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?
Didn’t you hear? Catholics engage in cannibalism! Yes, I remember the blood dripping from Grandma’s mouth when she ate another Baptist during the eucharist...
It's amazing how many of you do not.
I have found most of the regular posters, like Dr. Eckleburg, Quix, Silverlings, etc, do understand exactly what Roman Catholism teaches and that is what you find to be so frustrating.
Many times.
From earnestly serious people.
That’s precisely the problem. They do not.
If you think they do, then YOU do not.
What ridiculous gymnastics lead you to think He would?
None, but if you think you have eternal life by eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood, than you are ignoring the verse which states that we are to live by Him as He lived by the Father and that was spiritually, not eating bread and drinking wine that is magically made into Christ's body and blood.
The Lord's supper is a rememberance of what He did on the Cross and that He is coming back.
Well, you might want to actually show they do not, because the fact is, they do.
50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: 55He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
How many times does He have to say it?
If that's not enough, Matthew, Mark and Luke ALL tell us
Matthew 26: 26And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
Then there's St. Paul:
1Corinthians 10:16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord ?
1 Corinthians 11: 23For 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. 24And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
Now, I have read the Scriptures. "Searched them", you might say. Repeatedly, extensively, prayerfully, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Is this not what we are called to do?
I read all of this, and the whole business of "symbolic" interpretations of the Holy Eucharist are nothing but straw and dust to me.
And then ... I read the Fathers, and see that the Church has always read the Scriptures as teaching a Real Presence ... no mere symbolism ... and I know then, that that must be the right interpretation.
If you wish to offer an alternative interpretation, that's your right. Remember, though, that your interpretation is no more authoritative or magisterial than mine.
They do that with virtually every post they make about Catholicism. Misrepresentations, false witness, distortions, sneering derision.
You yourself (it was you, wasn't it?) quoted the notorious Catholic-hating Ian Paisley and falsely claimed it was from a papal encyclical, then refused to apologize when proof of your act was offered.
Traditions of Men.
You can follow Jean Cauvin, I will follow Christ.
I have found that those folks have a longstanding habit of distorting Christian doctrine and misrepresenting the history of the Church ... whether they simply don't know any better or do it deliberately, I can't say. That would be mind-reading.
Try one of these:
In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals. (De Doct. Chr. 2:9)
Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud. (De Pastore, 11)
All those things which in times past our ancestors have mentioned to be done toward mankind and have delivered unto us: all those things also which we see and deliver to our posterity, so far as they pertain to the seeking and maintaining true religion, the Holy Scripture has not passed over in silence. (Ep. 42)
Whatever our Saviour would have us read of his actions and sayings he commanded his apostles and disciples, as his hands, to write. (De Consensu Evang. 1:ult.)
Let them [the Donatists] demonstrate their church if they can, not by the talk and rumor of the Africans; not by the councils of their own bishops; not by the books of their disputers; not by deceitful miracles, against which we are cautioned by the word of God, but in the prescript of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the verses of the Psalms, in the voice of the Shepherd himself, in the preaching and works of the evangelists; that is, in all canonical authorities of the sacred Scriptures. (De Unit. Eccl. 16)
He was a Catholic after all and was faithful to his Church unless they strayed from Scripture!
Remember, novel ideas such as the equality (actually superiority) of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium hadn't yet been invented.
Well, a few examples would suffice.
If you do not have solid proof that they have misrepresented Catholic Doctrine, than you are just blowing smoke.
Protestants seem to think they know Christian beliefs better that the Christians do.
The disconnect with reality is stunning ... I don't know if it's even possible to have any sort of rational discussion with them.
Folks are entitled to their own opinions. It's a free country.
When they insist on making up their own set of "facts" they go beyond the pale of civilised discussion.
"Sola scriptura" for example.
Exactly! Might as well just go butt your head up against a stone wall as argue with these folks!
I know. I have a son-in-law who trained at the same “Bible School” as James White. They are incorrigible bigots. And they hate Catholics above all others.
You can look up the examples yourself. They are legion.
Every time they accuse the Church of complicity with genocidal regimes, they misrepresent the history of the Church. Again, examples are legion. Look them up.
And that is sufficient proof all by itself.
And round and round we go. They post misrepresentations, we state so, others demand proof, we provide it; repeat. That is argument by attrition.
Yep. It's the same tactic as the MSM uses on practically any topic. Keep repeating the same falsehoods ... until folks get sick of refuting them, then claim "victory". It's "Propaganda 101".
FYI: James White, the author of the lead article, and so admired by Gamecock, has a sister who converted to Catolicism. I think this is what ticked him off so much that he went crazy:
A Goodbye To My Brother
August 19, 2002
I got your letter today. . .the one that ends with goodbye and refers to me as Mrs. Bonds. It’s been a rough couple of years, hasn’t it?
You know, it wasn’t always this way between us. In fact, despite some difficult childhood memories, I have some wonderful memories of you and me growing up. I remember when you were about four years old and you asked me to marry you. I thought it was funny, but I didn’t laugh at you. I knew it was just the admiration of a little innocent brother. I took it as a compliment. I gently explained that brothers and sisters couldn’t be married, but that someday God would have a fine wife for you. Kelli has been no disappointment.
I remember the day you got hurt on the way back from the barn. I remember feeling so responsible and so worried as you lay in Mom’s arms and bled on the way to the hospital. If only I had been a more careful sister, you would not have ended up in harm’s way.
I remember the day we went visiting at a friend’s house and you decided to try out the middle of the road. I can still hear Mom’s hysterical cries as she called after you to get out of the road. I also remember the way you covered your ears with your hands and walked all the more tenaciously away from her.
I remember teaching you things that you were eager to learn, like writing and chess and tennis (ok I was a lousy tennis teacher) and how it was such a humbling thing to teach you something knowing you would excel at it immediately and I would never again win at chess. But it was a joy to teach you.
I remember that summer after I got my drivers license when you had a little job and so did I, and we spent all our money at Christian Emporium on Imperials records (the big black things that came before CD’s for you yunguns) and posters. I remember our ten trips to see Star Wars and watching to see how many mistakes we could find.
It breaks my heart to know that we have been separated by circumstances neither of us asked for. As long as I live I will long for and pray for healing in our relationship. But I have come to the point where I realize that if that is ever to happen it will not come as a result of anything I say or do. It will be a grace of God. I am open to it, are you?
See, I still see you running down that road with your hands over your ears, stubbornly not heeding the calls of your Mother. She wants only what is best for you. She wants your safety and salvation. But you will not hear her and you dig your heels into the road and stomp away in rejection of her care. It is into her prayerful care that I commit you James.
To continue our back and forth arguments is wrong. It is an occasion for sin for us both. I agree that further discussion is useless. But, as I agree with your goodbye, I tuck you gently into the Sacred Heart of Jesus and commit you and our family to Him.
Good bye Jimmy.
Patty
Back to Conversion Story of Patty Patrick Bonds
I’m glad you posted that.
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.