Leaving the Catholic Church, A Letter of Resignation

Lazyboy's Rest Stop ^ | Robert Mayberry

[Gamecock]

Following is my resignation letter from the Roman Catholic Church and from my position as Director of the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA), a program designed to teach Catholicism to adults who would like to become Catholics.

This letter serves to inform you that I am separating myself from the Roman Catholic Church. This decision has come about after many months of intensive research into the Scriptures, the writings of the Patristic fathers of the church, and church history. During this period of research I have considered the writings and/or oral arguments of such Catholic authors as Keating, Sungenis, Ott, Hahn, Matatics, as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). My separation from the church of Rome is driven by differences in doctrine. This is not a matter of rancor but rather a matter of being faithful to my Lord and Savior with a clear conscience. It is worth noting that I might never have reached this conclusion, except that I was appointed to the position of the Director of the RCIA. Being placed in that position compelled me to look at the Scriptures and church in depth as I studied Catholic doctrine. I readily acknowledge that there are many sincere and devout people in the Catholic church that love the Lord Jesus, but I believe that many of them are misled as to how a person is saved.

What happened that I should change my mind? When I joined the Church in 1993 I made a serious commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ and to the Catholic church. My commitment to the Lord Jesus remains and has grown, but my decision to join the RCC was based upon only a surface reading of Scriptures and the Catechism of the Catholic church. The more I have looked at Scripture (and not just at localized passages) I discovered that not all the doctrines taught by the RCC are Scriptural. Not being content with this, because I realized that my private interpretation might possibly be in error, I began to read the writings of the early fathers of the church. I found that many of the doctrines held and taught by the RCC today are not in agreement with the early church, nor are they found in Scripture. Many of them actually contradict Scripture.

What are some of the doctrinal problems that force me to separate myself?

Marian Doctrine

I have reviewed the church’s teaching on Mary, as Co-Mediatrix, her perpetual virginity, Immaculate conception, and being enthroned as Queen of Heaven. These doctrines are not in agreement with scripture or the teachings of the early fathers of the church. Saint Paul writes in his letter to Timothy (1 Tim 2:5) "there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.." It was interesting to discover that none of the early church fathers in the first three hundred years of the church ever wrote about Mary as a Co-Mediator. If there is only one mediator as God’s Word says, how can there be a co-mediator? This is a blatant contradiction.

As to Mary’s perpetual virginity Scripture is quite plain. In Matthew 13:55-56 are found references to the brothers and sisters of Jesus. Now I am aware of the claim of some that these terms may refer to cousins or kindred. If one looks up the Greek words for brother and sister in this passage the meaning is clear: the gospel writer means the siblings (adelphos) of the Lord. There are other passages that list the words for cousins (sungenes) as well as for brother (adelphos) or sister in the same passage (such as Luke 21:16).

As to the immaculate conception does not Romans 3:23 say: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." It is worth noting that the scripture says that God alone (with respect to human beings) is without sin.

There is no mention in scripture for Mary being the Queen of Heaven. Nor do the early church fathers write of this. Scripture does make mention of a Queen of heaven, however, in Jeremiah 44:25. In this portion of scripture the Lord voices his great displeasure with the people of Israel for offering worship to the Queen of Heaven.

Indulgences and Purgatory

In paragraph 1030 of the CCC it says: "All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified…after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." The idea that regenerated believers in Christ can be imperfectly purified is not scriptural. In Hebrews 10:14 it says: " for by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated." If believers in Christ are made perfect by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, how can there be any that are considered impure by God? Again it is written in Hebrews 10:10: "we have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

If these passages are not clear enough, we should consider what the Lord Jesus said to the "good" thief, in Luke 23:43 "..Amen I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." Now surely no one would claim that a thief whose crimes were so monstrous as to rate the death penalty would have been able to enter Heaven, because his acts would have rendered him impure and unclean. Instead we see that by his faith in the Lord Jesus, he was cleansed from all imperfection and entered into Christ’s presence in heaven. There is no mention in Scripture of temporal punishment for sin remaining after forgiveness.

Justification

I think that the fundamental difference between Roman Catholic doctrine and the scriptures is most pronounced with respect to how we are saved. The CCC teaches that we can merit eternal life by works done in a state of grace, and not simply by faith alone. St. Paul on the other hand writes in several places that:

Romans 3:28 "For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law."

