Why Evangelicals are returning

[manualman]

To further elaborate on the seeming insult to EO folk, it really isn’t. I’ve had a lot of contact with evangelicals and what they often are first attracted to is the sense of continuity catholicism has throughout history. If they more than scratch the surface of christian history they are confronted by how terribly new and novel their own theology is and it is devastating. When they come to realize that the EO ALSO have an unbroken succession of bishops going back all the way to the apostles, it comes as a massive relief that they might not have to come to grips with becoming a papist after all!

It’s not a slam on you or EO beliefs. If anything, it reflects a deep animus embedded in the American protestant psyche against catholicism. EO offers the appearance of a solution to the problem of being repulsed and attracted to catholicism at the same time. I’ve even come across the absurdity of “do it yourself” orthodox congregations consisting of protestants who have adopted the liturgy and some of the theology of EO teaching and yet somehow manage to rationalize ordaining their own priests and establishing ‘churches’ unrelated to any actual EO church. Makes as much or more sense as any other protestant church beginning!

 

[jlhargus]

My husband and I, along with our daughter, are converts to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism.

We believe that there are two main reasons that evangelicals are converting:

1. They read the Bible inside and out, and ask the Holy Spirit to help them understand and apply it. According to Jesus, if human fathers can give good gifts to their children, our Heavenly Father will be even more able to give good gifts to those who ask. The Bible says, “Ask, and it shall be given.” When evangelical Protestants sincerely ask the Holy Spirit to open up the Word of God and help them to understand it, they see that the Bible describes the Catholic Church in every book, and that the Catholic Church IS the Church that Jesus established.
2. They sincerely love Jesus and want to follow Him and obey Him in all things, even to the point of giving their lives for Him. So when Protestants tell Jesus this and pledge their hearts and very lives to Him, He will, because of His great love for them, lead them to the Catholic Church. Although some evangelical Protestants get scared and shy away from this leading, thinking that they are being deceived, others decide to trust the Lord Jesus and follow Him, even if they are afraid or wary of where He is leading them.

These things have always been true of evangelicals, but the reason why so many are now converting has to do with the ease of acquiring information in this computer age. In the past, it was difficult for evangelicals to explore Catholicism because they were so incredibly busy in their own evangelical Protestant churches with various (and many) ministries. But now through online sites such as CAF and many others, evangelicals can study and learn all about Catholicism, and even see a Mass for themselves, all on their own time. So Praise God for computers!

JL: I agree with all your post. When I was in school there was only one Catholic in my class. I knew nothing about the Catholic Church. Oh except they worshiped Mary and statues.

 

[CopticChristian]

Cavaradossi, my friend –

I’m sorry I didn’t make myself more clear.

Yes, Orthodoxy is NOT “Catholicism without the Pope”. You are quite right to point that out.

But I was speaking from the Evangelical perspective, that was summed up so eloquently by Marybeloved. There is a sizable chunk of Evangelical Protestantism that would rather be ANYTHING but “Papist”, or acknowledge the authority of Rome.

Many of the mainline Protestant denominations have governing bodies, councils, authorities. These people seem to have less concern about the Papacy. But many of the Evangelical churches have no governing bodies, each congregation being autonomous. For these folks, the idea of the Papacy and Magesterium are anathema. Let’s acknowledge it for what it is. There is a strong anti-Catholic bias among these people that they themselves don’t even recognize. And most of what they dislike about Catholics are based on misunderstandings of Catholic teaching. So sad.

On my own journey I went through every denomination in the phone book, checked out a few cults, and started visiting Buddhists, Hindu, and Wicca. Then I checked out Orthodoxy. Which, despite the large metro area I lived in, was harder to chase down. I visited, was totally lost, and no one bothered to even speak to me. (Bad hair day, I guess. But it did nothing to make me feel welcome.) The second time I visited, I was corrected on all my mistakes (legion!) but no welcome or hospitality. I went a third time, then tried to contact the pastor to meet and talk and ask questions – and never got a call back. I always had a sense that this was for cultural Greeks, not Other Christians Seeking Orthodoxy. Just my subjective opinion.

After all that, I finally checked out the Catholics. (The only ones I skipped were Hare Krishna.) They had the answers I was looking for, and it was terrible! After all that anti-Catholic upbringing, and THEY have what I was looking for?!?! yikes!

I know now that there were several eastern churches in the area, but I knew nothing about them. It’s been a long journey, but we’re all on one.

I was just trying to help those unfamiliar with Evangelical thinking understand a bit more of the mind set. I did not intend to characterize Orthodoxy as anything less than what it is: An ancient, beautiful, and rich treasury of Christ’s Body on earth.

