A Convert's Response to Friends

Though this issue is devoted to Mary, we thought it would be helpful to include this more general apologetics article written by a lay convert to his friends.

Because you are among several folks who are worried that we have fallen off the Christian cliff, I thought that this record of an interchange with Internet friends who had similar concerns might ease your anxiety about our salvation prospects. It is important to understand that we are not writing this to try to convert you, but to hopefully neutralize your prejudices so if any other friend converts, you can say "Gee Whiz, that is wonderful" as opposed to "You poor lost soul." Here is the interchange:

Friend: How can you join the Roman Catholic Church when the Pope has all that authority over you and what right has he to lead the Church anyhow?

Response: A marvelous question that many Evangelicals have and a critical question for the validity of the Catholic Church as the Church of Jesus Christ. To begin with, at Caesarea/Philippi at the rock above the source of the Jordan River and on which there was a statue of one of the Pagan Gods, Jesus Christ told Peter that, he, Peter was the rock, and on this rock, Jesus would build his Church as recorded in Mt:16, 18. Furthermore, Jesus gave him the Keys to the Kingdom, (vs.19), which is a reference back to Isaiah 22 referring to the office of Prime Minister. This essentially made Peter the first Vicar of Christ. In other words when the King gave the Keys to the Kingdom to the Prime Minister, it was meant to be for the office and to be handed on to the successors. Since then 262 Popes have succeeded Peter to this day. One more reference is helpful: at the end of the Book of John 21:17, Jesus, after asking Peter three times if he loved him, then told him to "feed my sheep".

Friend: Interesting, but where in the Bible is there evidence that Peter assumed his position as Prime Minister?

Response: Good question since we need to verify these claims either in the Bible or in the Church traditions. In the Book of Acts of the Apostles, Peter showed us that he was the Chief Apostle in several places: (1) In Ch. 1, Peter was in charge of filling the Office vacated by Judas; (2) after Pentecost in Ch. 2, it was Peter who explained the meaning of Pentecost to the people; (3) in Ch. 3 Peter healed the crippled beggar, then gave a long speech explaining the need to repent and believe; (4) in Ch. 4 Peter made the presentation to the Sanhedrin standing firm against their threats; (5) in Ch. 15 Peter led the first Jerusalem Council to settle a controversy when certain Jewish Christians demanded that the Gentiles be circumcised; and (6) in Ch. 10 Peter was given the vision by God to go to Cornelius and baptize him and his family. Peter went to Rome and with the help of Paul built the Christian body. It would take too long here for all of the references, but the first, second, third, fourth and later century fathers, in their writings, refer to Peter as the first Pope: i.e. Iraneous, Polycarp, Ignatius, Martyr, Origin, Augustine and others. Their letters are available for reading. (A good summary of these important references can be found in "Jesus, Peter and the Keys" (Queenship) by Butler, Dahlgren and Hess)

Friend: You exhausted me with that answer, and let’s suppose I reluctantly agree, but I plan to read the Church Fathers to verify your assertions because I have not been told about such proofs by my local pastor. But we still have problems: you people are not allowed to read the Bible.

Response: We hear that all the time and it persists from the old days when a) there were no Bibles to read, b) illiteracy prevailed, c) many printed Bibles contained both accidental and intentional misprints, and d) there was a fear that the same results would prevail as occurred in Protestantism. There are now estimated to be over 25,000 Christian denominations and groups in the world because of so many interpretations of the Bible. The Catholic Catechism, Article 3, clearly states that Catholics are encouraged to read and study the Bible. In fact, we had six different adult Bible Classes on the Acts of the Apostles at my Parish this fall and they will resume in the Spring.

Friend: I guess my sources have been incorrect or biased, certainly uninformed. But there is more. I understand that you Catholics have to try to work your way to heaven, and that is not Biblical according to my Bible. Also, you add tradition to your bag of tricks where we Evangelicals believe in salvation by Faith Alone and Bible Alone without the traditions of men.

