 |
|
|
Why did I become a Catholic? There are not even 100 people in this country who hate the Catholic Church,  On August 14, 2011, at the age of 54, I joined the Catholic Church after being an evangelical Protestant all my life.
Here is a description of my journey, followed by more detailed reasons as to why I did it. I was raised in a Protestant Christian family in Akron, Ohio, and we went to church every Sunday. During my childhood my family changed churches several times. We went to the Lutheran Church, Church of the Nazarene (where I promised God I would become a missionary someday), United Methodist Church (where I was baptized), Presbyterian Church, and a non-denominational evangelical mega-church called the Chapel in University Park where I became a member in my early 20s. It was a great teaching church, and I studied the Bible and memorized parts of it, as did many of my friends in that church. I even studied New Testament Greek. I was very active in fellowship and evangelism programs, and my sense of calling to be a missionary was re-kindled there. I even went to Japan on a summer missionary program in 1983. In the early 80s I went to Malone College (now Malone University) in Canton, Ohio, to earn a Bachelor of Arts degree in Christian ministries in preparation to be a career missionary. During my time there, my old junk car wasn't up for the trip home every Sunday so I visited several churches near the campus, catching a ride with friends. I didn't even consider the Catholic Church, but I did try the Greek Orthodox Church and the Episcopal Church as well as the Quakers and Southern Baptists. I discovered I was attracted to beautiful liturgy the Episcopal Church and became a member. It was good that I had received good Bible teaching at the Chapel and at Malone College because the Episcopal Church in general is great at "celebrating" but not "educating" as I heard one Episcopalian say. There is a lot of room in the Episcopal Church for all kinds of beliefs; it has been called the "roomiest church in Christendom" and there was plenty of room for me to worship God in that beautiful Episcopal setting with its amazing music and still retain all my personal Protestant evangelical and even fundamentalist convictions. I came to Japan in 1987 as a missionary with a small independent evangelical Episcopal (a.k.a. Anglican) sending agency. To raise my support, I visited many Episcopal parishes in America and gave mission themed messages from the pulpit. Since the only parishes who would invite me were the "good" evangelical and charismatic parishes who supported evangelical missionaries, my exposure to the Episcopal Church was generally positive. I had heard rumors that there were bad Episcopalians out there, but I rarely encountered any personally. Well, our liberal bishop did scold me for promoting my agenda in his parishes. My mission board was very small, and I was their only missionary assigned to Japan. There was no organization in Japan to receive or support me, and most of my fellowship was with evangelical Protestant missionaries at the Japanese Missionary Language Institute in Tokyo. I studied the language and was active in a traveling evangelistic puppet ministry at many different Evangelical churches by invitation, and attended the local Anglican parish on Sunday. However, after a few years I was increasingly disturbed by the strange and even heretical teaching and behavior of Anglicans -- even among the leadership -- in Japan and had heard it was getting worse in America as well. My missionary career ended when a financial crisis left my home office unable to send me the funds I needed, and I had to look for other ways to make a living in Japan. Although this was a difficult time, I was no longer bound by my career to the Anglican Church, so I became an active member of an evangelical Protestant church in Tokyo. Actually, I was a member of several evangelical churches, one after the other, in my search to find the one that best fit my beliefs and desire to worship. I rarely felt that I had actually worshipped God after an hour or so of contemporary praise songs and a long sermon each Sunday. (I can't complain too much about the music, however, since I played electric guitar or bass in some of those church bands, and had a lot of musically gratifying moments -- I even wrote some of the songs!) Also, these churches were very restrictive in various ways, and I didn't have the elbow room that I had once enjoyed in the Anglican Church. After 18 years in the Japanese evangelical Christian community, my spiritual life seemed to dry up. I reluctantly went to church on Sundays out of a sense of obligation, and my personal devotional life was reduced to a short prayer at bedtime and listening to audio Bible recordings to fulfill some kind of personal minimum requirement. I had fond memories of a burning love for God and the Bible and fellowship back when I was an Anglican, and I longed for that deep liturgical worship. I have to believe that it was the Holy Spirit who was drawing me back to the Anglican Church. But once I returned, I felt like the frog who had the sense to jump out of the water as it was getting hot, only to jump back in when it was boiling! The Anglican Church, especially the Episcopal Church in America had departed from its own doctrines and had descended so low that when you looked past the beautiful facade, it hardly resembled anything Christian. There was news of openly practicing homosexual priests and bishops, wicca priestesses leading worship services, and at the highest levels of episcopal leadership there was public denial of basic Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ, and his role in our salvation. There was clearly a dark side to having all that elbow room, and it was taking over as the national Episcopal leaders were persecuting and driving out the faithful orthodox Christians. Lots of fights and even lawsuits everywhere over church buildings and property. I heard from Anglican friends that the disease had started to have an effect on the Anglican Church in Japan as sermons were preached in support of the new innovations in America. On a personal level, after I returned to the Anglican Church I experienced a spiritual revival, and I was once again in love with God's word and fellowship just like the old days. My devotional life expanded to include traditional Anglican morning and evening prayer from the Book of Common Prayer. I fell in love with chanting the Psalms. I knew I could still personally retain all my evangelical orthodox beliefs and worship God in my own little corner of the Anglican Church, and was content with that arrangement for a while. But eventually I started to see signs of the disease in my own parish due to the influence of our liberal bishop. I was starting to feel isolated, and embarrassed to call myself an Anglican. Even if I shared my faith with people, I couldn't invite them to my own church! I felt like I was on a sinking ship, praying for a lifeline. It was around that time that I heard the astounding news that Pope Benedict XVI had opened a door for faithful Anglicans to enter the Catholic Church as groups which could retain the good parts of their rich Anglican heritage. I had never dreamed of