Posted on 04/04/2008 11:01:22 AM PDT by Gamecock
Last week I received the following e-mail, and I felt it would be best to share my response here on the blog.
Dear Mr. White, For someone considering converting to Catholicism, what questions would you put to them in order to discern whether or not they have examined their situation sufficiently? Say, a Top 10 list. Thanks.
When I posted this question in our chat channel a number of folks commented that it was in fact a great question, and we started to throw out some possible answers. Here is my "Top Ten List" in response to this fine inquiry.
10) Have you listened to both sides? That is, have you done more than read Rome Sweet Home and listen to a few emotion-tugging conversion stories? Have you actually taken the time to find sound, serious responses to Rome's claims, those offered by writers ever since the Reformation, such as Goode, Whitaker, Salmon, and modern writers? I specifically exclude from this list anything by Jack Chick and Dave Hunt.
9) Have you read an objective history of the early church? I refer to one that would explain the great diversity of viewpoints to be found in the writings of the first centuries, and that accurately explains the controversies, struggles, successes and failures of those early believers?
8) Have you looked carefully at the claims of Rome in a historical light, specifically, have you examined her claims regarding the "unanimous consent" of the Fathers, and all the evidence that exists that stands contrary not only to the universal claims of the Papacy but especially to the concept of Papal Infallibility? How do you explain, consistently, the history of the early church in light of modern claims made by Rome? How do you explain such things as the Pornocracy and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church without assuming the truthfulness of the very system you are embracing?
7) Have you applied the same standards to the testing of Rome's ultimate claims of authority that Roman Catholic apologists use to attack sola scriptura? How do you explain the fact that Rome's answers to her own objections are circular? For example, if she claims you need the Church to establish an infallible canon, how does that actually answer the question, since you now have to ask how Rome comes to have this infallible knowledge. Or if it is argued that sola scriptura produces anarchy, why doesn't Rome's magisterium produce unanimity and harmony? And if someone claims there are 33,000 denominations due to sola scriptura, since that outrageous number has been debunked repeatedly (see Eric Svendsen's Upon This Slippery Rock for full documentation), have you asked them why they are so dishonest and sloppy with their research?
6) Have you read the Papal Syllabus of Errors and Indulgentiarum Doctrina? Can anyone read the description of grace found in the latter document and pretend for even a moment that is the doctrine of grace Paul taught to the Romans?
5) Have you seriously considered the ramifications of Rome's doctrine of sin, forgiveness, eternal and temporal punishments, purgatory, the treasury of merit, transubstantiation, sacramental priesthood, and indulgences? Have you seriously worked through compelling and relevant biblical texts like Ephesians 2, Romans 3-5, Galatians 1-2, Hebrews 7-10 and all of John 6, in light of Roman teaching?
4) Have you pondered what it means to embrace a system that teaches you approach the sacrifice of Christ thousands of times in your life and yet you can die impure, and, in fact, even die an enemy of God, though you came to the cross over and over again? And have you pondered what it means that though the historical teachings of Rome on these issues are easily identifiable, the vast majority of Roman Catholics today, including priests, bishops, and scholars, don't believe these things anymore?
3) Have you considered what it means to proclaim a human being the Holy Father (that's a divine name, used by Jesus only of His Father) and the Vicar of Christ (that's the Holy Spirit)? Do you really find anything in Scripture whatsoever that would lead you to believe it was Christ's will that a bishop in a city hundreds of miles away in Rome would not only be the head of His church but would be treated as a king upon earth, bowed down to and treated the way the Roman Pontiff is treated?
2) Have you considered how completely unbiblical and a-historical is the entire complex of doctrines and dogmas related to Mary? Do you seriously believe the Apostles taught that Mary was immaculately conceived, and that she was a perpetual virgin (so that she traveled about Palestine with a group of young men who were not her sons, but were Jesus' cousins, or half-brothers (children of a previous marriage of Joseph), or the like? Do you really believe that dogmas defined nearly 2,000 years after the birth of Christ represent the actual teachings of the Apostles? Are you aware that such doctrines as perpetual virginity and bodily assumption have their origin in gnosticism, not Christianity, and have no foundation in apostolic doctrine or practice? How do you explain how it is you must believe these things de fide, by faith, when generations of Christians lived and died without ever even having heard of such things?
And the number 1 question I would ask of such a person is: if you claim to have once embraced the gospel of grace, whereby you confessed that your sole standing before a thrice-holy God was the seamless garment of the imputed righteousness of Christ, so that you claimed no merit of your own, no mixture of other merit with the perfect righteousness of Christ, but that you stood full and complete in Him and in Him alone, at true peace with God because there is no place in the universe safer from the wrath of God than in Christ, upon what possible grounds could you come to embrace a system that at its very heart denies you the peace that is found in a perfect Savior who accomplishes the Father's will and a Spirit who cannot fail but to bring that work to fruition in the life of God's elect? Do you really believe that the endless cycle of sacramental forgiveness to which you will now commit yourself can provide you the peace that the perfect righteousness of Christ can not?
