All Roads Lead To Rome (A Southern Baptist's Journey into the Catholic Church)

Confiteordeo ^ | John David Young

[NYer]

I know that I was not the first Protestant to learn the truth about the Catholic Church; I am sure that this is a story you could probably hear from countless other people, changing only the names and places. I know that many have walked the road that I have; that road which leads home, to Rome!

I was born in 1975 to two God-fearing Southern Baptists in Dallas, Texas. My father had grown up Methodist, but became Baptist when he married my mother in 1968. From what my father has said, his family was mostly Methodist. His father and his paternal grandfather were both Thirty-Third Degree Masons. My father's paternal grandfather's father was even the founding pastor of the First Methodist Church of Dallas. Though I have heard the history of my father's family, I myself knew only a very few of them. A great majority of my mother's family was Baptist, with a smattering of Methodists here and there. I am fairly certain of one thing, however: there were no Catholics.

Since a very young age, I can remember going to church and Sunday school on Sunday mornings to listen to the preacher and my Sunday school teachers talk about Jesus, and how He would save us from the fires of Hell. Every Sunday morning, my parents and I would sing in church and listen to the sermons. Though we didn't usually attend the Sunday evening services, I knew that once a month on a Sunday evening, an event called The Lord's Supper would happen. At this Lord's Supper, the preacher would begin passing around large round trays made of chrome. One of the trays had tiny crackers on it, and the other one had little cups of grape juice. I can remember that before I was baptized I wanted to take part in this event, but my parents would not let me. They did not explain why I shouldn't, other than I hadn't been baptized yet. Just as it is in the Catholic Church, Baptism is an initiation of sorts into the active life of the church community. (Of course, to a Catholic, it is that and much more. I would not know this until much later.) A few years went by, and when I was about eight years old, I decided that I wanted to be "saved" and get baptized. To get "saved," you would pray a little prayer like, "Dear Jesus, please come into my heart and forgive me of all of my sins. I ask you to become my personal Lord and Savior. All these things I pray in Jesus' name. Amen." From a Baptist viewpoint, being baptized is only a symbol, and nothing more. In other words, for a Baptist, baptism isn't really necessary for salvation. After I got baptized, I was able to partake in the Lord's Supper. I asked my father what the Lord's Supper meant, and he said that it represented the body and the blood of Jesus. That is to say, it represented the sacrifice that He made for us on the Cross. My father then read the passage from a King James Bible that told about the establishment of what we called The Lord's Supper: "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:19-20, KJV)" I asked why it was that we only did this once a month, and even then at the evening service (most people went to the morning service). My father thought about it for a minute, then he said that the Catholics do it every Sunday at all of their services. (In actuality, most Catholic churches have at least one Mass every day except Good Friday; Catholics are bound to attend Mass only on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.) He said that perhaps we do it less often so as not to imitate them. As you can imagine, I did not understand this for what it was. The Baptists, and many other Protestant groups, were concerned that the "Lord's Supper" would become the focus of the church service rather than the sermon. Though there are some Protestant churches that have communion every Sunday, none of them place the same importance on the Eucharist that the Catholic Church does.

My father had nothing personal against Catholics; in fact, of all the people in my family, he probably liked them more than anyone else in our family did. My mother had a problem with the Catholic Church, but if you asked her why, she really couldn't tell you. She would give the same rote answers that many Protestants had been giving for centuries. "They worship the Pope, Mary, and the Saints." "They think a person can forgive their sins rather than God." She couldn't explain why she believed these things, or in the case of the last statement, she couldn't explain why a person couldn't say that your sins are forgiven. When I finally asked her why she thought a person could not forgive sins after the Bible said that Christ gave that power to the Apostles, she said she'd just rather confess directly to God. I believe that the real reason that she did not like Catholicism was because her father did not like it. I really believe that was the main reason. For some reason, my maternal grandfather (whom we have always called "Smittie") has a fairly wide streak of anti-Catholicism in him. Even as a child, I remembered him complaining every time the Pope was on television or in the newspaper. Whenever we were at a restaurant or shopping and we saw someone with a large family (four or five kids or more), he would often joke that they must be Catholic. The ironic thing about his dislike of the Church is that virtually all of his friends (excepting those from his church) since he became an adult were Catholic. I don't think that he had anything personal against individual Catholics; it was the Church that bothered him. Smittie was in England during World War II, and he found many friends there, all Catholic. He always spoke highly of them. He missed them all very much, too; all but a few of them had been killed in the war and those few survivors had died since. To this day, I do not know what makes Smittie think that the Church is somehow diabolical or at the very least, misled. I've often wondered if it had something to do with his association with Freemasonry. By the way, he is a Third Degree Mason (Master Mason), though he has not been an active Mason for many years.