being a Catholic, and had no desire to be one now. I didn't have a very positive image of the Catholic Church, although I really didn't know a whole lot about them either -- other than the fact that the Anglican Church split from them a long time ago, and there were similarities in style. But I had heard that they didn't tolerate all the heretical nonsense that plagues the Anglicans, and that was a point in their favor. Also, I discovered that many of the Anglicans whom I had respected for their solid faith had left the Anglican Church a long time ago. One of these was Fr. Lawrence Wheeler whom I had met in 1987. When we re-established contact after a 20 year gap, I found that he was pastor of a parish that was part of a network of churches which worshipped in the Anglican tradition but were no longer connected to the official Anglican Church. His parish was ready to accept the pope's offer, and Fr. Wheeler challenged me to seriously consider the claims of the Catholic Church myself. As an evangelical Protestant I was reluctant to go in that direction, but here was someone whom I respected and had a similar background as mine who was actually encouraging me to do so (Fr. Wheeler had also an been evangelical Christian before he became an Anglican). So I began to investigate the Catholic Church. I found lots of internet sources and informative books on Catholicism, many of them written by former Protestants. I discovered EWTN, a Catholic television/radio network, and started listening to podcasts of its shows, such as The Journey Home, Catholic Answers Live, and Open Line. I spent more than a year of studying the claims of the Catholic Church, the writings of the early Church Fathers and related passages in the Bible, and my objections started to melt as I became convinced that the Catholic Church is the true and original church that Jesus established on earth, that "city set on a hill that cannot be hidden," and that all of the Protestant churches I had attended and had been a member of throughout my Christian life were actually "ecclesial communities," something like tent villages located perhaps on the same hill, but clearly outside the walls of that city. My focus had changed. I was no longer running from the Anglican Church; I was eagerly running to the Catholic Church, and would continue this journey even if all the problems in the Anglican Church vanished. I didn't want to wait for the pope's door for Anglican groups to open, especially since nobody really knows when that will happen in Japan; I felt I had to come over to the Catholic Church as soon as possible. Now the question was how to go about it. How does a Protestant become a Catholic? During my period of study, I had visited several Catholic parishes in Tokyo on Sunday mornings and ended up in a small friendly parish with an English speaking priest just a few blocks from the Anglican parish where I had attended. This allowed me to attend the 8:00 Sunday morning service at the Anglican parish and then walk over and attend the 10:30 Catholic mass where I could experience Catholicism first hand on a regular basis and make sure this was the right decision. I continued in this manner for several months, taking communion at the Anglican service and watching everyone else take communion at the Catholic mass. No doubt the music in the Anglican Church was better, but I became convinced that the real presence of Jesus was in the eucharist of the Catholic Church, and that this was indeed the true and original church that Jesus Christ had established. By the time I decided to join the Church, I had become a familiar face at the Catholic parish, and had made lots of friends there. So it was no surprise to anyone when I finally told the head priest I wanted to become a member. I figured the process would be long and drawn out with several months of classes, which is the usual procedure for adults coming into the Church. But the priest surprised me by saying he could let me join at the next international mass which was seven weeks away. For preparation, he only asked me to read one document from the Second Vatican Council about the role of the Church in the modern world (Gaudium Ee Spes). When I asked why the process was so simple and quick in my case, he replied that it was because of my training and background as an Anglican missionary, and that I had studied the Catechism of the Catholic Church! A few weeks before I was to be confirmed, I went to my first confession. I squeezed myself into a tiny booth and confessed all the serious sins I could recall during my entire life. I wasn't embarrassed to confess my sins to the priest since I knew he had heard it all before. Then he said that I was forgiven of all my sins, and I knew he spoke with the authority that Jesus Christ had entrusted to the apostles, who in turn entrusted it to their successors down to the present day. All my sins were truly forgiven as Jesus had promised in John 20:23. It felt great. Then a few weeks later I was confirmed and joined the Catholic Church and finally took communion there. My baptism as a teenager in the United Methodist was considered valid, so I only needed to be confirmed. So now I am Catholic, having become convinced that I had no choice. I was compelled to join the Catholic Church. There were basically two reasons. Reason 1: Peter When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" Jesus' plan was to build a church, and Peter was to be the rock on which it was built. In their native language Aramaic, Peter's name and the word for rock are exactly the same word: Kepha. Later on, Jesus gave all the apostles the authority to bind and loose, but he gave only to Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. And Peter alone was the rock on which Jesus would build his church. Jesus gave great authority to the apostles and especially to Peter which would have a binding effect on heaven itself! This is mind boggling if you read how most of them abandoned Jesus at His crucifixion, and about all the mistakes Peter made; he could be a real bumbler at times. He often spoke without thinking, and he publicly denied being associated with Jesus three times in a row. How many people in history were called "Satan" in a rebuke by Jesus Himself? He was even rebuked in public by the apostle Paul for hypocrisy. In order to avoid a disaster, you would expect God to keep Peter and the apostles on a short leash at least during those moments when they were exercising this authority! The Church believes that God has done that, as was demonstrated at that crucial moment when bumbling Peter was given a revelation directly from God concerning who Jesus really was. It is no coincidence that Jesus made His declaration to Peter right then and there. Some might think that Peter was merely one of the twelve (perhaps a little more colorful than the others), and that it is unreasonable to put too much emphasis on him. Well, here is a bit of data that might have escaped their notice: Peter's name is mentioned in the New Testament 156 times, far more than the other eleven apostles. John is in second place, and his name only appears 29 times! Jesus also singled out Peter when he gave these commands concerning His followers: When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?" The