Church still attracting converts: CHN at record levels

A personal note: The phone rang the other day and the gentleman on the other end identified himself as Jim Anderson from the Coming Home Network. He said he had a message from an old high school friend. Who might that be, I asked, and he gave the name: Dion Berlowitz.

Anderson told me the Coming Home Network, with which I was not familiar, helped Protestants come into the Church, and that Dion was on his way in.

I hadn’t heard from Dion in more than a decade, even though we were best friends at Williamsville South High School, outside Buffalo, sharing several interests, including cartooning and comic books. Raised Jewish, Dion became a born-again Christian in his junior year of high school as his parents’ marriage broke up, and spent hours, days, weeks, and months trying to convert me into a Bible-believing Christian.

In 1971, Dion went on to the University of Buffalo to study literature and I went on to Eisenhower College to study history, and our paths never crossed again until a call out of the blue came from him around 1990, when he told me he was a Presbyterian. We have had no further contact since, though I suspect and hope that will change.

In this initial conversation, Anderson told me that so far, this year, the Coming Home Network has helped 94 Protestant ministers of various denominations, along with many other Protestants, come into the Church. Some, like Dion, are on their way in. This is the largest annual crop since the CHNetwork was founded nine years ago.

Here, in a year in which the Catholic Church in the United States and around the world has been wracked by scandals, we do have good news indeed.

What would prompt a Protestant, especially a minister with a wife and family, to leave his tradition and often his livelihood to come into the Catholic Church, especially when there are so many broken-hearted Catholics embarrassed by the past ten months of sordid revelations involving clerical sexual abuse, bishops’ resignations, episcopal cover-ups and pay-outs? Not to mention the ongoing abuse of authority by bishops to hammer the lay faithful who object to dissidents and heretics speaking in parishes and education conferences.

"For Protestants," says Jim Anderson, "the scandals are a non-issue. Among the hundreds of people I have talked to who are thinking of coming into the Church, the scandals just aren’t an issue. Of all the people who have contacted me, only three or four have mentioned them, and that was only at my prompting.

"To a man, these men are intellectually convinced that the Church is a divine institution established by Christ, and bishops are only human — and, besides, they say, ‘These things are going on in our own denominations — only in our denomination they are not being addressed.’

"They see this as the Holy Spirit cleaning house. The judgment of the Lord begins with the family of God. They view the present scandals as a terrible tragedy; they want justice like everybody else. But as far as the truth of the Catholic faith is concerned, it is a non-issue. It’s sin; it needs to be addressed. And that’s it.

"These men," he continued, "are educated people. Most have master of divinity degrees and doctorates. They are aware of the problems, but once their hearts are converted and they see the Church as Jesus Christ’s, they know Christ will keep His promise. They have experienced troubles in their own denominations, but they know that when they are in the Church, God will prevail."

On average — based on the first ten months of this year — Anderson hears from a Protestant minister every three days who has made the decision to become Catholic.

Most, he says, are drawn to the Church for two reasons. Either they have come to understand the dead end to which the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura leads, and they want to settle, in their own minds, the issue of authority in the Church; or they have been led to the Church by its doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and they want to receive Jesus.

What many Protestants are coming to understand, even at a time when many Catholics and non-Catholics lament the apparent breakdown of authority in the Church, Anderson explained, is that the Church’s authority "is set by God."

"Those who take their faith and Scripture and God seriously," he said, "see the Catholic Church as being the answer to the chaos of the Protestant condition: Sola scriptura is a dead end, is unhistorical and unworkable. They understand this and so they have a crisis of faith and they enter the Catholic Church. And this is occurring across the Protestant spectrum. A lot of people contacting the Coming Home Network are ‘higher church’ Episcopalians or Lutherans, but we do get calls also from ‘low-end’ Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and Assembly of God ministers.

"To speak, as some Catholics do, about a ‘crisis of authority’ in the Church doesn’t make a lot of sense," Anderson said. "There is a ‘crisis of obedience to authority,’ but that has always been the case, just as there has always been a ‘crisis of obedience to the authority of God’ on the part of many men and women. The authority is there, and it is working; it is just not obeyed."

The Coming Home Network was founded in 1993 out of the experiences of several Protestant clergy and their spouses. Upon leaving their pastorates to enter the Catholic Church, these clergy and their families discovered they were not alone. To help others come into the Church — and to deal with some of the tremendous personal and professional obstacles they faced — they began the organization as a support network.

Catholics, Anderson suggested, should understand some of the challenges these ministers face once they have made the intellectual decision to "cross over" to Rome.