With love,
Summer

Summer,

Bummer you missed the Hare Krishnas. They have really good food. I used to go to one of their restaurants in San Francisco and I bought one of their cookbooks. You made a better choice with Catholics. I don’t think the Hare Krishnas do Bingo and potlucks and I believe that they believe that their guru is God.

 

[777rak]

My husband and I, along with our daughter, are converts to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism.

We believe that there are two main reasons that evangelicals are converting:

1. They read the Bible inside and out, and ask the Holy Spirit to help them understand and apply it. According to Jesus, if human fathers can give good gifts to their children, our Heavenly Father will be even more able to give good gifts to those who ask. The Bible says, “Ask, and it shall be given.” When evangelical Protestants sincerely ask the Holy Spirit to open up the Word of God and help them to understand it, they see that the Bible describes the Catholic Church in every book, and that the Catholic Church IS the Church that Jesus established.
2. They sincerely love Jesus and want to follow Him and obey Him in all things, even to the point of giving their lives for Him. So when Protestants tell Jesus this and pledge their hearts and very lives to Him, He will, because of His great love for them, lead them to the Catholic Church. Although some evangelical Protestants get scared and shy away from this leading, thinking that they are being deceived, others decide to trust the Lord Jesus and follow Him, even if they are afraid or wary of where He is leading them.

These things have always been true of evangelicals, but the reason why so many are now converting has to do with the ease of acquiring information in this computer age. In the past, it was difficult for evangelicals to explore Catholicism because they were so incredibly busy in their own evangelical Protestant churches with various (and many) ministries. But now through online sites such as CAF and many others, evangelicals can study and learn all about Catholicism, and even see a Mass for themselves, all on their own time. So Praise God for computers!

So true!!!

 

[summer1052]

Coptic=-

Okay, I confess. The real reason I skipped them was: I look terrible in orange! And I don’t even want to THINK about bald! :egyptian:

Summer

 

[Nine_Two]

On my own journey I went through every denomination in the phone book, checked out a few cults, and started visiting Buddhists, Hindu, and Wicca. Then I checked out Orthodoxy. Which, despite the large metro area I lived in, was harder to chase down. I visited, was totally lost, and no one bothered to even speak to me. (Bad hair day, I guess. But it did nothing to make me feel welcome.) The second time I visited, I was corrected on all my mistakes (legion!) but no welcome or hospitality. I went a third time, then tried to contact the pastor to meet and talk and ask questions – and never got a call back. I always had a sense that this was for cultural Greeks, not Other Christians Seeking Orthodoxy. Just my subjective opinion.

I am sorry to hear you had those types of bad experiences visiting an Orthodox Church, but you can’t judge a faith on a parish.

 

[CompSciGuy]

With all due respect, Mark, I disagree with you.

From what I’ve seen, the Evangelicals that are converting to Catholicism are yearning for traditionalist Catholicism, as in old-style,* missa cantata* Catholicism of our fathers. I think the majority of Evangelicals that are looking for Catholicism are looking for it for the same reason they seek the beauty of Orthodoxy.

I know this is a no-no to say on this forum but the reason I’ve been interested in Catholicism is for that old Church. The modernist Church with the empty, lifeless unsung Mass and the ugly new age architecture does it no justice and does not impress me.

OK, let the massacre begin.

When I was interested in conversion, the Ordinary Form of the mass was the most beautiful form of worship I had ever seen. It was one of the things that drew me to the Catholic Church. I didn’t know any Catholics and one of the first groups of Catholics I came to know happened to be traditionalists. They were the ones who highly favored the traditional Latin mass over the new mass, and tended to obsess over little ritualistic things instead of the important things. I found them to be very legalistic and judgmental, and they nearly turned me off to Catholicism altogether. It took me a while before I realized that not all Catholics were like this, and that I didn’t have to be that way to be a good Catholic either. I personally don’t like the traditional Latin, I think it is cold and stuffy, I still prefer the Ordinary Form.

 

[summer1052]

Nine_Two=-

I haven’t judged all of Orthodoxy by that parish! I still find it beautiful and fascinating. But while I was seeking, the lack of hospitality, and the chance to meet and have my questions answered led me to move down the road. That road led to the banks of the Tiber.

I have met many fine people in the group in which I was raised. I met a few duds, too. But I finally realized, Jesus came here for the sinners, not the winners!

Summer

 

[andrewstx]

Nine_Two=-

I haven’t judged all of Orthodoxy by that parish! I still find it beautiful and fascinating. But while I was seeking, the lack of hospitality, and the chance to meet and have my questions answered led me to move down the road. That road led to the banks of the Tiber.

