Posted on 04/04/2008 11:01:22 AM PDT by Gamecock
Last week I received the following e-mail, and I felt it would be best to share my response here on the blog.
Dear Mr. White, For someone considering converting to Catholicism, what questions would you put to them in order to discern whether or not they have examined their situation sufficiently? Say, a Top 10 list. Thanks.
When I posted this question in our chat channel a number of folks commented that it was in fact a great question, and we started to throw out some possible answers. Here is my "Top Ten List" in response to this fine inquiry.
10) Have you listened to both sides? That is, have you done more than read Rome Sweet Home and listen to a few emotion-tugging conversion stories? Have you actually taken the time to find sound, serious responses to Rome's claims, those offered by writers ever since the Reformation, such as Goode, Whitaker, Salmon, and modern writers? I specifically exclude from this list anything by Jack Chick and Dave Hunt.
9) Have you read an objective history of the early church? I refer to one that would explain the great diversity of viewpoints to be found in the writings of the first centuries, and that accurately explains the controversies, struggles, successes and failures of those early believers?
8) Have you looked carefully at the claims of Rome in a historical light, specifically, have you examined her claims regarding the "unanimous consent" of the Fathers, and all the evidence that exists that stands contrary not only to the universal claims of the Papacy but especially to the concept of Papal Infallibility? How do you explain, consistently, the history of the early church in light of modern claims made by Rome? How do you explain such things as the Pornocracy and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church without assuming the truthfulness of the very system you are embracing?
7) Have you applied the same standards to the testing of Rome's ultimate claims of authority that Roman Catholic apologists use to attack sola scriptura? How do you explain the fact that Rome's answers to her own objections are circular? For example, if she claims you need the Church to establish an infallible canon, how does that actually answer the question, since you now have to ask how Rome comes to have this infallible knowledge. Or if it is argued that sola scriptura produces anarchy, why doesn't Rome's magisterium produce unanimity and harmony? And if someone claims there are 33,000 denominations due to sola scriptura, since that outrageous number has been debunked repeatedly (see Eric Svendsen's Upon This Slippery Rock for full documentation), have you asked them why they are so dishonest and sloppy with their research?
6) Have you read the Papal Syllabus of Errors and Indulgentiarum Doctrina? Can anyone read the description of grace found in the latter document and pretend for even a moment that is the doctrine of grace Paul taught to the Romans?
5) Have you seriously considered the ramifications of Rome's doctrine of sin, forgiveness, eternal and temporal punishments, purgatory, the treasury of merit, transubstantiation, sacramental priesthood, and indulgences? Have you seriously worked through compelling and relevant biblical texts like Ephesians 2, Romans 3-5, Galatians 1-2, Hebrews 7-10 and all of John 6, in light of Roman teaching?
4) Have you pondered what it means to embrace a system that teaches you approach the sacrifice of Christ thousands of times in your life and yet you can die impure, and, in fact, even die an enemy of God, though you came to the cross over and over again? And have you pondered what it means that though the historical teachings of Rome on these issues are easily identifiable, the vast majority of Roman Catholics today, including priests, bishops, and scholars, don't believe these things anymore?
3) Have you considered what it means to proclaim a human being the Holy Father (that's a divine name, used by Jesus only of His Father) and the Vicar of Christ (that's the Holy Spirit)? Do you really find anything in Scripture whatsoever that would lead you to believe it was Christ's will that a bishop in a city hundreds of miles away in Rome would not only be the head of His church but would be treated as a king upon earth, bowed down to and treated the way the Roman Pontiff is treated?
2) Have you considered how completely unbiblical and a-historical is the entire complex of doctrines and dogmas related to Mary? Do you seriously believe the Apostles taught that Mary was immaculately conceived, and that she was a perpetual virgin (so that she traveled about Palestine with a group of young men who were not her sons, but were Jesus' cousins, or half-brothers (children of a previous marriage of Joseph), or the like? Do you really believe that dogmas defined nearly 2,000 years after the birth of Christ represent the actual teachings of the Apostles? Are you aware that such doctrines as perpetual virginity and bodily assumption have their origin in gnosticism, not Christianity, and have no foundation in apostolic doctrine or practice? How do you explain how it is you must believe these things de fide, by faith, when generations of Christians lived and died without ever even having heard of such things?
And the number 1 question I would ask of such a person is: if you claim to have once embraced the gospel of grace, whereby you confessed that your sole standing before a thrice-holy God was the seamless garment of the imputed righteousness of Christ, so that you claimed no merit of your own, no mixture of other merit with the perfect righteousness of Christ, but that you stood full and complete in Him and in Him alone, at true peace with God because there is no place in the universe safer from the wrath of God than in Christ, upon what possible grounds could you come to embrace a system that at its very heart denies you the peace that is found in a perfect Savior who accomplishes the Father's will and a Spirit who cannot fail but to bring that work to fruition in the life of God's elect? Do you really believe that the endless cycle of sacramental forgiveness to which you will now commit yourself can provide you the peace that the perfect righteousness of Christ can not?
***Thus, my statement. The Gospels are true because the Church says that they are.
Nice tagline, isn’t it?
It’s ok. Fake maybe but it sounds nice.***
Not fake, not maybe, but it sure does sound nice.
