November 20, 2007 9:22 AM
Evangelical to Catholic: my journey #5
[Note: this is part of a continuing series chronicling my journey from evangelicalism to Catholicism. This series is not meant to cause division, but to reveal division already there - and to spark honest discussion. As an evangelical I've heard and continue to hear lots of criticism of the Catholic church but little self-examination on the Protestant side. So if my comments seem more directed towards questioning nonCatholic believers, that is why. Please, if you are new to this discussion, realize that a lot of ground has already been covered in the comments and read through those on previous entries before rehashing old news. I am receiving a lot of feedback that this has been an eye-opening and thought-provoking series for many believers on either side. If that is the case, then I consider my call as a writer fulfilled. I can only hope that each of us is examining his/her conscience for areas of stubbornness, presumption and pride.]
It's interesting to observe the unfolding comments since I announced my intention to become a Catholic. If anything, God has used the comments by what one commenter called the "dissenters" to show me that I am indeed headed in the right direction.
For me to post a 3000 word piece and have someone attack my use of the word "happy" to describe my condition is absolutely ludicrous - and a picture on a very small level of the spirit on which the Protestant ethic was built.
I'm sorry I didn't use the approved Christian jargon to make my position unassailable. What I am experiencing is joy, peace, contentment, more love for God and more love for my fellow human beings, an increased ability to hear from my Heavenly Father. Perhaps that will clarify what I summed up under the admittedly inadequate word "happy."
But God is using everything to show me things I couldn't see before. When I say the Protestant ethic is built on protest, that is what I mean. As Peter Cram has described it: "one long, continuous line of protesters protesting against their fellow protesters, generating thousands of denominations, para-churches, and 'free churches,' which are simply one-church denominations."
Not to mention the ultimate in "Have It Your Way" mentality: the home church.
I find it interesting that Protestants buckle against papal authority and yet so willingly submit to individual pastors and church authority - with often flawed and spiritually fatal results.
Many statements I make here could grow into dissertations. But it is not my job at this point to be responsible for explaining the Catholic Church – particularly to those who aren’t even open. There are many more qualified places to go for that information. Anyone sincere in their desire to understand Catholic teachings can begin their own research in order to understand what it is they think they hate rather than continuing to pass on myths and prejudice which have been handed down for 500 years throughout the fractured universe known as Protestantism.
My goodness, if all Protestants would stop squabbling with each other and with the Catholic Church and unite against the real enemies, how much better a place our world would be! What I discovered in my reporting on the Aurora Planned Parenthood clinic - their largest abortion mill yet - was that one of the miraculous things God had done there was to allow Catholics and Evangelicals to come together to see a higher purpose that united them. The Evangelical leaders confessed that their congregations were sadly out of touch with the reality of Planned Parenthood, abortion statistics, etc - and that the Catholic Church had never stopped educating and organizing around this issue.
But I don't want to digress too far from my main point here - which is why the heavy hitters commenting here have only made me lean more toward the Catholic Church.
One person yesterday faulted me for basing my decision on my feelings and experience rather than on theology.
May I submit that a spiritual experience is valid? That when Samuel heard God's voice, he was obedient? That when Jesus said to Peter "Follow me" that if Peter had listened to the nay-sayers and nitpickers and invalidaters, that he would have not become the person God intended him to become?
Each of us has the opportunity of having that close a connection with our Heavenly Father. That's why He sent Jesus. When I surrendered my life to Christ 20 years ago I was committing to saying yes to God whenever and wherever He called. I know a lot of people “accept Jesus†but then never follow through. I look back on my past 20 years as a follower of Christ and while I see that I have not been perfect - not by a long shot! - I have been obedient. I have many reminders around me of things God called Tripp and me to do which rational-thinking Christians would have – and actually did - advise against.
Faith is not a rational issue. Faith is the substance of things unseen. Maybe those who live in faith become the substance ourselves. I would hope that when people look at my life, they could say - Oh, that is what faith looks like.
My point is that many of the dissenters here are not asking questions with a sincere and open heart but with a “gotcha!†mentality. They are reading my heartfelt words with a “gotcha!†mentality. How can I invalidate Barbara’s experience and what she says God has been showing her?
It reminds me of people who hang out at Christian sites to poke holes in the faith of believers, trying to invalidate their experience. Can’t you see that believing the idea that Jesus was born of a Virgin, died for our sins and rose from the dead is just as vulnerable to “rational†thought as the idea I’m posing here: that yes, God intended there to be one unified Church, which I do now believe with all my heart is the Catholic Church.
It’s a leap of faith. Just as when I accepted Christ, God illuminated many things I mocked and scorned before as an antiChristian, in accepting God’s gift of the church – my inheritance of an additional 1500 years of Christian tradition and history - I am seeing things I was too blind to see before.
As Paige and others have pointed out – very eloquently and without a hint of malice – those convinced that Catholicism is wrong will read the same scripture and see something while those with more open minds might begin to see something else. I don’t know if the dissenters are reading all the comments, but my goodness! Did you notice the one from a man who’d been converted by studying church history while he was in a Protestant seminary? God can speak to someone like that as suddenly and inexplicably as He can speak to someone pulling fish from the sea.
Some have brought up the fact that some Catholics report never learning of a personal relationship with Jesus in the Catholic Church. Like me, many have then found him through the Evangelical Church. As my oldest daughter said last Sunday, “The door swings both ways†- as though the scales are balanced.
But the two experiences are not the same: Catholics who become Evangelicals by and large did not have a relationship with Jesus when they left the church. Evangelicals who convert to Catholicism – and there are many, many, many of us – do know Jesus, know our Bible, are strong in our faith. In addition, we pay a heavy price to follow where God leads us. Many lose family and friends. It’s reminiscent of the days when miscegenation was a crime or a sin and those who married outside their race were driven out of churches and families.
Frankly, I find it not very appealing at all that some of my brothers and sisters in Christ react so defensively and aggressively. Can’t you see that you then become are like those who attack your faith? One person – can’t remember if it was an email or a comment – even compared becoming Catholic to becoming Muslim!
I also find it sad that believers pay lip service to the Body of Christ being found in the worldwide population of believers and yet spend vast amounts of energy squabbling over theology and making sure that everyone knows that they alone have gotten it right while the great majority are in error. Over and over I see a lack of charity and humility in those who consider themselves adept at defending the faith – or whatever subgroup of faith held by their particular brand of Protestantism.
I do want to say that going to Mass is changing me. It is just a more quiet and contemplative way to worship and find myself spending less time talking to God and more time listening. God is giving me new insights and understandings. Those interested in invalidating what I have to say will undoubtedly continue to find things to pick apart. But God has also given me a peace that I don’t owe them an accounting. There are some things you grasp by faith. Every believer knows that and knows what it’s like to suffer the persecution of nonbelievers. I really think it’s time to stop the persecution of Catholics.
Time to get over the protest ethic – to go beyond lip service and truly start living life as a Christian in a body of believers, allowing God to knit our hearts together so that we can do a better job accomplishing his purposes on earth.
~~~~~
[Part 5 of a series. Google WIBAWIB in my right sidebar to find other installments]
Posted in Evangelical to Catholic, My life | Permalink
Comments
Thank you for sharing your experiences, Barbara. I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (popularly referred to as Mormons), and I have often noticed what you mention about the squabbling. The worst feeling is having someone tell you you're not a true Christian--when you have a personal relationship with Christ.
It saddens me that in the blogosphere many of us spend far too much time judging and not enough time sharing and loving and being a member of the Body of Christ.