I have met many fine people in the group in which I was raised. I met a few duds, too. But I finally realized, Jesus came here for the sinners, not the winners!

Summer

Summer what a shame that you chose a greek church, not all greek churches are unfriendly, but some are closed to xenoi (outsiders who are not ethnically greek) and you ended up in one that apparently is.

You should have worshipped at St. Anthonys a parish in the Orthodox church in America.
They are more integrated ethnically, more open to outsiders and have a lot of converts from Protestant and latin Catholic churches. Much freindlier.

 

[loko]

Why have the EO’s hijacked this thread?

I have read the entire thread which is meant to be discussing why** Evangelicals are returning to Rome.**

Out of nowhere an EO poster decides to state why the Evangelical chose Rome over EO.

This thread has nothing to do with EO.

Read the thread title.

If you want to discuss Evangelicals returning to Rome in comparison with Evangelicals returning to EO, start another thread for goodness sakes.

No wonder people were talking over each other and not understanding where the other poster was coming from.

 

[Randal796]

And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.

To Be Deep In History, Is To Cease To Be A Protestant—Cardinal John Henry Newman

 

[Trebor135]

And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.

To Be Deep In History, Is To Cease To Be A Protestant—Cardinal John Henry Newman

If only this otherwise helpful and concise statement could aid those grappling with the question in deciding which of Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy is that “Christianity of history”…

 

[Randal796]

If only this otherwise helpful and concise statement could aid those grappling with the question in deciding which of Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy is that “Christianity of history”…

For me it came down to “the seat of Peter”

Clement of Alexandria
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matthew 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matthew 19:27, Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 - 200 AD)

Tertullian
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 - 211 AD)

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matthew 16:18-19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9-10 - 220 AD)

The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 - 221 AD)

Origen
“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 - 248 AD)

Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition - 251 AD)

Cyril of Jerusalem
“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 - 350 AD)

“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matthew 16:19]" (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 - 350 AD)
“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32-34]" (Catechetical Lectures 17:27 - 350 AD)

In the end, is Peter the Rock who Christ founded his church on or isn’t he? At least for me this settled the issue. From what I’ve read about the EOC, their issue was regarding the primacy* of Rome, none doubt that Peter was given the Keys.

Consider this, they lack a Bishop and are unable to call an Ecumenical Council. Rome hasn’t got this issue.*

 

[Alfonsus]

If only this otherwise helpful and concise statement could aid those grappling with the question in deciding which of Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy is that “Christianity of history”…

You forget the Oriental Orthodoxy and Assyrian Church. Why Eastern only means Orthodox?

 

[Cavaradossi]

You forget the Oriental Orthodoxy and Assyrian Church. Why Eastern only means Orthodox?

As intelligent as Trebor is, I think it is likely that he has already done some cursory investigation of Oriental Orthodoxy and the Assyrian Church of the East.

 

[Trebor135]

You forget the Oriental Orthodoxy and Assyrian Church. Why Eastern only means Orthodox?

You have a point. It only underscores how Cardinal Newman’s widely-cited quip doesn’t lead clearly to one solution, but to a few alternatives.

 

[andrewstx]

You forget the Oriental Orthodoxy and Assyrian Church. Why Eastern only means Orthodox?

Neither of those groups are (lower case o) othodox. The Assyrians are are Nestorians, and the OO rejected other ecuminical counsils.

 

[Alfonsus]

Neither of those groups are (lower case o) othodox. The Assyrians are are Nestorians, and the OO rejected other ecuminical counsils.

I said they have a share in the claim of being Eastern. Thus their side of history, we are talking about immersed in history here, should have an equal hearing. Of course they are not orthodox in the sense the Orthodox used that term.

From the Catholic point of view btw, the dispute with the Assyrians and OO in term of Christology is over.

 

[LowerCasec]

I’d have to have been there to start with in order to return.

Let’s face it, had I been alive 6-700 years ago, I’d been executed.

I don’t mean this to troll or flame, but a lot of good Christians were martyred by the Church in order to maintain loyalty, Girolamo Savonarola comes to mind.

 

[loko]

I’d have to have been there to start with in order to return.

Let’s face it, had I been alive 6-700 years ago, I’d been executed.

I don’t mean this to troll or flame, but a lot of good Christians were martyred by the Church in order to maintain loyalty, Girolamo Savonarola comes to mind.

And what does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

First the EO’s hijack the thread and then this.

If you want to discuss another topic which is unrelated to the topic of the thread, start another one.

This topic is to discuss Evangelicals returning to Rome.