All Roads Lead To Rome (A Southern Baptist's Journey into the Catholic Church)

Confiteordeo ^ | John David Young

[NYer]

I know that I was not the first Protestant to learn the truth about the Catholic Church; I am sure that this is a story you could probably hear from countless other people, changing only the names and places. I know that many have walked the road that I have; that road which leads home, to Rome!

I was born in 1975 to two God-fearing Southern Baptists in Dallas, Texas. My father had grown up Methodist, but became Baptist when he married my mother in 1968. From what my father has said, his family was mostly Methodist. His father and his paternal grandfather were both Thirty-Third Degree Masons. My father's paternal grandfather's father was even the founding pastor of the First Methodist Church of Dallas. Though I have heard the history of my father's family, I myself knew only a very few of them. A great majority of my mother's family was Baptist, with a smattering of Methodists here and there. I am fairly certain of one thing, however: there were no Catholics.

Since a very young age, I can remember going to church and Sunday school on Sunday mornings to listen to the preacher and my Sunday school teachers talk about Jesus, and how He would save us from the fires of Hell. Every Sunday morning, my parents and I would sing in church and listen to the sermons. Though we didn't usually attend the Sunday evening services, I knew that once a month on a Sunday evening, an event called The Lord's Supper would happen. At this Lord's Supper, the preacher would begin passing around large round trays made of chrome. One of the trays had tiny crackers on it, and the other one had little cups of grape juice. I can remember that before I was baptized I wanted to take part in this event, but my parents would not let me. They did not explain why I shouldn't, other than I hadn't been baptized yet. Just as it is in the Catholic Church, Baptism is an initiation of sorts into the active life of the church community. (Of course, to a Catholic, it is that and much more. I would not know this until much later.) A few years went by, and when I was about eight years old, I decided that I wanted to be "saved" and get baptized. To get "saved," you would pray a little prayer like, "Dear Jesus, please come into my heart and forgive me of all of my sins. I ask you to become my personal Lord and Savior. All these things I pray in Jesus' name. Amen." From a Baptist viewpoint, being baptized is only a symbol, and nothing more. In other words, for a Baptist, baptism isn't really necessary for salvation. After I got baptized, I was able to partake in the Lord's Supper. I asked my father what the Lord's Supper meant, and he said that it represented the body and the blood of Jesus. That is to say, it represented the sacrifice that He made for us on the Cross. My father then read the passage from a King James Bible that told about the establishment of what we called The Lord's Supper: "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:19-20, KJV)" I asked why it was that we only did this once a month, and even then at the evening service (most people went to the morning service). My father thought about it for a minute, then he said that the Catholics do it every Sunday at all of their services. (In actuality, most Catholic churches have at least one Mass every day except Good Friday; Catholics are bound to attend Mass only on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.) He said that perhaps we do it less often so as not to imitate them. As you can imagine, I did not understand this for what it was. The Baptists, and many other Protestant groups, were concerned that the "Lord's Supper" would become the focus of the church service rather than the sermon. Though there are some Protestant churches that have communion every Sunday, none of them place the same importance on the Eucharist that the Catholic Church does.

My father had nothing personal against Catholics; in fact, of all the people in my family, he probably liked them more than anyone else in our family did. My mother had a problem with the Catholic Church, but if you asked her why, she really couldn't tell you. She would give the same rote answers that many Protestants had been giving for centuries. "They worship the Pope, Mary, and the Saints." "They think a person can forgive their sins rather than God." She couldn't explain why she believed these things, or in the case of the last statement, she couldn't explain why a person couldn't say that your sins are forgiven. When I finally asked her why she thought a person could not forgive sins after the Bible said that Christ gave that power to the Apostles, she said she'd just rather confess directly to God. I believe that the real reason that she did not like Catholicism was because her father did not like it. I really believe that was the main reason. For some reason, my maternal grandfather (whom we have always called "Smittie") has a fairly wide streak of anti-Catholicism in him. Even as a child, I remembered him complaining every time the Pope was on television or in the newspaper. Whenever we were at a restaurant or shopping and we saw someone with a large family (four or five kids or more), he would often joke that they must be Catholic. The ironic thing about his dislike of the Church is that virtually all of his friends (excepting those from his church) since he became an adult were Catholic. I don't think that he had anything personal against individual Catholics; it was the Church that bothered him. Smittie was in England during World War II, and he found many friends there, all Catholic. He always spoke highly of them. He missed them all very much, too; all but a few of them had been killed in the war and those few survivors had died since. To this day, I do not know what makes Smittie think that the Church is somehow diabolical or at the very least, misled. I've often wondered if it had something to do with his association with Freemasonry. By the way, he is a Third Degree Mason (Master Mason), though he has not been an active Mason for many years.