Posted by: Emily C | November 20, 2007 10:23 AM
Thanks again Barbara for so beautifully explaining yourself. The deep seated hatred for Catholics by Protestants does confuse me at times. In fact my own father is a convert (33 years ago, when he married my mother). His parents STILL will not stop persecuting us. It has been a difficult road with his side of the family. My dad will often quote Fr. John Corapi (you can listen to him on EWTN) NO CROSS - NO CROWN! My father also says some of the same things about becoming a Catholic it is simply PEACE - JOY - CONTEMTMENT.
Also, do you remember this past Sundays Gospel? That even our family and friends will hand us over! And that we should not worry about our defense beforehand HE will provide for us what we need to say at the appropriate time.
Your story is helping me understand the way my grandparents think, thank you for that. I have nothing but compassion and love for them, we harbor no bitterness for all they have said and done to us. It is our family's hope that they will reconcile their hatred before they die. Keep the faith Barbara, your reward in heaven will be great!
Posted by: Carolyn | November 20, 2007 10:37 AM
Barbara, those of us who have posted comments either criticizing or questioning certain well-known Catholic doctrines are not your enemies. We are your friends, and we are worried that you are headed down a wrong road. I skimmed over all the comments prior to writing this, and didn't see any that crossed a line into being nasty or unkind. If I didn't care about you, I wouldn't comment! And many have gone out of their way to say they have Catholic friends/family that they love, and that they have no personal hatred for Catholics.
"As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend." Prov 27:17
Of course your happiness is important and is a gift of God. But as you well know, our happiness can't be the only arbiter of what is right or wrong. Most commenters, myself particularly, are waiting to read some Biblical reasons for the change, not just subjective ones. As we both know, purely subjective reasons can be very misleading and even devastating.
Posted by: Marie | November 20, 2007 11:55 AM
Barbara,
I am a cradle Catholic who married into a very protestant family. I could regale you with many stories of clashes and strong words. I took all the negative commentary in a good humoured way though. Often the remarks were based on such naivite or plain old ignorance of my faith that I could actually chuckle inside. The real battles came when I had children I was going to baptize Catholic. Table pounding exclamations about paternal heritage always being protestant (one of my father in laws middle names is a french Canadian surname, so I know there was Catholicism in their somewhere too). I agree that there has been a long history a Catholic bashing, but in some ways Catholics withstand the assaults with an inner knowing, and not feeling the strong desire to get into futile skirmishes with those who just cannot understand.
Maybe what I'm trying to say is that Catholics tend to have a thicker skin, a cloak so to speak, that protects us from the slings and arrows. :)
God bless you on your journey.
Posted by: Kelly | November 20, 2007 12:25 PM
Wow, Barbara. Where have I been?
I am not scandalized or saddened by your decision. My dad is Catholic, my mom is Protestant. They're on their 40th year of marriage. I was exposed to both growing up. I've been baptized twice---as a baby with Catholic godparents, and then at age 15 in a Protestant church after I made a verbal confession of faith in front of the congregation.
My grandmothers died within three weeks of each other, back in December of 2005. One had a big, lovely Protestant funeral. The other had a big, lovely Catholic funeral and Mass. I know both are in Heaven---they shared a passionate belief that Jesus is Lord and Savior, and that he died for them, literally, and rose again. They believed in His virgin birth, the Trinity, the soveignty of God.
The Protestant side is more casual, more comfortable with the Bible, more comfortable with praying wherever and whenever. The Catholic side is more reverent, more in-tune with the sacred, more in awe of the Holy. When I walk into a Catholic church, I want to fall on my knees. When I walk into a Protestant church, I want to say worship God too, but there is a different "vibe" (for lack of a better term).
I think you are right about Protestants loving to "protest"---and in their rush to distance themselves from all-things Catholic they abandoned many important elements and teachings. I find it very hard to believe everyone in the world went to Hell before Martin Luther came along (as certain people have implied hither and yon).
Anyway, I wanted to let you know that I am reading about your conversion with great interest and I wish you well.
Posted by: gretchen from lifenut | November 20, 2007 1:57 PM
The only thing to think about before joining the roman catholic church is this: How does Justification and Santification and the order of the two; and how they relate towards Salvation. The order is of utmost importance... Justification (to be Declared innocent by God) has to be before Santification (the process of being made Holy, or set-apart). The order is massive. If the catolica church teaches that you have to be perfect before God can accept you than that is not the gospel, it is another form of slavery.
Luther fought hard to be in the Catholic Church, the church kicked him out b/c of the view of Justification. Luther believed that Faith alone is what matters towards our justificaton (and that saving faith is never alone). This can be seen in the purchase of indulgences (which is not a current practice of the Roman catholic church).
The issue of joining, whether catholics are christian are not is not the issue. The issue is, and it is even the case (and should be) in protestant churches, is how does that Church, denomination believe in Justification and Santification?
Posted by: M.L. | November 20, 2007 2:08 PM
Barbara,
I hope that this feedback will be helpful. (At least, I always like to know what people get out of what I write!)
This is what I hear you saying:
1. You're not interested in discussing theology, but you are letting us know that your theology is evolving to reflect Catholic teachings. If we want to know what you are thinking, we should visit Catholic theology websites.
2. Faith is primarily experiential rather than rational.
3. You're frustrated with many aspects of Protestantism, although you still love the people in your family's Protestant church, and are grateful for what you've learned in Protestant churches over the years..
4. You're happy and excited about your new direction.
I hope I've read you correctly. Though there are some things I find myself disagreeing with here (namely having to do with theology and the rationality of faith), I think that clarity is more important than agreement. I also think that this is YOUR walk with God, and--like you said--is between you and Him. I hope you continue to find His joy and peace in your journey!
I also hope you continue to address hot issues like pro-life topics in a way that is accessible to your non-Catholic brothers and sisters...and that seems to be what you're hoping as well...building bridges. We need as many good voices on these topics as possible!
And I still can't wait to buy your parenting books, as my husband and I are looking forward to the birth of our first child. I'm very interested in learning more about the Montessori method:o)
Posted by: Erin | November 20, 2007 3:33 PM
Barbara - I just wanted to let you know that I'm enjoying reading about your experiences on your journey. Having gone to Catholic school growing up, I know enough about the theology to know that there are some things I just can't accept. But there are many things to appreciate in the Catholic church and I think Protestants are too quick to reject "anything Catholic." I, too, love the reverent, peaceful feeling inside the sanctuary. There is something very precious about repeating the liturgy, making the sign of the cross, kneeling to pray. I admire the church's dedication to teaching church history and I feel a great unity with them in their pro-life stand. I hope that just as the Protestant Reformation brought renewal to the Catholic church, the Catholic church will have a positive influence on the Evangelical church in the near future. After all, Christ is coming back for His church soon - not His churches. We are all one...I wish we'd act like it:)
Posted by: Shannon Miller | November 20, 2007 4:27 PM
Thanks you so much for sharing your story. I am starting RCIA this week, and it is very refreshing for me to read about someone who is going through the same things that I am right now. As an aside, my parish is heavily involved in pro-life activities and we had a pretty large group at the Aurora clinic. (We are only a few towns away from there.) I bet that you were standing alongside some of my fellow parishioners! ;)
Posted by: Kathy J | November 20, 2007 5:02 PM
Posted by: Marie | November 20, 2007 11:55 AMWe are your friends, and we are worried that you are headed down a wrong road.
But what if it turns out she is headed down the right road?
Posted by: Celeste A. Kostyniuk | November 20, 2007 5:49 PM
Barbara,
I'm an adult convert to the Catholic Church - it's been about 10 years now. It's refreshing to read your reflections as you enter the Church.