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you, it is the gift of God, it is not from works, so no one may boast."

Galatians 2:16 "We…who know that a person is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."

The scriptures are clear that salvation comes from repentance and faith in Christ Jesus alone. We will never be justified by our own works whether done in a state of grace or not.

Now some have argued that what Paul meant by the law was the ceremonial law of the Mosaic covenant. This cannot be the case, because Paul later refers to coveting as a violation of the law in Romans 7:7-13. So it can be shown that when Paul says that no one will be justified by the works of the law he is in fact referring to the moral code as well as the ceremonial codes.

The scriptures teach that we are declared righteous by God because of our faith in the Lord Jesus, not by performing penances, novenas, masses, obtaining indulgences or experiencing purgatory. Paul writes in Romans 4:6 "So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God credits (imputes, declares) righteousness apart from works." So it can be seen that we cannot earn our way to being declared righteous by God, or receiving supplemental graces from God to earn our way into heaven.

I am not saying that those who are justified by Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary have no obligation for obedience to the Lord. Nor am I saying that one is saved by faith, and then allowed to do nothing. In fact those who are called by God our Father, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, repenting of their sins, and believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, will invariably seek to do the will of the Lord. To continue on with the passage in that was quoted earlier:

Ephesians 2:10 " for we are His handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them."

I freely believe that faith without works is dead (so did the leaders of the Reformation). God does indeed call us to repent from sin and to work in His service. Nevertheless, no human being will be justified by his own works before God (Romans 3:20), because such works can never be performed perfectly. If someone claims faith in the Lord Jesus, yet no evidence of conversion is found, that person has not yet encountered the risen Christ!

I agree that sanctification, that is, being conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus, is an on going process that takes a lifetime. I agree that we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16) " even as He is Holy." We are to strive to complete that holiness, (Hebrews 12:14) "without which no one will see the Lord." The work of that holiness comes from the Lord and is His work, and not from ourselves (Ephesians 2:10). By our own efforts we will not succeed.

The Eucharist.

I fully agree that the Eucharist, true to the meaning of the original Greek, is in fact an offering of praise and thanksgiving to God. It is also certainly a memorial like the Passover, and we are certainly called to be obedient to Christ by celebrating it and proclaiming his death until He comes again. Where Catholic doctrine begins to differ with Scripture is when it states (Paragraph 1367 of the CCC) that the sacrifice of the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, and that Christ is re-sacrificed, but in an unbloody manner. According to Scripture an unbloody sacrifice is not propitiatory, Hebrews 9:22 "and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

The scriptures actually declare that there is no longer an offering for sin, because Christ died once and for all (Romans 6:10). The author of Hebrews declares in 10:18 "Where there is forgiveness of these (sins), there is no longer offering for sin." Again in Hebrews 10:10 " We have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

I am not claiming that Christ is not present in the Eucharist. He is most certainly present in Spirit. He cannot be physically present in the Eucharist because He is in heaven at the right hand of the Father. He will come again physically at the second coming. Did not the angels say to the apostles in Acts 1:11 "Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking up at he sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, will return in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven."

Many people in the West today think that the word "spiritual" is synonymous with "not there." I totally disagree with them. Christ is in fact spiritually present with us during the Eucharist, even as he is present in the hearts and spirits of believers.

Worship of Images

One of the things that has bothered me about the Catholic faith since the beginning, is the reverence and worship offered to images and statues. I tried to ignore this at first, because many a catechist had likened the use of sacred images to keeping of pictures of Jesus, or family members in the home. The problem with this argument is that I don’t worship pictures of my relatives or bow down to them, or pray to them. There is a clear injunction in the second commandment in Exodus 20:4 " You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below, or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them." How can I respect the church’s teaching and maintain a clear conscience before the Lord our God? Scripture no where teaches that we are to pray to any other being other than the Lord.

