I Hated the Idea of Becoming Catholic

Aleteia ^ | JUNE 20, 2014 | ANTHONY BARATTA

[NYer]

It was the day after Ash Wednesday in 2012 when I called my mom from my dorm room at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and told her I thought I was going to become Catholic.

“You’re not going to become Catholic, you just know you’re not Southern Baptist,” she said.

“No, I don’t think so.”

A pause. “Oh boy,” she sighed.

I started crying.

I cannot stress enough how much I hated the idea of becoming Catholic. I was bargaining to the last moment. I submitted a sermon for a competition days before withdrawing from school. I was memorizing Psalm 119 to convince myself of sola scriptura. I set up meetings with professors to hear the best arguments. I purposefully read Protestant books about Catholicism, rather than books by Catholic authors.

Further, I knew I would lose my housing money and have to pay a scholarship back if I withdrew from school, not to mention disappointing family, friends, and a dedicated church community.

But when I attempted to do my homework, I collapsed on my bed. All I wanted to do was scream at the textbook, “Who says?!”

I had experienced a huge paradigm shift in my thinking about the faith, and the question of apostolic authority loomed larger than ever.

But let’s rewind back a few years.

I grew up in an evangelical Protestant home. My father was a worship and preaching pastor from when I was in fourth grade onwards. Midway through college, I really fell in love with Jesus Christ and His precious Gospel and decided to become a pastor.

It was during that time that I was hardened in my assumption that the Roman Catholic Church didn’t adhere to the Bible. When I asked one pastor friend of mine during my junior year why Catholics thought Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth when the Bible clearly said Jesus had “brothers,” he simply grimaced: “They don’t read the Bible.”

Though I had been in talks with Seattle’s Mars Hill Church about doing an internship with them, John Piper’s book Don’t Waste Your Life clarified my call to missionary work specifically, and I spent the next summer evangelizing Catholics in Poland.

So I was surprised when I visited my parents and found a silly looking book titled Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic on my father’s desk. What was my dad doing reading something like this? I was curious and hadn’t brought anything home to read, so I gave it a look.

David Currie’s memoir of leaving behind his evangelical education and ministries was bothersome. His unapologetic defense of controversial doctrines regarding Mary and the papacy were most shocking, as I had never seriously considered that Catholics would have sensible, scriptural defenses to these beliefs.

The book’s presence on my father’s desk was explained more fully a few months later when he called me and said he was returning to the Catholicism of his youth. My response? “But, can’t you just be Lutheran or something?” I felt angry, betrayed, and indignant. For the next four months I served as a youth pastor at my local church and, in my free time, read up on why Catholicism was wrong.

During that time, I stumbled across a Christianity Today article that depicted an “evangelical identity crisis.” The author painted a picture of young evangelicals, growing up in a post-modern world, yearning to be firmly rooted in history and encouraged that others had stood strong for Christ in changing and troubled times. Yet, in my experience, most evangelical churches did not observe the liturgical calendar, the Apostles’ Creed was never mentioned, many of the songs were written after 1997, and if any anecdotal story was told about a hero from church history, it was certainly from after the Reformation. Most of Christian history was nowhere to be found.

For the first time, I panicked. I found a copy of the Catechism and started leafing through it, finding the most controversial doctrines and laughing at the silliness of the Catholic Church. Indulgences? Papal infallibility? These things, so obviously wrong, reassured me in my Protestantism. The Mass sounded beautiful and the idea of a visible, unified Church was appealing - but at the expense of the Gospel? It seemed obvious that Satan would build a large organization that would lead so many just short of heaven.

I shook off most of the doubts and enjoyed the remainder of my time at college, having fun with the youth group and sharing my faith with the students. Any lingering doubts, I assumed, would be dealt with in seminary.

I started my classes in January with the excitement of a die-hard football fan going to the Super Bowl. The classes were fantastic and I thought I had finally rid myself of any Catholic problems.

But just a few weeks later, I ran into more doubts. We were learning about spiritual disciplines like prayer and fasting and I was struck by how often the professor would skip from St. Paul to Martin Luther or Jonathan Edwards when describing admirable lives of piety. Did nothing worthwhile happen in the first 1500 years? The skipping of history would continue in many other classes and assigned reading. The majority of pre-Reformation church history was ignored.