Now you can see where I came from. A Southern Baptist upbringing with lots of anti-Catholic influence from just about everyone in my family and my church, with the possible exception of my father. If, when I was in high school, someone had told me that I would one day become Catholic, I would have literally laughed in his face. By the time I was fifteen, I had truly learned to have contempt for the Catholic Church. Not Catholic people, you understand, just the beliefs of and possibly the clergy of the Church. I figured that most Catholics were simply misled, and too ignorant to realize it. After all, "everyone knows" that Catholics are forbidden to read the Bible, right?! [a common Protestant myth]

I entered high school and turned fifteen at about the same time, and high school was a much bigger place than the middle school where I had attended. I decided to get involved in some of the clubs in school to make friends, and one of the clubs was called Raiders for Christ (the Raiders was the school mascot). This club was made up of mostly Protestant and "Evangelical" Christians of various denominations. In the meetings, we talked about "witnessing" to people, getting "saved," and how we should carry our Bible around as a good example to others. I decided that I would try to talk to people in classes and invite them to church with me. From some people, I got a fairly good response. Some would say they had already been "saved," and currently attended another church. Some would say that they had been "saved" and that they felt that church was not necessary because they read the Bible often anyway. I had no problem with these people. However, I ran into some that caused problems. As you can guess, these were the Catholics.

Many Catholics that I met did not know their faith very well, but they did go to Mass every Sunday. I derided them for not knowing why they believed the things that they believed. I said that it was apparent that the Catholic Church was based on blind faith and that reason was nowhere to be found. I told several people that if they did not renounce the Catholic Church and accept Christ as their "personal Lord and Savior," that they would most certainly go to Hell. I'm sure that these people did not appreciate what I was saying, and I am quite thankful that they were more charitable to me than I was to them. One particular Catholic with whom I made friends was a teacher at the school. In fact, she was one of the sponsors of an extra-curricular organization of which I was a member for three years. She knew her faith VERY well, and for that I am glad. I admit, however, it was quite frustrating at times. After all, I couldn't win a debate with her. While she did not convert me to Catholicism, she did put me on the right track. I quit harassing the Catholics so much and tried to see them as fellow Christians rather than "the enemy."

I graduated from high school, still a Baptist, though not a particularly devout one anymore. I didn't go to church very often, and I had begun to lose faith; not so much in God as in being Baptist. I felt that there were contradictions between what the Bible says and what the Baptists teach. For instance, Baptists teach that once you are "saved," you are always "saved." That is practically a dogma of the Baptist Church, as well as some other Protestant churches: "once saved, always saved." The problem here, is that there is no support in the Bible for this position. Scripture does refute this position: "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. (1 Corinthians 10:12, KJV)" (If you notice, I quote from the King James Version of the Bible because it is the universally accepted version of the Bible in Protestant churches.) Considering that a favorite saying of the Baptists was "No creed but the Bible," you can see why I was beginning to be skeptical. Here are some more (though certainly not all) doctrinal paradoxes:

The Baptist Myth	What the (King James) Bible Says
"Alcoholic beverages are inherently bad."	"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. (1 Timothy 5:23, KJV)" "So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. (John 4:46, KJV)"
"Dancing is bad."	"And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod. (2 Samuel 6:14, KJV)"
"Salvation (being saved? occurs in an instant."	"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Phillipians 2:12, KJV)"
"We only need Scripture, not traditions." (This is an attack on the Catholic belief in Sacred Tradition. It is a pillar of the Protestant Reformation known as Sola Scriptura)	"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6, KJV)"
"Everyone can interpret Scripture for him/herself." (In other words, we don’t need an authoritative body like the Magisterium, or teaching office, of the Catholic Church to interpret for us.)	"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20, KJV)"
"Faith alone, not works, will get you saved." (This is one of the other main principles of the Protestant Reformation: it is called Sola Fide)	"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (James 2:26, KJV)"

 

The list is seemingly endless, so I’ll stop here. As you can see, many of the beliefs of both the Protestant Reformation in general as well as the Southern Baptist Convention were at odds with the Bible. And not just any Bible, but even the one that the Protestants so cherished! (Rest assured, these verses are not much different in a Catholic Bible.)

At any rate, I was nineteen years old, and attending a major public university. I was exposed to many things that I had never been around before, mostly because my parents were somewhat over-protective of me. I felt quite far from God during my first year in college. Toward the end of my freshman year, my girlfriend from high school, whom I had been dating for over three years, and I broke up. I started dating a younger Catholic girl who lived in the Dallas area. Her uncle was actually a bishop in the northeastern United States. She was not particularly devout, but at the time, it didn’t matter to me. Actually, I figured that if we ended up together it would be easy to convert her to Protestantism and away from the Catholic Church. After we had been dating for about a month, her sister was graduating from high school, so I went to see her sister’s baccalaureate Mass. I had never been to a Mass before; I had been inside a Catholic church maybe once or twice before in my whole life. When I got home that night, I cried because I thought that since she was Catholic, she would be doomed to Hell if I couldn’t help her "see the light". However, the more I thought about what I had seen, the more intrigued I became.

First of all, the Mass was not what I had been told that it was: a pagan ceremony. To those of you reading this who are Catholic, this may seem humorous, but many Protestants, especially those leaning toward "fundamentalism," seem to think that Catholics are pagans or Satan worshippers or something along those lines. I don’t know where this myth got started, but I would sure love to put it to rest. For those of you not familiar with the Mass, here is the basic structure:

[cammie]

This just shows how shallow your "conservatism" really is --

What it shows is that more and more of your natural political allies find Fundamentalist attitudes too disturbing to support. But if you'd like to impugn our conservatism along with our religion, please, feel free to continue doing so.

[wagglebee]

This just shows how shallow your "conservatism" really is --

Let's see:

GOP to conservatives: "Thank you for your votes, but we really don't like you and have no interest in advancing conservatism, so leave us alone until the next election."

vs.

Some Evangelical conservatives to Catholic conservatives: "Thank you for your votes, but we really don't like you and as far as we are concerned you are cult members and are going to Hell, so leave us alone until the next election."

PLEASE help us overcome our "shallowness" by explaining the difference to us.

[NYer]

Jesus never drank fermented wine, we all know that. And I am the Queen of Romania.

Nice to finally meet you!

In Ephesians 5:18 Paul doesn't say, "Do not drink wine." That would be a complete prohibition. Instead, he says not to drink wine to excess--quite a different thing. The Church teaches, and common sense corroborates, that wine, like food, sex, laughter, and dancing, is a good thing when enjoyed in its proper time and context. To abuse any good thing is a sin, but the thing abused does not itself become sinful. "Everything is lawful for me," writes Paul, "but not everything is beneficial. Everything is lawful for me, but I will not let myself be dominated by anything" (1 Cor. 6:12).

If Jesus had shunned wine and wanted his followers to do likewise, as you suggest, why did he so frequently make use of wine in his parables and activities? Simple--he didn't disapprove of wine drinking, so long as it conformed to the biblical guidelines of moderation. The Bible tells us Jesus drank wine (Luke 7:34)--often enough, apparently, that his detractors accused him of being a drunkard--and that his first recorded miracle was to turn water into wine (John 2:1-11).