Scripture and Tradition

I have no problem with tradition. Tradition must, however be subordinate to and in agreement with the Scriptures or it is not from God. As I have shown above there are a number of traditions of the RCC that are not in agreement with the Scriptures. What does the Bible say about the authority of Scripture? In 2 Timothy 3:16 St Paul writes: "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 perfect, equipped for every good work." Some Catholic apologists have argued that Saint Paul was speaking about an independent, parallel, unrecorded Gospel contained in an oral tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6. The problem with this concept is that Paul tells us elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 15:3, 11 " The chief message I handed on to you, as it was handed on to me, was that Christ, as the Scriptures foretold, died for our sins…That is our preaching, mine or theirs as you will; that is the faith that has come to you." It was interesting to discover what St. Augustine had to write about Scripture and Tradition:

"From the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life." (The City of God)

" I am not bound by the authority of this epistle because I do not hold the writings of Cyprian as canonical, and I accept whatever in them agrees with the authority of the divine Scriptures with his approval, but what does not agree I reject without his permission." (Contra Cresconium)

Papacy

The RCC teaches that the Pope is the head of the entire Christian church, and as such exercises supreme authority, and is guaranteed to be free of error when teaching on faith or morals (CCC 881 through 891).

If the Pope is infallible, how can he and the Magisterium of the church teach doctrines that contradict Scripture? The foundational passage in Scripture used to justify the Pope’s position is Matthew 16:18-19: "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." If the Roman interpretation is correct then Peter did indeed have the keys. How did the early church fathers interpret this key passage?

Hilary of Poitiers (315-368 AD) "…whence I ask, was it that the blessed Simon Bar-Jonah confessed to him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God? ...And this is the rock of the confession whereon the church was built….This faith it is which is the foundation of the church…"

Cyril of Alexandria (444 AD) "…Jesus said to the divine Peter: You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church. Now by the word ‘rock’, Jesus indicated, I think, the immovable faith of the disciple."

It appears, that at least in the early church, that the rock referred to by the Lord was the faith of Peter, not Peter himself.

In 1 Peter 5:1 Peter writes: " Therefore, I exhort you the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ…" Note that Peter does not refer to himself as the supreme pontiff, rather as a fellow elder! Saint Paul rebuked Peter for his compromising of the Gospel at the Council of Jerusalem. This is recorded in Galatians 2:11-14 and Acts 15. It is worth noting that after Paul’s rebuke that Peter actually repented and changed his position. Where is infallibility in this?

Just for the record there was a Pope who was branded as a heretic. Pope Honorius (625-638 AD) was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical council for supporting monotheletism. Pope Liberius (352-356) signed an Arian confession and denounced Athanasius in order to maintain his See against pressure from the Emperor Constantius II. Pope Zosimus (417-418) rebuked Augustine and the North African church for their condemnation of Pelagius and his heretical teachings. The North African church subsequently rejected the directions and admonitions of Zosimus.

Apparently the church has not always believed what Rome requires that we believe today.

As I review all these findings I find myself squarely in the position of the Reformed church. How surprising! I thought it would turn out the other way. By God’s grace I am headed back to the faith of my fathers after all.

In the Service of Jesus Christ our Lord,

Robert W. Mayberry

Note: In the parish priest's response to my letter he did not comment on any of the doctrinal issues that I raised.

[xzins]

ping to #337

The question is the identification of early celtic christianity with a more orthodox than roman outlook.

[Salvation]

**the same reasons I left**

You can always come back!

**theological and Scripture-based**

I don’t know how any other religion could be more theology and scripture based that the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church. After all it was St. Jerome who translated the Scriptures and the Catholic Church from whom all of you got the Scriptures. You followed Luther and did not adopt them all — that’s the only difference.

**It’s about justification.**
The Catholic Church believes that we are saved through the graces we receive at our Baptism and through the other Sacraments — most of which you, too, have in the Lutheran Church. The difference being that Catholics know that we are sinners, and so we do not believe in the “once saved always saved” fallacy of Luther. Thanks, God, for the Sacrament of Reconciliation............which I understand the Lutheran Church has also, although the form is a little different.

**It’s about God’s sovereignty and sufficiency.**

We as Catholics believe that God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit is supreme and sovereign and sufficient for us. How does that differ from your beliefs?

**It’s about a personal relationship with the Lord.**
I have a very personal relationship with God the Father, with God the Son, and with God, the Holy Spirit. Pray to them throughout the day as I go about my things of the day. I teach two classes a week — so I have to be tuned in and personal. That’s why you won’t find me putting down another religion. I may question some of the beliefs, but it’s not my place to judge others. I really do believe that most Catholics, also, have a personal and close relationship with the Lord, they just have not learned to talk about it as much as you or I might.

