Posted on 06/15/2014 4:12:26 AM PDT by markomalley
There was the man inspired by the written words of Pope Francis. There was the agnostic professor. And there was the widow of a Baptist preacher.
All of them Tennesseans, and all of them recent converts to one of the world's oldest Christian faiths.
In the South, Catholicism is growing. The Diocese of Knoxville was recently ranked among the top 10 in the nation for its rate of adult conversions.
All Southeast Tennessee Catholic parishes, including Chattanooga's, fall under the umbrella of Knoxville's diocese, one of 195 in the United States. A diocese is a geographic collection of parishes grouped together under the governance of a bishop. And many of the dioceses producing the most converts to the church are right here in the South, according to a recent study by Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate.
Rates of Catholicism have always been strong in the Northeast and Midwest. But not in the protestant-heavy South.
So it's no wonder that Catholicism is growing faster here.
Mark Gray, a senior research associate at the Georgetown Center, said marriage is a common driver of Catholicism, as non-Catholics marry Catholics. And in Tennessee, non-Catholics and Catholics are more likely to marry simply because there are not enough Catholics to marry only other Catholics.
In the Volunteer State, about 8 percent of people are Catholic. That compares with 40 percent in Massachusetts and the national average of 24 percent.
"Tennessee is the third-least Catholic state in the country, which is exactly where we would expect these conversions to occur, because that 8 percent are likely marrying non-Catholics," Gray said.
In the Catholic Church, conversion is a commitment. It's more formal and involved than switching from one protestant church to another. And conversion is a commitment to the faith, not necessarily a particular church.
Before joining the church, converts take part in a college-like class that can last from nine months to a year.
"It is a very long program, and it's not something we take lightly, nor do the people becoming Catholic take it lightly," said Marvin Bushman, the director of religious education at Cleveland's St. Therese of Lisieux. "It is a big commitment."
Knoxville Bishop Richard F. Stika said the church is growing from rising minority populations, mainly Hispanics. Knoxville recently established a Vietnamese parish. And this part of the country is attracting more retirees and families, many of whom are Catholic.
"We're a growing Church, both in people who are choosing to become Catholic as well as people moving in from out of town," Stika told the diocesan newspaper, The East Tennessee Catholic.
At St. Therese, Brenda Blevins oversees the Catholic conversion program, called the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, or RCIA. The Diocese of Knoxville, which includes 47 parishes, receives about 350 adult converts each year through RCIA.
Some come after marrying or dating a Catholic, but Blevins said many of their recent converts were single. And the RCIA program doesn't want people to just marry into the church.
"We want people to be here because they want to be and because they feel a call," she said.
And each convert has his own story. There are the college-age brothers who just joined together. And the widow of a Baptist minister who married a Catholic. Some come from protestant churches; others have never been baptized into any faith.
"I think part of the reason the Catholic Church is growing so much in Southeast Tennessee is because Southeast Tennessee is part of the Bible Belt," Blevins said. "And there are a lot of faithful Christians here."
But,that's okay with me. Your hatred will eat your insides as it is POISON. I will even PRAY for you that you find some peace with your Catholic-hatred.
Hatred is Satan's joy.
Obviously, you are overflowing with joy.
Your love filled post demonstrates that so clearly....
JPX:Nice try. I've seen what happens to Catholic monarchists on this forum.
And yet you just admitted to your position.....
Did I? Or are you just reading into my response what you would like it to be, similar to the ham-handed way a protestant approaches scripture?
Absolutely. God working His will. I made a new friend tonight. Unlike protestants whose only interests are snark and brow-beating each other with scripture because the other just quite doesn't "get" the other's interpretation. A constant battle of one-upmanship because in the end it's just a protestant and their interpretation and the other individual won't be allowed to intrude on that closed loop. True fellowship can never be obtained between protestants because of a narcissistic self-love. A sad and lonely dynamic. To which the protestant inevitably replies, "I've got Jesus and that's all I need."
Oh no keep going. So are you admitting you believe Catholicism to be an existential threat to the United States?
I feel sorry for people that are truly so ignorant they can make a statement bearing no relationship to the truth. I feel even sorrier for those who think that because they belong to some old organization, that they have a place guaranteed in eternity.
Unfortunately, those that rely on their membership may find themselves in a misfortunate place, separated from God for all eternity. These are some of the same people that find tradition trumps the Word of God and make fun of those who rely on that same Word of God over the rantings and pondering of some pretentious guys in funny garments.
Fortunately, one thing in that Roman Catholic rant is a measure of truth. "I've got Jesus and that's all I need."
Romans 3: 19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. ...