"They go through tremendous struggles. They think, ‘I’m losing my friends, my family, my community, my church, and people think I’m crazy and I’m apostatizing from Christianity.’ Often the most serious conflict is with spouses, who not only have to deal with the change of religion, but have practical problems as well, such as, ‘What about me and the children?’ ‘How are we going to survive?’ ‘What will our friends think?’ ‘Have I been following the wrong religion all my life?’

"Most of these people have M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees, and so they are not employable in the world. It’s a difficult decision for these men to give up their work, their careers, and their livelihoods. Nevertheless, 94 this year have entered, or are on their way into, the Church."

One former minister, Anderson recalled, gave up his role as a prominent, prestigious minister for his community to work as a greeter at WalMart. For him, the blessing of being able to receive the Eucharist more than compensated for what he had to give up.

Anderson is well-prepared for his work helping Protestants come into the Church. Reared as a Methodist, the 47-year-old Anderson became a Lutheran at 19. As a history major specializing in medieval Europe at Ohio University in Athens, he knew he was on his way into the Church.

Three years after graduating, he entered evangelical Ashland Seminary in 1980, interested in pursuing studies in ecumenical dialog. In his freshman year, he made the decision to join the Catholic Church, and on July 25, 1981, the Feast of St. James, he was confirmed. His wife, Lynn, who entered the Church in 1983, now teaches in a Catholic school.

Contrary to popular stereotypes, he said, the biggest roadblocks would-be converts confront are not such "hot-button" issues as contraception, papal infallibility, or women’s rights, but the Church’s doctrines concerning Mary.

Many Protestants, he said, "are scandalized by the liturgical craziness. They try to get around it by seeking out a Byzantine rite, or seeking out orthodox parishes. And usually, if they come into the Church, having been good Protestants, they have church-hopped enough to have found a parish where they don’t have to deal with abuses."

But, he added, many look beyond the abuses, because "they are attracted to Christ in the liturgy. For a lot of the converts, there are many who have intellectually convinced themselves already that they must join the Church before they ever attended Mass. And when they finally start going to Mass, often there is a culture shock, especially if they come from a small, intimate, loving Baptist church, and go into a parish of 2,000 people who aren’t particularly friendly. So there is this bit of culture shock — and that doesn’t include the shock of liturgy."

Asked to name the leading intellectual sources Protestants are reading to find their way into the Church, Anderson named familiar names.

"The intellectual sources are, certainly, Cardinal Newman, G.K. Chesterton, Bishop Fulton Sheen, Scott Hahn, and Catholic Answers.

"But most often, it is the fathers of the Church. When Protestant ministers encounter the fathers, they realize they were lied to and betrayed, because they were taught the Protestant Reformation cleansed Christianity of the barnacles on the Barque of Peter and the Reformers recovered ancient Christianity. Then they go back and read the apostolic fathers, especially Ignatius of Antioch who is preaching the Real Presence, the authority of bishops, and all these many Catholic things, and the conclusion is the words of Jesus, who says: ‘I will be with you always.’

"Either Jesus kept His promise, or the Church went to Hell in a hand basket after the death of St. John.

"When they start studying the early Church fathers, they are blown out of the water."

The Coming Home Network’s executive director is former Presbyterian minister Marcus Grodi, who, captured the feeling and beliefs of many fellow Protestants who came into the Church in his book, Journeys Home (Queenship Publishing 1997).

"[T]he biggest thing that opened my heart to the truth of the Catholic faith was not all the apologetic arguments that convinced me of the trustworthiness of Catholic truth, but the realization that the Catholic Church, with all of her saints and sinners, was exactly what Christ had promised.

"The majority of complaints against the Catholic Church over the centuries have been aimed at the decisions and actions of bad Popes, or immoral clergy, or ignorant laity, or corrupt Catholic nobility, and the correct answer to this is, ‘But, of course! The Church is made up of wheat and tares, from the bottom to the top, sinners in need of grace! This is no reason to leave and form a new church, for any church made up of human beings is made up of sinners.’

"All true conversions to the Catholic faith from any other starting point carry with them complications, primarily because this conversion must be rooted in and thereby an extension of one’s conversion and surrender to Christ. If becoming a Catholic does not involve this, I don’t believe it is a true conversion. It might be a change of convenience or even possibly for some sort of personal gain or aggrandizement.

"But only when one recognizes or painfully discovers that to be fully a follower of Jesus Christ, and thereby have the full potential of growing in union with Him, one must also be in union with the Church He established in and through His Apostles, can one be truly converted.

