premise is correct and that Jesus intended us to go to confession for those reasons, why else does he tell the apostles to retain or forgive sins unless they are first hearing said sins?

Do the priests sometimes retain sins and not provide absolution? Does the priest know whether the confession is sincere or whether the person confessing may have intentions of committing the same sin later? I have often wondered about this.

 

[Wannano]

And how true it is. I have been to Confession perhaps million of times, and I thought I had gone through it all, but each time when I came out of the confessional, it was always an awesome experience that no word can sufficiently describe. It never failed. Load and load is taken off the shoulder, and the experiences healed and rejuvenated.

Hi LA, I hope you can take a little light hearted ribbing from me this morning. I am 65, if I went to confession one million times in my whole life time since birth I would average 42 times a day. When do you find time to sin?

 

[Wannano]

Hi Mary.

I still have issues with the Church on this.

I do not understand why i even had to do anything at all since it was just a civil marriage and I was not a baptized Christian at that time.

Gay folks get “married” now too at court houses. Does the Church require a annulment for them as well? And if so, then they are acknowledging the validity of that union.

I almost dropped out of RCIA and became Eastern Orthodox over this issue. I wish the Church would make more common sense reforms with this kind of stuff.

Anyway, Pope Francis seems to understand this and is working to improve policy without surrendering on morality.

Maybe I don’t understand the annulment purpose but I had understood that the annulment was to prove that the marriage never was valid and could therefore be dismissed allowing the person to get married again?

 

[Wannano]

Where does the Bible say the word Trinity? It doesn’t but it’s spelled out for you in other ways.

I don’t think there is much of a difference between consubstantiation and transubstantiation.

I think “real presence” Protestants and Catholics are splitting hairs, for the most part…

Does this complete your refutation?

 

[rcwitness]

Do the priests sometimes retain sins and not provide absolution? Does the priest know whether the confession is sincere or whether the person confessing may have intentions of committing the same sin later? I have often wondered about this.

Very good question. And first of all, don’t we have to ask this very question about the Apostles whom Jesus conferred this responsibility on?

Jesus told Peter that he should forgive as many times as a person repents. And, “… if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

St Paul also shows how he conferred this power to the leaders of the Corinthians. “Whoever you forgive, I also forgive.”

Priests, I believe, have been instructed to grant absolution in different ways throughout history. Sometimes evidence of repentance was necessary, sometimes a time of penance was demanded. But for the most part, the command from Jesus to forgive those who repent has been practiced.

Maybe the sin of division among separated Christians is something not held against them by the Church?

But when Jesus tells His apostles that whoever they admonish for sin and does not repent, he is saying that their sin remains. They are to be like the gentile and tax collector.