Now you can see where I came from. A Southern Baptist upbringing with lots of anti-Catholic influence from just about everyone in my family and my church, with the possible exception of my father. If, when I was in high school, someone had told me that I would one day become Catholic, I would have literally laughed in his face. By the time I was fifteen, I had truly learned to have contempt for the Catholic Church. Not Catholic people, you understand, just the beliefs of and possibly the clergy of the Church. I figured that most Catholics were simply misled, and too ignorant to realize it. After all, "everyone knows" that Catholics are forbidden to read the Bible, right?! [a common Protestant myth]

I entered high school and turned fifteen at about the same time, and high school was a much bigger place than the middle school where I had attended. I decided to get involved in some of the clubs in school to make friends, and one of the clubs was called Raiders for Christ (the Raiders was the school mascot). This club was made up of mostly Protestant and "Evangelical" Christians of various denominations. In the meetings, we talked about "witnessing" to people, getting "saved," and how we should carry our Bible around as a good example to others. I decided that I would try to talk to people in classes and invite them to church with me. From some people, I got a fairly good response. Some would say they had already been "saved," and currently attended another church. Some would say that they had been "saved" and that they felt that church was not necessary because they read the Bible often anyway. I had no problem with these people. However, I ran into some that caused problems. As you can guess, these were the Catholics.

Many Catholics that I met did not know their faith very well, but they did go to Mass every Sunday. I derided them for not knowing why they believed the things that they believed. I said that it was apparent that the Catholic Church was based on blind faith and that reason was nowhere to be found. I told several people that if they did not renounce the Catholic Church and accept Christ as their "personal Lord and Savior," that they would most certainly go to Hell. I'm sure that these people did not appreciate what I was saying, and I am quite thankful that they were more charitable to me than I was to them. One particular Catholic with whom I made friends was a teacher at the school. In fact, she was one of the sponsors of an extra-curricular organization of which I was a member for three years. She knew her faith VERY well, and for that I am glad. I admit, however, it was quite frustrating at times. After all, I couldn't win a debate with her. While she did not convert me to Catholicism, she did put me on the right track. I quit harassing the Catholics so much and tried to see them as fellow Christians rather than "the enemy."

I graduated from high school, still a Baptist, though not a particularly devout one anymore. I didn't go to church very often, and I had begun to lose faith; not so much in God as in being Baptist. I felt that there were contradictions between what the Bible says and what the Baptists teach. For instance, Baptists teach that once you are "saved," you are always "saved." That is practically a dogma of the Baptist Church, as well as some other Protestant churches: "once saved, always saved." The problem here, is that there is no support in the Bible for this position. Scripture does refute this position: "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. (1 Corinthians 10:12, KJV)" (If you notice, I quote from the King James Version of the Bible because it is the universally accepted version of the Bible in Protestant churches.) Considering that a favorite saying of the Baptists was "No creed but the Bible," you can see why I was beginning to be skeptical. Here are some more (though certainly not all) doctrinal paradoxes:

The Baptist Myth	What the (King James) Bible Says
"Alcoholic beverages are inherently bad."	"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. (1 Timothy 5:23, KJV)" "So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. (John 4:46, KJV)"
"Dancing is bad."	"And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod. (2 Samuel 6:14, KJV)"
"Salvation (being saved? occurs in an instant."	"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Phillipians 2:12, KJV)"
"We only need Scripture, not traditions." (This is an attack on the Catholic belief in Sacred Tradition. It is a pillar of the Protestant Reformation known as Sola Scriptura)	"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6, KJV)"
"Everyone can interpret Scripture for him/herself." (In other words, we don’t need an authoritative body like the Magisterium, or teaching office, of the Catholic Church to interpret for us.)	"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20, KJV)"
"Faith alone, not works, will get you saved." (This is one of the other main principles of the Protestant Reformation: it is called Sola Fide)	"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (James 2:26, KJV)"

 

The list is seemingly endless, so I’ll stop here. As you can see, many of the beliefs of both the Protestant Reformation in general as well as the Southern Baptist Convention were at odds with the Bible. And not just any Bible, but even the one that the Protestants so cherished! (Rest assured, these verses are not much different in a Catholic Bible.)

