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?
839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."
841 "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; (after the Jews) these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
It may be that very judgement that they are aware of that is playing a hand in their conversions.
Praise God she heard it!
I went through a similar experience with my father-in-law.
I’m a Protestant ...
I’m not Catholic.
Christ alone can save us.
We can lead others to Christ, by our witness, testimony, and example.
And then Christ saves them.
Did we have any part in their salvation?
So much similarity yet parties on both sides criticize the other when we have so much to do. Why does my resistance to following Catholic dogma and traditions make Catholics feel I am a heretic just as it is wrong of Protestants to criticize Catholics for their choice in executing their faith when we both believe in the one true Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
That will come to a surprise to these folks.
To hear or read of this Church being celebrated as "universal" or "conservative" when my experience is that it is neither is quite infuriating to me
Yes, and your painting of all Catholicism SOLELY based on your experience is infuriating to me. You got burned, and now you have to exact your revenge until you die. THAT IS NO WAY TO LIVE A LIFE!
Actually, you’ve managed to condense your thoughts very, very clearly. You have obviously thought long and hard.
You’ll forgive me if I do not answer immediatley. There is too much fodder for thought in your post to just give a facile answer which is what we are wont to do on a BBS.
I may or may not answer. I wanted understand your position. Sometimes, not even an answer is wanted or welcomed.
That's true, but God's word must be given a voice. I should have worded it slightly differently, but you got the point.
I know where you are coming from and as I’ve said before, I agree with your position on inerrancy and I wish people would listen to it. You probably wouldn’t like my views on Genesis 1 at all LOL, but I’ve been down the slippery slope of Biblical higher criticism long enough to know it’s the text I have to trust over my own interpretation thereof. The text says what it says. Now maybe we didn’t interpret something right, but the error lies in our heads, not in the text as written.
You may be surprised...I think people are coming around on the inerrancy score. There’s perhaps more intellectuals in the Catholic world willing to subscribe to it now than, say, 20-30 years ago. I think people will come around.
Perhaps. But it certainly does not redound to the Church's credit that it has not only downplayed inerrancy for over a hundred years, but even chosen to make limited inerrancy one of its defining characteristics (as opposed to Fundamentalist Protestantism).
It sounds like your cousin is one heck of a good Christian.
Yes, the Words he brings are Spirit and life. But you cannot, you *cannot* my friend, interpret this passage as negating what was said earlier. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you." Either you accept BOTH statements as literally true, or you are playing fast and loose with the Bible. You seem to want this passage above to cancel out the earlier one.
You don't believe Christ is in the habit of contradicting Himself do you?
The Catholic Church may have loved the Old high church South, but it has no use for the Bible Belt.
Yes, and your painting of all Catholicism SOLELY based on your experience is infuriating to me. You got burned, and now you have to exact your revenge until you die. THAT IS NO WAY TO LIVE A LIFE!
Then don't read my posts.
You know what, ZC? No it does not. You'll get no argument from me.
Thank you for listening to me.
I know you are Catholic, AB, as I also am.
I was just tweaking a little, and Always Right has come back to let me know that I should have gotten his point.
I am certainly in agreement that we need to lead others by our example, testimony and witness. Forgive me, AB, for reversing your order. I do think that example comes first. After that, the testimony and witness come across as not just words but deeds as well.
I only wish that Catholics would be more committed to making their faith known. It was the example, testimony and witness of a Catholic who was the instrument God used to bring me into the Church.
Well, no, before I became a Catholic I did not pay much attention to people who were not Catholics who made jeering, sneering, condescending remarks about the Catholic church. Heck, I didn’t even become a Habs fan because of the sneering of Leafs fans, although afterward that made it sweeter, especially when the Habs won Stanley Cups and the Leafs....well....
There was only one thing I considered when I forsook the Anglican church and its decision to cling to the old rugged [sex organ] and let the Cross go hang. And that was: “Is the Catholic faith, in its entirety, something I would be willing to die for? Do I believe it so strongly that if a Muslim with a sword or a smirking brat with a handgun said “Renounce your faith or die” to me, I’d die?
If a religion is worth dying for, it is worth living for. If you cannot live within it, you will not die for it.
And if your mind can be changed by carping, sneering and condescension from outside the gate, you are looking for popularity, not Christianity. I’d suggest you give up church altogether and go watch American Idol.
Sorry I think I missed something...were you taking issue with me or someone else?
2) Yes, a relatively few of us do not believe in one God, in whom are three distinct Persons (Father and Son and Holy Spirit) all of whom are equally God. And yet there are myriad other issues, of how we are saved, justified, sanctified, and what those terms mean, and what Grace is, and how it gets from God to us, etc. ad nauseaum. Christians have been wrestling with these issues, sometimes politely and sometimes at sword point, for almost two millenia.
That's not going to stop.
Still, we live in a secularized culture which denies not only all the things we disagree with each other about, but all the things we agree on as well.
I think we would be wise, on occasion, to step back and look at our vast areas of agreement ... and work to support each other.
The world out there, from secularists to communists to islamists, would dearly love to destroy us all.
I would like to know if the apostles ( Paul mainly ) every time he got together with a group of new or recent believers if communion was performed? I tend to doubt it. These early churches were all about learning about Christ and His promised return. I do think the act of communion was passed down and should be performed but not on a daily basis and surely not be denied to a person because they are not in your church.
Well said.
“If a religion is worth dying for”
No, but Christ is. It is not religion nor a church that saves you but a relationship with Jesus, as described in the Bible, no matter which church, if any, you attend.
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.