Response: The cry of the Reformation was Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Yet the Bible states nowhere that we are saved by faith alone or that the only source of Christianity is the Bible alone. So neither of these solas are in the Bible. In fact James 2:24 clearly states that we are NOT saved by faith alone but by faith and works. This is confirmed in many places including Galatians 5:6 "faith working by charity." Second Timothy 3:16 is the verse most often quoted by Evangelicals to prove Bible Alone, but the letters to Timothy had not even been written until near the end of Paul’s tenure, so his reference was to the Old Testament. Paul did not say that the Old Testament scriptures were the only source, only that they were inspired and profitable. As to tradition, Catholics do not believe in traditions of men but in Sacred Tradition. An example is the Trinity which is not in the Bible per se. In the early centuries there was no final collection of letters called the New Testament so Christian Truth had to be passed on by Tradition. It was by word of mouth as Paul says in II Thessalonians 2:15, "follow the TRADITIONS I have taught you." We learn a great deal about the Traditions of the Church from the early Fathers. You will discover this when you read their writings. And it is interesting to read the last Chapter, verse 25 of the Book of John, where he talks about the many things that are not written. If you believe what he says you might conclude that the Bible is not the only source of truth. There is one caution, though, about reading the writings of the early Church Fathers (some of whom were witnesses of the disciples, i.e. Polycarp was a friend of John). The great Anglican convert, Cardinal John Newman, warned that you cannot remain Protestant if you read and study the history of the Church.

Friend: Frankly I don’t like the idea of a central Church and Pope telling me what to do.

Response: In this day and age no one seems to like to yield to authority; they would rather do their own thing, or whatever feels good. But remember that the Church is the body of Christ. And as the Vicar of Christ, the Pope is speaking for him. The interpretations as reproduced in the Catechism and in Encyclicals that are presented to the faithful serve to provide a proper understanding of doctrine. The encyclicals usually are written and the councils called as a result of heretic challenges as a means of clarification of the Biblical, Traditional, and Church view. For example, the Council of Jerusalem followed the circumcision question and the Council of Trent followed the Reformation heresies.

Friend: You seem to have an answer for everything and frankly I am startled to learn of your responses. There are many more problems, however. You have all of these so-called Sacraments whereas we don’t have to be bothered with them. Why don’t you tell me why they are necessary?

Response: All right, let’s explore them one at a time starting with Baptism—including Infant Baptism, which is always good for a debate. You will note in the Book of Acts that early Christians were Baptized after they repented and received Jesus. In Ch 16 Paul baptized the jailer and his entire family, as did Peter with the household of Cornelius who was the first Gentile Christian. We can assume that there were children in the family, thus infants were undoubtedly baptized. John 3:5 says that a man (pardon the male chauvinism) must be born again of the water and the spirit to enter the kingdom of heaven. The Catholic belief, based on Bible exegesis and Tradition is that water baptism removes original sin through the mystical combination of the water and the spirit.

Friend: I’ve got you on that one, as even Catholics believe that they are sinners. How could they be considered sinners if original sin was removed at Baptism?

Response: The Catholic Church teaches that God leaves us with concupiscence, which is the ability to sin as we go through life, otherwise we would all be robots. The challenge for mankind is to fight diligently to overcome the sinful desires and temptations in order to gain our place in God’s kingdom. He gives us a free will to accept or reject his grace, and it is only through God’s grace that we have the power to resist. If we lead a sinful life, God punishes us by letting us go, and in so doing we become addicted to whatever sin we choose and can lose our salvation. He will always allow us back into his flock, but only if we repent and sin no more, e.g. the Prodigal Son.

Friend: You are a difficult person to back into a corner, but let’s explore some more of your Sacraments. I understand marriage and am upset that many of the Evangelicals do not consider it a sacred vow, or covenant, with God. In that respect I am Catholic already. And Confirmation makes sense to me also. But there is this problem with the Eucharist. I am convinced that it is symbolic and I cannot go along with the idea of eating flesh and drinking blood. At our Church, we have communion once a month or so, which should suffice for a symbolic gesture. I am sure you agree with that, right?

