From what I could tell, this hasn’t been posted previously. It’s an interesting conversion story that I thought other Catholics might enjoy reading.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Fascinating, thank you.
I only take one exception: “No man can forgive sins, right?”
Yes, we can, if the sins are done to us or ours. Indeed, we are obliged to. Forgive us our trespass, as we forgive those who trespass against us. Sort of an important line, and often overlooked.
The act of human forgiveness of sins is not for the benefit of the sinner, though that may happen. It is like a funeral - the corpse doesn’t care, but it helps the mourners deal with the death.
If you want a religion, Catholic is nice...Jesus is calling people to a RELATIONSHIP...He gave us His life and His WORD...man gives religion.
Not really surprising..
The OPC observes and worships the pope’s calendar, the pope’s sabbath day and the pope’s holy days...(albeit they do have a little issue with december 25 unlike most other denominations)
Most protestant daughters are built on that same foundation with those same observances and worship premises they get from mother...
“We came to this realization in large measure by spending time in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “
Right there is the problem. The Word of God is what he should be reading.
Credo!
This statement rather betrays him. In all actuality, a firm reading of Augustine, for example, only shows one thing: that the greatest expression of Augustinian theology is Reformation theology, not the Catholic. Even on things like transubstantiation and predestination, Augustine falls on the Reformation side. Calvin's understanding of the sacraments was, itself, entirely Augustinian. He did not invent it. He was taught it from Augustine, perhaps improving in some points, but largely the spirit is that of Augustine's, and Augustine's from the Apostles. Those Catholics on this forum familiar with my posts on the matter are well aware of what Augustine has to say on these matters, and I doubt there are very many left who would oppose me on it.
The Reformers also did not flee from the writings of the Church Fathers. They did not even claim to be anything other than Catholic. From the essay "Catholic Calvinism":
"In 1536, a 27 year old exile from France addressed Roman Catholic King Francis regarding a new religious movement that Francis opposed. This exile takes pains to deny that the teaching of the movement is, in fact "new" and "of recent birth." To the contrary, says the humanist scholar, the gospel preached in this movement is as "ancient" as Paul's gospel. Winchester Moreover, "if the contest were to be decided by patristic authority, the tide of victory would turn to our side."1 For the young Jean Calvin, the reform of the church entailed a rediscovery of the scriptures--and a rediscovery of the scriptural theology of the patristic writings from the church's first five centuries.
Thus, it is not surprising that as Calvin's ministry and thought developed, he went to great lengths to deepen his knowledge of patristic theology and spread this knowledge to others. In a move that would please today's Anglo-Catholics, Calvin promoted the radical idea that John Chrysostom's sermons should be made available in the vernacular French. Not only scholars should read the church fathers, but ordinary Christians--just as Christians should also be reading the Bible. Of course, Calvin did not agree with everything he read in patristic works--indeed, this would have been impossible, given the diversity of thought in the patristic period. But the Reformation was a restoration of the scriptural theology of the early centuries of the church--and until the end of his life, publishing The True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ--Calvin continued to draw deeper and deeper upon the "ancient fathers" of the first five centuries, who were "of a better age of the church."2"
http://www.rca.org/page.aspx?pid=2996
Now this guy writes like he is utterly unfamiliar with these facts, and with the writings of Augustine. And even sounds as if he himself was not familiar with these writings before hand, despite the very real emphasis and study of the church fathers promoted by the Reformers. If he did, how does one square the fact that the Church Fathers directly disagreed with doctrines the Roman church declares infallible and from the mouth of the Apostles directly? The claim of Romanism is that it's teachings are historical. So, why then are they not historical?
By the way, one last comment. I was hoping he’d actually say something specific about those “reformation doctrines” that he thinks are not that important. Like all Catholics, however, he entirely bypasses the issue and focuses on: Church authority.
Now what boots church authority if your soul is damned? What authority does a church have, if all its doctrine is authority and lacks a real doctrine on salvation aside from “submit to the Pope”?
After falsely asserting that the Church Fathers all shared the same doctrines on the Eucharist, ignored the Solas as somehow unimportant (does this fool know nothing about Augustine’s great battle with Pelagius? Where do you think we get Sola Gracia and Sola Fide? Since when do we only care about the Eucharist and Church authority?), and other such things, I thought that maybe he would explain his earlier assertion that the Catholics all accept our “Solas” but in a “properly understood” way. Any real Presbyterian ought to know that the question of church authority is insignificant to these questions. If he can show that we indeed misunderstood the Papists all along, and that, really, they really do think that we are saved by Grace and not by our merits, this would be ground breaking. It would heal the rift! But he does not, and instead goes straight from his assertions on the Church Fathers and flees to lame nonsense on “authority,” as if the earthly structures of the church obsess us as much as it does him!
They came to our church in Rockford a time or two. Wonderful people, they have sacrificed much.
Serious Question: Now that Rev. Stewart has converted from the OPC to Catholicism, what will he do regarding his “call to the ministry?” Obviously Catholic rules do not permit Protestant ministers, except for some cases for Anglicans, to be ordained as priests, thus that is out for him. Again, his conversion does not mean that the Catholic Church is obligated to give him a job.
If his faith that lead him to the ministry and his life’s work, how does he continue that within the confines of the Catholic Church? Or does he go out and find a new vocation?
I know that you do not know exact answers to these questions and they are perhaps more rhetorical than seeking actual answers. But they occurred to me. I guess he could join Marcus Grodi and “The Journey Home” tv team.
Thanks, G-F
I have done that but did not limit myself to Catholic teaching only...As a result, I found the Catholic religion to be a massive fraud...
The FR religious forum is nothing but a platform for the RCC, bashing protestantism, pushing their marxist pope, and pushing the papacy, this thread typical of their agenda.