Church would continue after the apostles had died, so it was necessary for them to continue their work by handing their office and authority to others. The first instance of this is recorded in the first chapter of Acts, and it also shows Peter acting in his role as head of the apostles: In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, "Brothers and sisters, the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was one of our number and shared in our ministry." In the quote above, May another take his place of leadership, the Greek word for leadership is episkope and means office of bishop (overseer). This is significant because it indicates that the mission of the apostles was not just to preach the gospel, but to also function as bishops or overseers of the Church. After the death of the original twelve apostles, the Church would continue to appoint men to take their place as overseers in increasing numbers as the Church spread throughout the world. The early church kept very good records, and we know that Peter went to Antioch and was a bishop there for a while, and finally ended up in Rome to become the first bishop of the Church of Rome, where he was killed and buried. His grave has been identified and his bones have been found under the high altar of St. Peter's church in Rome. We know the names of the men who became the bishops of Rome after Peter. The second bishop of Rome was Linus, the third was Anencletus, and the fourth was Clement, and the list continues until the present day with pope Benedict XVI. Linus and Clement were probably the same ones who are mentioned in the letters of Paul. The bishop of Rome was eventually called pope which means "papa." The apostolic office and authority of Peter and the apostles -- including protection from error at crucial moments -- was passed on to their successors, the pope and all the bishops of the world in union with the pope. So when the pope makes an official declaration concerning faith and morals in the context of his office as successor to Peter the chief of the apostles, the Holy Spirit prevents him from saying something false. Like Peter (who might also be called the chief bumbler among the apostles) he might still make mistakes at other times, in all other areas of his life in words and actions, and he is still a sinner like all humans. The Holy Spirit guides the Church through the office of the pope and when necessary protects the Church from the man who occupies that position. The concept of papal infallability is really nothing more than this. The Church has had a certain amount of freedom in choosing men to fill the office of pope, and in history a few of them were really corrupt men. Yet God protected the Church from these men, and they were not permitted to cause damage to the teachings of the Church. It is the office of pope that God uses and protects from error regardless of the man who fills the office. These days the men who become popes are godly men. The current pope, Benedict XVI, is respected even in Protestant circles as a Bible scholar. Throughout history God has established specific humans on earth in places of authority to guide His people, such as Moses, the prophets, judges and kings. Without such an authority on earth, the Church would have the same problems that Israel experienced during a dark period in its history : In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes. What happens when Christians reject the authority of Peter's successor? Since the reformation in the 16th century, the Protestant churches have been splitting and splintering at an incredible rate with nothing to stop them. Today there are over 30,000 Protestant denominations, each with its own interpretation of the Bible, and the number keeps growing. Each denomination or independent church believes that it is more correct than all others, and some disagreements are major, such as how a person is saved. It has become the norm for people to church-hop until they find one that suits their personal beliefs. And if their beliefs change later on, they look for another church. Discussions on religion in the Protestant world often include phrases such as "I believe such and such" with the emphasis on I as if an individual's personal beliefs carried more weight than ultimate truth. In modern western culture people are expected to fight for their individual rights, and defend their personal opinions above all others. They do whatever is right in their own eyes. Is this what God intended? All my adult life I had searched for the church that would fit me like a glove, and I never found it. At one point I had even considered starting a church in my home that perfectly conformed to my own beliefs, and I could think of no reason to stop me. But now the tables were turned as I was confronted with a church that claimed God's authority, with overwhelming evidence to back up that claim. I finally realized that I had to end my own church hopping and submit to the teaching authority of the one church that Jesus built on a rock, with the direct successors to Peter and the apostles still leading it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Reason 2: The Eucharist When Jesus performed the amazing miracle of feeding five thousand people with just five loaves of bread and two fish, a large crowd followed him, hoping to be fed again and again with more miraculous food. It was at this time that Jesus made his shocking declaration which alienated many followers: 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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For 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." The listeners obviously took Jesus' declaration at face value because many stopped following him as a result. He didn't try to bring them back by saying that the words were only figurative. Later, at the last supper, we have this account: While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. This would put an end to any speculation as to what Jesus had meant by eating his flesh and drinking his blood. A miracle took place at that moment. The writings of the early Church Fathers clearly show that the Church from the beginning has always taken Jesus' words literally and has always believed in this miracle, that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ while still retaining the appearance and taste of bread and wine (good thing for us, since it would be extremely difficult for the average person to take communion if we could see it for what it really is). The Church has the power to bring this miracle about. If you wonder how Christians can eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood every Sunday in churches all over the world, just remember that Jesus announced this new miracle just after he performed the miracle of multiplying loaves when he fed five thousand. Multiplication is a miracle he can handle with no problem. If Jesus established the eucharist as the way for Christians to eat His flesh and drink His blood, then it would stand to reason that it would be the main event when we come together. And so it is in the Catholic Church. I had to join the Catholic Church because of the real presence of Christ in the eucharist and the grace that comes from