Regarding perseverence, I Timothy has something to say as well:
I Timothy 4: 16
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.
Ah, I see. My apologies for misunderstanding. Yes, I do believe that that doctrine would qualify as one pretty much universally held.
Good reference! Yes, that applies as well.
Since there are two readings of scripture and one of the Gospel in every mass, what was she listening to in Church all those years?
I see no difference between HE WHO CANNOT BE NAMED and this, other than the level of sophistication of the attack.
Isn't it funny the Catholic Christians post positive posts of people finding Christ, and your lot of supposed Christians spend all your time posting negative stories about other Christians.
Bigotry is alive and well and flourishing on FR.
The "Johnny come lately" doctrine was the equality of "Sacred Tradition" and the "Magisterium" with Scripture.
I replied specifically to Aquinasfan because I seem to recall him participating in threads where the same false charge was made and refuted. His silence is deafening.
I don’t have to attack Wyclif and Hus. Their actions handle that sufficiently.
Augustine in his heretical years said a lot of things; he did however, acknowledge the Catholic Church as the pillar of truth, not Scripture.
Yeah, it SHOCKED ME, too, when I first found it - and I TOO thought it must have been fake - photoshopped - but in fact, sadly, it was well reported by reliable sources.
I was baptized Catholic, then confirmed Lutheran. All the rest of my family is still Catholic. Luther’s expose on the corruption & apostasy of the RCC was quite enlightening (get the book “Here I Stand”) & he was almost single-handedly responsible for the Reformation movement. Quite a staggering turn of events - the fact that one man in the middle ages would have such an impact on Christianity. Also, if you have not studied the history of the King James Bible, I suggest you do. I believe it was Wycliff who was burned at the stake in Britain in defense of his precursor version of the KJB. God promised his true Word would be preserved for all generations & it is - but beware of the corrupt modern versions. I believe Satan is creeping in via the “Politically Correct NIV version & some other ones.
You might also want to check out some of the articles of this website, which is where I found that picture of the Kissing Pope. They were written from a Baptist perspective, but I find most of them quite interesting, especially the ones about the apostasy of the RCC, Mary, the Saints, etc.
http://focusonjerusalem.com/intro.html
Best,
Beloved Levinite
Depends if I worked the night shift the night before. But since I got my Catechism from the Church and one of my three Bibles from the Church, (given to me by the Priest), They encourage you to put in more than an hour a week. The Mass is more than the Bible, it is the fullness of Christ in the Eucharist.
Or, as HE WHO CANNOT BE NAMED calls it, The Death Cookie.
“Since there are two readings of scripture and one of the Gospel in every mass, what was she listening to in Church all those years?”
The question remains.
IrishCatholic,
Whay say ye to this? “Pope John Paul II Kissing The Koran”
http://focusonjerusalem.com/popekissingkoran.html
Understand now? It makes no difference who taught Sola Scriptura, the fact it was taught hundreds of years prior to Luther is clear evidence of "historical precedent" is it not?
Incidentally, Pope John Paul II apparently thought better of Hus than you do.
Augustine in his heretical years said a lot of things; he did however, acknowledge the Catholic Church as the pillar of truth, not Scripture.
Really? You don't mean this do you?
"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so." Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.
Better yet, prove your claim.
*grinz* My deepest and most sincere of apologies for being unable to quit my day job~ Terribly sorry! (Note to self: Talk to boss and ask if I can have access to computer so as to check posts!!!!)
My, my, why do so many Roman Catholics seem to take everything personally!
That was a general statement, not one personally directed to you as such.
All my post was about was that even back then, even as arrogant as that pope might have been, even HE acknowledge what people here have said Catholics do not. That other people, of other denominations, are/can be saved.
Well, in doing so he is rejecting clear scripture that states otherwise (Acts.4:12), just like Billy Graham, who believes the same heresy.
So, no one is 'picking' on Roman Catholics for believing in yet another heresy.
***Understand now? It makes no difference who taught Sola Scriptura, the fact it was taught hundreds of years prior to Luther is clear evidence of “historical precedent” is it not?***
It is true that Luther didn’t make it up.
***Incidentally, Pope John Paul II apparently thought better of Hus than you do.***
Maybe, maybe not. I’m not sure.
***”I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.” ***
Thus, my statement. The Gospels are true because the Church says that they are.
Nice tagline, isn’t it?
It's amazing how many of you do not.
It's equally amazing how many of you lie about it.
Too late!!! I already converted. I’m as happy as a hog in mud. :0)
Well, anyone reading Jn.6 would note that Christ said we are to live by Him as He was living by the Father (vs.57).
I don't remember Christ ever eating the Fathers flesh or drinking His blood.
Must be one of the Roman Catholic scriptures that never made it into the Bible.
But Christ did say that it is the spirit which quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, the words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life (vs.63).
So, bread and wine represent what Christ did on the Cross, they have nothing to do with actually eating His real body or drinking His blood.
Do this in rememberance of me (1Cor.11:24
What ridiculous gymnastics lead you to think He would?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.