Converting to Catholicism?

Converting to Catholicism?
by Abu Daoud

Since I just posted a blurb about Tony Blair "converting" to Catholicism I thought I would share my thoughts on how to correctly use that word.

My sense is that one does not convert within a religion (Christianity), but from one religion to another, or no religion to a religion. Thus Tony Blair, who was Anglican and is now Roman Catholic, has not converted. Rather, he has "entered into full communion with Rome," or more simply, "has become Roman Catholic."

Usually there is some kind of official rite or ritual so that one can become this or that kind of Christian. I am Anglican, and even if I started going to a Methodist church and went there for years, I would remain Anglican. Unless I changed my membership and was received into the UMC.

Of course, neither the Methodist nor the Anglican churches make any claims to be the true church, but rather understand themselves as communities within the true church. On the other hand, both the Catholic Church (which is a whole family of churches, the largest of which is the Roman) and the Orthodox Churches (which is like a confederation of churches, the largest of which is the Russian Orthodox) understand themselves to be, in some way, the true church--the one that Jesus himself founded.

This does not mean that Catholics and Orthodox understand other Christians to be outside of the grace of God necessarily. What it does mean is that they are imperfectly connected to Christ's body, the Church. The Church for them (Catholics and Orthodox) is certainly connected to the visible hierarchy, to the visible congregation.

To further complicate matters Catholics acknowledge that Orthodox Christians have a valid priesthood and sacraments (unlike us Anglicans whose orders are void). But the Orthodox in general have been loathe to admit that Catholics have a valid priesthood and sacraments.

And I'm not even getting into the question of the Oriental Orthodox here, who, unlike the Orthodox and Catholics, did not accept the Definition of Chalcedon in 451.

All this to say, my preference is not to speak of one kind of Christian "converting" to another kind of Christians. Even if we accept that some churches have a more valid claim to apostolic origins--and I think that historically speaking we must accept some such claims--it is wrong to say that entering the communion of this or that fellowship or community or Church is in fact a conversion.