"These conversions by definition must involve some extent of leaving behind and rejecting part of what a person once held very dear. Some things can be joyfully brought along, others can be cautiously tolerated, but yet there are ideas, practices, and sometimes even relationships which must be severed.

"It of course never means that we cease to love those we may need to leave behind, or who choose to turn their backs on us. In fact, we are called all the more to shower our now confused or indignant friends and family with the all-forgiving, all-accepting love of Christ. However, we must not let the emotional trajectories of our loving glances turn our attention off of the fullness of truth found only in union with the Catholic Church."

For more information about the Coming Home Network, go to its web site, www.chnetwork.org, or call 740-450-1175.

Your refusal to respond to your dogmatic statement is simply an admission you made it up!

You wish.

When you make absoloute statements you should be prepared to back them up. You cannot simply assume you won't be called on it.

With you around? I'd never assume such a thing.

Are you going to answer the question or are you prepared to admit your statement was made up of whole cloth?

Are you suggesting that Stephen was not baptised? When we first meet him in Acts 6, he is being selected as one of the 7 to run affairs. He is selected from among the disciples.

Previously in Scripture, we see Jesus instructing his Apostles to go out into the world, gathering disciples and baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Since Stephen was a disciple, and was selected for this special service, there is no doubt that he had been baptised. Do you think the Apostles failed to baptise converts? Do you think they put the unbaptised in charge of affairs?

Don't be silly.

So, like I said last time, if you wish to argue about whether grace is imparted at Baptism or not, that is a different subject and one upon which we will not agree.

That doesn't make my statements about his being full of grace and Mary's being full of grace "meaningless."

I think a name like saraDIPPITY gives me the latitude to reflect some apparent ignorance,so I take no risks with this question,I hope.

I have always believed Jesus was the Word made flesh. Therefore what He said as well as what He did had significant meaning. Ditto,for those to whom He spoke and what He said to specific groups. Likewise with the location of where He said or did what He said or did.I believed that all those factors were to be considered in whatever meanings we gave to our individual interpretations of scripture.

Given that the passages you cited in your post were all spoken to the Apostles only,I believe it was to them He gave the promises,we so often seem to take for granted were meant for us. That is one of the reasons I am Catholic and when I pray I ask the Holy Spirit to conform my mind to the mind of the Church.Always aware that one of the twelve betrayed Him.

I also give God the attribute of a God of order and believe that scripture builds on what came before.Do any of you have any comments,I can't find threads that have discussed this particular issue.Thanks

#341 (SD) Yes, of course. Except that Stephen got this grace through Baptism and the coming of the Holy Spirit, after being born in the normal state. This was all after the Crucifixion, of course.

Acts 6:

[1] Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists murmured against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.
[2] And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.
[3] Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty.
[4] But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."
[5] And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Proch'orus, and Nica'nor, and Ti'mon, and Par'menas, and Nicola'us, a proselyte of Antioch.

It is a reasonable to surmise Stephen received the Holy Spirit at baptism.

[6] These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them.

The apostles "laid their hands" upon the selected disciples.

[7] And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.
[8] And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.

Now, and only now, does Stephen become "full of grace".

So, like I said last time, if you wish to argue about whether grace is imparted at Baptism or not, that is a different subject and one upon which we will not agree.

It is not suggested that grace is not imparted at Baptism. That is entirely different than claiming Stephen became "Full of Grace" at Baptism. They are two entirely different things with entirely different meanings and it would be difficult for even you to twist the meaning.

In order to give you the benefit of the doubt I looked for "Full of Grace" in the Catholic Catechism. There are 10 entries. 2 for Jesus and 8 for Mary. That is to be expected based on the special veneration of Mary. (sly smile).

To repeat; there is no Biblical or CC reference to any person becoming "Full of Grace" at Baptism.

You show that Scripture is often a mirror. Those who think there's a natural hierarchy see one in the text, as you point out. Those who see a radical egalitarianism do take those things as written for and about every believer.

Of course, the very existence of letters written from Apostles to the common believers in the Church negates the idea of egalitarianism in the early Church.

And the very same people who deny that Apostolic authority was handed down upon the death of the Apostles, read all of the Apostolic privleges as being handed down to all.

Interesting.

It is a reasonable to surmise Stephen received the Holy Spirit at baptism.

Thank you.

The apostles "laid their hands" upon the selected disciples.

Now, and only now, does Stephen become "full of grace".