There are those of us - like myself - who He draws into the Church in a direct route because we really need the big guns to accept and live out the gift of redemption. Sure, I could have become a Christian in a protestant denomination, but I wouldn't have survived for long without the graces that come through the sacraments and the unavoidably (unless one chooses to avoid Him) intimate encounters with Christ in the Eucharist.
Then there are those He draws - like you, I think - who are already close to Him (from within your own tradition/s), yet He wishes to draw you closer still - deeper into communion. These are gifts - He doesn't force them on those who won't accept them. It's so beautiful to read that you are accepting His gifts.
I can't wait to read more. I also will be interested to find out which saints are making their intercession known to you . . .when the time comes for talking about that.
Posted by: Monica | November 20, 2007 6:55 PM
My maternal grandfather became a Catholic after 10 years of marriage to my grandmother. What he did not know is that he already WAS Catholic. His parents had become Catholics just before they married and were disowned by both sets of parents. They moved to Tennessee and had my grandfather. Subsequently they both died of the flu and he became an orphan (neither family would take him). He rode the orphan train west- and got a job (he "thought he was probably about 11"- but it turns out that he was about six.) The Baptist family he lived with shared their faith and that is the one he held when my grandparents were married. And the circle did not show its end until a year before he died- when his mother's sister tracked him down....and he found out that he had been baptized years before....
I guess I was meant to be Catholic.
Posted by: Janette | November 20, 2007 8:36 PM
Barbara, I just wanted to take a moment to say THANK YOU for your refreshing honesty in this matter. It is so easy for someone to say what they would or wouldn't do, but the age old saying is really true: Don't judge someone else until you've walked a mile in their shoes!
We can get caught up in Christian-ese speak very quickly. I can toss in some words like "sister" and "brethren" and other terms to come across more holy or valid with my thinking. It drives me crazy, so I am THRILLED to hear you relate the WIBAWIB journey with such candid, truthful, hard, beautiful HONESTY!!!! We need more honesty and less fluff in the body of Christ these days.
I support you 110%. Maybe it is because I'm on a very similar faith journey myself. I don't know.
In the end, this is YOUR journey to take. We as believers, all come to the Cross in different ways. I cannot judge another person's walk and instead, must focus on my own. In the end, I have to believe that each of us in Christ chooses what we believe is best for our own homes and families.
May you experience the fullest blessing of Thanksgiving this year, sweet Barbara!
Posted by: Lindsey @ enjoythejourney | November 20, 2007 9:07 PM
Kathy,
What if she isn't? Then I guess she isn't. But it's on her blog, so it's up for discussion, and we are discussing it. I'd like to think that that is ok as long as we are all polite and respectful; that we don't need to agree with each other all the time. I mean no disrespect to any person.
Posted by: Marie | November 20, 2007 10:25 PM
Barbara,
It is beautiful to watch your journey as you come to know the Catholic faith ( If I may say, you seem to know a lot already) I am a Catholic who is truly grateful for my faith. In particular I am grateful to my parents for practicing their faith and guiding me and my siblings. I think what you are describing when you say there is a "calm "when you participate in mass, is your unity with Christ. Mass is the reenactment of Calvary, but this time, you are present. Christ gave himself to us. The very first mass, was the Last Supper. That is when Christ instituted the Eucharist. I know that every time I enter church and genuflect before the tabernacle, that Christ is truly present through the Eucharist. He is literally waiting for me. It makes me feel like the " prodigal son ", with a father who is always ready to greet me.
It seems to me that God is pulling you in a new direction.
Also, a great book you may want to look at: The Mass Explained to Children" by Maria Montessori.
Not just for kids, I like looking through it too!
On another note, my grandfather was a baptist, he was also a mason. He converted to Catholicism and was basically disowned from his family and even his town. His family even tried to have him divorce my grandmother. However, a few grandkids later everyone became civil. In any regard, he was a great man who passed on his faith to his kids and his grandchildren. I'm so happy he did.
Keep on your journey.
Posted by: Liz in D.C. | November 21, 2007 12:09 AM
Dear Barbara,
Once again I am up in the middle of the night to write to you (it is 4:11am), although I will probably wait to send this to you. I want you to know that I write not because I wish to be a thorn in the side of someone I’ve never met, but because I honestly and wholeheartedly want to understand your decision. I have friends who are Catholic (they don't think I hate them; I don't in the least) and I really, really want to understand more about their faith. Your transparency allows me to learn from you, although it seems like you are put off by honest questions, which just makes it all the least likely I will ever attempt to ask THEM anything about their faith.
I think you ought not to be offended or surprised that women are dropping your from your blogrolls. You have made a momentous choice , and these women feel the responsibility not to lead their readers somewhere that they feel is questionable. On the other side, I am sure your sitemeter is doing somersaults in Catholic women plugging into your site. You say you haven’t rejected the evangelical faith, and I think what you mean is that you haven’t rejected your testimony that goes along with that. Is that correct? Because I still don’t understand how you can have “both†(which is why I keep reading).
You encourage Christian women to attend Mass. I have personally attended mass twice, within the last ten years. Both times I was denied communion because I wasn’t a member of the Catholic faith. I actually found it quite laughable. I mean, there I sat, KNOWING I had been saved and washed by the blood of Jesus, KNOWING I had within me His joy-filled Holy Spirit, and I wasn’t allowed to take the elements in “remembrance†of Him? I instead fellowshipped with joy with the Savior at my side, giving me real bread and wine.
I am trying to understand the example of praying to deceased saints. I follow the premise (their souls are immortal), but given the multitude of Scripture warning against contacting the dead (not just “unsaved†dead), I find it hard to reconcile. Off the top of my head, I remember Saul contacting Elijiah who was passed on, and it was a negative example, not one to follow. Furthermore, when Jesus said that where two and three are gathered, there He is, I am not left to believe He was allowing for those who are dead in body. Through Jesus, we have access to the very throne of God Himself, and we even have the Holy Spirit who translates our mumblings for us; if we are alone and able to in essence climb the lap of our Abba Father, why would we ask a saint who may or may not hear us or welcome this practice?
You need not of course spend time explaining this, but these are the sorts of questions that people like me wonder about.
Someone asked about the “once saved, always saved†viewpoint. I personally do not believe this, based on Scripture such as 1 Thessalonians 3:8  For now we live, if ye stand fast in the Lord. There are other places where the “if†is quite clear. If I knew someone who had claimed to be “savedâ€, but was still leading an unrepentant and sinful life, I would question if that person had actually been saved at all to begin with. Just like I wonder if anyone (Protestant or Catholic alike) who claim Christ can actually lead joyless or bitter lives. I don’t claim whatsoever to “know†who is and isn’t saved, but the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree, so to speak.
I actually read through all the comments and I think you directed the Muslim quote to me. I did not equate becoming Catholic to becoming Muslim in the least, UNLESS you were converting because Catholicism was less “anti-childâ€. I’m sorry if I read you wrong; it seemed that this was one of the major reasons for your conversion. I gave you research that showed that Catholics were no different in views such as that as Christians, and that furthermore, the average Muslim family (with 3.8 children as I corrected), would have been a better fit if that was one of your guidelines. I wasn’t trying to be harsh, I was trying to use logic.
Lastly, I think it would be wise to remember that we DO have an adversary constantly prowling about and that it is POSSIBLE to be deceived. Even though we KNOW the voice of our Shepherd, it is always POSSIBLE to hear a counterfeit voice. Would you agree to this, or would you find even my saying this as an “example†of persecution? This is why the Bible is so important to us, because it will never counter what God says. It isn’t even a matter of learning “theologyâ€, it is a matter of recognizing our own fallibility, and appreciating and using the Book the Lord gave us to test all things, to see if they be true. Many, many saints have gone before us, even burned at the stakes to put the Bible into our hands. It is important. I am still hopeful that you will share how your search into this was blessed and encouraged by the Scriptures. Otherwise, making such a momentous decision that SEEMS based (so far) on what church “feels†right, or “feels†like home is not only foolish, but dangerous. It is just my perception that you haven't been studying the Bible, which may or not be true....which is why I keep waiting to hear about that walk. People like me are not looking to “invalidate†your experience, but are concerned and care enough to spend the time to think on such things, even at the risk of unfavorable public reviews.