After reading the account of the wedding at Cana one might legitimately wonder why, if Jesus turned water into grape juice, John goes out of his way to quote the headwaiter's remarks: "Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one"? No matter how freely one drinks grape juice, it won't impair one's ability to discern between good and inferior grades.

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." And He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:26-28

This 'Last Supper' was a seder meal. A typical paschal meal includes the roast lamb, bitter herbs, haroset, matzoh and wine, not grape juice.

[Hacksaw]

We still pray for you too Alex. Your bigotry sometimes causes some folks to lose their cool, but that happens when folks spew bigotry and hatred. We are supposed to turn the other cheek, but the fallen nature of man sometimes wins out.

I will note that dragging your complaints from thread to thread is a violation of the TOS for this site. You might not be aware of that, but it is a fact.

AMEN! And yes, Alex knows, because he is a frequent tattle-tale to the mods.

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.

[wagglebee]

It might "preach" it at times, but "believing" it is another matter.

Do you have some omniscient gift which enables you to discern what the Church "believes" (and I mean the Church as a whole, I have no doubt that we can find individual Catholics and Protestants, both clergymen and laymen, who do not actually believe what they profess)?

[Hacksaw]

I notice that you place all the burden on Fundamentalist Protestants. Have you ever considered that it is possible for a Catholic or a mormon to be a bigot? Or is this that "poor little minority vs. the masses of illiterate hayseeds" thing again? It's not as if Fundamentalism owns conservatism. I'd say if conservatism had rulers those rulers would be Catholic rather than Fundamentalist--whether considering William F. Buckley Jr. or the place the Catholic Church holds in the hearts of the "palaeo" worshipers of "western civilization." In fact, the traditional Catholic hostility to Jews and Israel was very dominant in conservatism for a long, long time, despite the fact that pro-Israel Fundamentalists outnumber Catholics in the United States. I don't suppose the fact that so many Catholics think that people who insist on total Biblical inerrancy are brain-damaged or retarded bothers you in the least? But I forget, I'm addressing the inventor of "Billy Bob's Glory Barn." I forget myself! Blacks can't be racists, and Catholics can't be bigots (except in Spain)!

If you are so besmitten with fundamental Protestantism, you should become one. Then your complaints about Catholic interpretation of scripture that you post ad-naseum won't seem quite so bizarre. - Perhaps you are more comfortable being the "poor little minority vs. the masses of illiterate hayseeds". Ooops, you wrote that. I've also noticed that some Jews are quite adept at being bigots as well.

But while we're on the subject, I doubt Jews would be very happy if the Pope tried to tell them what prayers they can say, so it seems strange that rabbis think they have that right to dictate to the Pope.

And no, Catholics are not anywhere near as obsessed with fundamentalists as the reverse. That's why articles like the one posted causes fits of rage in the usual suspects.

Lastly, Israel is an independent nation, not the 51st state of the US. While I support Israel's right to exist and be secure, my support does not come from the ludicrous notion that it is my "job" to do so. And what of the many Hasidic Jews who were opposed to the formation of Israel?

[Uncle Chip]

Do you have some omniscient gift which enables you to discern what the Church "believes" (and I mean the Church as a whole, I have no doubt that we can find individual Catholics and Protestants, both clergymen and laymen, who do not actually believe what they profess)?

Yes -- my ability to read.

[Salvation]

Some additional Eucharist Miracle threads:

Eucharistic Miracle: Lanciano,Italy-8th Century A.D.

BLOOD TYPE FOUND IN ICONS IS SAME AS IN SHROUD OF TURIN AND 'LANCIANO MIRACLE'

Physician Tells of Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano -Verifies Authenticity of the Phenomenon

Eucharistic Miracle - Bolsena-Orvieto, Italy

Vatican display exhibits eucharistic miracles

The Eucharistic Miracles(Catholic Caucus)

[wagglebee]

In fact, the traditional Catholic hostility to Jews and Israel was very dominant in conservatism for a long, long time,

Please give example of this.