I soon discovered I had less in common with the early Church fathers than I thought. Unlike most Christians in history, communion had always been for me an occasional eating of bread and grape juice, and baptism was only important after someone had gotten “saved.” Not only did these views contradict much of Church history but, increasingly, they did not match with uncomfortable Bible passages I had always shrugged off (John 6, Romans 6, etc).

Other questions that I had buried began to reappear, no longer docile but ferocious, demanding an answer. Where did the Bible come from? Why didn’t the Bible claim to be “sufficient”? The Protestant answers that had held me over in the last year were no longer satisfying.

Jefferson Bethke’s viral YouTube video, “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus,” was released during this time. The young man meant well, but to me he only validated what the Wall Street Journal called “the dangerous theological anarchy of young evangelicals,” attempting to remove Jesus from the confines of religion but losing so much in the process.

Ash Wednesday was the tipping point. A hip Southern Baptist church in Louisville held a morning Ash Wednesday service and many students showed up to classes with ashes on their forehead. At chapel that afternoon, a professor renowned for his apologetic efforts against Catholicism expounded upon the beauty of this thousand year old tradition.

Afterwards, I asked a seminary friend why most evangelicals had rejected this beautiful thing. He responded with something about Pharisees and “man-made traditions.”

I shook my head. “I can’t do this anymore.”

My resistance to Catholicism started to fade. I was feeling drawn to the sacraments, sacramentals, physical manifestations of God’s grace, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. No more borrowing, no more denying.

It was the next day that I called my mom and told her I thought I was going to become Catholic.

I didn’t go to classes on Friday. I went to the seminary library and checked out books I had previously forbidden myself to look at too closely, like the Catechism and Pope Benedict’s latest. I felt like I was checking out porn. Later, I drove to a 5pm Saturday Mass. The gorgeous crucifix at the front of the church reminded me of when I had mused that crucifixes demonstrated that Catholics didn’t really understand the resurrection.

But I saw the crucifix differently this time and began crying. “Jesus, my suffering savior, you’re here.”

A peace came over me until Tuesday, when it yielded to face-to-windshield reality. Should I stay or leave? I had several panicked phone calls: “I literally have no idea what I am going to do tomorrow morning.”

On Wednesday morning I woke up, opened my laptop, and typed out “77 Reasons I Am Leaving Evangelicalism.” The list included things like sola scriptura, justification, authority, the Eucharist, history, beauty, and continuity between the Old and New Testament. The headlines and the ensuing paragraphs flowed from my fingers like water bursting from a centuries-old dam. 

A few hours later on February 29, 2012 I slipped out of Louisville, Kentucky, eager to not confuse anyone else and hoping I wasn’t making a mistake.  

The next few months were painful. More than anything else I felt ashamed and defensive, uncertain of how so much of my identity and career path could be upended so quickly. Nonetheless, I joined the Church on Pentecost with the support of my family and started looking for work.

So much has changed since then. I met Jackie on CatholicMatch.com that June, got married a year later, and celebrated the birth of our daughter, Evelyn, on March 3rd, 2014. We’re now in Indiana and I’m happy at my job.

I’m still very new on this Catholic journey. To all inquirers out there, I can tell you that my relationship with God has deepened and strengthened. As I get involved in our parish, I’m so thankful for the love of evangelism and the Bible that I learned in Protestantism.

I have not so much left my former faith as I have filled in the gaps. I thank God for the fullness of the Catholic faith.

[Mrs. Don-o]

If you wish to go to the Synagogue to read on the Sabbath I will have no objection. But it would be the historic obervant Jewish practice, not the historic observant Christian practice. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

[BipolarBob]

"But it would be the historic observant Jewish practice, not the historic observant Christian practice. "

What an obtuse statement. Just exactly what do you consider a historic Christian??? I would think a Christian would be a follower of Christ. A historic Christian practice would be one that Christ practiced. Look at the OT or NT closely. The prophets and followers of God were ridiculed and slaughtered. To take up the cross and follow Him is a little harder than going to some ritual laden feel good Church with silky robed priests and have all in attendance feel superior afterwards because they are with the One True Church by golly.

[delchiante]

If you look at the ancient Hebrew pictograph, it isn’t a mark, but a cross.. then changed to an x, cross sticks..

Eventually the modern letter isn’t such.. but the ancient is unmistakable..
It is a rather eye opening study..

And if one changes the mark wording to ‘cross’ as it was for the ancient pictograph, Christendom may just represent the counterfeit..