In Him,
Keri
Posted by: Keri | November 21, 2007 1:40 AM
You encourage Christian women to attend Mass. I have personally attended mass twice, within the last ten years. Both times I was denied communion because I wasn’t a member of the Catholic faith. I actually found it quite laughable. I mean, there I sat, KNOWING I had been saved and washed by the blood of Jesus, KNOWING I had within me His joy-filled Holy Spirit, and I wasn’t allowed to take the elements in “remembrance†of Him? I instead fellowshipped with joy with the Savior at my side, giving me real bread and wine.
Keri, I doubt you were physically and personally prohibited by the priest or extraordinary ministers from receiving communion. Bishops and others are still arguing over whether or not to deny dissenting Catholics like John Kerry, Rudy Giuliani, Ted Kennedy communion! I'm guessing that perhaps at the mass you attended the priest made a statement that if you weren't Catholic you shouldn't receive, or perhaps you read such a statement in the missalette, but the Swiss Army Guard wasn't there to stop you!
Secondly Keri, you betray in your last sentence why you shouldn't receive. Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the actual mystical body and blood of Jesus Christ. You don't believe that.
Receiving Communion in the Catholic church means also that you are in "full communion" with the church and what she teaches and believes. You clearly don't believe that either, so why would you be offended that you could not participate in a sacrament that says that?
Posted by: Elena | November 21, 2007 9:27 AM
I think both sides of the Roman Catholic/Protestant discussion has knowledge deficits about the other side. I urge all my sisters to employ kindness, calmness, and respect when discussing opinions and differences. Understanding begins with knowledge...not emotion or sensationalism.
For those who want a comprehensive, objective and balanced discussion of differences and agreements between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, I would recommend the book by Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie "Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences" (Baker Books, 1995). The authors first look at the extensive areas of agreement the Roman Catholics and Evangelicals share. The authors then compare differences and end the book with a wonderful section on areas where Roman Catholics and Evangelicals can and should link arms in practical cooperation.
Posted by: Vonnie | November 21, 2007 9:56 AM
http://www.catholic.com/library/intercession_of_the_saints.asp
Here you go Keri, read this and maybe you'll have a better understanding of the "praying to the deceased and saints"
Posted by: Tracy | November 21, 2007 10:22 AM
Scripture, our Evangelical friends tell us, is the inerrant Word of God. Quite right, the Catholic replies; but how do you know this to be true?
It's not an easy question for Protestants, because, having jettisoned Tradition and the Church, they have no objective authority for the claims they make for Scripture. There is no list of canonical books anywhere in the Bible, nor does any book (with the exception of St. John's Apocalypse) claim to be inspired. So, how does a "Bible Christian" know the Bible is the Word of God?
If he wants to avoid a train of thought that will lead him into the Catholic Church, he has just one way of responding: With circular arguments pointing to himself (or Luther or the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries or some other party not mentioned in the Bible) as an infallible authority telling him that it is so. Such arguments would have perplexed a first or second century Christian, most of whom never saw a Bible.
Christ founded a teaching Church. So far as we know, he himself never wrote a word (except on sand). Nor did he commission the Apostles to write anything. In due course, some Apostles (and non-Apostles) composed the twenty-seven books which comprise the New Testament. Most of these documents are ad hoc; they are addressed to specific problems that arose in the early Church, and none claim to present the whole of Christian revelation. It's doubtful that St. Paul even suspected that his short letter to Philemon begging pardon for a renegade slave would some day be read as Holy Scripture.
Who, then, decided that it was Scripture? The Catholic Church. And it took several centuries to do so. It was not until the Council of Carthage (397) and a subsequent decree by Pope Innocent I that Christendom had a fixed New Testament canon. Prior to that date, scores of spurious gospels and "apostolic" writings were floating around the Mediterranean basin: the Gospel of Thomas, the "Shepherd" of Hermas, St. Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans, and so forth. Moreover, some texts later judged to be inspired, such as the Letter to the Hebrews, were controverted. It was the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, which separated the wheat from the chaff.
But, according to Protestants, the Catholic Church was corrupt and idolatrous by the fourth century and so had lost whatever authority it originally had. On what basis, then, do they accept the canon of the New Testament? Luther and Calvin were both fuzzy on the subject. Luther dropped seven books from the Old Testament, the so-called Apocrypha in the Protestant Bible; his pretext for doing so was that orthodox Jews had done it at the synod of Jamnia around 100 A. D.; but that synod was explicitly anti-Christian, and so its decisions about Scripture make an odd benchmark for Christians.
Luther's real motive was to get rid of Second Maccabees, which teaches the doctrine of Purgatory. He also wanted to drop the Letter of James, which he called "an epistle of straw," because it flatly contradicts the idea of salvation by "faith alone" apart from good works. He was restrained by more cautious Reformers. Instead, he mistranslated numerous New Testament passages, most notoriously Romans 3:28, to buttress his polemical position.
The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority--sola scriptura --is nowhere to be found in the Bible. St. Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is "useful" (which is an understatement), but neither he nor anyone else in the early Church taught sola scriptura. And, in fact, nobody believed it until the Reformation. Newman called the idea that God would let fifteen hundred years pass before revealing that the bible was the sole teaching authority for Christians an "intolerable paradox."
Newman also wrote: "It is antecedently unreasonable to Suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself...." And, indeed, once they had set aside the teaching authority of the Church, the Reformers began to argue about key Scriptural passages. Luther and Zwingli, for example, disagreed vehemently about what Christ meant by the words, "This is my Body."
St. Augustine, usually Luther's guide and mentor, ought to have the last word about sola scriptura: "But for the authority of the Church, I would not believe the Gospel."
Posted by: Tracy | November 21, 2007 10:42 AM
Catholics have used the Scriptures for their faith for as long as they have existed. The Bible has not always existed in its current form. In fact, it was not put together as a compiled work until well into the 4th century!
However, some people, particularly non-Catholics, feel that the Bible is the only thing that should guide their Christian faith even though the Christian faith existed before the Scriptures and was originally transmitted orally and through tradition.
Catholics believe that the Bible was written by God and by human authors. Here's a quote from the NAB footnotes on 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
"In this classic reference to inspiration, God is its principal author, with the writer as the human collaborator. Thus the scriptures are the word of God in human language. See also 2 Peter 1:20-21."
Scripture alone?
Sola Scriptura simply means "Scripture (or Bible) alone." It was one of the battle cries of the Reformation. It's not something evil, it's just something not completely correct. Today, "Bible alone" is usually meant that the Bible, all 66 books (in the non-Catholic Bibles), is the be-all, end-all, rule of faith for all Christian doctrine and practice.
It is a composite of holy Scripture that all doctrines of Christianity should be compared against. If a matter of faith or morals is anti-Biblical then that is a bad sign.
Unfortunately, Sola Scriptura or Bible alone is nowhere to be found in the Bible! If this were to be true, according to Sola Scriptura, then this statement would have to appear somewhere in the Bible in one form or another implicit or explicit. In fact it is anti-Biblical!
A common claim in support of Sola Scriptura is the reference of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which says:
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work."
Let's break that down.
All scripture is inspired by God
We know that God's truth stands the test of time and all subsequent Scripture must be inspired by God as well. But, the important thing to keep in mind is that this verse does not say that Scripture is the only thing inspired by God.
