How Not to Become a Catholic

Catholic Exchange ^ | February 16, 2012 | James Tonkowich

[NYer]

This is the first installment of how a former Protestant leader crossed the Tiber.

^[1]

James Tonkowich

A little over a year ago my status changed. Having been a Presbyterian minister for over twenty years, I became a Catholic layman. How that happened is a long story.

In a nutshell, though, reading a Catholic author here, meeting with a priest or two there, befriending groups of faithful Catholics, and attending lectures, meetings, and (occasionally) Mass all added up. At the same time, my questions about the viability of Protestantism in a post-modern environment became more pointed and my answers more frightening. The Protestant mainline, oldline, sideline is in theological, moral, and cultural freefall as it approaches becoming little more than a sideshow. And the evangelicals, I believe, are not all that far behind.

This, of course, didn’t occur to me overnight. My journey to the Catholic Church happened over the course of about twelve years—eight asking increasingly uncomfortable questions and four praying very hard and asking more uncomfortable questions.

Again, it’s a long story. On the other hand, how to keep the same thing from happening to you is a shorter story.

After all, for Protestants and for ministers in particular becoming a Catholic is a hassle. A now-Catholic friend told me that his evangelical missionary in-laws would have been happier had he and his wife become hyper-liberal Episcopalians than faithful, orthodox Catholics. Friends with worried faces either ask difficult questions or—even worse—ask and say nothing at all.

Had I left my Presbyterian denomination to join the Free Will Baptists or a dispensational Bible church or to an Anglo-Catholic parish (smells and bells, but not Roman smells and bells), things would have been simple. There would have been a sentence or two in the Presbytery minutes to the effect that I had “peaceably withdrawn” to thus and such church because my theological convictions were no longer in keeping with the Westminster Confession.

No one, however, is permitted to peaceably withdraw to the Catholic Church. Old anti-Catholic habits die hard and so rigmarole, kerfuffle, and consternation were the order of the day. On the other hand, I guess I did demote the denomination from “church” to “ecclesial community,” the ministers from “fathers and brothers” to “separated brethren,” and Protestantism in general from “many expressions of the Body of Christ” to “a bunch of sects in imperfect communion with the Body of Christ.”

Once all was said and done though, my friends are still my friends something for which I’m genuinely and profoundly grateful.

Not that I’m complaining, mind you. The Catholic Church is all it’s cracked up to be in those Scott Hahn books, Opus Dei discussion groups, and descriptions by friends who converted before I did. It is, as I told my wife one day, “the real deal” and I am amazed at God’s kindness to me that I get to be a Catholic.

On the other hand, if you’re a Protestant and especially if you’re a Protestant minister listing Romeward, there are rules you can follow that may help keep you from following in my soggy footsteps across the Tiber.

Let me make clear that they’re not hard and fast rules. Breaking them all with impunity will not guarantee a switch to Rome. I know many people such as the Protestant half of Evangelicals and Catholics Together who know more about the Church than I do and yet are firmly rooted in the faith of the Reformation.

After studying enough Catholicism to coauthor the book Is the Reformation Over?, historian Mark Noll in a recent issue of First Things calls himself “someone whose respect for Catholicism has grown steadily over the last four decades, and yet whose intention to live out his days as a Protestant also has grown stronger over those same decades.” Fair enough.

You could break all the rules and have the same experience Dr. Noll has had or you could break the rules to your own peril and could begin to view the Christian faith, your life, time, space, and the whole physical world in a new, but oddly familiar light. Perhaps I can seer you around all this.

For Catholics, let me strongly encourage you to break all the rules early and often. After all, why should the “converts” have all the fun? Rule #1: Assume that all Catholics are idiots.

When I say assume all Catholics are idiots, I mean you need to assume all Catholics are idiots. You can’t begin making exceptions because that’s where the trouble starts. It’s a slippery slope from “All Catholics except John Paul II and Benedict XVI are idiots,” to “All Catholics except JP2, B16, Richard John Neuhaus, Francis Cardinal George, and G.K. Chesterton are idiots,” to “There are many Catholics who are not idiots,” to “The majority of Catholics, who, I must admit, are not idiots,” to “Bless me, Father for I have sinned.” Nip this slippery slope in the bud. All means all.