A greco roman latin counterfeit. An ‘anti’ Messiah.. study the word anti in the Greek and it isn’t just for an opposing side.. it is used to describe one that is on the same side.. like strategos and antistrategos.l

Could be the greatest identify theft in the history of the world.. a Hebrew messiah has been erased for a Greco roman Latin version...

makes Christendom look like a house of cards.. be careful in asking, seeking or knocking,. You may not like the answers..

[Mrs. Don-o]

As I understand it, what Jesus practiced was Judaism. That is not exactly the same as the New Covenant He instituted, and the Church He authorized to carry out His mission.

The relations beween Judaism and Christianity are important, but the two are not identical.

That's all I really want to say about it. If you a Seventh-Day Christian believer, then God bless you.

[BipolarBob]

"Could be the greatest identify theft in the history of the world.. a Hebrew messiah has been erased for a Greco roman Latin version..."

Should we pray to Zeus you wrong?

[BipolarBob]

s I understand it, what Jesus practiced was Judaism. That is not exactly the same as the New Covenant He instituted

Well that's comforting news that Jesus was doing it all wrong. That coupled with the fact He is no longer our example because we must follow a new practice other than what He did. It would be comedic if it weren't so tragic with eternal consequences.

[delchiante]

The author of revelation was Hebrew. I would not be surprised if someone can find or has found an Aramaic/Hebrew version of all or any of the books of the new testament.

The new testmanet is a Hebrew themed book. The savior is a Hebrew..

Those who cling to the greco roman latin version will not want to study this or Hebrew.

It hits too close to their faith’s home, which is founded in Rome.
The greco roman latin mother is exactly what revelation says she is..
And her daughters are not far off..

Taw resh kaf kaf kaf waw adds up to six hundred three score and six..

And ancient Hebrew pictograph doesn’t say ‘mark’- it uses a cross...

Each letter has a meaning in Hebrew and each letter has a number value..

666 or waw waw waw is not the same as six hundred threescore and six in Hebrew.

Maybe John the revelator in his vision saw a bunch of people crossing themselves or placing crosses on the foreheads of people..

That would suck for both Catholics and Protestants..
Mothers and daughters..

Where else have we read about mothers, whores and a mother of harlots?
Same book..

It puts the conterfeit greco roman latin holy days of December 25/Christ’s mass and easter in proper biblical perspective..

[cloudmountain]

God bless you and yours.

[NYer]

It’s really not a laughing matter NYer. The lack of scripture and claims to faith in Christ alone is rather alarming.

Your reaction is quite amusing, especially this statement: "Their struggle had nothing to do with their relationship with Christ."

Essentially, you did not bother to read either of the links I posted but chose to respond based on some gut reaction or, perhaps, personal prejudice. Megachurch leader Ulf Ekman of the Word of Life ministry in Sweden says the conversations he and Birgitta had with Catholics challenged their "protestant prejudices" and led them to the realization that they "in many cases did not have any basis for our criticism of them."

"We needed to know the Catholic faith better. This led us to … realize that it was actually Jesus Christ who led us to unite with the Catholic Church," the pastor stated.

Ekman said the conversion came after several years of contemplation. "We have seen a great love for Jesus and a sound theology, founded on the Bible and classic dogma. We have experienced the richness of sacramental life. We have seen the logic in having a solid structure for priesthood, that keeps the faith of the church and passes it on from one generation to the next," he explained. "We have met an ethical and moral strength and consistency that dare to face up to the general opinion, and a kindness towards the poor and the weak. And, last but not least, we have come in contact with representatives for millions of charismatic Catholics and we have seen their living faith."

Consider the ramifications of his decision. Ekman founded the charismatic Livets Ord (Word of Life) in Uppsala, Sweden, in 1983, and has served as pastor there for close to 30 years. His website credits his ministry for constructing Scandinavia's biggest free church building, which led to his ministry expanding globally and reaching countries all over Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and regions in Asia. His teachings have been recorded in books found in 60 different languages. The congregation was left stunned by his announcement.

Their trust is in religion.

Hardly so. On Sunday March 9, Ulf Ekman stood nervously before the congregation of the Word of Life church in Uppsala. Dressed in a suit and pale blue tie, the Swedish pastor looked out at the faces of those whose delights and hardships he had shared since he founded the megachurch in 1983.