At any rate, I was nineteen years old, and attending a major public university. I was exposed to many things that I had never been around before, mostly because my parents were somewhat over-protective of me. I felt quite far from God during my first year in college. Toward the end of my freshman year, my girlfriend from high school, whom I had been dating for over three years, and I broke up. I started dating a younger Catholic girl who lived in the Dallas area. Her uncle was actually a bishop in the northeastern United States. She was not particularly devout, but at the time, it didn’t matter to me. Actually, I figured that if we ended up together it would be easy to convert her to Protestantism and away from the Catholic Church. After we had been dating for about a month, her sister was graduating from high school, so I went to see her sister’s baccalaureate Mass. I had never been to a Mass before; I had been inside a Catholic church maybe once or twice before in my whole life. When I got home that night, I cried because I thought that since she was Catholic, she would be doomed to Hell if I couldn’t help her "see the light". However, the more I thought about what I had seen, the more intrigued I became.

First of all, the Mass was not what I had been told that it was: a pagan ceremony. To those of you reading this who are Catholic, this may seem humorous, but many Protestants, especially those leaning toward "fundamentalism," seem to think that Catholics are pagans or Satan worshippers or something along those lines. I don’t know where this myth got started, but I would sure love to put it to rest. For those of you not familiar with the Mass, here is the basic structure:

[wagglebee]

It is my understanding and belief that prior to the the rebuilding of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, that certain specific events MUST transpire and that this has not happened yet.

Do you have a specific citation for Catholic Church teachings against rebuilding the Temple?

[wagglebee]

I believe that there are plenty of places where Scripture can be confusing and SEEM conflicting and it can certainly be erroneously interpreted, but this error is a fault of the reader and not the Bible.

[LurkingSince'98]

Hey Its-

The phrase “Hocus-Pocus” you are using is a Protestant corruption of the Latin phrase: “In Hoc Est Corpus Meum”, which translates the words of the Lord: “This is My Body”.

I always find it interesting when protestants of any stripe (who rely so utterly on the inerrant word of the Bible) are the first to trash sacred words just because they are in Latin and spoken by an ordained Catholic priest.

In my sixty some years as a Catholic I believe I haven’t heard other Catholics spend even one minute commenting on the errancy of what protestants believe.

Lurking’

[Zionist Conspirator]

If you are so besmitten with fundamental Protestantism, you should become one. Then your complaints about Catholic interpretation of scripture that you post ad-naseum won't seem quite so bizarre. - Perhaps you are more comfortable being the "poor little minority vs. the masses of illiterate hayseeds". Ooops, you wrote that. I've also noticed that some Jews are quite adept at being bigots as well.

I'm not Jewish. I'm a Noachide, and like most American Noachides am the product of the rural Southern Bible Belt culture. In fact (and I get so tired of having to point this out) I actually converted to the Catholic Church over two decades ago and was a member for six years. Well, "member" implies that I belonged, and no "redneck" can really belong to the Catholic Church. I was tolerated because my feeble brain wasn't great enough to see how full of errors the Bible is.

But while we're on the subject, I doubt Jews would be very happy if the Pope tried to tell them what prayers they can say, so it seems strange that rabbis think they have that right to dictate to the Pope.

I am totally opposed to dictating internal changes in other people's religious beliefs while hypocrtically boasting of how "tolerant" and "non-proselytary" that one is. I would say that the Catholic Church deserves such treatment for claiming that Genesis is based on ancient middle eastern pagan mythology, but those liberal Jews who do all the screaming about "anti-Semitism" seem to believe that as well.

And no, Catholics are not anywhere near as obsessed with fundamentalists as the reverse. That's why articles like the one posted causes fits of rage in the usual suspects.

Let me tell you something. I grew up in the Fundamentalist Bible Belt, and while Fundamentalist Protestant theology certainly contradicts Catholic theology, blatant anti-Catholicism simply was not, and is not, present in the churches around here if for no other reason that there are no Catholics around here. Meanwhile, when I joined the Catholic Church I couldn't pick up a magazine or tract that didn't attack Fundamentalist Protestants, laugh at their ignorance, accuse them of "bigotry," and attacking the total inerrancy of the Bible. Did you know that the Catholic Diocese of Little Rock filed an amicus curae brief in support of the ACLU and its crusade against creationism, btw?

It is most tiresome to constantly here Catholics attack Protestants for their antinomianism when Catholics reject the holy G-d-dictated rituals and commandments of the Torah, or whine and cry about bigotry when their own ancestors in Europe said everything about the Jews that Fundamentalist Protestants now say about the Catholic Church and more. Payback's a *itch, ain't it?