All has to include all clergy, theologians, and intellectuals. In Blessed John Henry Newman’s mid-nineteenth century novel about conversion, Loss and Gain, the main character, Charles Reding, receives a final warning from Carlton, a friend at Oxford University, before he takes the plunge across the Tiber. About Roman Catholics, Carlton cautions, “You will find them under-educated men, I suspect.” When Charles presses his friend as to how he knows this, Carlton replies, “I suspect it. …I judge from their letters and speeches which one reads in the papers,” that is, in the English, Protestant, and, at the time, thoroughly anti-Catholic papers.

Carlton, a theology scholar, had managed to avoid all contact with actual Roman Catholic theologians and thinkers thereby providing himself with the safety of claiming that all Catholics are under-educated and not worth his attention except perhaps for ridicule.

Today that’s what the New York Times seems to think Catholics are prejudiced, “under-educated” (at least), cultural troglodytes and that should be good enough for you. (Actually the Times believes what most liberal elites believe, that, as Richard John Neuhaus put it, “The only good Catholic is a bad Catholic.” They heartily approve of Catholics who reject Church teachings particularly teachings to do with sexuality.)

Anyway, more than a century and a half after Newman wrote, Fr. James Schall, Professor of Government at Georgetown University noted at the website, The Catholic Thing ^[2]:

Few want to know what truth is found in Catholicism. The main reason Catholicism is hated in the modern world, and it is hated, is the suspicion that Catholicism might well be true. To mock or misrepresent Catholicism seems permissible if, as it is supposed, it is composed of dunderheads who cannot argue coherently about anything, not even what they believe and the grounds for it.

On a popular and practical level, this can be done by simply repeating the words, “How could anyone believe that?” with a pained facial expression whenever confronted with Purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, papal authority, transubstantiation, or any number of other Catholic distinctives.

Wondering even for a moment how bright, well-educated, and theologically astute people defend these doctrines will only lead you to investigate. And investigation would put you in dialogue with Catholic thinkers in person or through their writings. And dialogue if it is honest carries with it an openness to change. And an openness to change is the very thing you don’t want.

Better simply to assume we are all misguided dolts who desperately need either the New York Times or some Ryrie Study Bibles to set us straight.

 

Rule #2: Get all information on the Catholic faith second hand.

How the conversation got started is a mystery, but to topic was death and something I said caused my companion, an elderly gentleman, to remark, “Of course I’m Catholic and the Catholic Church teaches that when you die you become an angel.”

“Actually,” I responded helpfully, “the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that.”

“Oh, yes it does,” he insisted. “The Church teaches that when you die you become an angel.”

“No, really,” I replied, “Trust me on this. I know that the Church doesn’t teach that when you die you become an angel.”

“Look,” he said become mildly annoyed at the uninformed Protestant minister at his side, “I’ve been a Catholic all my life and I know the Church teaches that when you die you become an angel.”

Soooo… how ’bout them Red Sox?

Bugs Bunny cartoons and New Yorker cartoons teach that when you die you become an angel. Country songwriter Hoyt Axton teaches that you need to be good lest, when you die, you become an angel with, “a rusty old halo, skinny white cloud, second-hand wings full of patches.” And the 1967 movie “Casino Royal” with Peter Sellers and David Niven teaches that when you die you become an angel—unless you’re very, very bad.

But no matter how long you’ve been a Catholic, the Catholic Church has not, does not, and never will teach that when you die you become an angel.

I often wonder what other exotic doctrines were growing in this gentleman’s garden of misinformation. But I’m certain that finding someone like him is an ideal way of exploring the Catholic Church—or something vaguely like the Catholic Church—in complete safety. Since poorly catechized Catholics are a dime a dozen, you won’t have far to look. Some are still in the Church, some are as far from the Church as they can get, and some are next to you in the pew, having found in evangelicalism what they don’t realize has been in Catholicism since the beginning.

If you have a choice, go with the now-evangelical ex-Catholic particularly the variety who will tell you, “I used to be a Catholic, but now I’m a Christian.” Their misunderstandings of Catholic doctrine will probably be mixed with a severe distaste and the desire to prove the Church wrong and their current theological ideas correct.