***In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals. (De Doct. Chr. 2:9) ***
Very nice. And true.
***Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud. (De Pastore, 11) ***
Including the role of the Church and the individuals in authority.
***All those things which in times past our ancestors have mentioned to be done toward mankind and have delivered unto us: all those things also which we see and deliver to our posterity, so far as they pertain to the seeking and maintaining true religion, the Holy Scripture has not passed over in silence. (Ep. 42) ***
No, the Church has no authority to abridge Scripture, a practice not adhered to by the Reformers.
***Whatever our Saviour would have us read of his actions and sayings he commanded his apostles and disciples, as his hands, to write. (De Consensu Evang. 1:ult.) ***
Including the role of the Church.
***Let them [the Donatists] demonstrate their church if they can, not by the talk and rumor of the Africans; not by the councils of their own bishops; not by the books of their disputers; not by deceitful miracles, against which we are cautioned by the word of God, but in the prescript of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the verses of the Psalms, in the voice of the Shepherd himself, in the preaching and works of the evangelists; that is, in all canonical authorities of the sacred Scriptures. (De Unit. Eccl. 16) ***
Augustine fought against the heretics better than we in this present age.
***He was a Catholic after all and was faithful to his Church unless they strayed from Scripture!***
Including the role of the Church.
***Remember, novel ideas such as the equality (actually superiority) of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium hadn’t yet been invented.***
Actually they began shortly after Our Lord had been taken up in order to determine and definitively declare what the faith really is.
You seem to be saying that justifies falsely accusing "...the Church of complicity with genocidal regimes..."
That is not a 'false accusation', that is an historical fact.
The words are Scripture, the misinterpretation is Cauvin's.
No, the words speak for themselves.
The Lord's supper is simply a rememberance, nothing mystical about it.
It's not a claim. It is a fact. Catholicism makes very precise use of the language, those who study it must learn this precision.
You mean one has to learn it's distortion of language.
Nothing 'precise' about it, just renaming what God condemns.
God is not fooled.
Thank you, apology accepted.
Now for your penance pray three 'our Father's'...:>
It is a precise use of the language.
Did your friend Augustine say this; "Mary, springing from Adam, died because of sin; and the flesh of our Lord, derived from Mary, died to take away sin." (De Peccatorum Meritis, ii, c. 24).
Including the role of the Church.
This seems to be a favorite of yours. Please explain where the "role of the Church" was to invent new Tradition? Remember, this Tradition ended with the Apostles.
***Remember, novel ideas such as the equality (actually superiority) of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium hadn’t yet been invented.***
Actually they began shortly after Our Lord had been taken up in order to determine and definitively declare what the faith really is.
Well... if your "shortly" means several hundred years I can't argue with you.
***I’ll try to make it simple.***
You’re too kind.
***Did Augustine ever say that the “individuals in authority” could make up things completely divorced from Scripture, never referenced in Scripture even in a manner which can be deduced from Scripture?***
Well, he firmly established the doctrines of the Trinity and Christology. In other words, yes.
The role of the Church is primarily to teach the Good News. In order for that to happen, it must a) define what the Good News is (and not what somebody comes up with in their immediate frame of mind or whim), and b) define what it isn’t.
The history of the Church is the increasing formulation of the faith in response to the lawyers and opportunists and even sometimes sincere individuals who, simply, get it wrong.
***Well... if your “shortly” means several hundred years I can’t argue with you.***
My shortly means during the time of Paul.
How do you define “pray?”
How do you define "pray"?
How do you define "could"?
How do you define "would"?
How very narrow of you.
ftD>Unlike Roman Catholic doctrine, it is based on scripture (1Cor.11).
P>The words are Scripture, the misinterpretation is Cauvin's.
ftD>No, the words speak for themselves.
ftD>The Lord's supper is simply a rememberance, nothing mystical about it.
703 posted on April 9, 2008 5:03:39 AM MDT by fortheDeclaration
Not only is it a remembrance, but a feast commanded by YHvH to be celebrated i.e. Passover
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
my understanding is that the sacraments, in and of themselves, do not bestow grace at all. God, and God alone, saves people and shows mercy to the sinners.
The sacraments are powerful tools that help a person stay on the right path and strengthen the Spirit. They are a way to bring the faithful closer to God.
The sacraments are a part of one’s journey, and a valuable tool, but they cannot bestow grace upon the wicked, no matter how many times one goes to communion,. In fact, to participate in Holy Communion, one must make sure that they go through confession, contrition and penance first to cleanse themself of sin.
Christian don't celebrate the Jewish holidays. (Col.2:16)
Yes, the word prayer can be used to describe an 'act of asking for a favor' (Web.1828), but Christ is the one who intercedes for us, not any phony Roman Catholic saint, not even a real saint (any saved individual who is now in heaven) and not Mary.
There is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. (1Tim.2:5)
As priests (1Pe.2:9) have direct access to God.
So, when you offer up prayers to statues, you are offering up prayers to devils, not God. (Lev.17:7)
Amen!
Thank you for sharing your own personal, deficient interpretation of Scripture.
And what is it about 1Ti.2:5 that you find confusing?
Nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.