it. Icing on the cake: Signs and wonders I don't consider this a reason for joining the Catholic Church, but it affirms my decision. Many Protestant churches teach that miracles ceased when the apostles died or when the last book of the Bible was written. Some churches teach that miracles returned with the Pentecostal movement in the 20th century. But the history of the Catholic Church shows an unbroken line of amazing miracles from the days of the apostles till today. The Holy Spirit has not been asleep or in hiding all these years; He has been very active and still in the miracle business; some of us just didn't know where to look. If the eucharist is what the Church says it is, and that Jesus is really present, then it should not be surprising to hear of miracles associated with the eucharist. A lot of those miracles involved priests who did not believe the bread and wine really became the body and blood of Jesus, so God showed them the truth in very graphic way (need I say more?). One of the more notable miracles happened in a place called Lanciano. Just do a web search for eucharistic miracles (or Lanciano) and see for yourself. These are my two reasons (plus a little icing). Now I must address a few issues which cannot be ignored. The Church and the Bible All the apostles went about spreading the gospel and establishing churches, appointing local church leaders and passing on all the necessary instructions to get the churches started right, and yet most of the apostles did not write anything that has been preserved in the Bible. What we have in the New Testament came from a few of the apostles (and their fellow workers) and even those writings are but a small portion of what they taught. Writing took time away from preaching, and letters could be easily intercepted during times of persecution. The apostles preferred speaking to writing, as John said at the end of his second and third letters: I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete. I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face. The apostle Paul also made it clear that the writings were only part of the teaching, and that the spoken messages were also very important and not to be forgotten: So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. (By the way, I can't let this verse go by without pointing out the fact that the Greek word for "teachings" is "paradosis" which is translated as "tradition" in English in other places in the NIV, but the translators made the decision in this one instance to bend the rules and use "teaching" apparently because they did not want to promote the idea that tradition can be a good thing.) Paul also instructed his disciple Timothy to pass on his oral teachings to other men who would also pass them on to others. You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. We have no writings of Timothy in the Bible. So what became of the teachings of Paul which Timothy heard and was told to pass on? Are they lost forever? For that matter, considering how many hours of teaching and preaching must have been done by all the apostles during their lives compared to the relatively small number of books we have in the New Testament, it would appear that the vast majority of apostolic teaching has been lost, both written and oral! The apostle Paul made reference to a few of his own letters that have been lost, such as a letter to the Corinthians between the first and second letters we have in our Bible, and also a letter to the Laodiceans. We know that this is true with the gospels; the majority of the deeds of Jesus are lost and unknown today. The apostle John outlived all the others, and as the last surviving member of "the Twelve" in his old age, he apparently understood that Christ would not return in his own lifetime, and saw the need to record more details of Jesus' life which were not included in the other three gospels. He knew that once he died the rest of the story and teachings would be lost forever. But his time was limited, and he made it very clear to the reader that much would have to go unwritten. Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. As far as we know, Jesus did not write anything down (except for some unrecorded writing with his finger on the ground) and the majority of what Jesus did during His time on earth -- plus what he must have said in connection with those deeds -- went unrecorded. Jesus spent some three years with the twelve apostles, living with them and talking with them day and night. He must have taught them many things to prepare them for their roles as leaders in the Church. All that information no doubt exceeded the volume of information that exists in the few written records of the apostles who were probably more interested in using their time to proclaim the gospel to the world than write down instructions for the Church leaders! That could have been reserved for teaching sessions with smaller groups. What they did not write down, they surely passed on orally to their disciples, the next generation of leaders in the Church. So what happened to all that teaching of the apostles that was based on what they learned from Jesus? Was it completely lost? Not necessarily; some can be gleaned from the writings of the early Church Fathers. Some of these documents such as the Didache were written while the apostles were still alive, before some parts of the New Testament were written. Others were written after the deaths of the apostles such as the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of John and possibly made a bishop of Antioch by Peter. Although not inspired like the Bible, they are reliable as historical documents and include descriptions of how the early church worshipped and conducted itself, and how the early hierarchy was structured (bishops, priests and deacons), which all point back to the unrecorded, oral instructions that the first Christians received from the apostles, who received them from Jesus himself. We even have a book on early Church history which was written by Eusebius of Caesarea in the early 300s A.D. This man had access to documents which have long since perished, plus he had access to accounts and histories which were handed down orally and still fresh. Although definitely not inspired scripture, it is generally reliable as any history book, and has some amazing accounts of what the Christians regarded as historical fact back then. What's the best way to interpret the Bible? Come up with your own interpretation 2000 years after the fact, or find out how the first Christians interpreted it while the apostles or their disciples were still around to correct them? Catholics accept the ancient teachings and practices handed down in the Church, which are called Sacred Tradition. These teachings fill in a lot of the gaps. Protestants claim to accept only the teachings of the Bible (although the very concept of relying only on the Bible comes from outside the Bible since it is not taught anywhere in the Bible). Even with Catholics the God-inspired Scriptures have priority over Tradition, but both are considered important. To be fair, even as a Protestant I knew that we also filled in gaps with our own "traditions" which were not nearly as old as the Catholic ones. I remember thinking that a person