Why Are So Many Evangelicals Turning to the Catholic Church?

[Lenten_ashes]

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.

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.

Depends on which priest. I mean you have some very Godly men like Padre Pio who was given the ability to point out the sins people were not confessing. He somehow had the ability to know dispositions.

Never had a priest retain my sins. But I have heard of instances were the person confessing was given a hard time because they are confessing the same sins every week and appeared to have no interest in actually trying to turn away. As we know repent means turn away, not just confess we did it.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

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?

That is correct, Wannano.

And in open and shut cases, I do not understand why you still have to wait a year for someone to determine what is extremely obvious.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

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.

I know this is the year of mercy so there are exceptions made, but in prior years abortion had to forgiven by a Bishop, correct?

So that would be a example of absolution not being granted.

 

[rcwitness]

I know this is the year of mercy so there are exceptions made, but in prior years abortion had to forgiven by a Bishop, correct?

So that would be a example of absolution not being granted.

Yes, but granted, just through the Bishop.

 

[MaryT777]

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?

Yes, that is it in a nutshell. I don’t want to turn this into an annulment thread though so I’ll stop. Suffice it to say that getting from valid to invalid is a long arduous process in many cases.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Started a thread on Transubstantiation before.

Someone stated it is symbolic to the human eye, so in that respect Protestants are correct.

I once heard a Greek Orthodox priest explain it like this…Jews had the manna in the desert. It was supernatural food sent to nourish them. Well, Manna means “what is it” the bewildered Jews just said what is it? And they ate it…and so in the Orthodox Church that is our position…instead of defining it with fancy terms, we just say…what is it… and we eat it and are thankful that somehow we are receiving Jesus, even though it still looks like bread.

 

[rcwitness]

Started a thread on Transubstantiation before.

Someone stated it is symbolic to the human eye, so in that respect Protestants are correct.

I once heard a Greek Orthodox priest explain it like this…Jews had the manna in the desert. It was supernatural food sent to nourish them. Well, Manna means “what is it” the bewildered Jews just said what is it? And they ate it…and so in the Orthodox Church that is our position…instead of defining it with fancy terms, we just say…what is it… and we eat it and are thankful that somehow we are receiving Jesus, even though it still looks like bread.

To each their own.

I don’t think we need to wonder what it is at all. It is what Jesus said it is. The flesh and blood which He gave to the world for the forgiveness of sins. Wheat and flower, grapes and water did not give me life.

 

[Wannano]

To each their own.

I don’t think we need to wonder what it is at all. It is what Jesus said it is. The flesh and blood which He gave to the world for the forgiveness of sins. Wheat and flower, grapes and water did not give me life.

“To each their own”. I take this as you saying then that you can accept that Jesus honors the sincere worship of a believer who sees it as transubstantiation, consubstantiation or symbolic? No longer do we have to see the other as having an invalid eucharist?

 

[rcwitness]

“To each their own”. I take this as you saying then that you can accept that Jesus honors the sincere worship of a believer who sees it as transubstantiation, consubstantiation or symbolic? No longer do we have to see the other as having an invalid eucharist?

No. I accept that division happens, and I acknowledge that many have their own ideas of spiritual things.

Jesus honors all. Catholics don’t see transubstantiation, we just believe it. There is one Eucharist, and He is not subject to relativity.

 

[Wannano]

No. I accept that division happens, and I acknowledge that many have their own ideas of spiritual things.

Jesus honors all. Catholics don’t see transubstantiation, we just believe it. There is one Eucharist, and He is not subject to relativity.

RC you know I respect you however your answer is confusing me. What are you saying “no” to? You say Jesus honors all, and that was my question.

I want to honor and respect all Christian faith communities and I am convinced the Jesus I have come to know is bigger than my understanding.

 

[Reuben_J]

RC you know I respect you however your answer is confusing me. What are you saying “no” to? You say Jesus honors all, and that was my question.

I want to honor and respect all Christian faith communities and I am convinced the Jesus I have come to know is bigger than my understanding.

Not sure about ‘the honor all’, maybe ‘love all’ was the word.

As for the Eucharist, Catholic’ stance is that not all ‘Eucharist’ are valid except for her own and where the priests clebrating it has apostolic succession according to her definition.

 

[rcwitness]

RC you know I respect you however your answer is confusing me. What are you saying “no” to? You say Jesus honors all, and that was my question.

