Think Before You Convert
6 June 2009, me @ 2105

Originally written in 2004; has become one of the most popular stops on this site.  At the time I was unaware of the many “variations on a theme” (such as Anglican Use) and we’ve had a change in Pontiff, which has brought some new possibilities.  Yet I think that most of this is still relevant to the decision making processes that people are going through when they consider “swimming the Tiber.”

Many years ago, I made a trip to Pennsylvania for my family business. My mission was to visit Bethlehem Steel, who was making a large piston-rod for our pile drivers (like the one shown at the left in the lathe.) As they turned it to the appointed size on their lathe, they cut it too small. My job was to inspect the damage and approve their proposed repair.

After visiting the shop and seeing the damage, I went to their office. We unrolled the drawing that we had sent them. Their quality assurance people had stamped on the drawing a big stamp with the following words: “THINK BEFORE YOU CUT.” I couldn’t resist pointing this out to Bethlehem’s people; evidently someone in the shop hadn’t noticed this. (I did approve their repair and it worked fine.)

Today, in the chaos of the Anglican Communion(s), many parishioners and priests are seriously considering conversion to Roman Catholicism. This has been a loud siren song to Anglicans ever since the Oxford Movement. I can sympathise with this: I did it myself. The problem of liberalism in the Episcopal Church has been going on for a long time and Roman Catholicism is an inviting solution to that problem.

Although I believe that God was in my decision to convert, and used that decision to further my Christian walk in ways I did not imagine at the start, experience has been a stern schoolmaster. There are many pluses and minuses for anyone coming from an Anglican background to become a Roman Catholic; what appears below isn’t meant to bash anyone, but to put some things forth that you may not have thought about. (It’s not an exhaustive list either.) My only exhortation is like that to the machinists in the Bethlehem Steel shop: THINK BEFORE YOU CONVERT.

The Pluses:

• Strong Intellectual and Cultural Tradition. The Roman Catholic church has the strongest intellectual tradition in Christianity; there is none to match it anywhere else. Any church that can produce thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas, Pascal, Augustine, and yes even Jerome must have something going for it. The cultural tradition is equally deep, in all of the art forms with the likes of Dante and Raphael. This is a strong draw for many.
• Broad Ethnic and Socio-Economic Reach. Roman Catholicism deserves the designation of “catholic” because it is truly encompasses so many groups of people. This is especially interesting for Episcopalians because, as noted elsewhere on this site, the rhetoric about being “inclusive” frequently runs out of gas. (The liberals are getting an expensive lesson in real “diversity” from the Africans these days!) When he visited my first Catholic parish, my brother noted that there were people there who actually looked like they had “worked with their hands” for a living. Also, traditional Catholics have a humility about them that so many of the rest of us could stand to emulate (their marriages stay together better, too.)
• Solid Eucharistic Theology. The Catholics have the best (not necessarily perfect) theology of the Lord’s Supper of anyone. The Bible simply doesn’t support a purely symbolic Eucharist.
• Strong Apostolic Succession. The Catholic church has a better documented continuity of apostolic succession than anyone else. The issue of Petrine succession underscores this.
• Well Thought Out Liturgy. Doctrinal difficulties noted, the Catholic liturgy is well thought out and succinct, and when performed properly is of great beauty.

The Minuses:

• Authoritarian Structure. This is a common gripe of non-Catholics. Roman Catholicism invented the reduced role of the laity, which has been sadly reproduced elsewhere. But there are some other implications of this that most people don’t think about:
  • Catholic parishes have even less autonomy than their Episcopal counterparts. Freedom to pursue an agenda (be it “traditional” liturgies, Charismatic renewal, etc.) that isn’t popular at the diocesan level can get “cut off at the pass” in a hurry.
  • The current conservatism of Roman Catholicism is largely a product of Pope John Paul II. The forces of liberalism in “first world” Roman Catholicism are stronger than most people realise. Had his election gone another way, their response to, say, Gene Robinson’s elevation would have been entirely different. Although John Paul has stacked the College of Cardinals with conservatives, as with Supreme Court nominees, anything can happen with a new Pope.
• The “Article 32” Problem. Although not a cure-all to the child abuse woes, the celibate priesthood is in reality a disaster.
• The Sacrifice of the Mass. The Catholic view of the Mass as a sacrifice–which is tied up with their view of the church–is unbiblical. (So is their view of the church.) The Anglican emphasis on the “once offered” sacrifice is Biblical.
• An Aversion to Enthusiasm: “Via Media” Anglicanism has its own brand of this, but Roman Catholicism, from Joan of Arc to the Jansenists, has an ingrained aversion to any kind of real “sold out to God” kind of commitment on the part of its laity, and to some extent on its religious too. This is a product of institutionalism, which sees this as a threat. The problem with this is simple: in these anti-Christian days, people in the middle of the road get run over.

If I Were an Archbishop…

One thing that gets kicked around in Anglican circles is the idea of an “Anglican Rite” within Roman Catholicism. (That shouldn’t be confused with the existing “Anglican Use” that one does find in the American Catholic church.) From a Roman Catholic viewpoint, this doesn’t make a lot of sense, and if I were in their shoes, I wouldn’t pursue it for the following reasons:

• The Maronite and Byzantine Rites came from Eastern Churches with independent apostolic succession. Anglicanism, like the Confederacy, seceded from Roman Catholicism. That’s why they don’t really accept the apostolic succession of Anglican orders. (what that has to do with apostolic succession is hard to understand.)
• The Episcopal Church has shown a real talent in shedding membership. Why go to the trouble of setting up another rite when you can just wait and pick up the pieces on your own terms?
• The existence of a married clergy in any “Anglican Rite” would create serious problems with the rest of the church.

Some Parting Thoughts

Anglicanism is in many ways the greatest lost opportunity in Christianity. It was started with the idea of restoring the Church to a sound Biblical-Patristic base while including the apostolic succession and liturgy–in effect, “having it all.” Things got sidetracked in the “Roundhead-Cavalier” struggles of the seventeenth century, and Anglican churches too often cater to people whose first desire in their relationship with God is to limit it. The liberals have used this to their advantage and now the bitter fruit of that has come full circle.

Growing up Episcopalian, I always got the impression that the church had a gut lack of confidence in the validity of its own sacraments and the value of its own doctrine. But in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the preface for Whitsuntide reads as follows:

Through Jesus Christ our Lord; according to whose most true promise, the Holy Ghost came down as at this time from heaven with a sudden great sound, as it had been a mighty wind, in the likeness of fiery tongues, lighting upon the Apostles, to teach them, and to lead them to all truth; giving them both the gift of divers languages, and also boldness with fervent zeal constantly to preach the Gospel to all nations; whereby we have been brought out of darkness and error into the clear light and true knowledge of thee, and of thy Son Jesus Christ.

If we have the apostolic succession, the apostles’ teaching, and the power of the Holy Spirit, what else do we need?

Update: Note to my Roman Catholic friends

As you can see in the comments below, I get many comments from Roman Catholics on some of the things I say here.  My only request is this: before you comment away, take a look at one or more of the following:

• Authority and Evangelical Churches
• Reflections of an Orthodox View of the Eucharist (which also applies to the Roman Catholic one)
• Why I Don’t Agree With the Concept of the “Sacrifice of the Mass”

I enjoy the dialogue, but make a stab at least at understanding my position before initiating it.



22 Comments a “Think Before You Convert”

1. Is It Possible? Press Conference 20 October on Anglican and Catholic Unity | Positive Infinity — 19 October 2009 @ 2220
   

   [...] Think Before You Convert [...]