Lastly, Israel is an independent nation, not the 51st state of the US. While I support Israel's right to exist and be secure, my support does not come from the ludicrous notion that it is my "job" to do so. And what of the many Hasidic Jews who were opposed to the formation of Israel?

Those groups were opposed to the idea of a secular Jewish state that would be just like all the other countries. And I think time has proven them right, at least as far as the Israeli government is concerned. When Mashiach HaMelekh comes and the Holy Temple rebuilt and the `Avodat HaQodesh (the Holy Temple Service) reinstated, then you will see what makes the Jewish Nation unique.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I believe that there are plenty of places where Scripture can be confusing and SEEM conflicting and it can certainly be erroneously interpreted, but this error is a fault of the reader and not the Bible.

Then the next time your co-religionists are saying that Genesis is "mythology" and mere religious parable, I suggest you confront them on it. Otherwise, don't complain to me when I do.

A good place to start would be Cammie's post #112 in this very thread. Why don't you take a look at it?

[Pyro7480]

Well, "member" implies that I belonged, and no "redneck" can really belong to the Catholic Church. I was tolerated because my feeble brain wasn't great enough to see how full of errors the Bible is.

And all those Cajun Catholics?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Where are you getting this idea that most Catholic Freepers believe in evolution?

I’m puzzled.

From the posts of Catholic FReepers (cammie's post #112 on this thread is one example). I'm puzzled how you can deny this.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Answer me this, ZC: Was Jesus a door? Literally a piece of wood with a doorknob on it?

LOL! So you admit that the "new testament" is so full of balderdash that it compels you to believe in a non-inerrant bible? Then that's your problem!

I suppose you don't interpret "this is my body; this is my blood" literally either?

[wagglebee]

I spend a great deal of time arguing with Darwinists about what I believe is the most dangerous aspect of Darwinism and that is eugenics. Here is a recent example:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1967691/posts

However, I steadfastly REFUSE to debate creation vs. evolution because I believe that the Darwinists have been using these debates for well over a century to divert attention from their evil satanic agenda. The western world has spent decades arguing evolution, and while this has been going on the atheistic left has overrun large portions of society with scarcely a notice. However, as I’ve already said, there are many places in the Bible that can be improperly read and interpreted and this is especially true of the Pentateuch.

[Alex Murphy]

The phrase “Hocus-Pocus” you are using is a Protestant corruption of the Latin phrase: “In Hoc Est Corpus Meum”, which translates the words of the Lord: “This is My Body”.

Fascinating!

[wagglebee]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Catholics (including Catholic FReepers, like Campion whom you pinged) are convinced that the Bible is inerrant only in matters of faith and morals

Are you sure you aren't confusing papal infallibility (which only extends to matters of faith and morals) with Biblical inerrancy?

[Pyro7480]

Actually, it’s “Hoc Est Enim Corpus Meum.”

[Alex Murphy]

Actually, it’s “Hoc Est Enim Corpus Meum.”

I sure hope nobody was making a sandwich when you posted that.

[Mad Dawg]

I think everybody’s safe. It would have had to have been

“Illud est enim corpus meum.”

[LurkingSince'98]

Pyro and Alex,

Apologies. I’m sure this was the reason I Flagged first-year Latin in my "yute".

But at least my heart is in the right place.

Regards,

Lurking’

[papertyger]

Some additional RCC Hocus-Pocus Works-Based Belief. Try faith. It works.

I did.

It didn't.

Now that I'm a Catholic, it does.

[Campion]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Catholics (including Catholic FReepers, like Campion whom you pinged) are convinced that the Bible is inerrant only in matters of faith and morals

Excuse me, I never said that, nor do I believe that, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't misrepresent my beliefs that way.

[Campion]

Fascinating!

FWIW, Wikipedia lists this as only one of several possible explanations of "hocus-pocus".

What's more interesting is their explanation of "abracadabra" as derived from the Aramaic for "making by speaking," allegedly a reference to God creating the world.

[NYer]

Are you trying to convince me, or yourself?

Since I don't need convincing, I posted this comment to you in my original response. I have now rephrased it to include you.

There will always be skeptics, like St. Thomas [and ItsOurTimeNow], who will not accept or believe until they have have seen (John 20:24-29).

Catholics take the Bible literally.

"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." -Luke 22:19-20

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." - John 6:51-56

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." - 1 Corinthians 10:16-17

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." - 1 Corinthians 11:23-29

These are His words, not mine or yours. I trust and believe in Him. So should you.

[cammie]

Answer my with a simple yes or no answer (i.e. save your teenage style snarkiness) and answer my question or we have nothing to discuss: Was Jesus literally a door?