could not even get "saved" by reading just the Bible without some kind of supplement such as the "Four Spiritual Laws" to show him the way. It is no wonder we have so much difficulty communicating and debating certain issues; Protestants and Catholics don't go by the same ground rules. We are not on the same page. Protestants look to the Bible only while Catholics look to the Church that gave us the Bible. For the first few centuries, the Church spread all over Europe, Africa and Asia and suffered great persecution so that Christians had to meet in secret for fear of their lives. Hand-copied manuscripts of gospel accounts and letters of the apostles were circulated among the churches along with lots of other similar writings. These were read during the worship services of the early Christians. There was no general agreement among the Christians concerning which writings were the inspired written Word of God. Then, after Christanity was declared legal and Christians came out of hiding, the pope and bishops gathered during the fourth century and determined which books were to be included in the New Testament canon. We believe the Holy Spirit guided them as they exercised their special authority. The Church gave us the New Testament. When Paul used the term "pillar and foundation of the truth" in his letter to Timothy, what do you suppose he was referring to? The Bible? No, he was referring to the Church: Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. And back then there was only one church he could be referring to, the church that Jesus built, the Catholic Church. "Catholic" simply means universal, and the term "Catholic Church" (ekklesia katolika in Greek) was used way back around 110 A.D. in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (mentioned above). Ignatius did not have to explain what he meant by it; the Church was apparently already called the Catholic Church by that time. When I discuss my faith with others, I refer to myself as a Christian, as I have always done. For the first thousand years, all Christians were members of one church and it was the Catholic Church. The original Christians were Catholics. All Christians who recite the Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creeed profess their belief in the Holy Catholic Church. Today some people may explain this term away, but when it was written there was no ambiguity as to what church it referred to. The Christianity of history is not Protestantism. But can I trust them? When I first took a serious look at the Catholic Church I had the major obstacles that all Protestants have, such as the pope, Mary and the saints, and I began my investigation like any Protestant would, by looking for evidence in the Bible. Then I turned to the early Church Fathers, church history, and also a big fat book called The Catechism of the Catholic Church My problem was I was going about it the wrong way because I had missed the main issue which was whether or not the teaching authority of the Catholic Church is trustworthy. I wouldn't have to prove every doctrine that I came across if I could just trust the Church and accept that it has been guided all along by the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised to the first church leaders, the apostles: I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you. It seems reasonable that the Holy Spirit would guide the church into all the truth especially since Paul declared the church to be the pillar and foundation of the truth. When Jesus made this promise, he was talking to the men who would be the leaders of the church which was to be founded at that time and which would continue to the present day. He was not addressing leaders of churches which would not yet exist for over 1,500 years. Protestants already accept that the Holy Spirit has guided the Catholic Church into all the truth, because we all accept many teachings which are not spelled out in the Bible but were taught in the early church, and we all use Catholic words not found in the Bible such as Trinity and incarnation. These biblical concepts are not as self evident as we would like to think. The Catholic Church, guided by the Spirit of truth had to clarify and define doctrine when people started to teach contrary opinions. As mentioned above, we accept the list of 27 books of the New Testament that the Catholic Church gave us. Many Protestants also accept as reliable the early historical accounts of the deaths of the apostles such as reports of Paul being beheaded and Peter crucified upside down in Rome. We accept the historical accounts of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. although it is not described in the Bible. If we accept some of what the Catholic Church has taught us, on what grounds do we reject the rest? Where can we draw the line? The same people who gave us the 27 books of the New Testament also tell us that we must not ignore the other teachings of the apostles as handed down in the church. So the big issue is what I have mentioned so many times already: authority. Can I recognize the authority of the one universal Church that Jesus built and which the Holy Spirit has guided and preserved? Can I submit to that authority? OK, a few answers I'm sure that some readers who have had similar questions to the ones I mentioned will be very disappointed if I don't offer a few answers anyway. So here are a few brief statements from my research that helped overcome my main objections: Papal infallibility: Already pretty much answered above. As Catholics understand it, it does not mean the pope never sins or makes mistakes; the pope will readily admit he has done both. It simply means that when the pope is making a declaration "ex-cathedra" (in his official capacity as the man occupying the chair of Peter), he is protected from error only when he is addressing matters of faith and morals, such as in interpreting the scriptures. Many men were similarly protected when they wrote those scriptures. One would expect nothing less if the Holy Spirit were guiding the Church throughout history. It's a very tight description with lots of restrictions, and some Catholic have asserted that papal infallibility has only been exercised a few times in history. It seems that something this narrowly defined ought to be acceptable to even Protestants. As I will say repeatedly, the early church accepted this teaching, having received it from the apostles. Immaculate Conception of Mary: The early church accepted this teaching, having received it from the apostles. It is certainly implied in the wording of the Greek text of Luke 1:28 where Mary is described as kecharitomene which is not easily translated into English, but "one who has been graced" comes the closest, and "full of grace" is pretty close. It implies that Mary was not plagued with original sin. It's not an unbiblical concept; Adam and Eve were both born without original sin and were sinless for a time. The early Church defended the divinity of Christ, and asserted that he was God even from the moment of his conception. In defending this teaching, it referred to Mary as the "theotokos" which is translated as "God-bearer" or "mother of God" so it could refute the arguments of those who said Jesus only became God after he