2. James — 21 October 2009 @ 1047
   

   Thankyou for such a well thought out and clear article- I think you raise a great deal of interesting points, although much of what you say strikes this putative convert as rather a matter of opinion! The reduced role of the laity and the strong institutional nature of the Catholic Church strike me as two definite pluses, rather than minuses, probably because I’m highly suspicious of enthusiasm and worry that emphasis on personal readings of the Bible rather than an authoritative tradition can lead to all sorts of trouble. On the other hand, I struggle strongly with the eucharistic tradition you cite as a plus…

3. me — 21 October 2009 @ 1440
   

   The fact, James, that you cite my negatives as positives and e converso (to use a good Aquinan phrase) positives as negatives tells me that you basically like the list, but would rather rearrange it.

   No one goes through the conversion/church change process as much as I have without forming some opinions along the way.

4. James — 21 October 2009 @ 1519
   

   Yes, I think it’s a good list, and again thanks for the time and trouble you’ve taken to arrange it- my comment wasn’t really meant as a criticism, rather a friendly contribution.

5. Katherine — 21 October 2009 @ 1852
   

   This is a really good, concise article. I’ve swum the Tiber, crossed the Channel & forded the Thames to Canterbury. I wouldn’t trade having been raised & educated as a Catholic for anything. Theology, liturgy, liturgical music, spirituality have all been a lateral transfer for me. However, I really appreciate having men AND women as priests & deacons; this inclusiveness lends the Episcopal (Anglican) church a richness that Catholicism has yet to offer. And, yes, the American Episcopal church is experiencing some definite upheaval. May Katharine Jefferts Schori, Rowan Williams & Benedict XVI (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) work well in their somewhat overlapping spheres.

6. me — 21 October 2009 @ 2056
   

   A couple of more articles on this site of interest along these lines are as follows:

   http://www.vulcanhammer.org/whats-important-in-christianity/

   http://www.vulcanhammer.org/my-odyssey-and-why-i-blog-about-the-anglicanepiscopal-world/

7. kim dwyer — 24 October 2009 @ 0637
   

   I suggest strongly that you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Our Saviour did sacrifice Himself once on the cross, but also on the night of the last supper, made a new covenant which is Himself, in the sacrifice of His Sacred body and blood, this is a perpetual sacrifice, ever present till the end of time when he will come in glory to judge the living and the dead.
   Pray for the Holy Spirit to enlighten you, in all humility and with a real desire to know the truth about our Saviour and the reason he came into time and space from eternity.
   To actively deny the holy sacrifice of the Mass and worse to put it down in words to wrongly inform others is a grave matter, i leave it with you, my advice is get praying.

8. Why I Don’t Agree With the Concept of the “Sacrifice of the Mass” | Positive Infinity — 24 October 2009 @ 1008
   

   [...] With the Concept of the “Sacrifice of the Mass”24 October 2009, me @ 10:08Kim Dwyer took strong exception to my statement in “Think Before You Convert” that “(t)he Catholic view of the Mass as a sacrifice–which is tied up with their view of [...]

9. xave — 26 October 2009 @ 0201
   

   You should know that an Anglican Rite that would allow married priests does not cause serious problems, because Eastern Catholic priests can indeed marry and priests converting stay married, obviously. The celibacy of priesthood is not a dogma, but a tradition.

10. me — 26 October 2009 @ 1312
    

    First, xave, one should never underestimate the power of tradition on Roman Catholicism.

    Second, the RCC didn’t create an Anglican Rite but an Apostolic Constitution, which gives local bishops more authority over the formation of these “Anglo-Catholic enclaves.” If anything hinders the progress of this outreach from the standpoint of the RCC, it will be this.

    Third, Eastern Rite churches are primarily aimed at certain ethnic groups, so they don’t pose as much of a threat in the general population as, say, an Anglo-Catholic parish in the RCC. (This is a battle Orthodox churches have dealt with in their outreach, with varying results.)

    There is still a jealousy/morale issue that the RCC will have to deal with–and deal with carefully–with its existing celibate priests. And that’s significant.