I want to honor and respect all Christian faith communities and I am convinced the Jesus I have come to know is bigger than my understanding.

Not sure about ‘the honor all’, maybe ‘love all’ was the word.

As for the Eucharist, Catholic’ stance is that not all ‘Eucharist’ are valid except for her own and where the priests clebrating it has apostolic succession according to her definition.

I meant “honors all men”.

1 Peter 2

Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

I know Jesus honors all men, but whether He “honors” a divided Eucharist celebration is a very different matter. Yes, I believe there are Christians, who through no fault of their own, are separated from His Eucharist who worship genuinely. The Church, in her wisdom and authority, has not held the sin of separation against them, but has hope that these will find full unity with God.

 

[Wannano]

I meant “honors all men”.

1 Peter 2

Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

I know Jesus honors all men, but whether He “honors” a divided Eucharist celebration is a very different matter. Yes, I believe there are Christians, who through no fault of their own, are separated from His Eucharist who worship genuinely. The Church, in her wisdom and authority, has not held the sin of separation against them, but has hope that these will find full unity with God.

 

[Wannano]

I meant “honors all men”.

1 Peter 2

Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

I know Jesus honors all men, but whether He “honors” a divided Eucharist celebration is a very different matter. Yes, I believe there are Christians, who through no fault of their own, are separated from His Eucharist who worship genuinely. The Church, in her wisdom and authority, has not held the sin of separation against them, but has hope that these will find full unity with God.

I missinterpreted what you said then. I am interested in how you would define “the brotherhood” Peter refers to.

I find your last sentence to be very judgmental but I am beginning to understand I think.

 

[Wannano]

Not sure about ‘the honor all’, maybe ‘love all’ was the word.

As for the Eucharist, Catholic’ stance is that not all ‘Eucharist’ are valid except for her own and where the priests clebrating it has apostolic succession according to her definition.

Thank you for your candid explanation. I appreciate the current Catholic movement to ecumenism but wonder how exclusivity allows progression.

 

[rcwitness]

I missinterpreted what you said then. I am interested in how you would define “the brotherhood” Peter refers to.

The Brotherhood are these:

Romans 8

It is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

The children of God. All who take from the table of the Lord. This is the Sacred Scriptures AND His Eucharist.

I find your last sentence to be very judgmental but I am beginning to understand I think.If you believed His Eucharist was what the Church Teaches, you would see. As it is, you believe the Scriptures are what they are. This puts you in communion, though imperfect.​

 

[jlhargus]

Why Are So Many Evangelicals Turning to the Catholic Church?
Some of Southern Evangelical Seminary’s Students Are Becoming Catholic—and Here’s Why
by Kathy Schiffer 07/10/2016
ncregister.com/blog/kschiffer/why-are-so-many-evangelicals-turning-to-the-catholic-church

Douglas Beaumont was a pretty solid Evangelical Christian, by his own admission. For twenty years, he lived in that tradition—studying at an Evangelical seminary, then teaching at the same institution, and helping the seminary founder and president with his study of systematic theology. Beaumont authored several books which were published by Evangelical publishers, and he was pretty well known around the country.

So what caused Doug—along with dozens of students, alumni and professors from a conservative, Evangelical seminary—to leave behind the Evangelical tradition which had been their spiritual home, and to enter into communion with Rome?

Why were so many students from Southern Evangelical Seminary willing to risk losing their jobs, ministries, and even family and friends to embrace a religion they once rejected as false or even heretical?

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/kschiffer/why-are-so-many-evangelicals-turning-to-the-catholic-church/#ixzz4EIRngA9y

Love of truth which is Jesus.

 

[MaryT777]

Love of truth which is Jesus.

This is my kinda’ post. Short, sweet, and to the point.
Amen.

 

[jlhargus]

This is my kinda’ post. Short, sweet, and to the point. Amen.

Thanks Mary I getting better at short post. Some of my post can be tediously long.

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by Reuben J View Post
Not sure about ‘the honor all’, maybe ‘love all’ was the word.

As for the Eucharist, Catholic’ stance is that not all ‘Eucharist’ are valid except for her own and where the priests clebrating it has apostolic succession according to her definition.

Thank you for your candid explanation. I appreciate the current Catholic movement to ecumenism but wonder how exclusivity allows progression.

I’m curious as to what you would suggest to allow progression?