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 There would have been a sentence or two in the Presbytery minutes to the effect that I had “peaceably withdrawn” to thus and such church because my theological convictions were no longer in keeping with the Westminster Confession.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.

 

[boatbums]

As a former Catholic who converted to Biblical Christianity and was baptized in a Southern Baptist church, I am amazed that a Protestant could let go of his eternal security in favor of a religion that calls such assurance a “sin of presumption”. I’ve even asked a few and not one has been able to answer that question yet.

[boatbums]

A Catholic writes about his conversion from Protestantism into Catholicism, a Catholic posts it on Free Republic open Religion Forum, and you didn't expect any Protestant replies? Seriously?

[D-fendr]

Do you believe that Jesus’s ministry and teaching in scripture - including that of eternal life and the Kingdom of Heaven - applies to us?

[bvmtotustuus]

It is precisely the ongoing sacrifice of Christ, which is the Mass, that is the finished work of Jesus Christ. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the finished work of Christ, applied to the here and now. We are in the here and now and we have such a High Priest, in the Heavens, Jesus.

[johngrace]

If you have nothing more to do with it you are a robot.

Then God is A Dictator

Hello!!

If we really believe that only.GOD IS NOT GOD.

It reads Love the Lord your God and Love your neighbor as yourself. You can't love with that lie from the pit.

He can not force you. It is not love any more. You have to have free will if it is called Love otherwise it is a joke!

Your statement does not add up.

The Greatest Commandment

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

WE HAVE FREE WILL. IF GOD MAKES YOU DO IT! It IS NOT LOVE!!!! HELLO!!

You are involved.

[Iscool]

“You must say or write ‘Jesus’ every three sentences or you aren’t a real Christian.”

How about just once per chapter??? Is that too much???

[Iscool]

Please. We've spent years explaining the Catholic faith in our own words, to you and numerous others on this forum. Get serious.

No, you haven't...

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Nicely said. Why else would one ‘celebrate’ mass if it were anything less then the full and perfect sacrifice of Christ? But that are some pretty sick ideas of theology around here; take post 26 for example - someone’s idea of God is He who leads people away from the truth. When people have been indoctrinated that perversely, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to talk sense to them.

[raygunfan]

actually, i did, and i wasnt disappointed in the usual tired, same old same old excuses as to where this professionally trained minister, who was ‘draped with the cloak of faith alone, scripture alone, etc, etc’, somehow managed to go ‘off the trax, or tracts, if you will’.....

amazing when those who come home to his true church, even from protestant theological seminary grad schools, etc, all the sudden, they are declared to be ‘null and void’ as far as christianity...i find that hilarious...

[georgia peach]

Your understanding of my church is incorrect but it must serve some purpose to see it that way.God bless...

[smvoice]

If it is an “ongoing” sacrifice, then it is NOT FINISHED. It cannot be both ways, by definition. Does your church believe/teach that Christ paid the FULL PENALTY for sins?

[bvmtotustuus]

Yes I have herd that response to other places, like EWTN TV shows. I think it has to do with their focus. Their focus is entirely getting saved; they never seem to move beyond that to a deeper spirituality, like growing in holiness. I like what some others have said that everything Catholic is entirely focused on Jesus and His Church. But I think you need to be inside the Catholic church to see it's full splendor. It is bigger from within than it appears to outsiders looking in, even though it is this physical view of the church which is to draw the outsiders in. They will know us by our love.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

That’s some beautiful insight; it truly goes a long way to explain a lot of behavior and parroting I previously found inexplicable. Thank you!

[marshmallow]

As a former Catholic who converted to Biblical Christianity and was baptized in a Southern Baptist church, I am amazed that a Protestant could let go of his eternal security in favor of a religion that calls such assurance a “sin of presumption”.

There will be a Judgment. A Particular Judgment when we die and a Last Judgment. If your ticket is already punched, that Judgment is essentially a complete waste of time. A mere formality........."Hi Jesus, it's me. Let me through. My reservation is already made, remember? Deal with these other poor shmucks."

It isn't a formality.

Jesus announced the Judgment of the last day in his preaching. During this Judgment, both the secrets of hearts and our deeds will be judged.