Response: Wrong....the Eucharist seems to be difficult for you Evangelicals probably because you do not study your Bible in all the key places where it is explained. It started back when Abraham went to the High Priest Melchizedek who gave him bread and wine. And it is present in the Passover feast, and certainly it is very clear at the Last Supper as described in the Gospels. You will note as you read the early Church Fathers that not only was infant baptism followed, but the Eucharist was also celebrated with a belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ. To understand this you must read John 6, the entire chapter, very slowly and prayerfully. You will note in vs 50 that Jesus refers to the bread that comes down from heaven after the ascension. This is to calm their fears of cannibalism. So it is heavenly bread and blood that he is referring to. Six times in the chapter he tells them to eat his flesh and drink his blood and note that all but the twelve walk away. He did not say, "Hey fellows I did not mean it literally, come on back." No, he let them go. Don’t you think if it were meant to be a symbolic gesture he would have stopped them? The Eucharist is the heart of the Mass and we believe that Jesus Christ is present with us in the consecrated bread and wine. Even Martin Luther believed in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Friend: I guess I’ll have to read and study John 6 to verify your assertions. Evangelicalism is a lot simpler: all I have to do is say the Sinner’s prayer and I’m given a non-revocable ticket to heaven; have faith and I will automatically do good works, but whether or not I do good works, it doesn’t matter, as my salvation is imputed, as RC Sproul claims. Now for another point that you brought up. You brought it up, so don’t blame me. I have been told that the Mass is a pagan ritual and certainly not Biblical.

Response: I would certainly like to know who you have been talking to, for they certainly were not talking about the Roman Catholic Church. I hate to burst your bubble but according to the Bible your sense of security is a false one. The Bible is very clear about justification and sanctification being a journey that can lead us to salvation but it is also clear that we must work hard through God’s grace in obedience to His will throughout our life. Can you imagine the God of the Bible accepting a dedicated sinner, although claiming to be Born Again, who is unrepentant, into his kingdom? Even Paul talks about how he struggles to do good and fails and has to keep trying. Why would he bother if he already had his ticket? Regarding the Mass, it is what makes Catholicism so beautiful. Nearly every word in the Mass is from the Bible, except the Homily. Not only do we read from the Old and New Testaments but we sing the Psalms, the Lord’s Prayer and we repeat the Nicene Creed. And as an aside, have you ever noticed near the end of the Creed "one (not 25,000) Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? As stated above, there is a continuous apostolic succession of 262 Popes up to our present John Paul II. And have you ever encountered such a Holy Man, and with the courage of a Lion? He even has the courage to fight off the militant feminists.

Friend: I must say that I am exhausted and bewildered as I have not been told any of what you have stated above; in fact, quite the opposite. But you will have to admit that you worship Mary. (Got you on that one I bet.) And why do you have all those statues?

Response: Again, you have a misconception of what Catholics believe. You must tell me who taught you all of these terrible untruths; I don’t blame you for thinking I fell off the cliff. The Catholic Church believes that Mary was ever virgin and the Mother of Jesus. As a Mother, she nurtured Jesus as a boy and was faithfully with him to the end. It is difficult for Catholics to understand why Protestant mothers would be troubled in honoring Mary, the greatest mother of them all who, as the second Eve, was obedient to the Lord, whereas Eve disobeyed God. As a loving Mother, she is asked to intercede for us when praying to Jesus. We know, as do you, that we must go to the Father through the Son per John 6 (vs. 30f). And Catholics certainly can pray to Jesus directly. But we do not hesitate to ask those who are close to Jesus to put in a good word. I would guess that this happens in every family when the children suspect that the father will say no, they go to the mother first. In fact, you, yourself will ask friends to pray for you or someone you know. How much greater is it to ask Mary, the Mother of Jesus, to intercede for us? We believe that the Catholic Church is a Covenant Family with God the Father, Jesus the Son, Mary our Mother and we His children. Regarding the statues, you will agree, I am certain, that they are beautiful reminders of our Lord and the Saints. I bet that you have family pictures in your house as a reminder of family and friends. (And what was that nativity scene I saw in front of your church last Christmas?)

Friend: You have given me food for thought/ After digesting this I’ll be back to ask more questions, as it is evident that I may have been misled. But I am not going to give in without a struggle and an in-depth study—right?

Response: Right—you must find out for yourself and not rely on the words of mere men like me. I urge you to read, study, and pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit. You will find the Catholic faith to be a rich and deeply holy faith. And it has taken many hours of study of Catholic writings, early history, and the Bible, plus listening to the teachings on EWTN of people like Fr. Benedict Groeschel and other brilliant and well educated men, in addition to discussions with Catholic friends, to gather the meager understanding I’ve secured so far. May our Lord richly bless you in your struggles and study!

Ahhhhhhhhhh,

!!!!MORE!!!! of the RCP2 phenomenon . . . and

!!!!MORE!!!! of the RC RUBBER DICTIONARY . . .