A great many Presbyterians would identify themselves as Evangelical and the PCUSA divested itself of all investments in Israel, this is hardly a pro-Israel position.

pro-Israel Fundamentalists outnumber Catholics in the United States.

Leaving aside the absurd assumption that Catholics are anti-Israel, what numbers are you using to make the claim that fundamentalist Protestants outnumber Catholics in the United States? A full third of Americans who identify themselves as Christians are Catholic and I am having a difficult time believing that half of the non-Catholic Christians would call themselves fundamentalist.

I don't suppose the fact that so many Catholics think that people who insist on total Biblical inerrancy are brain-damaged or retarded bothers you in the least?

Please give an example of any Catholic teaching that suggests that the Bible is not inerrant.

There is a great deal of difference between pointing out that man-made concepts like "sola scriptura" are unbiblical and saying that the Bible is inerrant.

[wagglebee]

Yes -- my ability to read.

Great nonanswer!

[ItsOurTimeNow]

Are you trying to convince me, or yourself?

[ItsOurTimeNow]

>>Some additional Eucharist Miracle threads<<

Some additional RCC Hocus-Pocus Works-Based Belief.

Try faith. It works.

[wmfights]

Are you denying that the Catholic Church preaches the Gospel?

Your initial comment was along the lines of political alliances. As far as preaching The Gospel it seems that a lot of RC posters have trouble explaining it, so maybe they aren't doing a real hot job of it.

[wmfights]

Well said!

[wagglebee]

Some additional RCC Hocus-Pocus Works-Based Belief.

So, John Chapter 6 is "hocus pocus"?

Try faith. It works.

To truly accept the Liturgy of the Eucharist requires an immense amount of faith in the beginning.

Simply saying, "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior" and assuming that your salvation is secure regardless of any future actions, is at best intellectual sophistry, but generally a rote recitation for acceptance, that requires not a modicum of faith.

[MEGoody]

I know that many have walked the road that I have

And many have walked the road away from the Catholic Church to Protestantism.

As long as one does not walk away from Jesus.

[wagglebee]

As far as preaching The Gospel it seems that a lot of RC posters have trouble explaining it, so maybe they aren't doing a real hot job of it.

Are you certain that you are not confusing your own interpretation of the Gospel with the Gospel that the Church has preserved and preached for nearly two thousand years?

You can walk into any Christian bookstore in the world and find volumes by various authors each giving their interpretation of every passage in the Bible. Eventually, you might find one that you agree with. On what basis is this interpretation any more valid than the one that the Church has taught for almost two thousand years?

[Oliver Optic]

Thank you all for your helpful responses ... re: Mary and the saints entertaining thousands of prayers at once. I do not agree with the doctrine of prayer to men and women in heaven, but I agree that this point would not necessarily be an insuperable objection to it.

[Zionist Conspirator]

There is a great deal of difference between pointing out that man-made concepts like "sola scriptura" are unbiblical and saying that the Bible is inerrant.

Someone gets it! Mark the calendar! Strike up the band!

I've been saying for the almost nine years I've been here that "sola scriptura" and total Biblical inerrancy are two different things and that rejecting the former does not necessitate rejecting the latter!

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Catholics (including Catholic FReepers, like Campion whom you pinged) are convinced that the Bible is inerrant only in matters of faith and morals and is full of errors and contradictions elsewhere. As a matter of fact, I don't see how you can possibly be angry at me with your co-religionists defending evolution and higher criticism and rejecting total inerrancy in innumerable threads! Why don't you ask Campion if he believes that Genesis is totally inerrant?

Sheesh. The two or three of you inerrantist Catholics either refuse to state your beliefs publicly or else you act like no Catholic on this forum has ever denied total inerrancy, which is highly dishonest on your part.

As for Israel, Catholic theology is opposed to the rebuilding of the Holy Temple and the revival of the full Biblical service. And I'm not even including the nutjobs who ascribe every evil in the universe to a "Satanic Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy" (which explains why the Catholic Church is subjected to the same charge of being "Satanic" today; it's measure for measure).