You know what's interesting about those who belong to that "old organization" which has the power of the Holy Spirit to teach the world all Truth. Is that it frees all of us to love thy neighbor. Freedom to live and act as Christians to one another. We are not bogged down with the self-absorption to interpret the Word of God as we see fit and engage in the inevitable compare/contrast exercise with our neighbor and finding differences are then obliged to separate and divide. That is what Protestantism has brought us. Thanks.
Unfortunately, those that rely on their membership may find themselves in a misfortunate place, separated from God for all eternity. These are some of the same people that find tradition trumps the Word of God and make fun of those who rely on that same Word of God over the rantings and pondering of some pretentious guys in funny garments.
Always the snark. The pathological desire for self expression. To thine own self be true.
Fortunately, one thing in that Roman Catholic rant is a measure of truth. "I've got Jesus and that's all I need."
And in doing so, failing to realize they do not. The closed circle that prevents a protestant from participating in the Body of Christ. Gollum and his precious.
Do you have a problem with that?
The only problem I have is with others attempting to bait others to violate the rules of the forum. And in so obvious and transparent a manner. How unchristian.
Which leaves me pretty much where I was before, wondering what precisely, if anything, could convince you of the veracity of the Catholic claim.
You dismiss historical evidence.
You dismiss Scriptural evidence. (Obviously)
You dismiss personal witness. (By the way, what you linked to here was not the entirely of the testimony I shared with you before, that was even before what you linked to but no matter. Trust me you dismissed that too anyway)
You dismiss experience in general.
What’s left, truly, to be said?
Thank you.
You’re welcome. Good luck!
Do you believe that advocating monarchism, or advocating the fall of our country's formerly-Christian-consensus constitutional republic, might themselves be a violation of the rules of this forum?
Again, how did 1st c. Jews know John the Baptist was a prophet indeed?
Or...you also asked before ...
Tell me, upon what basis did souls have assurance than an insect-eating man in the desert was a holy prophet of God, and an itinerant Prophet was the Divine Son of God/Messiah? Was the basis for their assurance the premise of their own infallibility, or that these men manifested they were of God in accordance with what Scripture teaches.
The portion in bold is a false dichotomy of your own construction. The point is, that I've been trying to make with you, and obviously failing miserably, is that the early church didn't form around a bible group.
People weren't converted to Christianity by reading the Scriptures.
The early Christians didn't find Jesus interesting and compelling JUST because he argued from the Scriptures in a new way.
People knew him to be unique, were drawn to him, either out of hatred for him (the Pharases) or out of a love for him they didn't even know they had BECAUSE of his HUMANITY, and so, were "convinced," an "insect-eating man in the desert was a holy prophet of God, and an itinerant Prophet was the Divine Son of God/Messiah", because of their own human heart, made by God, recognizes things (and people) OF God when it, the heart is poor in spirit.
His unique gaze upon everyone, his way of teaching, his way of living and his proposals for life. These things people found attractive or repulsive, based on how they approached their OWN humanity. How honest they were with THEMSELVES (their poverty of spirit), if they were so poor in spirit they could recognize how he is for them. How their destiny was and is HIM.
THIS is how Christianity is verified. This is how it is spread. This is how it endures while the pagan gods of Greece and Rome have turned to dust. By the unique HUMANITY that is generated by one who has encountered Christ today. Through this method, we TODAY can have the same experience as the apostles and early disciples. We can encounter Christ, encounter that original humanity that GAZE we all seek and desperately crave. Because it's what we are made for.
And we don't get that by studying a book. We get that through human interaction. The Body of Christ. The Church.
Otherwise the Scriptures are just a collection of dead letters. With no meaning, no CONNECTION, in a REAL sense, to today.
So you can have your Scripture study and historical analyses. I'm too busy for that. Too busy looking for Christ today.
"...versus being persuaded by the degree of apostolic "manifestation of the Truth," which is what they appealed to, (2Cor. 4:2) and making Truth claims upon that basis....how Apollos "mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18:28)"
When Apollos in Acts was "shewing by the Scriptures" that Jesus was Christ, not one word of the New Testament had yet been written. Not one word.
Now, you will of course say "all of the Old Testament books had been written and Apollos was referring to them." But of course, since he was disputing with learned Jews, including Scribes and Pharisees, about the OT, he was disputing with people who knew the OT very well, and yet many of them did not consider his arguments to be dispositive.
Apollos himself was incomplete in knowledge, even if he had--- we may posit --- a complete grasp of the OT. So he had to listen to the oral teaching of that Apostolic generation, including Priscilla and Aquila, to get things that he couldn't have puzzled out from Scriptures alone, e.g. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Here he was learning not from Scriptures, but from Sacred Tradition: that which was handed on to him which was NOT in Scriptures.