All scripture...is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction...(and the list goes on).
I emphasized the word "useful" for a reason. Notice how it says "useful" and not something like "the only thing" or "the only means". In other words, scripture is helpful, it is a resource, an aid (add your own synonym here). This verse, nor the word "useful", nor its synonyms imply that it is the only rule of faith. It says that it is something useful for one's faith.
...so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
Meaning that Scripture is a good tool for learning to live out the Gospel.
By carefully studying this verse it is clear to see that it does not say that the Bible alone is our sole rule of faith. If one is able to produce other Biblical evidence that the Bible implicitly or explicitly says that it is the sole rule of faith, let me know.
Then what is our guiding principle?
So, what does the Bible say is the rule of faith or the foundation of truth?
Not one single thing is our guiding principle or rule of faith; it is a combination of what we have done in the past and what was handed on to us (called Tradition) and the Bible. In order to find out what the foundation of truth is we only need to go back a few pages to 1 Timothy 3:15:
"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."
1 Timothy 3:15 explains that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. "The pillar and foundation of truth" refers only to "the church" in that sentence. Some will contest that it depends on one's definition of "church." That is a valid argument, but is why it works under any of the accepted definitions of church.
One argument against is that "the church is not a building, it is just the believers." Well, it is correct, but only in a particular sense. No, the church is not just a building and the Catholic Church clearly recognizes that. In fact there is no one, single Catholic church building, it is an amalgam churches worldwide that recognize appointed authorities just like in the time of the apostles!
Jesus appointed specific people, 12 to be exact, to carry out his mission. Even though Jesus has many, many followers, he called out 12 specific individuals to guide his flock. Even in Jesus' time there was a structured church. In fact the church could not exist if Jesus had not been around to start it himself and he did, but he left it in the hands of Peter (Mt 16:13-19).
So, we see that there was a church, with a specific structure of leaders that were called by God to lead the church. This is the Catholic definition of church.
Now, if the church is founded upon the leaders then it is safe to say that "the church" can also mean "the leaders" or "the one's with teaching authority" called the Magisterium.
Another way of looking at it is that the pillar and foundation of truth is the Magisterium, since they are the ones with the teaching authority (Mt 16:19, 18:18) commissioned by Jesus Christ himself. Jesus handed us the church, not the Bible or Scripture.
The Bible is not the sole rule of faith, but it is the people called and commissioned by God and the holy Scriptures along with our Tradition (capital "T"). Neither is separate or greater from the other since both were given to us from God.
Using the Bible to authenticate the Bible
One might ask, "why does this guy quote the Bible when trying to prove the authenticity of the Bible?" Good question! Circular logic will not work. If I say that I am Miss America does that mean I am because I said so? No! I would need another recognized authority or governing body to declare that I am such before it can be recognized by others.
In other words, something outside the Bible has to verify the sacredness of the Scriptures. What was that sanctioned body? The Catholic Church, the one started by Jesus Christ, the one whose leaders can trace their office back to one of the 12 Apostles. The only reason that any Christian today has reverence for the Bible is because the Catholic Church has said that the books contained therein are sacred Scripture.
Just the simple fact that we revere Scripture and follow what is contained within is a Tradition of the Catholic Church. Some people follow Catholic teachings and don't even know it!
"Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ," said St. Jerome.
Posted by: Meredith | November 21, 2007 10:56 AM
Keri, Keri, Keri...
"Led astray" and "deceived by a counterfeit voice"? Oh boy. Like we all don't know what that's code talk for. You find not being able to take Communion "laughable"? Oh my...
And by the way,keri, I see that you are a fan of G.K. Chesterton. Right there above Doug Phillips.
I especially like this from Chesterton:
"The difficulty of explaining "why I am a Catholic" is that there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason: that Catholicism is true."
Barbara, you are in our family's daily prayers.
Posted by: Aine | November 21, 2007 12:07 PM
Barbara, welcome home! For the curious, there are answers about the saints here: http://www.catholic.com/library/mary_saints.asp. The same site has good information about salvation, justification, the papacy, etc. Everything the church teaches is consistent with scripture. A lot of protestants don't realize that, or the fact that about half of every mass is devoted to readings from scripture and psalms. And for Keri, here is a very good explanation about why non-Catholics are not admitted to holy communion: http://www.catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp
It seems to me that the spirit of some of these theological "questions" is not of questioning or wanting information, but of lecturing, teaching, or scolding. People should think, for just a second, about how deeply insulting it is to imply that someone would be led to another church by Satan. That is really not something I ever hear from Catholics, when discussing a person's decision to join a protestant church. Sure, we'd like to keep our own. But Satan? Are you kidding? And that's not supposed to be offensive?
Folks should know that Barbara has a rigorous preparation ahead of her before she is initiated into the Catholic faith, so don't worry--she will not go into the church ignorant of any small part of the tragically incorrect Catholic doctrine. :-)
Posted by: Catherine | November 21, 2007 12:14 PM
Barbara, two things in your blog were signals to me that you might be joining the Catholic Church. Your interest in those who have been converted from the contraceptive mentality, and your sense of peace in a Catholic Church. The first told me that you were beginning to see that the Church has held on to the truth which all religions once held, that birth control is wrong, but they abandoned this stand after the Lambeth Conference of 1930's, creating the sexual revolution of the 1960's, with disatrous results.
I know that every time I enter church and genuflect before the tabernacle, that Christ is truly present through the Eucharist. He is literally waiting for me. It makes me feel like the " prodigal son ", with a father who is always ready to greet me.
What you were sensing in the Catholic churches you visited was the true Body and Blood of Christ.
"I am the living bread that came down from Heaven: whoever eats this bread will live forever, the bread that I will give, is my Flesh for the life of the world." John 6:51
Posted by: Leticia Velasquez | November 21, 2007 1:29 PM
Keri, you expressed my concerns so well!
Posted by: Marie | November 21, 2007 1:43 PM
Welcome to the Catholic Church. I hope you find it as great as I do!
Pax Christi,
Erika
Posted by: Erika | November 21, 2007 2:48 PM
I've been reading these posts with great interest since you first mentioned your intention a few weeks ago.
I was privileged to meet a very devout Catholic about five years ago and she challenged most of my beliefs about the Catholic church. I had grown up with many Catholic friends and attended mass several times with them but was raised in a very anti-Catholic Protestant church. Until I met my friend a few years ago, I had never met a Catholic who was interested in defending her faith! It was refreshing and mind-opening. She gave me the Hahn's book "Rome, Sweet Home" to read and I've read it twice.
Becoming Catholic is not something I want to do. It is something completely foreign to me. I know I would lose friends and my family would not understand. Having said that, I must say God keeps bringing the Catholic Church to my mind. It's been happening for a couple of years now. Your posts are just the latest reminders. I am not going to refuse to listen to God but I will say again, if He calls me to do this, it will be very difficult to do. Like you, though, I've seen the consequences of following His leading even when I didn't have a clue I was being led. I trust Him and I will follow when and where He calls.
Thank you for sharing your story. It is very helpful.
Blessings,
Posted by: Sandy | November 21, 2007 3:26 PM
Dear Barbara,
I swam the Tiber two years ago. The "experiences" you mentioned are something I experienced as well, as well as many others who have done the same thing. I know what you're talking about, and it's real. But it's hard to explain it to others. Joining the church gives plenty of food for your intellect yes, but I believe that ultimately your heart is converted. It's a lot like falling in love.
Pax Christi,
Bill
Posted by: IB Bill | November 21, 2007 4:02 PM
I give these articles for the benefit of other Christians expressing theological concerns with Catholicism, and also those Catholics who truly want to understand where Protestants find fault with Catholic teaching.