was born. The teaching has more to do with who Jesus was, and how holy the human vessel had to be who carried God-in-the-flesh for nine months and gave birth to him. Assumption of Mary, body and soul into heaven at the end of her life: The early church accepted this teaching, having received it from the apostles who apparently witnessed the event. If it took place after the New Testament was written, then of course the Bible would not mention it. The Bible also does not contain accounts of the subsequent lives of most of the twelve apostles. It's not an unbiblical concept; God took both Enoch and Elijah out of this world, body and soul. Praying to Mary and the Saints: The early church accepted and practiced this. They must have gotten it from the apostles. As a Protestant I was taught that praying was "talking to God," but that is too narrow a definition. Praying has always meant simply talking, whether to God or humans; just read some literature from the 19th century for abundant examples. According to Revelation 6:9-11, the saints in heaven are very aware of what is going on here on earth, and those who were killed for their faith are asking how long God is going to refrain from dealing with those who killed them on earth. If we are surrounded right now by a "cloud of witnesses" as described in Hebrews 12, then Christians who have gone to heaven are not as far away as we might think, and we can still ask them to pray for us, just as we did when they were with us. We can ask anyone who is in heaven to pray for us. Why ask saints to pray for us when we can go directly to God? Well, why do you ask your Christian friends on earth to pray for you when you can go directly to God? Have you ever taken an important prayer request to a pastor or some person who seemed holy because you thought the prayer would have a better chance of being heard if they prayed it? Nothing wrong with that, right? For one thing, we are told over and over in the Bible to pray for each other (eg. James 5:16, Ephesians 6:18, 1 Timothy 2:1, 1 Thessalonians 5:25, etc.). Asking Mary or a saint to pray for you is not much different than picking up the phone to ask your pastor or Christian friends to pray for you, and the prayers of saints can have more effect since they are with God, and their prayers are unhindered by sin. Prayer to Mary and the saints is basically just asking for their intercession. Worshipping statues: Catholics are not allowed to worship statues, because that would be a sin. It only looks like they are worshipping statues. They know as well as you do that statues are man-made objects that have no life in themselves. The commandment to not make "graven images" is only part of that commandment in Exodus 20 (the Ten Commandments). The other part says to not worship them. Making images is not prohibited in the Bible. God even instructed it to be done when he gave instructions for making gold cherubim, and bronze oxen as well as Moses' bronze snake on a pole. That snake had to be destroyed only after the Israelites started to worship it. Many Protestants enjoy religious statues or prints, especially at Christmas time when we bring the nativity scenes out with Joseph, Mary, baby Jesus, a few shepherds and wise men and a bunch of animals. Washington D.C. is full of statues which remind us of great people in history. A lot of people, even Christians, feel a sense of reverence as well as sadness when they stand in front of that huge statue of Abraham Lincoln, but I doubt that anybody actually worships the statue or believes it is a substitute for the real thing. Statues are like photos of our loved ones. When we are separated from our loved ones we may keep those photos in an honored place, talk to them and even kiss them, but we know they are just photos and have no life in themselves. It may look like we are adoring photos or have some kind of relationship with them, but that's not the case. Statues serve a similar function which some Catholics utilize in their devotional life. A simple crucifix reminds me of what Jesus did for me and makes me reflect on my response to that sacrifice. A crucifix is not a denial of the resurrection as some Protestants have wrongly concluded. As Paul declared in 1 Corinthians 1:23, "We preach Christ crucified." Again, as I mentioned above, more issues may crop up from time to time which might be unsettling until answers are found. Even after you find the answers, you may be uncomfortable with them simply because they are foreign to your Protestant cultural background. The bigger issue is whether or not the Holy Spirit has been guiding the Church and protecting it from doctrinal error as it developed. If this is true, then I can accept the teachings of the Church even if I can't readily defend them based on my limited research. I should point out here that when I talk about doctrine, I do not speak with the authority of the Church. When I was a Protestant, it was commonly accepted that "authority" rested with people who did their homework such as theologians who put so much time into Bible study. Church Pastors and members look to the theologians and trust their commentaries and "study Bibles" for the answers. Of course, this causes problems when theologians disagree. In Jesus' time, this would be like submitting to the authority of the scribes and teachers of the law rather than the priests. In the traditional Catholic way of seeing things, theologians do not have the final say. As a matter of fact, their assertions can be taken with a grain of salt, especially theologians who write strange things, Catholic or Protestant. The real authority rests with those to whom it has been entrusted, namely the pope and bishops in union with the pope. I am not a pope or a bishop. I'm not a spokesman for the Church or even a theologian. Church growth and development The Church (specifically its leaders, the bishops with the pope) as the pillar and foundation of the truth has the authority to defend and define teachings as official Church doctrine, but it has been reluctant to do so until it reaches a point of crisis when a teaching is challenged and there is danger of people abandoning it. Some such doctrines such as the incarnation and the Trinity had to be defended early, while others such as long-held teachings about Mary had to be defended much later. Jesus used the image of a mustard seed to describe the kingdom: He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches." The Church has been growing and developing for 2000 years under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. A mustard seed does not simply increase in size and become a giant mustard seed unchanged in every other way; it develops and grows in complexity with branches, leaves, and flowers over time. It doesn't look like the mustard seed any more than we look like our baby pictures. A lot of Christians would like to see the Church return to its simple and pure existence as it was in the early years, but that would be like wishing that adults would once again become tiny and cute and wear diapers and have that nice baby smell (depending on the state of the diapers -- and the early church had its smelly moments, too, by the way). But if we all became babies again, the human race would perish within