FOR RC'S:
1. ridicule now = . . . . . . deception
2. hyperbole now= . . . . . . deception
3. changing the subject now = deception

Y'all would really do better getting that

SAME = DIFFERENT/DIFFERENT = SAME problem corrected.

BTW, I usually pontificate about different facets etc. because those are more interesting and important to me to highlight. Sometimes, I do so because I'm tired of commenting on the standard issues or facets. Sometimes, I do so because the degree of deafness and blindness on the standard, routine facets or issues is well established.

I do appreciate the RC magicsterical continuing to use the RUBBER DICTIONARY. It helps bystanders recognize more quickly that they are dealing with an ALICE-IN-WONDERLAND SCHOOL OF RUBBER THEOLOGY situation, assertion.

LOTS of things

have been
--INFERRED,
--EXTRAPOLATED,
--FANTASIZED,
--INVENTED

using very, very, very tenuous, tangential, wispy words and phrases from Scripture to springboard thereto.

Of course, most rational folks grounded in Holy Spirit and the current time/space dimension can more easily recognize such as being a custom, habit, reflex of the ALICE-IN-WONDERLAND SCHOOL OF RUBBER THEOLOGY phenomenon and file such things accordingly.

But, hey, it's a still a slightly free country . . . adding some more layers of rubber to the skyscrapers built on toothpicks seems to be a favorite recreation of some RC's.

At least Prottys can offer popcorn.

The little red x above is an illustration . . .

something like . . . the RC assertions that something

Scripture

when

it REALLY is NOT.

It's SUPPOSED to be there, according to the RC magicsterical. But it's really NOT there.

However, the most appropriate response to Post #122 still is:

using very, very, very tenuous, tangential, wispy words and phrases from Scripture to springboard thereto.

Do you not understand we do not require Scripture to support every doctrine, in the same way that y'all don't require Scripture to support every doctrine?

Of course, most rational folks grounded in Holy Spirit and the current time/space dimension...

Where is the Scriptural support for hystrionics?

At least Prottys can offer popcorn.

That is fortunate, because the their supply of reasonable, logically consistant, Scriptural answers is rather thin.

First, I wasn't insulting Mary. And you don't need to quote scripture to me, I already know what verse you will quote. Yes, she was "blessed" in the sense that God found favor with her and she agreed to bear the Messiah. This is wonderful, and I have no doubt the Lord's mother was a wonderful and girl and woman and did the Lord's will in bearing and raising her son. I can't imagine her pain, at the cross. I am not attacking or insulting the Lord's mother, but I am arguing that the Catholic notion of Mary is far beyond what and who Mary really was, and that most of Catholic doctrine about her is a later invention. (And virtually no modern translation translates Gabriel's words to her as "full of grace", either.)

But after Mary's death there is nothing in scripture (the words of the apostles or their followers), or early church tradition, or the writings of the earliest church fathers to indicate in any way that she was "assumed" into heaven, or that she was granted some special place in heaven or special status (co-redemptrix, queen of heaven, distributor of "graces", etc). Now, I am not opposed to these notions completely, if there were some basis for any of it, but in my own search I find no basis for any of it.

Luther's "Here I Stand" defense was based upon his conscience, reason, and scripture, and for myself it comes down to the same three things. Scripture and the early church father's writings make no case for the Catholic claims about Mary, reason tells me that this is because there was no special status (apart from being honored as the Lord's mother - there's a big gap between honoring or venerating her for her cooperation with the Lord, and praying to her). In good conscience, then, I could not join the Catholic Church and accept their doctrines which I believe to be invented. That's not an insult, but if you take it that way, then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that.

OH REALLY?

I realize that the arrogance of the RC edifice's magicsterical PRESUMES that they are the arbiters of all that's true and holy.

However, in the REAL world . . .

I don't recall hiring them to define for me anything . . .

much less what a legitimate answer is to anything.

Try again. I'm not buying the phony rubberized constructions on reality proffered by the Roman magicsterical.

Hint: Your rubberized dictionary doesn't hold any sway with me, AT ALL. In normal reality that Prottys populate, words mean something. They aren't normally stretched far and wide to vainly try and fit them to every fool notion the magicsterical finds more convenient.

In terms of provocative idiotic assertions . . . I thought the RC magicsterical had a monopoly on that. We Prottys are just trying to hold our own with token replies now and then.

Do you not understand we do not require Scripture to support every doctrine, in the same way that y'all don't require Scripture to support every doctrine?