So we're back to the perennial problem: how do we know for sure that this writing but not that, is truly Scripture? The Epistle of Jude, but not the Epistle of Barnabas? The Apocalypse of John, but not the Apocalypse of Peter? And how do we know that this man but not that, is truly a man of God? Simon Son of Zebedee but not Simon Magus?
The only way you can know, is by seeing who and what has been accepted and received by the Church.
Let's look at the canon of Scripture. It was accepted and received by the Church without any especial exercise of the papal Magisterium, first "in practice", de facto, by the Churches who received and used these books liturgically, on the authority of their local Bishops; later confirmed by regional Synods of Bishops (not Ecumenical Councils) at Hippo and Carthage, later re-confirmed in the most formal sense by an Ecumenical Council (Trent), in each of these cases received also by the Bishop of Rome.
So you had the different levels of Magisteria: the Ordinaries (local Bishops by legitimate Succession), the Bishops in Synod, the Bishops in an Ecumenical Council, and the Papal Magisterium not in an executive form, but concurrently and obliquely. The various popes "received" these Scriptures and did not dissent from their identification as having been inspired by Almighty God.
So the whole formation of the Canon was developed through the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. That is a claim of infallibility.
Then 1600 years after Apollos of Alexandria, you have the Reformers chucking out books of the Bible. What incoherence! By what authority?
The whole structure collapses because men have chosen to suppose that the Holy Spirit could permit the entirety of Christendom, East and West, to go wrong for 1600 years, until a committee of 47 men --- all of them Anglicans--- overseen by the King of England --- set them straight.
And, assuming that you accept the KJV canon of 66 books as inerrant, you do so only by logically presupposing the magisterial infallibility of 47 Anglicans.
(And who were they? Can you give me a list?)
Of whose church you are not a communicant --- unless I'm mistaken. I am not aware of your self-identification as an Anglican, but you could set me right if that's what you are.
Yes, insofar as it is warranted by the evidence, with a heart for Truth, as in Scripture.
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)
Unlike Rome, the apostles did not call for assent of faith based upon her self-proclaimed premise of assured infallibility, but,
"But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2)
"I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say." (1 Corinthians 10:15)
"For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." (1 Corinthians 4:20)
If not, what is your point - and why should we bother listening to you?
Yes, insofar as what i say is like that of RCs defense of such things as prayer to departed saints , distinctively titling NT pastors "priests , etc.
Now that hopefully this has penetrated the Roman firewall against reason, either answer the questions you have avoided or go your own way, as it is your manner of argumentation and the foundational premise behind your position that is not Scriptural.
What?! It does indeed leave you pretty much where you were before, that of resorting to one straw man after another. None of the above is true, as instead these work in providing warrant for the veracity of an argument, insofar as historical evidence and personal witness and experience conform to what Scripture says, and with the texts being consistent in support, which was the basis for the judgment in Acts 15.
In contrast is veracity being based upon the premise of assured infallibility, so that as referenced , "The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour." "The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.”
This is the RC basis for assurance, and is not Scriptural. What’s left, truly, to be said?
Name calling is the weapon of liberals who call everyone who disagrees with them *haters*.
The portion in bold is a false dichotomy of your own construction.
It is not false, as per your reasoning applied to me, if one makes a Truth claim, then they are claiming personal infallibility, versus a basis on evidence.
The point is, that I've been trying to make with you, and obviously failing miserably, is that the early church didn't form around a bible group.
That is what is false, as my argument was not that they all had Bible study groups, though they Jews were tutored under it, thus Timothy knew the Scriptures as a child, (2Tim. 3:15) but that their judgement that men were of God or not, if valid, was not without a basis for Truth, which was whether it was in accordance with what Scripture teaches. Even if it was according to the innate essence of the law, as with God-fearing Gentiles. (Rm. 2:14)
People weren't converted to Christianity by reading the Scriptures.
Really? "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 3:15) A
nd your exclusion must also include hearing: "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18:28)
"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures ," (Acts 17:2)
And substantiation: "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures," (Luke 24:44-45 )
But you must be right and the NT church was wrong in doing what Peter, Paul and Apollos did. And the Gentiles judgement must have been right without any wholly Divinely, inspired writings that confirmed this.
The early Christians didn't find Jesus interesting and compelling JUST because he argued from the Scriptures in a new way. People knew him to be unique, were drawn to him..because of their own human heart, made by God, recognizes things (and people) OF God when it, the heart is poor in spirit. His unique gaze upon everyone, his way of teaching, his way of living and his proposals for life. These things people found attractive or repulsive, based on how they approached their OWN humanity.
So now its "just." But overall in essence what you are promoting is the very thing RCs protest against, that of personal judgment, but which for you is not that of judging things in the light of the assured word of God, but apart from it. You are indeed been quite different from other RCs here.