I don't think you can say that. Just because he is mentioned at that point as being full of grace doesn't mean he only became so at that point.

Regardless, the laying on of hands is obviously a Confirmation or Ordination, restoring his baptismal grace.

It is not suggested that grace is not imparted at Baptism. That is entirely different than claiming Stephen became "Full of Grace" at Baptism. They are two entirely different things with entirely different meanings and it would be difficult for even you to twist the meaning.

Are you suggesting that only some grace is imparted at baptism, and this is different than being full of grace? Is Baptism perhaps a partial cleansing?

I'm sure the God of the Google Search in impressed.

To repeat; there is no Biblical or CC reference to any person becoming "Full of Grace" at Baptism.

That you understand, anyway. You were doing much better just claiming my words have no meaning, than you are trying to understand them.

(OR) To repeat; there is no Biblical or CC reference to any person becoming "Full of Grace" at Baptism.

That you understand, anyway. You were doing much better just claiming my words have no meaning, than you are trying to understand them.

It is simple, unless you are so full of your delusions of intellectual superiority that you can't see beyond your snotty nose. THERE IS NO BIBLICAL OR CATHOLIC CATECHISM REFERENCE TO ANYONE BUT JESUS (2 TIMES) AND MARY (8 TIMES) BEING "FULL OF GRACE".

Regardless, the laying on of hands is obviously a Confirmation or Ordination, restoring his baptismal grace.

What? More Gospel according to Dave? Why don't you just read the Bible rather than winging it?

Do you have a particularly "Catholic" definition of "Unanimous"?

To say that a teaching has the unanimous consent of the Fathers is to say that one or the other of the following is true:

1.It is explicitly affirmed by all the Fathers.

2. It is explcitly affirmed by some of the Fathers and explicitly denied by none of them

This is a good starter definition, and it is hardly "Catholic" in a pejorative sense. It merely accomodates the obvious truth that no one Father's opinion trumps all others.

There is another problem with the quotes from Augustine that you give, that I should have pointed out earlier. Whenever the Fathers oppose the teaching of Scripture to something "from without", they are not opposing the teaching of Scripture to a teaching found in the traditions of the Church. For the dichotomy between Scripture and Church Tradition is not a dichotomy until after the Reformation. So, when they say things like "scripture alone...", the question to ask is "Scripture alone as opposed to what ?" Scripture is not being opposed to the traditions of the apostolic Churches, but to the texts of pagans, the teachings of pagans, etc. So, when Augustine says "Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud" that which is from without, to which he is opposing the message of Scripture, is not the traditions of the Church (in which he himself is a Bishop, and from which he received both the Scripture and his interpretation of Scripture). Rather, he is opposing the teachings of Scripture to the teachings of Manichees, Roman astrology, donatist theories, etc. That you read these passages from Augustine to affirm an opposition between Scripture and tradition shows more that you are importing post-Reformation categories into Augustine than that Augustine affirmed a post-reformation thesis.

Given that the passages you cited in your post were all spoken to the Apostles only,I believe it was to them He gave the promises,we so often seem to take for granted were meant for us.

I'm puzzled. Are you speaking of Quester's posts? They certainly weren't all spoken to the Apostles. At least half of the Scriptural posts were spoken by the Apostles.

"...when I pray I ask the Holy Spirit to conform my mind to the mind of the Church."

I know this will shock you but I must question why you don't ask Him to conform your mind to His mind?

To repeat; there is no Biblical or CC reference to any person becoming "Full of Grace" at Baptism.

The Catechism says:

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. 66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

If you have "nothing remains that would impede" your entry into the Kingdom of God, then you are ready to meet God face-to-face. In other words, you are full of grace.

Also:

1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:

Baptism gives sanctifying grace, which is what I said. Adam and Eve had this grace, but lost it. Their loss had been passed down through the ages. Stephen, and any Christian has this grace restored fully at Baptism.

Mary had this grace given to her in a special way. But Mary being ready to enter the Kingdom and the newly baptised being likewise ready are in the same state.