a generation. I can now recognize that the Catholic Church today with all its beauty and developed doctrine and practices is what Jesus had planned from the beginning. And like the birds of the air who came to perch in its branches, people from all countries, languages and cultures have come to live in it and call it home. Over 1.2 billion people in the world are in the Catholic Church. It is by far the biggest single Church in the world; nobody else even comes close. As I have already pointed out, for the first thousand years, there was no other church but the Catholic Church. Jesus said he would build His church, and that the Holy Spirit would guide it. Anyone who claims that the Catholic Church has gone astray is in danger of calling Jesus a liar and declaring that the Holy Spirit was not able to guide the Church these two thousand years. By the way, the Roman Catholic Church is only a part of the Catholic Church; right now there are 23 autonomous churches in the Catholic Church, most of them are Eastern Rite churches such as the Coptic, Marionite, Armenian, and Byzantine Rites, to name a few. They are self governing, but all are in communion with the pope whose authority they accept as the successor of Peter. Actually, if Jesus built only one universal church on the rock called Peter, then one could make the argument that all Christians in the world are already part of the Catholic Church whether they like it or not, like estranged children. They just need to find their way home like the prodigal son. If you wanted to be simplistic, based on the numbers of Christians in the world (I have read it is somewhere around 2 billion), you could say that most Christians in the world are already members of the Catholic Church. To keep things in perspective, the Eastern Orthodox churches are recognized by the Catholic Church as being part of the one true church. Although they split from each other during the 11th century mainly over political and cultural differences (and leaders on both sides were at fault), the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches together are considered the "two lungs" of the Church. I seriously considered the local Orthodox Church, but in the end went with the side that stayed with the successor of Peter (the first of my two reasons mentioned above). The Catholic Church currently has 1,200,000,000 members while the Eastern Orthodox churches have one fourth that number at 300,000,000. Together they can claim 1.5 billion members world wide. That's three quarters of all the Christians in the world. A movement in both directions One area where the Protestants are strong and the Catholics need a lot of work is education and formation. Many cradle-Catholics who were raised in the Church have no idea what they are supposed to believe and can't distinguish between myth and truth about the Church, while Protestants are typically well versed in the Bible and study it on their own, even memorizing large portions. Many Catholics leave their church without understanding what they left, join Protestant churches and then talk about how bad the Catholic Church was. Some even create blogs, write books or go on TV with their message. There is also a large body of material written by Protestants about the evils of the Catholic Church. A lot of Protestants form their image of the Catholic Church based on this type of innacurate second hand data and work hard to evangelize their Catholic friends to get them "saved." I know I did, and I prayed that my Catholic friends would receive Christ. I did not realize that they received Christ every time they went to mass, and their approach was more biblical than mine. On the other hand, some Protestants, once they expand their study to include church history and the writings of the early Church Fathers, are drawn to the Catholic Church and bring all their evangelistic zeal and Bible knowledge with them. And they still have an appreciation for the Protestant tradition they left behind. You would be amazed at how many Protestant clergy have become Catholics in recent years. This has become quite a movement going in both directions, resembling something like a prisoner exchange. But I can't help but wonder, which group gets the better prisoners? A lot of former Catholics after being properly trained in the Bible as Protestants, finally recognize what a great treasure they left behind and return to the Catholic Church. A speed bump: bad (and wierd) Catholics I have referred to the issue of authority many times already in my explanation. Again, what I am referring to is the specific teaching authority which has been entrusted to the pope and all the bishops who are in union with him. This group is also called the Magisterium of the Church. It is an unfortunate reality that the Catholic Church often looks better on paper than it does in person. The Church has been entrusted to human beings, who can be self-centered and sinful, and even deaf to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Many of us have known Catholics who did not live up to the name. Some Catholic theologians write heretical stuff and some priests unfortunately teach crazy stuff which contradicts the teachings of the Church. And as you know, a lot of really bad priests have made the headlines in recent years for their inexcusable sinful acts. There are bad priests out there even now, and I have personally encountered a few myself. Thank God, I eventually found a great parish with great priests who submit to the teachings of the Church. Any institution that has grown as big and as old as this is bound to have its share of problems. That's a hard thing to swallow for someone like me who was raised with the idea that you don't put up with any nonsense but simply leave and find -- or start -- a new church. Staying put and trying to fix the problem was not part of my mindset. There have always been bad Catholics in history among the laity and at all levels of the hierarchy. There have been dark times in the history of the Church where many leaders were corrupt, even a few popes. One of the original twelve apostles, Judas Iscariot, was a real bad apple. But what thinking person would leave Peter and the other apostles because of Judas? We shouldn't be surprised at the rotten apples in the Church since Jesus already said this very thing would happen: Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The Catholic Church has always had its share of "weeds" sowed by the enemy who wants to destroy it, but it is still Jesus' church and he will deal with the weeds in His own time. If the Holy Spirit were not personally guiding this church, protecting it from even its own people, it would have destroyed itself and vanished a long time ago! And on the other hand there are some Catholics who are well meaning but seem to go too far with what seem to be displays of excessive devotion to Mary and the saints which can make an evangelical Protestant shake his head in wonder. Of course we can't forget that the Protestants have their share of "lunatic fringe" fanatics, and they just learn to live with them and hope visitors don't notice them too much. By the way, I have personally known many Catholics who were normal people -- even great Christians -- who merged their faith