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.

[boatbums]

I'm just wondering how you keep track of doctor's appointments, time cards, airline or restaurant reservations, loved ones birthdays, your OWN age, etc. without resorting to Gregorian calendars and the "world's" marking of time? Can someone do that without being a lover of the world?

[metmom]

Let me know if you ever get an answer.

[Mark17]

But why do you ask?

I had heard other opinions about it, I just wanted to know your opinion too. I call you nephew of Paul. 😄

I just think something was terribly wrong, for God to flood the world. I just don't quite know what. Was the world any more or less evil than it is now? I don't know.

[Resettozero]

...resorting to Gregorian calendars and the "world's" marking of time?

Yet I can agree with the poster on this one point: When it's early December and totally dark at 5:40PM, something is very very wrong with the world's marking of time. Very wrong.

[BlueDragon]

Hey, great.

At least this time when you quoted scripture here on the pages of this forum without attribution as from where, it was not an instance of passages spliced together from here and there, with no attribution as to where the passages were being quoted from.

Footnotes indicate

James 5:9 NU-Text and M-Text read judged [for the word *condemned*]

But you should consider dropping use of the so-called 'royal blue' font when quoting entire paragraphs and more, since as I have previously mentioned, that color can be difficult to read, which has been part of what has led me to skipping over it whenever I see it, only occasionally skimming it, if that, resulting in reading through it only when you do so while addressing that sort of thing to myself personally.

But at least out of me, you get some sort of answer, eh?

That's more than can be said for many of your co-religionists.

They say things.

In reply, I go to some effort of consideration, and prayer also, then often include links to show I'm not just making things up, etc.

THen -- some (or seemingly most?) will just shine it on, like nothing was said to them concerning the issue, that is if they do not reply chiefly with not much of anything more than spitballs, and spite.

I guess it's too much to ask for them to acknowledge that one of their little pet theories was just shredded before their very eyes, lol.

Later yet, these same persons will yet again produce the same or similar assertions (it is interesting to see how the claims can morph, or change over time) which had been well enough falsified, shown to be not true, if but not entirely true as those claims were presented, or shown to have been spurious claims, faulty reasoning, or otherwise erroneous assumptions and assertions.

None of the above stops some of *them* (there is always a notorious *them* or infamous *they*, regardless of which side of what *things* or considerations a person is on) from repeating the aforementioned described as if nothing had ever been produced in refutation of those same claims.

It's like déjà vu all over again.

But thank you for showing that I still have enough free room in the ye olde Cath-o-lick noggins, enough to swing a cat, as that saying goes.

It's good to be free.

AND ---

Fearless Leader will so proud of me. You've made my day with the little micro-lecture scriptural admonition.

Now let's see you apply that fully and entirely to yourself without fail, for years and years, then tell also how I should not remember just who I am contending against, and how I must be continually the subject matter of the discussion rather than have whichever proofs & reasoning I myself may bring be responded to.

Your mission...should you choose to accept it [click pic]

But be careful. This type of work has many pitfalls, and traps

Yes. They really are out to get you...

[imardmd1]

Yes?

Don't neglect to recognize that when Barnabas came, he was sent because the ministry was already there and functioning, planted by several predecessers to Barnabas, and was obviously large, congregational, and non-denominational. Likely they at that time had no church house.

While I don't define "Apostolic church" it appears that the foundational Antioch assembly was already in place, after the style of patterning the local assembly's operation on the prototype model brought from Jerusalem by its former congregants--following the doctrine of the Apostles, breaking bread from house to house, personal and corporate prayer and evangelism, and answering to no one but its Head, the Lord Jesus Christ--as is proper for any genuine local congregation--and not to some other group external to the local assembly.

What have I left out? Oh, yes, and because of their continual occupation was personal evangelism the locals titled the "Christians" just as we title people by their vocation or avocation: pharmacist, musician, butcher, arborist, etc. What I see is them practicing their love of their Savior through the work of their local body with Jesus Christ as its acknowledged head. What I don't see there is anybody named "Catholic," until hundreds of years later, and I do see Peter or Paul finding onlookers literally worshipping them, they stopped it immediately, and so did the Holy Spirit.

Paul did plant churches through himself risking his life and leading men who personally made and baptized enough disciple to form a minyan of believers, committin it to the Lord for its prosperity. not possibly or quite likely refer to one local assembly of God, or at the outside a plurality with the quality distributive to a typical individual church.

. No, the Jerusalem assembly was the type and prototype for each church to come: singular, independent, autonomous, immersionist, founded by the Holy Ghost and conferring church unity on 120 local disciples, with the government by a plurality of elders, having several representative coequal Bible students and speakers, and appointed deacons to be accountable for and oversee the distribution of common resources. It answered to Christ alone for its direction, and appointed no permanent clergy or vicar or Popish clergy with sharp lines drawn, other than that of the original disciple-Apostles. When they were dead, the Apostolic Age was done.

