Can one become a Born-Again Christian and still be a Roman Catholic?
Absolutely. The conversion experience (which is what is usually meant by “born again”) is something that, however it takes place, makes one sense God as a vibrant and active force in one’s life. It ordinarily leads one to active membership in a church that most nearly suits his/her spiritual needs. For a sincere Roman Catholic pre-conversion experience, the RCC would be the appropriate place in which to live out one’s renewed Christian life.
I must, however, point out that many theologians of the Roman Catholic and Anglican bent refer to what is called “baptismal regeneration” – the idea that in undergoing baptism, the “old man” in oneself is put to death and one is regenerated spiritually as a child of God and a part of Christ’s Body the church. Hence the term “born again” is taken to apply to Holy Baptism and not to the conversion experience.
Re the OP: well of course.
Why?
In fact, according to Jesus’ own teaching, being born again is a condition of salvation:
Oops - hit submit before I was finished. Just wanted to add that, as Polycarp points out, there are different approaches to the concept of being born again. In my experience, the Roman Catholic and Anglican traditions take what I would call a more “institutional” approach, where the sacraments of baptism and confirmation are signs of being born again, while other Protestant groups take a more “individual” approach, emphasising an individual experience. However, there are groups within the Roman Catholic and Anglican traditions, called charasmatics, who emphasise an individual experience of being born again, in addition to the sacramental approach.
I should probably note that the specific phenomenon of “Born Agin Christians” tend to be of the really conservative variety. Some groups withing that movement (if you could call it that) are rather hostile to the Catholic Church.
Well, yes, smiling bandit has a point – in common popular speech the specific phrase “Born-Again-Christian” is linked to an experience/phenomenon/movement that is most associated with the hardline fundamentalist/Pentecostal lines of Protestantism; arising, as did these schools of belief in general (mostly in the USA) out of a reaction against the “institutional approach” in more mainstream churches.
Nothing prevents the person undergoing the conversion experience, or Baptism in the Spirit, from doing so in his own, unique way, and within the bosom of his/her already-established church (e.g. Charismatic Catholics).
However, since most of those using the term have been in the Pentecostalist/Fundamentalist schools, the term became associated with their doctrines, including the hostility to the RCC, and church leaders being human, it’s kind of unavoidable that many started preaching that there’s only one "right"way to become Born-Again.
Speaking as a former born-again fundy, my answer is an enthusiastic “yes.” Both I [born and raised Presbyterian] and my wife [born and raised Episcopalian] “met the Lord,” as the fundamentalists would say, within the circle of a Catholic Charismatic prayer group. I had no question that I and the people I worshipped with had had a salvation experience–been born again–in every sense of the term.
For me, the defining element was and is the personal relationship with the Divine. A favorite story: Soren Kierkegaard reportedly asked a woman on the streets of Copenhagen if she were Christian. “Young man!” she replied. “Of course I’m Christian. I’m a DANE!” The emphasis is that being a Christian, having a born-again experience, whatever one calls it, should emphatically not be simply an aspect of where you live, who you hang out with, or what religion you were brought up in. There is for all of us the possibility for a personal encounter with the Divine that transcends where you happen to go to church, or even IF you go to church.
Translation: think about what you believe, think about why you believe it, and seek a deeper and personal experiential understanding of your own relationship with what you perceive as deity. For Christians, this specifically means a personal, born-again experience with Christ as savior, and I submit that that is possible within ANY context, within any church, or outside of any church, no matter how either the public at large or specific Christian groups care to define the term “born-again.”
Of course, I am now Pagan, believe in reincarnation, and the expression “born again” has an ENTIRELY different meaning for me! <g>
“…no matter how either the public at large or specific Christian groups care to define the term “born-again.””
We don’t define it, and I doubt you were truly born-again. Maybe you felt all tingly inside, but when someone says,
“…seek a deeper and personal experiential understanding of your own relationship with what you perceive as deity.”
I know they don’t get it.