with their lives very well, so if you are reading this, guys, I'm not referring to you when I rant about bad Catholics! The Catholic Church is far from perfect, but if it is the original church that Jesus built, then my options are limited; I had to choose the Catholic Church, warts and all -- where else could I go? I've said enough There's so much more that I could write about, and believe it or not, I had set out to make this a brief explanation and nothing more. There is much more I could have written, including a strange dream which seemed to predict that this would happen. Since I have no idea what to make of that dream, I'll put the story in a different article for those who are fascinated by such things. Anyway, this article may not change your mind but hopefully this explanation will satisfy your curiosity as to why I did what I did. You may not agree with me, and I will not try to pursuade you because I would not have agreed with this article just two years ago, and nobody could have convinced me that my position as a Protestant was wrong. All the convincing arguments came from within as I examined the issues for myself and expanded my studies to include Catholic resources and early church history. As I wrote at the top of this page, I joined the Catholic Church at the age of 54 after being an evangelical Protestant all my life. Now I'm an evangelical Catholic. Of course, I believe I could have gone to heaven as a Protestant. Who can deny that the Holy Spirit is active in Protestant Churches? They have the gifts of the Spirit, an amazing zeal and love for Christ and the Kingdom of God. Many Protestant martyrs have shed their blood for their faith. For me, becoming a Catholic is about stopping for a moment in the midst of all my hopping from one tent village to another and discovering a huge and beautiful walled city at the top of the hill. It's about finally entering those old and strangely familiar gates and discovering all the riches and the fullness of the faith that I had only gotten a glimpse of before. It's about receiving grace through the sacraments to live the Christian life. It's about coming home to the true Church that Jesus Christ established on earth with Peter and his successors as its leaders. Yes, I am very excited about finally becoming a Catholic. I also discovered a great daily devotional life complete with chanting the Psalms in the Catholic prayerbook which is called the Liturgy of the Hours. It's reminiscent of my old Anglican Book of Common Prayer but bigger, and expands my morning and evening prayer to include three more daily prayer times. When I take communion, the sense of Jesus' presence is so overwhelming that I am often moved to tears. But it's more than just an emotional high at church; I can recognize the effects of grace. I find my thoughts turning to God more often than before. I'm finally able to succeed in the "practice of the presence of God" which I had been attempting for 30 years since I read the words of Brother Lawrence (by the way, in case you forgot, Brother Lawrence was a Catholic who received all the grace that comes from Jesus' presence in the eucharist). I am able to resist sin more successfully than before. My joy as a Christian is deeper than before, my love for the Bible is greater than before, and man, do I look forward to going to church on Sundays -- and any week day when my schedule permits it! If this makes you want to investigate further, go ahead and follow the links I've provided below. Don't be surprised if the ground shifts under you! The moment men cease to pull against it they feel a tug towards it. Free podcasts 7 Reasons to be Catholic by Dr. Peter Kreeft Testimony of Scott Hahn, former Presbyterian minister (Right click to save link to disk) The Journey Home Testimonies of converts to the Catholic Church from various backgrounds Open Line A call-in radio talk show with a different host each day of the week Catholic Answers Live A call-in radio talk show including programs specifically for non-Catholics You Tube Videos 7 Reasons to be Catholic Same contents as the podcast above Testimony of Scott Hahn, former Presbyterian minister Testimony of Michael Cumbie, former Baptist minister Testimony of Tim Staples, former Assemblies of God minister Testimony of Jeffry Hendrix, former United Methodist minister Testimony of Alex Jones, former Pentecostal minister Testimony of Barry Metzentine, former Mormon Testimony of Dr. Kevin Vost, former Atheist Free online resources The Coming Home Network For clergy and lay people considering the Catholic Church Tracts which address common questions about the Catholic Faith Why I'm a Catholic - Catholic Conversion Stories New stories added regularly Catholics Come Home Something for both non-Catholics and former Catholics Bible Christian Society Lots of free articles and audio downloads Biblical Evidence for Catholicism Catholic Apologetic Blog Catechism of the Catholic Church Online version of the Catechism which explains exactly what the Church believes Web Forums Recommended books and resources Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words 
Surprised by Truth: 11 Converts Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons for Becoming Catholic 
Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism 
Chosen: How Christ Sent Twenty-Three Surprised Converts to Replant His Vineyard 
Atheist to Catholic: 11 Stories of Conversion 
By What Authority? an Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition 
Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic 
Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians" 
If Protestantism is True: The Reformation Meets Rome 
Eucharistic Miracles 
Bleeding Hands, Weeping Stone: True Stories of Divine Wonders, Miracles and Messages 
The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Teachings of the Early Church 
Eusebius: The Church History 
Bones of St. Peter 
Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger 
Come on In, It's Awful 
Catholicism for Dummies 
The Catechism of the Catholic Church 
Confessions of a Mega Church Pastor: How I Discovered the Hidden Treasures of the Catholic Church 
Jimmy Swaggart Made Me Catholic  DVD
|
|
Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers. The New International Version (NIV) is the most popular version of the Bible among Evangelical Protestants. My personal favorite has always been the New American Standard Bible (NASB). Now I also enjoy reading the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE) which is very similar to the NASB, and since it was translated before the NASB, probably even more accurate since the translators had first dibs on the best English words in this age of copyright laws where new translations are not allowed to duplicate earlier translations. | |
 | |
| |
| |
 | |
 | |
|
|
| If you click on any of the Amazon links and actually buy something there, Amazon will send a small percentage of the amount to my account with them. When this amount accumulates to a certain level, I can buy a book from Amazon or at least get a discount (and maybe post a review of it on my web site if it's any good). Since the price is the same to you either way, be a pal and click on a link if you're gonna buy the book anyway. Thanks! |