Odd as it may seem, another good source for second-hand misinformation is older priests. Pick one who still appears to have hung on to his hippy tendencies and who you estimate went to seminary in the 1970s. If you prefer, you can substitute habit-free nuns of the same vintage. That’s the era Catholic scholar George Weigel refers to as the “post-Vatican II silly season.” Priests and nuns who imbibed the silly sauce never quite recovered.

Father Starchild or Sister Sunbeam will feel very comfortable making light of the Church’s authority to define any doctrine whatsoever. They happily disagree with many, that is, assuming they remember the correct doctrine at all. If you’re a conservative evangelical, these two will be your worst nightmare holding, as they do, to all the trendy ideas that liberal Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists love beginning with sexual “freedom” and do-it-yourself dogma.

When choosing a priest or nun, be careful not to get involved with a young “John Paul II” priest or a young nun in full habit. Too many of them are scary smart, extremely well educated, meticulously orthodox, and better preachers than you’ve heard in years. They’ll cause you trouble so stick with Father Starchild or Sister Sunbeam. Their ideas are outdated, their ilk is literally dying out, but they’re safe.

As Father Starchild or Sister Sunbeam will tell you, you’ll also want to avoid the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Commissioned by Pope John Paul II and written under the watchful eye of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (a.k.a. Pope Benedict XVI), the Catechism is the first-hand primary source of information on what Catholics believe. Avoid it.

First of all, it’s very long, detailed, and replete with Bible references and quotations from the Church Fathers (see Rule #3). Second, if evangelicals Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom in their book Is the Reformation Over are correct, you will find yourself agreeing with at least two-thirds right off the bat. Then whatever you don’t agree with, you will find yourself understanding and pondering. “Hmm,” you’ll say to yourself, “Perhaps I should study and think a bit more about the place of the Virgin Mary in the economy of salvation.” And what will come of that?

As Noll and Nystrom write:

Evangelicals or confessional Protestants who pick up the Catechism will find themselves in for a treat. Sentences, paragraphs, whole pages sound as if they could come from evangelical pulpits, including passages on topics such as the nature of Scripture or the meaning of grace and faith. These readers will also notice the depth of scholarship, worn quite lightly, with hundreds of references to Scripture but also citations from early theologians…. Readers familiar with standard statements of faith from the Reformation era… will quickly notice a different tone in this Catholic writing. While covering much of the same territory…, the Catholic Catechism is much more comprehensive. Moreover, it looks beyond the statement of doctrine to the care of souls. The Catholic Catechism is strikingly pastoral in tone. It is in part a book of worship—focusing again and again on the majesty of God, inviting readers to reflect on God’s character, to respond to his love, to live as he commands, and to devote themselves to his service. …Readers… may come to the Catechism looking for information. Finding information, they may also find themselves (as we did) stopping to pray. (page 116) Far better and safer to get your information second-hand.

 

[smvoice]

Because I believe you are truthful and honest, I would like to ask you a question. Obviously you read my post 109 carefully. In light of that, I would ask you: where would you place your “we are told by John to confess our sins” in post 109? Think about it. What do you think I would reply to you about your statement? I’m very curious and truly wanting a honest answer. Thanks.

[johngrace]

1John 1

1: 8 "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us."

This is the verse I am talking about. Meaning we from our own actions are asking God for forgiveness as Christians. You do see that John puts it as an absolute.

Now from reading your post your are implying that you are covered in this circumstance? If yes very interesting.

So where is John The Apostles letter . You are stating before Paul's Letters? It seems you are implying it is another time? It seems you have time periods before and after Paul's conversion.

But if that is what you are stating just remember what words John uses in the verse:

1JOHN 1:

8"If We CLAIM To Be WITHOUT SIN sin, We DECEIVE ourselves and the TRUTH is Not in Us."

A Good warning from John for all of us.

Freeper Regards!

[smvoice]

Sorry it's taken so long to get back with you, jg. I wanted to be able to have enough time to try to explain not only WHAT I believe, but WHY I believe it, according to God's Word.