Warning...these articles are not written in a warm and fuzzy tone, but are pretty hard-hitting. I'm not posting them to start any arguments, but to answer some of the questions and statements that have been put forward with regards to how we (Protestants) view Sola Scriptura (Scripture only) and Sola Fide (Justification by faith only).
This is a series of six articles written by Bible teacher and Theologian John MacArthur. They really clarified for me where the argument between Catholics and Protestants lies, and helped reinforce my biblical understanding:
Scripture, Tradition, and Rome, Part 1
Scripture, Tradition, and Rome, Part 2
Scripture, Tradition, and Rome, Part 3
Scripture, Tradition, and Rome, Part 4
Scripture, Tradition, and Rome, Part 5
Scripture, Tradition, and Rome, Part 6
As a side-note, I'm thankful for the opportunity you ladies have given me to exercise my intellect! These are definitely good issues to further develop my understanding in:o)
Posted by: Erin | November 21, 2007 6:51 PM
JOHN MacARTHUR NEEDS TO TALK WITH ROSALIND MOSS
Before she became a Catholic, staff apologist Rosalind Moss used to be a member of John MacArthur's congregation, Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California. He runs a ministry called Grace to You. Its motto is "Unleashing God's Truth One Verse at a Time." The unleashing is done chiefly through a widely-syndicated radio program.
In a June letter to his ministry's supporters, MacArthur wrote about John Paul II and the "amazing release of emotion" that accompanied his death. "From politicians and media pundits to Hollywood celebrities and everyday citizens, everyone had praise for John Paul II, his gentle ways and his social and political achievements as a world leader and statesman. I can understand that.
"What I cannot understand," continued MacArthur, "is the response of some Evangelicals to what matters most about the pope: his beliefs about God and the gospel. ... Influential leaders embraced the deceased pope as a brother in Christ and the Catholic church as just another Christian denomination. ...
"During the Reformation, countless men and women died rather than deny the biblical truths of salvation. Countless others today are giving their lives as missionaries to people lost in the darkness and guilt of Catholicism."
MacArthur goes on to write about the "damning error" that is Catholicism and notes that he has released a new 90-minute lecture called "Unmasking the Pope and the Catholic System." He says that "the church I pastor is loaded with people who were saved out of the Catholic church. ... A longtime Grace to You board member and dear friend of mine is a former Catholic. He speaks with great emotion about the bondage he and his wife lived under."
How many times have we heard these claims before? "The Catholic Church is not really Christian." "Catholics believe you 'earn' your salvation through good works." "Catholicism is based on guilt, not truth." "People are in 'bondage' to Catholicism--and we need to save them."
Each Sunday 7,000 people attend MacArthur's church. This is what he tells them about an institution that was around for nineteen centuries before he was born and that is now headed by a man who shows not a hint of MacArthur's arrogance.
It is MacArthur who claims a divine commission: "I do have a mandate from God to compare what others teach to the gospel of the Bible." He says, "'Does the pope teach the gospel?' is a valid question."
Rosalind Moss left John MacArthur's church because she realized that, yes, the pope really does teach the gospel--and that John MacArthur does not.
The Grace to You ministry's letterhead has this slogan at the bottom: "The Bible Teaching of John MacArthur." Benedict XVI is more modest in his claims. His letterhead does not have at the bottom "The Bible Teaching of Benedict XVI" because the Pope is not trying to push his own agenda.
Instead, he is the custodian of what has been passed down through the centuries. His job is not to refashion the Bible in his own image but to convey to us what each of his predecessors conveyed to the people of their time.
Grace to You is built around one man. It may have many employees, but when John MacArthur dies, his ministry will die. His flock will scatter, taking with them the silly prejudices he has imbued them with.
When Benedict XVI dies there will be another pope to succeed him, and another, and another, until the end of time. Each of them will demonstrate to those with open minds and hearts that, yes, the pope does teach the gospel.
(taken from Catholic.com) Erin, if Mr. Anti Catholic crazy man is what you follow... yikes... I'll pass!
Posted by: Meredith | November 21, 2007 9:11 PM
Meredith,
I don't "follow" John MacArthur, but I respect his ministry and commitment to the integrity of Scripture. It doesn't sound like you're very familiar with him, but he is a very well-known and well-respected theologian in many Protestant Christian circles. In other words, he's not a "fringie" or a "crazy man";o)
I linked to his articles because they represent a good analysis of Catholic teaching from a Sola Scriptura perspective. The articles take a very academic approach (which is why I warned that they're not warm and fuzzy...MacArthur admittedly cares more about presenting doctrine and theology in a clear and concise way than he worries about hurting anyone's feelings!), examining doctrines and teachings against Scripture, point by point.
The hard facts are, that Catholic teachings are incompatible with Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, as MacArthur shows. Therefore he can hardly do otherwise than to point this out and declare Catholicism to be in error (according to his biblical understanding). In the same way, the Catholic church has declared all Protestant believers to be in error, and fallen away from the one True Church. It's just a fact that these two theological standpoints are incompatible.
Now, I don't believe that Catholics can't be Christians, and I don't think MacArthur does either (although I will not presume to speak for him). But as MacArthur points out, the Catholic church's official theological stance is at odds with what Protestants believe constitutes a correct understanding of salvation, justification and the authority of Scripture.
I'd also like to reemphasize that I don't understand the idea of rejecting or hating Catholic people! I can think your ideas are wrong without disliking you:o) I strive not for agreement, but for clarity. And that is why I've linked to those articles...a resource for those seeking clarity on where we differ.
Posted by: Erin | November 21, 2007 11:31 PM
Grace to You is built around one man. It may have many employees, but when John MacArthur dies, his ministry will die. His flock will scatter, taking with them the silly prejudices he has imbued them with."Silly prejudices" are assumptions or opinions that are not based upon any fact or evidence. John MacArthur's teachings are based upon what he and Protestants in general since the Reformation have understood the Bible to be saying. And since the Bible doesn't change, neither should our understanding of it's most basic principles. (We must always allow for the possibility that our human interpretation CAN be wrong, but believe that the Holy Spirit helps us to rightly divide the Word of God if we are sensitive to His leading.) This is because we believe that Scripture is inerrant, supreme over all other tradition and revelation, and for all men and all times. So I'm afraid you won't get rid of the Protestant worldview that easily *smile*;o)
Posted by: Erin | November 21, 2007 11:51 PM
When Benedict XVI dies there will be another pope to succeed him, and another, and another, until the end of time.
So Catholics don't believe Christ is ever having a second coming?
Posted by: Amy K. | November 22, 2007 12:36 AM
Elena was correct that I should not partake in Catholic communion, but at the time I did not understand the very real differences in belief. Really, I wasn’t offended at all; what I said was that it was quite laughable because I knew I had (and have) a vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ, and here was some man telling me (in essence) that I didn’t. Saying that it was “laughable†wasn’t a slam; it was the truth given the truth of who I was (and am) in the heart and eyes of my Father in heaven. I wasn’t laughing AT the church; it just was an obvious error (to me, at the time) on their part while I sat there. And, of course no “armed guards†were there to stop me from approaching, but my integrity prevented me from pretending to be someone I wasn’t (that is, a practicing member of the Catholic faith) in order to prove to myself who I really was (and am). I had nothing to prove.