Hi, Saradippity, ... you said ...
Given that the passages you cited in your post were all spoken to the Apostles only,I believe it was to them He gave the promises,we so often seem to take for granted were meant for us.
Granted, ... the scripture passages provided in post #371 are from teachings JESUS gave directly to His apostles, ... so, ... you may be correct, ... it may be true that these teachings were only meant for them (the Apostles) and not for the Church as a whole.
However, in another of my posts, further on in the thread (#375), Paul writes to the Christians at Rome the following words ...
Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

So, here we have evidence of the same operation of the Holy Spirit that JESUS promises to His apostles ... that the Holy Spirit will communicate truth, in this case, to Christians in general, as well as the apostles of the former case.
Finally, my posts #378 and #380 quote James' teaching to the Church ...
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

This passage of scripture admonishes its listeners (members of the Church) to seek wisdom from GOD, and that GOD, so besought, will grant His wisdom liberally to the asker.
Now you might ask ... why would God not urge us to seek His wisdom from the church ?
Well, after all, it is GOD's wisdom. He knows it better than anyone else could.
The Church, ... for all its importance in the plan of GOD, ... is fallible, ... for it is composed, at every level, within and without, by fallible men and women. Try as they might, they cannot guarantee to you that they are presenting to you the full uncompromised truth of GOD. They might come very close. But, to be sure of the truth of GOD, we are to ask GOD.
And GOD promises to answer, through His written Word and by the Holy Spirit. In fact, GOD urges us to come boldly before His throne, that we may receive what He has for us.
Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

The Holy Spirit simultaneously guides the the Church Universal, the individual christian, and individual groups of christians. The degrees to which individual christians, christian groups, or the church reflect the teaching of the Holy Spirit derives from the degree that any of these is receptive and obedient to the teaching of the Holy Spirit

I agree. I also agree when you say that we do not always receive the teaching of the Holy Spirit in a perfectly receptive ways, that deception is on the part of the receiver, not the giver. Ok.

Now how do you know two things:

1. The Holy Spirit is teaching the Universal Church X.

2. The Universal Church is receiving without deception the Holy Spirit's infallible teaching that X.

Unless there are clear conditions which, if satisfied, give me the knowledge that 1 and 2 are true, what difference does it make that the Holy Spirit is teaching X? What difference does it make that the Holy Spirit is teaching that X to the Universal Church unless we can know that the Holy Spirit is teaching X to teh Universal Church?

After all, it is you who sayMany times, we truly do not know what we think we know.

Please do not reply that the sign is agreement by all Christians, for then we would be really screwed--seeing as to how disagreement has plagued virtually every teaching ever put forward.

Funny I thought Catholics believed that Jesus was God..but I guess you are willing to trade that off unless we make Mary a godess for ya

I am not at all clear what your point is. You know perfectly well that even if the Catholic Church did not hold that Mary is sinless, you would still have to concede that Rom 3:8 admits of an exception. That is my whole point. Rom 3:8 admits of at least one exception: Jesus Christ. Catholics hold that Christ is God and sinless. Catholics hold that Mary is not God, nor a goddess, and yet sinless as well. We hold that there is more than one exception to Rom 3:8. How does saying that Mary is sinless contradict Rom 3:8 if we all know that Rom 3:8 admits of at least one exception?

The Bereans,I have learned from nonCatholics,were in great favor because they pored over scripture,testing everything against it. That is what I do so I compare the New Testament to the Old,the epistles to the Gospels and when the scriptures do not reconcile I hold to the last applicable passage I understood. Therefore,I find myself holding to the Gospel in any passages that conflict.

So while there is much that Paul has written that conforms to scripture,some simply does not.So,I listen to Church teachings and know that clearly Jesus Christ gave the Apostles and their Successors more promise of God's guidance than He gave to me.And,surely there are plenty enough things pleasing to God,for me to do,pray and think about to keep me occupied!!!

Recently,I have read some interesting articles about Paul and I was quite happy because although I don't know whether they are right or wrong they do make me know that others see some of the things that I see or perceive.Thanks for your comments.

If all you want is for me to rely on Scripture, then you should know that I already do and that you did not need to quote from Augustine to convince me to do so. What I will not do is pretend that the texts are intelligible in themselves, or even have a determinate meaning, when read wihtout having first affirmed the teachings of the apostolic churches.

To say that a teaching has the unanimous consent of the Fathers is to say that one or the other of the following is true:

1.It is explicitly affirmed by all the Fathers.

2. It is explcitly affirmed by some of the Fathers and explicitly denied by none of them

This is a good starter definition, and it is hardly "Catholic" in a pejorative sense. It merely accomodates the obvious truth that no one Father's opinion trumps all others.

Is the following correct?

Council of Trent

Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of the Sacred Books:

... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,—wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy Mother Church—to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished with the penalties by law established."

In the absence of a word by word interpretation of Scripture approved by the unanimous consent of the fathers, it would appear you could be in deep doo doo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.