So, 1 John. Let me give you the overview of this Book along with Hebrews through Revelation, of which it is part. First, you know that I believe Romans through Philemon is for the Church the Body of Christ. The revelations concerning grace, salvation through faith in the finished work of Christ alone, doctrine for the Church the BOdy of Christ, the beginning of this Body, the building of this Body, and the end of this Body is all included in Paul's epistles. Since the mystery was given to him, then it only makes sense that he has given us, through direct revelations from the risen Christ, the operations manual for this age of grace we are living in. The "But Now" of Ephesians, Chapter 2. All we, the body of Christ, need for our salvation, walk, and future, are found in those epistles. Not only do they explain the "Time Past", they also explain when "But Now" began and when the "But Now" ends, and the "ages to come" begin. It is all about the formation of a BODY of BELIEVERS. A MYSTERY, hid in God from the foundation of the world. Eph. 3.

So what does this have to do with 1 John?

When the Church the Body of Christ is raptured, the tribulation begins. 2nd Thess. explains the rapture, and the revealing of the anti-christ. Where would someone who is not part of the rapture go in the Bible to find their survival information in order to go through the tribulation and endure to the end to be saved?

Hebrews through Revelation. I believe they were written for the future tribulation saints, as their survival guide from God. Notice first of all the first book after Paul's epistles. The Book of Hebrews. It is written to, THE HEBREWS. We know that during the age of grace, the middle wall of partition has been removed and there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in God's eyes. Eph. Chapter 2. We are on equal standing and during this time, "But Now", we are ONE NEW MAN.

The middle wall of partition is back for Hebrews. Just the fact that it is written to THE HEBREWS tells you that. Next comes the Book of James. It is written to "the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad." James 1:1. Obviously it is to the Jews.

Then the Books of Peter. They are written to "the strangers scattered abroad"...and they are about things ready to be revealed IN THE LAST TIME. 1 Pet. 1:5. The APPEARING of Jesus Christ (v.7), hope to the END, at the revelation of Jesus Christ (v.13), tradition from YOUR FATHERS (Jews), Christ foreordained before the foundation of the world, but now manifest IN THESE LAST TIMES FOR YOU (v.20), a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people (Chapter 2:9), having your conversation honest AMONG THE GENTILES (an obvious proof that Peter is speaking to Jews), the end of all things being at hand,(Chap.4:7), etc. etc. They are ALL about the end times, the time is at hand, the eminent return of Christ. 2nd Peter is the same. It is for those saints going through the tribulation and awaiting the 2nd coming of Christ.

Next comes the Books of John. They are the same theme. John speaks of those who have overcome the wicked one, the annointing of the Holy Spirit for the teaching of the truth, remaining in unity with one another, the day of the Lord, and the appearance of the Lord. Jude is the same. Contention for the faith which was once delivered to the saints, enduring, and looking for Christ's appearance. Revelation speaks for itself, obviously.

I gave you this overview of Hebrews through Revelation to show you these are specific for a specific group of people, the tribulation saints, a KINGDOM OF BELIEVERS. Just as Romans through Philemon is specific for a specific group of people, the Church the Body of Christ, A BODY OF BELIEVERS.

During this age of grace, we are saved by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. How many of my sins were future when Christ died for them? All of them. He died for ALL my sins. If I have to be in fear that every time I sin, I chance being cut off from God, then what good was Christ's death for me? If there is something I can do to LOSE my salvation, then there MUST be something I can do to WIN my salvation. And we know that is not true.

John's letters are part of the "ages to come", the tribulation, where the middle wall of partition is back up, Jews and Gentiles are differentiated, and the law, although written in their hearts is foremost. We, during this time, are not under the law, but under grace. It will be different during the tribulation. Just as it was different during the OT and Christ's earthly ministry, including Peter and the 11.

I hope I have answered your question. God Bless.

[smvoice]

I want to add one more thing to the previous post: the "last days". Paul speaks of the "last days" and Peter speaks of the "last days". Are they the same or different?