**Even worse are the liberals and secularists who dispute Catholic teachings about abortion or homosexuality—the very moral areas where the Roman church happens to be absolutely right!!!**

Totally agree with you here.

**About feelings.**

The Bible is full of stories about feelings, Christ cursed the fig tree in the Gospel today. And later, he knocked over the tables of the money changers. The four friends sympathized (felt sympathy) with their friend on the pallet and let him down through the roof to be in front of Christ. The woman with the hemorrhage was filled with hope as she reached out for the hem of Christ’s garment — that’s a feeling. Simeon, in the temple, felt fulfilled, and told the Lord, that now that he had seen the Lord,Jesus Christ, that the God could take him home. What about all the disciples that were following Jesus when he talked about being the Bread of Life, and all of a sudden left, filled with the feeling of doubt? They really didn’t think it out, or they would have stayed with Christ.

If Christ and these other people didn’t have feelings in this — then, I don’t get what your definition of feelings is. Feelings aren’t right or wrong.......they just are. I’m surprised at this arguement, because usually Catholics are accused of not having feelings — of just going by the rules [of the Church]. We all have feelings, it what we do with them that is right or wrong.

Nice talking with you. And many blessings to you and your family.

May the virtues (and feelings) or faith, hope and charity surround you.

[xzins]

BTW, the Synod of Whitby reveals that the resistance continued from Iona and probably originated there.

[Petronski]

You challenge me and then delete my replies. You could not be more predictable.

Where fair treatment is the concern here on FR, Catholics need not apply.

[Rytwyng]

It is very rare for the convert to Catholicism ....to speak badly about their former churches; on the contrary, many cite their time in Protestant churches (some are 'reverts' to Catholicism) positively because it was there that they first truly believed in Christ, where they learned Scripture, etc.

Indeed. A fundamental question: why? Why can't the Catholic Church spark this kind of faith on her own -- why does she so often rely on the "heretics" to produce it?

This issue is a major obstacle to swimming the Tiber for me. Every person I've ever known who really lived a conspicuously Christian life, has been an Evangelical. If I returned to the Catholic Church I'd take my Biblical knowledge and zeal with me (as did, for example Jimmy Akin), but... would it survive another generation? Would my kids "catch" faith in Catholicism, or would they have to go Evangelical to find God?

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I don’t think he knew the Faith in the first place. Scary how many people he has affected.

[Old_Mil]

Honestly, I'm so sick of hearing about people who leave the Roman church for shallow or stupid reasons..."some priest yelled at me in confession" or "a nun back in high school hit me with a ruler"...

How about this: God's church isn't in the business of building mosques.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“The question is the identification of early celtic christianity with a more orthodox than roman outlook.”

A few days ago you claimed to not know the differences between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Now you’re making judgments like this?

Hilarious.

[Rytwyng]

My ordination goes back to John Wesley whose ordination goes to the Anglicans, that goes to the Old English Church that goes to Orthodoxy that goes to Jerusalem.

It may be a more direct link than that: Was Wesley Consecrated as an Orthodox Bishop?

[P-Marlowe]

Where fair treatment is the concern here on FR, Catholics need not apply.

STRAWMAN ALERT
STRAWMAN ALERT
STRAWMAN ALERT

[Petronski]

Agree or disagree, my statement is most certainly not a strawman. You do not seem to understand the term.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It's about justification.

Amen, Tony.

The RCC teaches justification is a joint effort; that men can earn their right standing before God.

Scripture, OTOH, tells us we are saved by the finished work of Christ upon the cross alone. His righteousness and His obedience are credited to our account and we are pronouned acquitted of our sins by His taking on the punishment rightly due us.

The Roman Catholic Teaching on Salvation and Justification
by William Webster

"Roman Catholic theology does not embrace the interpretation of salvation and justification as that presented by Scripture and the Protestant Reformers. The Roman Church does teach that we are justified by grace through faith on account of Christ. What is missing, however, is the word alone. By omitting this word the Roman Church redefines grace, faith and justification in a way that undermines and invalidates the teaching of Scripture. This will become clear as we examine the specific definitions given these terms by the official Magisterium of the Church of Rome.