HEY, TOOTS . . . YOU were the one who asked in post #122:

. . . and if I can prove that from Scripture . . .

I guess a remotely consistent follow-through in thought and action must be too much of a stretch? . . . overtaxing for the RC magicsterical and reps? Maybe such concepts are simply missing from the RC RUBBER DICTIONARY.

In terms of what's REQUIRED FROM GOD'S PERSPECTIVE, I suspect all Creation will find that CHRIST'S "IT IS WRITTEN . . . " IS !!!!THE!!!! STANDARD. If RC's prefer to be CRUSHED UNDER that standard vs broken and contrite ON it . . . it's their choice.

First, I wasn't insulting Mary.

I never thought you were; I think you are insulting Catholics that accept the Church's teaching and reasoning for the Marian dogmas.

And you don't need to quote scripture to me, I already know what verse you will quote.

The Proverbs tell us answering a matter before hearing it is shame and folly.

That is not the Scripture I was going to quote, but even so, your comment:

Yes, she was "blessed" in the sense that God found favor with her and she agreed to bear the Messiah. This is wonderful, and I have no doubt the Lord's mother was a wonderful and girl and woman and did the Lord's will in bearing and raising her son. I can't imagine her pain, at the cross. I am not attacking or insulting the Lord's mother, but I am arguing that the Catholic notion of Mary is far beyond what and who Mary really was, and that most of Catholic doctrine about her is a later invention.

shows you either have only the barest awareness of Catholic teaching on the matter, or are determined to find reason to undermine the teaching.

(And virtually no modern translation translates Gabriel's words to her as "full of grace", either.)

Why is that significant? I thought "older was better" in previous argumentation?

Not so. It is at least debatable that Mary is the woman of Rev 12. Furthermore, this woman is not referred to as a "soul" like the martyrs crying out to God.

You may not find such things convincing, but they are certainly not "nothing."

Now, I am not opposed to these notions completely, if there were some basis for any of it, but in my own search I find no basis for any of it.

What Catholic sources have you availed yourself of?

In good conscience, then, I could not join the Catholic Church and accept their doctrines which I believe to be invented. That's not an insult, but if you take it that way, then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that.

You are familiar with the "New Eve" and "New Ark of the Covenant" teachings? My understanding is much of it comes from Irenieus (sp?) in the second century.

I realize that the arrogance of the RC edifice's magicsterical PRESUMES that they are the arbiters of all that's true and holy.

It's no presumption when it goes unchallenged for fifteen hundred years.

I don't recall hiring them to define for me anything . . . much less what a legitimate answer is to anything.

No, you didn't, but then they aren't answering to you, anyway. The Catholic Church has historical precedent for it's authority: others do not.

In normal reality that Prottys populate...

Do you really want to go down THAT road?

In terms of provocative idiotic assertions . . . I thought the RC magicsterical had a monopoly on that. We Prottys are just trying to hold our own with token replies now and then.

Now see. There we have a splendid case of exactly the kind of deception I was referring to earlier. There is no Magisterium here: only me. For whatever unexplained reason "thinly veiled" is only a violation of the posting rules when a Catholic is doing it.

Personally, I take great pleasure from that fact, much more so than any hypothetical heavenly chickens, yet to hatch.

HEY, TOOTS . . . YOU were the one who asked in post #122: . . . and if I can prove that from Scripture . . .

Different poster, different question. Why is that confusing?

I guess a remotely consistent follow-through in thought and action must be too much of a stretch?

FRiend, one can not reasonably complain about inconsistancy when choosing disparate issues to juxtapose.

In terms of what's REQUIRED FROM GOD'S PERSPECTIVE, I suspect all Creation will find that CHRIST'S "IT IS WRITTEN . . . " IS !!!!THE!!!! STANDARD.

Your suspicions are demonstrably disprovable with only nominal education and reasoning skills; however, intellectual integrity is absolutely required.

If RC's prefer to be CRUSHED UNDER that standard vs broken and contrite ON it . . . it's their choice.

This has been working pretty good for us so far...how 'bout y'all?

Where did I claim there was Scriptural support for histrionics?

I don't recall you making such a claim. I simply note the lack of Scriptural support for such techniques.

Actually, I think there is but thatâ€™s another topic ...

By all mean! Hold forth!

Have you had your coffee yet? Keeping up seems to be a bit challenging this morning.

Are you in a hurry? You can come back later.

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.