FWIW, Reactor, you have chosen to insult my friends, while HJay has spoken with Christian compassion to my sister when she was troubled in spirit. Guess who I consider is doing the work of Christ?
Reactor, I strongly doubt you were truly born again in the spirit.
quote:
"Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. (Matt 7:21)
Ditto. Reactor and I can say the same back to you.
:eek: 
P.S. Reactor’s statement has plenty of truth in it, imho.
FWIW shrug
If you don’t define it, how can you use someone’s own words to “doubt” they experienced it.
If you can read the English language, His, you know what it is I stand for, and why I believe it to be the will of my Lord and Savior. Tell me where it is that you see me falling short.
Let me ask the opposite question: why wouldn’t it be possible for a Catholic to have a “born-again” experience and remain Catholic. I will also point out that while I have never had a Road-to-Damascus type of experience, and am thus hesitant to define myself as a “born again” Christian, I’m pretty sure I could match anyone on this Board or elsewhere when it comes to the depth of my relationship with God. I have also pushed the issue of whether I wouldn’t be considered a Christian because I didn’t have a Road-to-Damascus experience. Even His4Ever would not go so far as to tell me I wouldn’t.
I would also point out that, as I understand things is the whole point of “Not everyone who cries ‘Lord, Lord’” is that we, mortal, fallible, human beings cannot know whom God will ultimately judge as righteous, and there will be those who are convinced of their own righteousness who will be sadly disappointed. I admit I might be one of them, despite my best efforts. Still, I will not yield my faith or do what I believe to be wrong.
CJ
I didn’t have a “road to Damascus” experience, either, Seige and I’m definitely not convinced of my own righteousness, contrary to what some may think. If I were righteous, I wouldn’t need Jesus as my Savior. No one is rightoues in God’s eyes except through faith in Christ and his shed blood for them.
Polycarp, it seems that you should probably know some of the answer to that question due to your conversations with conservative Christians. There’s some big differences there that I doubt I ever understand. I won’t, however, go so far as to question any of your motives. If you believe that what you’re standing for is the will of the Lord, then what can I say except I feel the same way about what I stand for, albeit I wish I could do it in a better, more understandable manner.
When someone says, “I know they don’t get it,” I know they don’t get it.
Thanks, Polycarp, but no offense was taken.
Interesting thought, Reactor. I respectfully disagree. At the time I was Christian, I’d had a dramatic conversion experience. I was “born of water and of the Spirit.” Speaking in tongues, healing, the various other Gifts of the Spirit [though only other Charismatics accept that as evidence, of course. Advocates of Christian Dispensationalism see it as something quite different! <g>] In short, I was as absolutely dead-sure certain as it was possible to be that I was saved, born again, washed in the Blood of the Lamb, and any other metaphor you’d care to employ.
I submit that accepting such a statement as true if the speaker still claims to be a Christian, but then deciding it NEVER was true if he changes his mind, even after many years, is circular reasoning. You can end up biting your own tail that way.
I believe that I did “get it.” I was for many years a lay preacher, and was probably responsible for bringing a number of people to the Lord, or helping them move closer, though that’s not the sort of thing to brag about, certainly. I knew scripture thoroughly. I was part of various outreach ministries in the church.
But I changed. I will NOT say I outgrew that phase of my life, because that would imply a condescending sense of “I’m beyond all that now.” That’s not what I mean. For many, the Christian path is exactly best for them, exactly where they should be.
But for me, personally and in my own spiritual walk, I have grown. I have become more tolerant, more accepting of people no matter what their personal beliefs might be, and, I hope, more loving. What still hurts me most about memories of my Christian path, many years ago, now, was how quickly I could assume that someone else was going to be tortured for all eternity simply because he didn’t think the same way I did. Uh-uh. That, in fact, was the first in a series of things that ultimately led me away from Christianity.
One thing I do know about people and their beliefs. They are dynamic. They change. They grow. They adapt.
Or they die. Don too rigid a mental straitjacket, and sooner or later you’ll find it cripples the mind . . . and the heart.
Amen, HJay. Well spoken.