Paul's "last days" speak of APOSTACY. 2 TIm. 4:3,4. Peter's "last days" speak of a great REVIVAL. See Acts Chapter 2 with Joel 2,3. Great revival of WHO? Israel. When all ISRAEL will be saved.

They are obviously not speaking of the same "last days". Paul's are the "last days" of the Church the Body of Christ. Peter's are the "last days" of the tribulation and Christ's return to set up His kingdom.

[johngrace]

Hi Sm-I have to say I understand you better. I thank you for your honesty to this belief. If you were a liar to this belief you never would of explained it in this manner. So I believe your are a fairly honest person in explaining.

I do not understand all of it. But truly is a fascinating way of looking at the bible. I remember years ago you explained some awhile ago it was late night to me. We were messaging.

I will be praying like always for all of us on these threads in these last days. I believe my assurance is in asking Christ and having that answer from asking not just being a christian.

I firmly believe in:

Philippians 4:6-7

"Do not be Anxious about anything, but In Everything, by Prayer and Petition, with Thanksgiving, Present your Requests to God. And The Peace of God, which Transcends all Understanding, will Guard your Hearts and your Minds in Christ Jesus."

I will continually pray for you to make sure you do have that peace for all eternity.

Loving Father, from Your generous hands flows every good and precious gift.

We receive physical, material, relational, and spiritual blessings that far surpass our daily needs.

We acknowledge that You are the one and only true God, the Savior and Redeemer of our soul.

We give You glory for all that we are and all that we hope to be. Be glorified in and through us as we walk in humility and express thanksgiving to You in Jesus’ name we pray.

Praise Jesus!

Amen.

Freeper Regards!

[smvoice]

Everything we have, we know, we believe and we teach is to God's glory and grace. It is sometimes enough to sit still and KNOW He is God, He is in charge, and He is leading us in the way He would have us go. It is all part of His Plan for us and for reconciliation He wants between Himself and man. Through the finished work of Christ He seeks those who put their faith entirely on Christ's finished work in their place. Knowing that God could raise Him from the dead because the penalty for OUR sins were paid in full. 2nd Corinthians, Chapter 5 says everything we need to know in order to even BEGIN to understand His love toward us. In that while we were yet sinners, He died for us. That we may be reconciled to Him. There is no love greater.

God Bless you and may His grace encompass your walk with Him. Maranatha! smvoice

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply.

I had NO IDEA that John Nelson Darby

I doubt that, unless you thought you came up with dispensationalism all on your own.

It's quite a new thing: the notion that Jesus’s ministry and teaching in scripture on eternal life and the Kingdom of Heaven doesn't apply to us.

Not anywhere near what "a follower of Christ" means in Christianity; so it's understandable why it took until a hundred or so years ago for it to even occur to some preacher/teacher.

Who knows if this particular teaching or some offshoot will even last the next hundred, or fifty, or ten?

[bvmtotustuus]

>>You guys can’t seem to separate your spirit from your flesh...It is not our flesh that is saved...Our corrupt flesh will be redeemed at the Resurrection...

When we sin, we sin in the flesh...There is no sin imputed to our spirit/soul...

Do you also seperate Christ’s flesh from His Spirit?

[D-fendr]

So can I beat up some old lady, steal her purse and still go to heaven??? Absolutely..

Any sin? Unrepented murder? Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? Any and all sins in the future?

But am I going to do that??? It's not in my immediate plans...

As long as it's not in your immediate plans I guess. :)

But unless you are omniscient, you, and I, do not know what the future brings, what trials we may face and whether we will endure to the end.

Taking credit for enduring is not the same as enduring, presuming forgiveness for the future, not knowing the sin or repentance is not the teaching of Christ or His apostles.

[Bellflower]

How do you post about that? The other things can be discussed or argued about, but we can’t argue about Him.

You discuss what you know and who you are involved with on a daily basis, from experience. The Bible tells us that out of the the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. The Christians I know haven't any problem at all talking about Jesus. We certainly don't need the excuse that He is like air to cover up for the fact that our thoughts are not on Him, but rather a hundred other "religious" topics.

[ottbmare]

We certainly don't need the excuse that He is like air to cover up for the fact that our thoughts are not on Him, but rather a hundred other "religious" topics.