“This is one of those days when I have something special to say,” he began. Several minutes into the address, which has been watched more than 8,000 times on YouTube, he got to the crux: “[My wife] Birgitta and I have in recent days sensed the Lord’s leading, urging us to join the Catholic Church. This may seem a very radical step. But we have great peace and great joy in this decision.

“Now,” he continued, “you may be thinking: ‘Boy, that’s the worst thing I’ve heard for a long time…’” The camera then cut away to a young woman whose lip seemed to quiver with shock.

You can learn more about his journey here.

[CynicalBear]

>>The author of revelation was Hebrew. I would not be surprised if someone can find or has found an Aramaic/Hebrew version of all or any of the books of the new testament.<<

The Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the New Testament and did so in the common language of the time which was Greek. The people who want to dispute that had better do better than "I would not be surprised". Speculation is not what brings about good doctrine.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Well that's comforting news that Jesus was doing it all wrong."

That's not what I said, and anyone with ordinary reading comrehension knows that. The idea of there being an "Old Covenant" and a "New Covenant" is no exactly an innovation on my part. Jesus Himself, in His own words, proclaimed this:

Luke 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

[delchiante]

Ancient Hebrew pictograph giving us the meaning of the letters add in the values of those letters.a strings concordance added in so one can get the definitions of the letters.

My versions confirms it is six hundred three score and six and not three 6’s.

And then we have another number , 616, which some scholars say is the actual number found on a version.

We too can calculate that number using hebrew letters.

That in Hebrew,616, or six hundred ten and six is taw, resh, yod, was..

Yod is a picture of a hand and arm.. is the tenth letter so has a number value of ten..

The meaning doesn’t change whether one uses 666 or 616 in. Hebrew..

See ancient Hebrew told a story using pictures..

We can’t do that with our English language.. our English language doesn’t give values to our letters..

The fact the one can find marks, crosses, heads, hands/feet, and tent nails within both 666 and 616 in Hebrew was a rather eye opening revelation..

[daniel1212]

I only lasted about 3 weeks before I hit the road. It was the Navigators who got to me. Their training programs in practical Christian living are quite good.

Praise God. If some of the good preachers i head on the radio (Church Smith, McGee, etc,. were near me i am sure i would have gone, bu i did not knowv of any i felt i could trust, and i wanted to be committed. But God knew what He was doing. Praise God.

[Iscool]

You have been told the truth, I can do no more, it is now up the Holy Spirit.

I believe there's been enough evidence posted to show that you are just barking at the moon...

[BipolarBob]

"As I understand it, what Jesus practiced was Judaism. That is not exactly the same as the New Covenant He instituted"
That's pretty plain to me. We are to do something different than what He practiced. and anyone with ordinary reading comrehension knows that.
I pride myself on my ordinary reading comprehension skills. The New Covenant did away with the shadow of things to come which were the ordinances and ceremonial laws that concerned itself with meats, drinks and washings. These were given in consequence of sin and are completely different from the Ten Commandments in several ways. Judaism pointed man to the Messiah and was NOT done away with. Read some of what Paul has to say on the matter.

[delchiante]

If you believe that none of the new testament was written in their native languages then you have a right to believe that.. I don’t know if any Aramaic/Hebrew texts have been found.. if they have or are, you will lose your Greek original stance.

But they were not Greek that wrote it,.. they were Hebrews who knew Hebrew language.. far better than you and I.. thankfully, we can study Hebrew and Aramaic..

I know it pains one to know they have faith in the pope’s counterfeit, especially when they argue against the pope...I was there..

But Rome has their savior.. a Greco roman Latin one...

And the pope’story is he was born on their holy day of December 25 and raised on their holy day easter..

I am guessing catholics celebrate his circumcion on the 8th day like Torah says- which would be January 1st every year.. that is a world holy day anyway except for people who observe our Heavenly Father’s calendar whose year begins in spring,not in winter..

They probably celebrate his dedication in the temple after Mary’s 40 days of purification on February 2nd of their pope calendar.. the world, at least America, has that as another ‘holy day’ ,although it tends to be only holy around Punxsutawney.

A Catholic may be able to confirm this if these days have special services on January 1 and Feb 2nd to make December 25 seem like at least a little biblically consistent..

None of that is biblical truth..

They are biblical counterfeits..

All are welcome to base one’s work, worship and faith life on Rome’s system.