11. robin sebastian — 28 October 2009 @ 0053
    

    Loved your article, and as a member of the second (or third ) biggest Rite (the Syro Malabar Catholic Church) in the Catholic Church, I would love to see an Anglican Rite. The Syro Malankara Church is a different rite. In the Syro Malabar Catholic Church all our priests remain celibate whereas in the Syro Malankara Catholic Church married men can become priests but priests cannot marry. (Married men who are priests cannot become bishops either.) Both rites are also in the same ethnic group the Malayalees.

12. Edmund E. Jacoutot — 2 November 2009 @ 1729
    

    Your list of “pluses” are, I feel, most compelling while the list of “minuses” identify not significant issues of orthodozy and the necessity of Apostolic Succession” but instead somewhat lessor issues of local or individual preferences. Wether ones church is “right” is far more important than whether ones church is “doing things right for my comfort level”.

13. me — 3 November 2009 @ 0721
    

    I wouldn’t characterise the issue of the “sacrifice of the Mass” as insignificant.

    As far as the issue of the role of the laity is concerned, that speaks to the whole concept of why we as Christians are here and how we have been called into the church. Those are existential issues.

    I find that most Roman Catholic apologists emphasise authority as the leitmotif of the life of the church. This is understandable; continuity of authority and the consistency of the theory is the raison d’être of Roman Catholicism. It is also the source of many of the RCC’s problems as well. What bothers me is that evangelicals in the U.S. have acquired the same obsession with authority, and will end up with the same unsatisfactory result:

    http://www.vulcanhammer.org/2007/12/07/authority-and-evangelical-churches/

14. Edmund E. Jacoutot — 3 November 2009 @ 1823
    

    Your fear that others will “aquire the same obsession with authority” as the CC seems to equate to fear of that authority she claims (where there is a vaccum everywhere else) which has been the source for the great “draw” she exerts on those who would convert and also responsible for the great strides she has made over the centuries in becoming and maintaining her status as the “elephant in the room” of Christianity.

    Your statement that “the concept of the sacrafice of the mass” is “unbibical” is not of course shared by Catholics and therefore the issue is insignificant – to them. For an Anglican “considering conversion” that “hurdle” seems no more significant than many other Catholic doctines not shared by the “Protestant” Angican Church. With all due respect – my opinions are sorely my own.

15. me — 3 November 2009 @ 2103
    

    You’re correct, Edmund, that the whole business of authority is an appeal of the RCC. That’s terrific until some of us discovered that there’s more to Christianity than the exercise of authority on the earth. Like I said in the article I linked to: the day I make human authority #1 is the day I’m going back to the RCC.

    And you’re also right that the concept of the “sacrifice of the Mass” isn’t an issue for most Roman Catholics. That’s because they either a) agree with the concept or b) don’t understand it. Never underestimate the ignorance of Catholic theology by the faithful; that was one important lesson from eight years as a Roman Catholic.

    But for Anglicans who are thinking about “swimming the Tiber,” issues such as this one and others I raised (and some I didn’t,) insignificant as they may seem to you, are the kinds of “make or break” issues that will determine whether individuals will take the Holy Father up on his offer or not.

16. John Higgins — 25 November 2009 @ 2331
    

    The Sacrifice of the Mass. The Catholic view of the Mass as a sacrifice–which is tied up with their view of the church–is unbiblical. (So is their view of the church.) The Anglican emphasis on the “once offered” sacrifice is Biblical.
    Read John 6 and see if you can identify “The Mass” here or what you subscribe to?

17. me — 25 November 2009 @ 2350
    

    Higgins, I’m not exactly sure what you’re getting at.

    John 6–the “great Eucharistic discourse” in Catholic parlance–deals with Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist. This is something I’ve affirmed repeatedly on this site, most recently in this piece. The matter of the Mass as a sacrifice is not unrelated to the real presence but is not identical.

18. Kaz — 28 November 2009 @ 0328
    

    What, for you, is the pillar and foundation of the truth? And who is the final arbiter of truth?