Tracy, thank you for the helpful link! I found it very interesting. I didn’t understand how James 5:16 was speaking of saints passed on, however. For example, we see that Abraham was declared righteous, even though he wasn’t fully sanctified. Genesis 15:6  And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. What that means to me is that every saint in God’s eyes is righteous through Jesus Christ, even if not perfected. I’m not sure Matt 18:10 guarantees intercessory access, but it sure looks like you will be in loads of trouble for messing with His children. I looked through all of the other quotes from the “Church Fathers†and unless I missed it (always very possible), not one quoted Scripture. You also have some very interesting thoughts concerning the authority and authenticity of the Bible. I’ve been studying the Bible’s origins for years. The reason your question is hard to answer is the very same reason my questions are sent to a website for me to read.
Obviously if both camps cannot agree with what is and is not Scripture, then the roads remain parted as they have from the beginning. I do thank everyone for explaining the Catholic understanding of the Bible, however; it was very enlightening!
The Scripture in Timothy is oft quoted. Let’s back up to 1 Tim 3:14 even (emphasis mine):  1 Timothy 3:14  These things WRITE I unto thee...
Jesus IS the Word: 1 John 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. “Something outside the Bible has to verify the sacredness of the Scriptures. What was that sanctioned body?†I submit that Jesus Himself verified the Scriptures.
“The only reason that any Christian today has reverence for the Bible is because the Catholic Church has said that the books contained therein are sacred Scripture.†This just makes no sense to me. If this were true, then why all the fuss with not allowing common people to own a Bible in their own language, or to even read a Bible at all? What was up with all the Bible burning and such?
Aine, there is absolutely no code talk whatsoever. I think I spoke very, very honestly, openly and plainly. Is there anyone out there, Christian or Catholic alike, that would disagree with the statement that deception is possible? Is it really an insult? I would not be offended by that; I would go to the Lord and beg Him to open my eyes to His truth. I personally do not wish to be deceived, but I do realize that Satan (yes, Satan) is eager for me to fail, falter, and foolishly leave my Lord. I do not say that anyone here IS being deceived, but that it IS possible. Is anyone really at the point that they know the exact mind of God and which way is “the true church� Not me! I am not “against†Catholicism, just trying to understand it more. It doesn’t bug me at all that Chesterton said that, nor do I feel a need to disagree with the factual quote Doug Phillips said. I have been praying, too, so I am glad we can do that together. ;)
Thanks for the link, Catherine. I understand that more, but again, find it hard to reconcile given my relationship with Jesus, and that He does tell me to “take, eatâ€. I don’t get how come people who claim Christ and know His salvation, joy, and power in their lives cannot share in this without somehow agreeing that we are eating his real flesh? He says to do this in remembrance; isn’t that enough?
There is no “deep seated hatred†and I am not trying to lecture, scold or teach anyone. I am actually a first generation born again Christian, and have no upbringing or history whatsoever in slamming anyone of any religion. Obviously if this was a Catholic woman wanting to convert to Christianity, the tables would be turned and wouldn’t it be interesting to read those comments?
I think Erin framed this very well:
1. You're not interested in discussing theology, but you are letting us know that your theology is evolving to reflect Catholic teachings. If we want to know what you are thinking, we should visit Catholic theology websites.
2. Faith is primarily experiential rather than rational.
3. You're frustrated with many aspects of Protestantism, although you still love the people in your family's Protestant church, and are grateful for what you've learned in Protestant churches over the years..
4. You're happy and excited about your new direction.
So, that being sad, unless there are more comments directed to me, I will bow out and trust that the Lord will continue to lead Barbara as she trusts in Him, even if I do not understand her walk. I do want to thank you, Barbara, for allowing me to seek and question and for printing my comments that I know rocked some boats.
Another quote from Chesterton (that master of words): "The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man."
Still Standing (in Him),
Keri
Posted by: Keri | November 22, 2007 1:39 AM
Erin, thank you so much for posting those links! It goes right along with what Meredith said regarding Scripture and really does help clarify the disagreement. This definitely has been food for thought! Speaking of food... Happy Thanksgiving everyone! I'm looking forward to this year's Curtis family photo, Barbara. : ) You are in my prayers.
Posted by: purebillow | November 22, 2007 2:42 AM
"Instead, he is the custodian of what has been passed down through the centuries. His job is not to refashion the Bible in his own image but to convey to us what each of his predecessors conveyed to the people of their time."
Yes, only too bad that what they conveyed and passed down onto him is not the Biblical Gospel.
"Erin, if Mr. Anti Catholic crazy man is what you follow... yikes... I'll pass!" Is this "that overbearing, judgmental attitude" that Barbara described? It comes across so. Add to that deeply disrespectful and offensive.
I do not personally know Erin, but what I can say with full assurance is that John MacArthur preaches Christ and the whole counsel of God as it is found in the Bible.
For a very long time I have been a reader of Barbara's blog. She doesn't know me by name, I only posted two times in all this time. But I feel like I know her, I have read so much here. I took the time to read all the parts of the WIBAWIB, and just about all of the comments too. I am not a 'Catholic hater'. We have some very good friends that are Catholic.
I have followed the arguments of the Catholics that have posted so far and tried to explain the meaning they ascribe to different doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church. I must add this: having done a good bit of reading on this subject, I know that what many Catholic theologians actually say does not square away with much of what some of you say here. It makes me wonder how much some of you know of what your church actually stands for and preaches. No, I am not arrogant or sarcastic. Truly, I am not. And I am not talking about differing opinions of different theologians, but of the actual phrasing of official, recognized Catholic dogma. No matter what good 'home-coming' feeling you had when (re)joining the Catholic Church, the official dogma of it goes (and can be proven to go) against major truths of the Bible. And despite the 'you don't actually HAVE to do this or that and be a Catholic', your theologians present a different view. I have books and quotations by Catholic theologians and quoted dogma that is still in effect today. There are lots of former RC priests that have written at large about what their life was, what doctrine they were required to ascribe to and teach and what the Catholic Church stands for. You cannot say they lacked an insider's understanding of different words (like 'prayer to a saint') in Catholicism, as we Protestants do. And please, do not lower the discussion by saying they just needed a woman, so they abandoned being priests. These men were deeply and honestly troubled about the message the Catholic Church preaches and about how you can achieve salvation according to it. And deeply troubled by the contradiction of it with Scripture, when they did come into contact with Scripture. Most of them had never had contact with Protestants, so they were not brainwashed into reading the Bible in a 'Protestant way' (if such a way exists, which I doubt). They read it from inside the RC Church, and were shocked by what they discovered.
Those of you that make it a point to say you are so open-minded and bemoan the 'prejudices' and 'persecution' coming from the Protestant side, why not take a little time (for instance, I took a lot of hours to honestly consider all that was written here and follow one of the links that were given) and check some of this out? If upon examining it you see it is true, it is always good to correct oneself. If upon examining you conclude it is not, it will have only reinforced your position in your mind, I guess. So what would you have to lose? For instance, on sermonaudio.com you can find materials by Richard Bennett, who spent 21 years as a RC priest. Check it out.
One last thing I want to add here. Barbara, you are definitely free to choose to follow the way that seems true to you (freedom which, unfortunately, in history has most times not been granted by the Roman Catholic Church to others). I honestly don't think anyone here was attacking you at all. I certainly do not mean to in the least. I feel no hatred or anything like it toward any of the Catholics posting here, or any other Catholics either. :-) There is no reason why we couldn't have a respectful, decent discussion (while not agreeing), even if we were to meet in person. The issue for us is not hating or attacking people, but keeping unspoiled the Gospel, fighting for the truth of the Bible. Rather than look down upon specific teachings as promoting 'squabbles', please understand that
what one believes/preaches is immensely important, even if one has a lovely personality and sacrifices self for the pro-life cause. The Apostle Paul considered it so important that he emphatically insisted
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach
any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1: 8, 9).