It will blind.. even the elect..

counterfeiter and master deceiver is the enemy.

If we can prove that times and laws have been changed by those same folks (as a vessel) like Daniel said would happen, we’d have something..

Check marks next to times and laws being changed? Yes and yes..

It puts Protestants in a tough spot.. they can’t attack the pope and papacy too hard because if he gets too exposed, it exposes a house of cards built not in Jerusalem, but Rome..

[boycott]

>>I save that for the muzzie cult.<<

You do realize don’t you that the Catholic Church claims that they and the Muslims serve the same god?

---

I did not know that.

[Springfield Reformer]

It’s not hard to imagine anything. But our imaginations are not the measure of truth. You have to start with a reference point. You can make that reference point fallible man or divine revelation. The results will be remarkably different.

For the first 200 years, approximately, we were “stem cell” Christians. Beliefs that could be called unambiguously Roman Catholic were not in evidence during that period. Roman belief developed as schism from the simplicity of the Gospel of those early days. Witness how the ordinances of Christ were transformed into sacraments, means of grace, only available through a priestly order not created by the apostles or Jesus. And see how it uses the sacraments, not as signs of spiritual realities, but instruments inherently efficacious to create those realities, which has more analogy to Greek theurgy than anything found in the Christian New Testament.

It’s true the Roman schism rose to political dominance, but that does not mean God’s spiritual family was centered in them. Jesus said His true worshipers were those who worship Him in spirit and in truth. Paul describes us as weak, lacking powerful friends and those considered wise and noble by the world system. As long as the Ecclesia exists, until He returns, we will always be the outcasts, the discarded ones, the remnant. How many belonged to the “right church” when the flood wiped out the earth? This isn’t about numbers, or pedigree. Its about what is true.

So I urge you, as you consider this, ask yourself whether you will ever be able, spiritually, to give your adoration to a little round wafer in a monstrance. I tell you now as one Baptist to another that is the one thing, if there were no other differences whatsoever, that would bar the door to me. I know all about how that act would be redefined by transubstantiation, and I know there are many sincere people who believe the sacramental use of grace by this ritual is the key to eternal life, but they are sincerely wrong. It is a substitute for the true void one has who has not yet met Jesus at the narrow gate. There is no substitute for the new birth, not baptism by water, nor eating a wafer, but God by pure grace making a new and living heart, where before there was only death. Don’t settle. There’s too much at stake.

Peace,

SR

[daniel1212]

Surely many of them were saved by grace through faith. What they believed should at least be of interest, don't you think?

Most certainly. Holding Scripture as supreme and sufficient in the way i see it is not contrary to supplementary material, nor was if for Reformers.

And thus the Roman recourse is to assert the past only means what she says it means. As i have often provided,

no less a neo-ultramontanist as Manning stated: It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228; ttp://www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt.

Thus Newman states,

"in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council lhttp://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section8.html

BTW,I do think of this often, when I contemplate not only churches, but the Republican Party. Does one kill a corrupt organization ... or cure it? What follows?

Better is a poor and a wise child than an old and foolish king, who will no more be admonished. (Ecclesiastes 4:13)

We need a new party, with enough wise men to join it.

Is it simply too hard to imagine that some silk-and satin-bedecked 14th C. bishop surrounded by clouds of fragrant incense might also be saved, as well as a sweating peasant looking no farther than the tail of the ox pulling his plow?

It is hard, but possible.

Spurgeon: Although upon doctrines of grace our views differ from those avowed by Arminian Methodists, we have usually found that on the great evangelical truths we are in full agreement, and we have been comforted by the belief that Wesleyans were solid upon the central doctrines. (Sword and the Trowel, May, 1891)

Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitfield and John Wesley. (C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography, Vol. 1, p. 173, in “A Defence Of Calvinism,” The Banner Of Truth Trust edition)

Now I hate High Churchism as my soul hates Satan; but I love George Herbert, although George Herbert is a desperately High Churchman. I hate his high Churchism, but I love George Herbert from my very soul, and I have a warm corner in my heart for every man who is like him. Let me find a man who loves my Lord Jesus Christ as George Herbert did, and I do not ask myself whether I shall love him or not; there is no room for question, for I cannot help myself; unless I can leave off loving Jesus Christ, I cannot cease loving those who love him. (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 12, p. 6; http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols10-12/chs668.pdf)

[Elsie]

Then they do not need to be, right?