The Roman View of the Work of Christ

Rome says that Christ made an atonement for sin, meriting the grace by which a person is justified but that the work of Christ is not the exclusive cause of an individual's justification and salvation. Ludwig Ott makes this statement:

Christ's redemptive activity finds its apogee in the death of sacrifice on the cross. On this account it is by excellence but not exclusively the efficient cause of our redemption....No one can be just to whom the merits of Christ's passion have not been communicated. It is a fundamental doctrine of St. Paul that salvation can be acquired only by the grace merited by Christ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 185, 190).

According to the Church of Rome, Christ did not accomplish a full, finished and completed salvation in his work of atonement. His death on the cross did not deal with the full penalty of man's sin. It merited grace for man which is then channeled to the individual through the Roman Catholic Church and its sacraments. This grace then enables man to do works of righteousness in order to merit justification and eternal life...

...John Knox: How can you deny the opinion of your Mass to be false and vain? You say it is a sacrifice for sin, but Jesus Christ and Paul say, The only death of Christ was sufficient for sin, and after it resteth none other sacrifice...I know you will say, it is none other sacrifice, but the self same, save that it is iterated (repeated) and renewed. But the words of Paul bind you more straitly than that so you may escape: for in his whole disputation, contendeth he not only that there is no other sacrifice for sin, but also that the self same sacrifice, once offered, is sufficient, and never may be offered again. For otherwise of no greater price, value, nor extenuation, should the death of Christ be, than the death of those beasts which were offered under the Law: which are proved to be of none effect, nor strength, because it behooves them often times to be repeated. The Apostle, by comparing Jesus Christ to the Levitical priests, and his sacrifice unto theirs, maketh the matter plain that Christ might be offered but once (John Knox, A Vindication of the Doctrine That the Mass Is Idolatry. Found in The Works of John Knox (Edinburgh: James Thin, 1895), Volume III, p. 56. Language revised by William Webster)..."

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“The RCC teaches justification is a joint effort; that men can earn their right standing before God.”

That’s not true. We have NEVER taught that men can “earn their right standing before God.”

That’s utter nonsense. If you want to disagree or attack what we believe in, fine, but why completely make up something that is untrue? Why lie?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Yep. If I learned how to post without making personal remarks, anyone can.

The rules are simple -- discuss/debate/deconstruct the topic, the belief, the doctrine, the book, the t-shirt, the politics, the proof.

Just don't criticize the individual FReeper.

[pjr12345]

Welcome Home, brother!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

That's not true. We have NEVER taught that men can "earn their right standing before God." That's utter nonsense. If you want to disagree or attack what we believe in, fine, but why completely make up something that is untrue? Why lie?

"Lie?" I'm working from RCC documents and the writings of RCC apologists.

From the article I posted...

John Hardon, author of The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (which carries the official authorization of the Vatican) says this:

•How does the Church communicate the merits of Christ's mercy to sinners?

The Church communicates the merits of Christ's mercy to sinners through the Mass and the sacraments and all the prayers and good works of the faithful.

---

Trent taught that the righteousness which justifies is the work of the regenerated believer cooperating with the grace that Christ merited. So justification is equated with regeneration and sanctification. Rome does not acknowledge sanctification and justification as separate works of God in salvation. It makes human works the basis for justification which merit eternal life:

Justification...is not the remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man. If any one saith, that the good works of the one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, and does not truly merit increase in grace, eternal life, and the attainment of eternal life, if so be, that he depart in grace, and an increase in glory, let him be anathema (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1910), Decree on Justification, Chapter VII, Canons X, XXXII).

Ludwig Ott emphasizes this in these words:

Justification is the declaration of the righteousness of the believer before the judgment seat of Christ...The Council of Trent teaches that for the justified eternal life is both a gift or grace promised by God and a reward for his own good works and merits... According to Holy Writ, eternal blessedness in heaven is the reward...for good works performed on this earth, and rewards and merit are correlative concepts (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp.254, 264).

[SeaHawkFan]

Point me to a Catholic conversion story where the subject was all about how wrong the person’s former confession was.

A reasonable explanation could be that those who choose to join the RCC recognize that their former confessions are within boundaries of the historic Christian faith.

The subject of this thread has raised some valid claims about RCC theology; none of which has been refuted by an RCC poster.

[SeaHawkFan]

And the real question is: When am I NOT at church....:>)

Hopefully, when you get "Biblical" with your wife.

[pjr12345]

The rigmarole surrounding Mary is unseemly, unScriptural and borders on idolatry.

borders? Your being kind, no doubt.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Trying. 8~)