Knowing that there is a way that seems to lead to life but in the end leads to destruction (I am not quoting that verse exactly) and that the human heart is so terribly deceitful, one cannot be urged too many times to examine himself and examine people's doctrines, by comparing them with what the Bible teaches. And the urging is done out of sincere concern, not arrogance or hatred.
I am sorry if this has turned out too long. Also, if there are any mistakes in my English, please excuse those, I am not American or a native speaker of English. :-)
Posted by: Brindusa P. | November 22, 2007 4:39 AM
The major point that Protestant apologists need to face up to - honestly - is their assumption that their version of Christianity is more "Biblical" than Catholicism. Examine this assumption honestly, unfiltered by the opinions of men(and yes, you read that right. Unfiltered by MacArthur or Spurgeon or whoever your "pope" is.)
Are your beliefs really more Biblical when it comes to:
1) What Jesus says about the Eucharist?
2) What Paul says about Baptism?
3) What Jesus and Paul (and James) say about salvation?
Honestly now. Go through the Gospels, for example, and see what Jesus says in answer to the questions that he is asked, "What must I do to be saved" and such. What does he say? What does Jesus say to the rich young man?
Two points:
1) Protestant apologists need to understand that their understanding of the Bible is not "pure." It is mediated through the Reformers - often just some of them, or the excesses of some of them - and modern teachers. It is mediated. Your interpretation of the Bible is an interpretation. You highlight want you want, dismiss what you want and declare what Jesus or Paul really did or didn't mean despite what the words really say and despite the witness of the early Apostolic Church.
2) Protestant apologists really need to understand that they look awfully silly blustering that Catholics don't have a relationship wtih Christ when we have testimony after testimony of folks on these pages saying that they do indeed have a relationship with Christ that has been deepened by their involvement in Catholicism.
Just face up to it:
You're laying down intepretations of Scripture that are just that - interpretations shaped by human traditions and thinkers.
People do find Christ and have flourishing, real, saving relationships with Him in Catholicism.
There are also a whole bunch of logical questions I could raise, but I won't. It's just the blindness of some Protestant apologists to their own blindness gets to be too much, after a while.
After all, Jesus says "This is my Body." How long does it take you to scramble and say, "er...that's not what he meant. Let me interpret that for you."
After all, Jesus says "Sell everything you have and give the money to the poor.
Have you done that yet? Oh...then you don't take the Bible at its word, in its plain sense?
Pshaw.
Keep John McArthur. I'll take St. Augustine, St. Benedict, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Francis de Sales..and oh, yeah...Jesus Christ. At his word.
Posted by: abby | November 22, 2007 8:44 AM
There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.
Barbara, I am so happy for you as you take this journey and you will be in my prayers, but the hate for Catholics and the posting of such anti Catholic junk as John MacArthur who simply radiates his hate of all things Catholic has made me so very sad. I love being Catholic and I know that people are so scared of the Catholic church that they are willing to listen to a man who hates the Catholic faith, why would you listen to someone who hates the Catholic faith? Would he tell the truth when he hates it? If I hate something I have nothing good to say about it.
It is obvious how ignorant some of your posters really are and as long as they believe someone as hate filled as MacArthur, they will never be open to anything else. From people like that, I feel the hate for my faith coming through my computer and I don't feel any form of christian love or charity or any kind of really wanting to learn what we believe. Your protestant posters say they want to know what Catholics believe and then when we answer they say "no, that is not what you believe" or they say "no, this is what MacArthur and other people who have an axe to grind with the Catholic church say you believe" they don't really want to know what we believe or they would listen and say "oh, wow, I didn't know that, I was wrong about what I thought you believed"
When you don't want to hear the truth, you won't hear it" MacArthur and people like him HATE the Catholic church... to me he is like a Hitler... he hates the Catholic church...he is clearly his own God unto himself and if people wish to follow him.. so be it.
This is my final post, I am so happy being Catholic and Barbara, if it is what God wants for you, I promise you, it will be wonderful and nothing anyone else says's will matter, remember, Jesus never said it would be easy to follow him, Catholics have been persecuted from the beginning of time, we are the church that Jesus began, we have been here for centuries, the devil hates it and will send many to try to stop it, just hold on to the Lord and ask him to continue to guide you and he will.
God Bless you always and Happy Thanksgiving.
Posted by: Tracy | November 22, 2007 9:11 AM
When Benedict XVI dies there will be another pope to succeed him, and another, and another, until the end of time.So Catholics don't believe Christ is ever having a second coming?
Ummm, Amy, that's how we define "the end of time".
Posted by: Tony | November 23, 2007 12:03 AM
MacArthur and people like him HATE the Catholic church... to me he is like a Hitler... he hates the Catholic church...he is clearly his own God unto himself and if people wish to follow him.. so be it.Tracy, I know you said that you were posting your last post, but I felt the need to respond to this.
Tracy, I don't hate you. I don't hate the Catholic church. Why is it hateful to examine a belief system according to one's understanding of Scripture?
When I read through MacArthur's articles, I read the many quotes he included from the official doctrines and counsel decisions by the Catholic leadership which express a vehement disagreement with Protestant theology and those who teach it. Written into Catholic doctrines are many statements about how people who believe Scripture says what I believe it says are not truly Christians, but should be considered "an anathema", which literally means, according to dicionary.com:
1. a person or thing detested or loathed: That subject is anathema to him. 2. a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction. 3. a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication. 4. any imprecation of divine punishment. 5. a curse; execration.
Honestly, I DON'T take offense at this! I don't take it personally that somebody disagrees with my theology. What I do find it harder not to take personally, of course, is when people ascribe motives such as "hate" to me because I disagree with them or because I post articles that disagree with their theology. Please--I say this with all earnestness--don't presume hatred where there is none...it will only cause unnecessary pain.
Also, if I had to guess, I would guess that you didn't actually read the MacArthur articles in question. That's fine. If you can't approach them with the understanding that they are concerning ideas and theology and Scripture--not to be taken as a personal rejection--than I would encourage you NOT to read them.
And Tracy, I am not questioning your relationship with Jesus Christ...not in the least. Though I question the official Catholic doctrines and traditions concerning salvation (because they don't agree with what I understand the Bible to be saying), I certainly don't feel it is my place to judge people's hearts. I believe that God reaches the hearts of those He has called, no matter where they are living or what church they are attending. I wish you ALL the best...truly!
Posted by: Erin | November 23, 2007 3:18 AM
Ummm, Amy, that's how we define "the end of time".
Okay, good to know.
Posted by: Amy K. | November 23, 2007 12:33 PM
Erin,
The Catechism (818) says
[O]ne cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.
So I would caution you not to jump to conclusions about what the various anathemas might mean.
Barbara, I came by thanks to Tony. I returned to Christianity some nine years ago and, like you, was not only overjoyed but also initially dismayed to realize I had become one of those born-again Christians.
After much searching, which included four good years with the Baptists, I was received into the Catholic Church in September 2005. I remember feeling strongly drawn towards Catholicism but wondering, as some of your correspondents must wonder with concern for your very salvation, whether this leading was truly the work of the Holy Spirit. Everything that has happened since then convinces me that the fullness of the Christian faith is found within the Catholic Church.
You and your readers will be in my prayers. God bless you.
Posted by: The Sheepcat | November 24, 2007 2:52 AM
One clarification of what I wrote early yesterday: when I converted, I was already convinced of the truth of what the Catholic Church claims about herself. No one should convert to Catholicism unless he or she accepts these claims.
What I meant to say was more that my experience since then has continued to confirm me in this decision, which I've never regretted, just as I've never regretted returning to Christianity. As blogger Julie D puts it, I'm "not always happy, but always happy to be Catholic."
Posted by: The Sheepcat | November 25, 2007 11:29 PM