"For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed: nor hidden, that shall not be known. For whatsoever things you have spoken in darkness, shall be published in the light: and that which you have spoken in the ear in the chambers, shall be preached on the housetops."
Luke 12: 2-4

"For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God."
John 3: 20-21

"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."
Romans 2:16

"Therefore judge not before the time; until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise from God."
1 Cor 4:5

---------------------

And yes, works are important. Our attitude to our neighbor will indicate whether we have accepted or refused God's love, as explicitly stated in Matthew's Gospel:

"But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
Matt 5:22

And again.......

"Judge not, that you may not be judged, For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
Matt 7: 1-5

The real clincher, though, comes right at the end of Matthew's Gospel when Jesus makes it plain that our actions towards our brother will determine our eternal destiny.

"And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me".
Matt 25: 31-40.

------------

A mere gut feeling that one has already been saved is clearly not going to cut it at the Final Judgment.

Yes, yes, I know what you're going to say. You're going to quote to me John 3:

"For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
John 3: 17-18

This does not mean that each man will not be judged on the last day. It means that by rejecting grace in this life, we condemn ourselves by rejecting God's love. Jesus came into the world to save, not to judge but there will be a judgment at the end.

Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
1 Cor 3: 13-14

For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins but a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people.
Heb 10: 26-31

Until the day we die, the book of our deeds remains open. That is another reason why we cannot presume our ticket is already punched. St. Paul mentions his own fear of being lost when he talks about chastising his body:

"But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway."
1 Cor 9:27

Does that sound like a complacent man? It isn't.

"For I am not conscious to myself of any thing, yet am I not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me, is the Lord.
1 Cor 4:4

That's a man saying that God will judge me. My conscience does not accuse me of wrongdoing but God will be the final judge. That's the very opposite of presumptuousness.

I’ve even asked a few and not one has been able to answer that question yet.

They've answered it and you've rejected the answer.

Foolish.

"I'm already saved" is latter day heresy. A rotten fruit of the tree of subjectivism and individualism to which many cling.

[bvmtotustuus]

It is a Once For All Sacrifice, On Calvary in history it happened once in a bloody manner and the offering to the Father on Calvary as it was offered continues in heaven, as Jesus, as High Priest, in the order of Melchizedek is ever offering His sacrifice to the Father on our behalf. Jesus is Human and Devine. As a human He entered our history in time and space and as God, He is outside of time. The unbloody offering He made to the Father is made to the Father without end and forever, it can not be repeated because it never ends.

[wmfights]

If it is an “ongoing” sacrifice, then it is NOT FINISHED. It cannot be both ways, by definition. Does your church believe/teach that Christ paid the FULL PENALTY for sins?

We know they don't. If they did believe the full penalty for sins was paid at Calvary and that once you believe The Gospel you are saved for eternity their house of cards collapses. Once they believe these truths they won't assemble out of obligation, but will gather together in fellowship. Once they believe these truths their clergy will no longer be elevated above believers and will no longer be presumed to have supernatural powers.

No matter how many verses of Scripture you quote they will not believe it. Their faith is in their church not The Gospel.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Full penalty (I’ll spare you the dramatic all-caps) payment means the 3rd Commandment turns into a Suggestion. Interesting!

[D-fendr]

Do you believe that Jesus’s ministry and teaching in scripture - including that of eternal life and the Kingdom of Heaven - applies to us?

[bvmtotustuus]

We do believe in the finished work of Jesus Christ, not just for ourselves but for the whole world, including all who post on this site. We believe that Jesus loved us so much he not only wanted to offer his suffering and death for our salvation, He also wanted to give himself to us, His Church, as a husband gives himself to his wife, so that we might be brought into Him. The Mass is an obligation, because it says in scripture, do not be absent from the assembly as some do, but also because if you knew the reality of Who is present at the Mass, and that Calvary is made available for us to enter into, with Jesus, it would be unthinkable to miss.

We do not just gather, at Mass, for fellowship, but primarily for Worship of God.

The priest is acting in-persona Christi, In the Person of Christ. It is Jesus Christ who is acting through the priest on our behalf.

Actually the Gospel cam to you though the Catholic church. It was the Catholic Church who protected the scriptures and decided which books were inspired. This through the Teaching Authority given to the Apostles and their decedents, to protect and teach the Truth.

[D-fendr]

Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient for the salvation of all men - in contrast to the teaching of many reformed confessions.

Unless by this you mean Universalism. That’s not what your teachers teach is it?