    According to Scott Hahn, an Evangelical convert to Roman Catholicism: “Ever since the Reformation, over twenty-five thousand different Protestant denominations have come into existence. . . Every single one of them claims to be following the Holy Spirit and the plain meaning of Scripture.”

    If you and I disagree on certain Bible verses, whose interpretations are we to go by?

    On my next comment, I will share with you Bible verses on the Eucharist. And why the Catholic Church will cease to exist; if you take away the Eucharist. Hopefully, you will see in the Roman Catholic Church what Saint Thomas More did. Thank you.

19. Kaz — 28 November 2009 @ 0442
    

    The Eucharist (from The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1322-1419)

    In the Old Testament, as they prepared for their journey in the wilderness, God commanded his people to sacrifice a lamb and sprinkle its blood on their doorposts, so the Angel of Death would pass by their homes. Then they ate the lamb to seal their covenant with God.

    This lamb prefigured Jesus. He is the real “Lamb of God, “ who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Through Jesus we enter into a New Covenant with God (Luke 22:20), who protects us from eternal death. God’s Old Testament people ate the Passover lamb.

    The Apostles and the early Christians understood the words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper as He really meant them – that is, in the literal sense. (1 Cor. 10:16) St. Paul referring to the drinking of the consecrated wine, which was common in those days, and the eating of the consecrated bread says, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?”

    Lest there be any doubt that he was referring to Holy Communion as the real and actual Body and Blood of Christ, he says “ Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord . . . For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the Body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor. 11:27-29).

    Now we must eat the Lamb that is the Eucharist. Jesus said, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you” (John 6:53). At the Last Supper he took bread and wine and said, Take and eat. This is my body (not this is a symbol of my body) . . .This is my blood (not this represents my blood) which will be shed for you” (Mark 14:22-24). In this way Jesus instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist, the sacrificial meal Catholics consume at each Mass.

    The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross occurred “once for all.” It cannot be repeated (Heb. 9:28). Christ does not “die again” during Mass, but the very same sacrifice that occurred on Calvary is made present on the altar. That’s why the Mass is not “another” sacrifice, but a participation in the same, once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

    After the consecration of the bread and wine, no bread or wine remains on the altar. Only Jesus himself, under the appearance of bread and wine, remains.

    “It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63). The fact that Jesus said ‘spirit and life’ does not mean he was speaking symbolically for nowhere in Scripture do we find a single example where “spiritual” means metaphorical or symbolic.

    In response to the Jews’ grumbling about his talk of “eating his flesh and drinking his blood:

    Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever. ” (John 6:52-59). He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

    “I solemnly assure you . . .my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink” (John 6:53,55). Scripture says his teaching was so difficult for some that many of them “returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him” (John6:66). When this occurred, Jesus didn’t say, “Wait, folks! You misunderstood. I just meant you have to come to me and believe in me as your personal Lord and Savior. You don’t think I really meant you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood, do you?” No. Jesus let them leave and then turned to his disciples and said, “Do you also want to leave?” (John6:67). Peter answers for all who believe the Lord’s teaching: “Master to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the holy one of God” (John 6:68-69).

    Cross the Tiber and come home to the Roman Catholic Church. Tony Blair and John Cardinal Newman did. Hope you will too.

20. An Additional Note to my Roman Catholic Friends on “Think Before You Convert” | Positive Infinity — 28 November 2009 @ 0922
    

    [...] Think Before You Convert [...]

21. Kaz — 29 November 2009 @ 0030
    

    My apologies Don. I did not see your notes for your Roman Catholic friends.

22. john — 22 January 2010 @ 0830
    

    It’s taken me 12 years to realise I made a mistake converting to R.C.I enjoyed reading all these comments-very dogmatic like I used to be.Controlling theology seems to be an obsession for Rome.Why can’t they just say some things are ‘mysteries’ like the orthodox church does(the real prescence).
    I’ve decided to return to Anglicanism.Oh, another thing-every R.C. document seems to be full of Marian prayers.It gives me the creeps.

Comment

Name (required)

E-mail (will not be shown) (required)

Website