How can you presume to know how much of my thought is devoted to Him? Only He can know that.

[Bellflower]

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh, so says the Bible. How can you be thinking and writing about Mary, the Pope, a countless other saints, the Eucharist, Church issues and not hardly write a word about Jesus Christ Himself and think that He is on your mind constantly. You, yourself, more or less, said that you write about many things, but you can hardly write about Him because He is like air. I cannot imagine a relationship with Him whereas I hardly spoke about Him because of the reasons you gave, but rather discussed and filled my mind and heart with countless other "religious" things. If He is on your heart you will be speaking about Him.

If you can honestly say and believe that you are different than what the Bible says, being that what is in your heart is what will come out of your mouth, and that your heart and thoughts are on Him more than anyone or anything else, then so be it. Can you?

[ottbmare]

Please show me posts I have written in which I was "thinking and writing about Mary, the Pope, a countless [sic] other saints, the Eucharist, Church issues and not hardly [sic] write a word about Jesus Christ and think that He is on your mind constantly." I have not done so, (in part because after a lifetime as a Protestant, I am a pretty new Catholic, and I don't feel qualified to do so).

My FRiend, unless the Lord in His bounty has endowed you with ESP, which is very unlikely, you can't read minds. Only God knows what is in the hearts and minds of people, especially people who aren't chatty and extroverted. It would actually be laughable to make that judgement if you knew me well in real life. And you've never met me.

My point was that in these threads about Catholicism, the Lord Himself is not the topic of dispute so there is no need to argue or post about Him. The doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are what is in dispute. That is why you do not see Catholics posting lengthy philosophic disquisitions on the nature of God. You Protestants attack us for our beliefs about other areas of religious observance, not (presumably) about our belief in God the Father, His Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. So why would you expect us to begin declaiming about Him, away from the topic of the thread? If we were debating global warming and you suddenly began sneering at me, "You haven't posted anything about how wonderful the sunlight is! Obviously you don't know or care anything about the sun. You're just a climate-change hoaxer!" that would be similarly illogical.

You surely believe that, like everyone, you too are someday going to find yourself standing before Christ and accounting for your life and your sins. It might be wise to visualize that scene. And visualize the Lord in His Majesty saying, "You know how you thought you knew who was a good Christian and who wasn't? Remember how you thought you knew what relationship other people had with Me, and lectured them about their faith? Right. Well, some of those you thought were great believers were deceiving themselves and you, and I have said to them, 'I never knew you.' Some whom you criticized were among My most beloved children. You might have done better to focus on your own relationship with Me instead of assuming you knew how much other people love Me and how well they serve Me. I didn't choose you to be everyone else's judge. I'm the Judge."

Don't set yourself up for that, FRiend. It's very easy to fall into the sin of spiritual pride.

[Bellflower]

You are right and I apologize. I was wrong, getting you mixed up with almost every other Catholic on FR. Are you sure that you really are a Catholic? Were you even brought up as one? To be fair to me, try to realize that my head spins with all of the fantasy of the Catholics around Mary, worshiping bread and wine, bowing down to statues, praying to the dead, following a system of works to be/stay saved etc. It is unbelievable to me.

The fact that Catholics do not seem to comprehend that faith in Christ and His finished work alone is what saves is also very dizzying. It is like trying to reason with people who are spinning quickly down a spiritual drain and trying to grasp their hands to pull them out as they spin away completely confident that as long as they are Catholic they are just fine. I do know that some Catholics are actually saved. Those that really do have their hearts and minds on Christ, trusting Him for their salvation, and not on a million other things and works for salvation. Hopefully you truly are one of them.

I really do not think that you have a proper concept of what judging is. There are two kinds. One kind is when you take pleasure in pointing at others sins so as to feel bigger and better about yourself and the other when you see people lost and convinced otherwise and you hope that they will see that they are swimming in a system where they will drown unless they grab a hold of Christ. To try to help save those that are lost in a system of works, idolatry and fantasy is not judging but rather trying to help people. I am not sure why I did, as I usually try hard not to, but I did misjudge you. Sometimes I do get it wrong and I was wrong about you and what I said, so again, sorry.