It is my contention that they expected a local assembly of Christ-followers to essentially replicate this model, with each body of Christ to take shape according to its own leading by the Holy Ghost.

In the beginning formative days of Apostles executing their commission (which was to personally make, baptize, and instruct disciples) the application of the doctrine of the Apostles personally received from Jesus their Master and personal supervisor of their progress was being inscripturated. When that work was finished, that of eyewitnesses personally instructed by Jesus and commissioned by Him, the God-breathed content of the New Testament canon was completed. When that completion was accomplished the flow of special revelation was completed, and that which was in part was done away: the gift of prophecies was negated; he practice of tongues ceased of themselves through misuse and lack of relevance; and the Providential exposure of some secret or hidden knowledge by intuition and not deductive discovery disappeared because it was no longer an effective way to accomplish the advancement of the Kingdom by relying on mysterious and arcane ways outside of the plain Word of The Lord.

In none of this did the instrumentality of a supralocal administration, as typified by today's catholicity, play any role in the development of the primitive churches. Their numbers advanced rapidly and broadly through the dynamics of individual evangelism as ordained by the Risen Christ, and not by the ecclesiology established for a theocracy under the Mosaic Law, now over.

Though the social power derived from theistic Platonism can be impressive in magnitude and effect, the concentration of too much carnal power in too few hands sabotoges the entire meaning of the spirit of the Gospel, which is the reliance of the individual on the Might of his Savior alone, and not on dependence on the power of money and/or politics.

In the primitive churches, there was not a hint of practical catholicity employed in planting or growing the local churches. To say otherwise is to grossly overstate the unifying importance of the Apostle-led travelling bands of evangelists. -----------
"Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts" (Zech. 4:6 AV)

The Holy Ghost is the resurrection power of the prayerful, doctrinally pure independent local church, for the purposes through which its Head, The Lord Jesus Christ, wishes to accomp;lish mighty things in its age and community.

This is not possible under the philosophy and carnality of the catholic system, IMHO.

[imardmd1]

But he didn’t, because Jesus saved him despite his flaws. That’s why I love him and his Master. Jesus saved me, too. The day is coming when —

[Resettozero]

Post 766 is one to be published far and wide.

Well, after a little proofreading and editing.

That post is ready for distribution.

And it pinpoints how some assemblies of Christians are still being formed today and in recent times too. And this is where the catholic history of prots just doesn’t wash. It just isn’t the way the RCs say it is with all these non-RCC gatherings to worship and minister as pleasing to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Also, reading this post wows me on just how much Jesus finished during His incarnation as Son of Man. Ya know, history just wouldn’t be the same without Him.

[Mark17]

Good post bro. It was very encouraging.

[Resettozero]

Then -- some (or seemingly most?) will just shine it on, like nothing was said to them concerning the issue, that is if they do not reply chiefly with not much of anything more than spitballs, and spite.

I guess it's too much to ask for them to acknowledge that one of their little pet theories was just shredded before their very eyes, lol.

Later yet, these same persons will yet again produce the same or similar assertions (it is interesting to see how the claims can morph, or change over time) which had been well enough falsified, shown to be not true, if but not entirely true as those claims were presented, or shown to have been spurious claims, faulty reasoning, or otherwise erroneous assumptions and assertions.

None of the above stops some of *them* (there is always a notorious *them* or infamous *they*, regardless of which side of what *things* or considerations a person is on) from repeating the aforementioned described as if nothing had ever been produced in refutation of those same claims.

It's true. It's everyday life on the Free Republic Religion Forum we all love to hate.

I need to sit down.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“When it’s early December and totally dark at 5:40PM, something is very very wrong with the world’s marking of time. Very wrong. “

Or wrong with clocks, the invention of man - after the fall!!!

[imardmd1]

I’ve heard and said it so many times in English. I think I’d like to hear it in Choctaw —

[af_vet_1981]

Don't neglect to recognize that when Barnabas came, he was sent because the ministry was already there and functioning, planted by several predecessers to Barnabas, and was obviously large, congregational, and non-denominational. Likely they at that time had no church house.

Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.

At this point only Jews are mentioned, those Jews who spoke Aramaic/Hebrew and those who were Hellenized and spoke Greek. They most likely worshipped in synagogues. As soon as the founding church in Jerusalem heard, they sent Barnabas.

Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

After Barnabas came to represent the Apostles many more believed in Antioch. Barnabas went to get Saul. Then those in Antioch are first called a church and they were taught by Barnabas and Saul for a whole year. Imagine, genuine apostolic teaching with a genuine Apostle and brethren who, most likely, had actually seen and heard the Messiah. Genuine prophets came from Jerusalem and Antioch sent money to relieve the church at Jerusalem because they loved them.

[af_vet_1981]

While I don't define "Apostolic church" it appears that the foundational Antioch assembly was already in place, after the style of patterning the local assembly's operation on the prototype model brought from Jerusalem by its former congregants--following the doctrine of the Apostles, breaking bread from house to house, personal and corporate prayer and evangelism, and answering to no one but its Head, the Lord Jesus Christ--as is proper for any genuine local congregation--and not to some other group external to the local assembly.

They did answer to Jerusalem, in unity and affection. Klal Yisroel; It is a concept foreign and strange to all the separated Christians among the nations for quite some time but it revolves around the second greatest commandment. They also answered to Saul and Barnabas who appointed elders. They spent a lot of time in Antioch.

[af_vet_1981]

I love Peter, too, especially when he submits himself to be led by the Holy Ghost, which was not always. He was inconsistent, fallible, and openly admitted it Jesus did chasten him for coming up with Satanic ideas on one occasion. I love him that he could admit he was wrong, and seek forgiveness. I love him for pointing out to the fellow Jews of the Diaspora that Paul, who had braced and corrected him, was a reliable teacher of difficult doctrine, much further theologically trained than himself, and wise to consult when undiscipled Scripture-twisters needed as wise response. I love him for his bitter tears when he illustrated to himself that he was one of the biggest blowhards of all time. I love him when he failed to understand the import of his role on future generations at a crisis moment of life, and said, "I go a-fishin'," and took away his pals to fish with him, and that when the risen Jesus was still walking around strengthening the brethren. I love him that he was able to bring his self-serving bent under control when the risen Jesus asked him "Peter, agape (sovereignly prefer me above self and others) thou me? And Peter humbly, tentatively responded,"Lord, I phileo (have affection toward) thee. I love Peter when he laid his life on the block, and in the midst of glossolallia-overcome drunken-sounding feasters, mounted the wall, shook his fist at thousands of diehard religionist and shouted,"with your wicked hands you have crucified and slaughtered my Rabbi, my Savior, my Jesus, the Messiah of our people! What are you going to do about that!" I love the broken Peter. In my own way, I've been there. However, Romanists "love" him blindly, inordinately, and as a totem to affirm their misdirected church polity, one arising from Platonism of its "Church Fathers" and not from the Scripture record itself, nor actually from Peter himself. This false narrative of Peter has to be deconstructed so that his real example of Jesus making something out of the simplest undependable fisherman can encourage a simple, uncomplicated, workman of our day to respond to the patient, agape-loving Lord Jesus. Y'all do not love Peter the way I do. I just don't idolize him nor pray to him, nor think that he was an expert in church government. Don't burden the memory of him with this false interpretation of what he and his fellow Apostles were trained to do: to carry out the Great Commission, abiding in the doctrine and fellowship exemplified in the Apostles, in the breaking of artos in the Remembrance supper, and in prayer. And assembling when the church house doors are opened, as they did at the Temple. You ought to study Peter's life more, and revere him less.

This seems to me to be a false profession of love, a polemic sermon that is not genuine. I turn instead to the example of blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta or St Gianna Beretta Molla.

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

[imardmd1]

They did answer to Jerusalem, in unity and affection.

Unity of doctrine and purpose, OK. Answer to them as a subordinate governed from Jerusalem? I think not, and not a quality to be cultured. They needed no intercessor.

[boatbums]

Yet I can agree with the poster on this one point: When it's early December and totally dark at 5:40PM, something is very very wrong with the world's marking of time. Very wrong.

Why does it make it "wrong" just because it is dark before 6 p.m. - in the winter? It doesn't get dark in the summer until close to 10 p.m. and that has to do with the tilting of the earth on its axis towards or away from the sun depending upon the hemisphere. In Australia, right now, it IS summer! I think in the interest of order, having a universal way to know current year, month, day and time is far more beneficial than some needless worry about the way of marking time being demonic or bad.

[Elsie]

... Galileo's indictment by the Roman Tribunal was flatly unjust and fueled by the jealousy of rival academics.

Poorly catechized; no doubt...

Jesus' indictment by the Roman Tribunal was flatly unjust and fueled by the jealousy of rival theologians.

[Elsie]

After a while, with some of these people -- I tend to lose my sense of humor, and patience too.

But you are getting much better at self control.

Like the poor; there will always be the Baghdad Bob's among us; spouting all kinds of 'facts' that fly in the face of evidence.

[Elsie]

Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

Galatians 2:11
When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.