And indeed, , in your extreme militancy against being convinced based upon Scriptural judgment, your basis upon with they judged whether a man of God does so without any objective standard by which to test it. You say "their own human heart, made by God, recognizes things (and people) OF God when it, the heart is poor in spirit," and "How honest they were with THEMSELVES," but what defines God, or being "poor in spirit " and honest with themselves? Based upon your subjective, objectively baseless judgment, an atheist can claim his heart is right, or i could claim my heart must be right based upon purely subjective feelings.
Thus what i said was that "these men manifested they were of God in accordance with what Scripture teaches," for not only did men as Apollos "mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ," (Acts 18:28) but even the Gentiles could see they were of God insofar as "when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law.." (Romans 2:14) Yet it is the written word that was the standard for judging Truth. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20)
Thus in contrast your subjective objectively baseless judgment, most RCs would concur than an objective standard for Truth is necessary even for a a properly formed conscience to judge what is right. The difference is that i hold that supreme source is the wholly inspired Scriptures (which became established due what their heavenly qualities and attestation), and by which the church is judged, as both the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ are not superior to it. But which superiority is what Rome effectively claims, asserting she alone assuredly defines both what Scripture is and means, and thus that she is infallible.
By the unique HUMANITY that is generated by one who has encountered Christ today. Through this method, we TODAY can have the same experience as the apostles and early disciples.
This baseless appeal to subjective esotericism sounds more Gnostic as your get deeper into it.
We can encounter Christ, And we don't get that by studying a book..."
Really? So contrary to what the Holy Spirit says about His wholly inspired word of God, "The law of the Lord is perfect, NOT converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." (Psalms 19:7)
You ignorance and marginalization of the assured word of God is an insult to Him.
We get that through human interaction. The Body of Christ. The Church.
I see. So the church has no transcendent Divine source upon which its Truth claims were tested and established, but one encounters Christ in body of souls whose basis for veracity is that their own poor in spirit. human heart is made by God and recognizes things (and people) OF God. Which sounds just like what i am being falsely accused of claiming.
Otherwise the Scriptures are just a collection of dead letters. With no meaning, no CONNECTION, in a REAL sense, to today.
In-credible! While the Holy Spirit says (in inspiring Scripture) of His word, "the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart," (Hebrews 4:12) and "the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul ," and souls were convinced that Jesus was the Christ by it, and apostles "found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph," (John 1:45) and that "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13) yet they are just dead letters with no meaning to you without the church, but which is a result of believing the then-established Scriptures.
You have the cart before the horse. The church began by souls believing the Scriptures, not by becoming part of a body apart from them. Abraham likewise believed before He saw his promised son. One can hear or read a gospel message today such as Acts 10:36-43 and become born again, and thus become part of the body of Christ, (1Cor. 12:13) and while Christ is manifest thru His body, the church, yet it is because "the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul," and "the word of God is quick, and powerful" (and being wholly inspired of God and existing in an tangible form, Scripture is the assured word of God), that that souls were saved and that there is a body of Christ!
So you can have your Scripture study and historical analyses. I'm too busy for that. Too busy looking for Christ today.
Then with your demeaning and marginalization of His living assured Word and contrast btwn this and knowing Christ, then you have a different Christ than the one whom the the apostles found as being Him "of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write ," and of Him it is "written , that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name," (John 20:31) and by which souls were convinced that Jesus was the Christ.
You can come to Christ without reading Scripture, but not without the Scriptural gospel, and as even Jerome insists, "ignorance of Scripture means ignorance of Christ." Take time for eternity and hear and believe the Scriptures written that ye might have life through his name, lest you awake in Hell to your eternal horror.
It is my understanding that it is. Truth be known I haven't read a hard and fast rule about the matter. My understanding comes from the sensus fidelium if you will, of the forum itself. However, it is somewhat moot since I've never taken an effort to study the idea of Catholic monarchism to form an opinion one way or the other. Just know of its existence.
But I don't think that precludes someone from making observations about the decline of our nation and speculating on what comes next. For my own political perspective I inhabit that gray area between the ballot box and the ammo box anyway and am not enamored with the notion that our salvation lies in 2014, 2016 or beyond. I guess you can thank the abundance of FR cynicism and doom saying for that. My formative years have been spent here on FR so it only follows. You could say I am a child of FR in that sense.
Which, bringing us back to what I perceive to be the main thrust of most of the argument here, is whether Catholicism is being deemed a threat to the United States by some posters? It seems reasonable to conclude that the mere fact of being Catholic, converting to Catholicism or immigrating as a Catholic is considered detrimental to our nation. I find that a troubling perspective and one that is meant to balkanize. And so as our nation collapses are we to resume the Thirty Year's War?
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.