Why Did You Choose “Catholic? (Why do adults become Catholics?)

CE.com ^ | January 27th, 2012 | George Weigel

[Salvation]

Why Did You Choose “Catholic?”

January 27th, 2012 by George Weigel

Why do adults become Catholics?

There are as many reasons for “converting” as there are converts. Evelyn Waugh became a Catholic with, by his own admission, “little emotion but clear conviction”: this was the truth; one ought to adhere to it. Cardinal Avery Dulles wrote that his journey into the Catholic Church began when, as an unbelieving Harvard undergraduate detached from his family’s staunch Presbyterianism, he noticed a leaf shimmering with raindrops while taking a walk along the Charles River in Cambridge, Mass.; such beauty could not be accidental, he thought—there must be a Creator. Thomas Merton found Catholicism aesthetically, as well as intellectually, attractive: once the former Columbia free-thinker and dabbler in communism and Hinduism found his way into a Trappist monastery and became a priest, he explained the Mass to his unconverted friend, poet Robert Lax, by analogy to a ballet. Until his death in 2007, Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger insisted that his conversion to Catholicism was not a rejection of, but a fulfillment of, the Judaism into which he was born; the cardinal could often be found at Holocaust memorial services reciting the names of the martyrs, including “Gisèle Lustiger, ma maman” (“my mother”).

Two of the great nineteenth-century converts were geniuses of the English language: theologian John Henry Newman and poet Gerard Manley Hopkins. This tradition of literary converts continued in the twentieth century, and included Waugh, Graham Greene, Edith Sitwell, Ronald Knox, and Walker Percy. Their heritage lives today at Our Savior’s Church on Park Avenue in New York, where convert author, wit, raconteur and amateur pugilist George William Rutler presides as pastor.

In early American Catholicism, the fifth archbishop of Baltimore (and de facto primate of the United States), Samuel Eccleston, was a convert from Anglicanism, as was the first native-born American saint and the precursor of the Catholic school system, Elizabeth Ann Seton. Mother Seton’s portrait in the offices of the archbishop of New York is somewhat incongruous, as the young widow Seton, with her children, was run out of New York by her unforgiving Anglican in-laws when she became a Catholic. On his deathbed, another great nineteenth-century convert, Henry Edward Manning of England, who might have become the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury but became the Catholic archbishop of Westminster instead, took his long-deceased wife’s prayer book from beneath his pillow and gave it to a friend, saying that it had been his spiritual inspiration throughout his life.

If there is a thread running through these diverse personalities, it may be this: that men and women of intellect, culture and accomplishment have found in Catholicism what Blessed John Paul II called the “symphony of truth.” That rich and complex symphony, and the harmonies it offers, is an attractive, compelling and persuasive alternative to the fragmentation of modern and post-modern intellectual and cultural life, where little fits together and much is cacophony. Catholicism, however, is not an accidental assembly of random truth-claims; the creed is not an arbitrary catalogue of propositions and neither is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It all fits together, and in proposing that symphonic harmony, Catholicism helps fit all the aspects of our lives together, as it orders our loves and loyalties in the right direction.

You don’t have to be an intellectual to appreciate this “symphony of truth,” however. For Catholicism is, first of all, an encounter with a person, Jesus Christ, who is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). And to meet that person is to meet the truth that makes all the other truths of our lives make sense. Indeed, the embrace of Catholic truth in full, as lives like Blessed John Henry Newman’s demonstrate, opens one up to the broadest possible range of intellectual encounters.

Viewed from outside, Catholicism can seem closed and unwelcoming. As Evelyn Waugh noted, though, it all seems so much more spacious and open from the inside. The Gothic, with its soaring vaults and buttresses and its luminous stained glass, is not a classic Catholic architectural form by accident. The full beauty of the light, however, washes over you when you come in.

 

George Weigel is author of the bestselling books The Courage to Be Catholic: Crisis, Reform, and the Future of the Church and Letters to a Young Catholic.

This column has been made available to Catholic Exchange courtesy of the Denver Catholic Register.

 

[dsc]

I initially intended to respond to each of your statements. However, when I reached the end of your post, I realized that we have a possibly insurmountable problem.

I wrote, “There is absolutely no way that any single human being could develop, in a single lifetime, one one-millionth of the understanding that is to be found in Catholic writings.”

Your answer was, “So perhaps it would be prudent to stick to the text of the Bible.”

If we reduce that to a simple syllogism, it looks something like this:

We want to understand Christ’s teachings.
The most authoritative source is the Bible.
Catholic writings are of infinite value in understanding the Bible.
Therefore, a prudent person refuses to read Catholic writings.

Dude, I really hate to have to say this, but that’s not even rational. It’s not the result of clumsy reasoning; it’s not the result of faulty premises; it’s just plain irrational.

To continue a discussion under these circumstances would be useless.

Still, I do feel compelled, in closing, to respond to a few of your remarks.

You wrote, “Ah, so it is Catholicism that has the extra stuff not contained in the scriptures that He wants me to have. Sorry, 2 Peter says I need nothing beyond what Christ has given me...”

Christ gave you the Catholic Church, so, yes: a lot of things that God wants you to have are contained in Catholic teachings.

You wrote, “When He explicitly states in the scripures that He has already given me everything I need for life and godliness ... why would I seek anything else?”

He doesn’t state that everything he gave is in the scriptures. As a matter of fact, everything He gave was passed down by word of mouth before the Gospels were written. You have been taught to turn your back on a great deal of what He has given us. How could you possibly think that you know and understand everything that God has taught or given mankind?

You wrote, “What you are trying to argue is that He has NOT given me everything I need”

There you go again. I am not arguing that God has not given; I am telling you that you fling his gifts back in his face.

You wrote, “but rather, I should seek these so-called extra blessings that He will give me through the teachings of the RCC.”

They are not “so-called extra blessings.” They are a part of the whole, and a part you reject.

Good bye, and good luck.

[dsc]

“Reasons why the Apocrypha is not in the Bible if you want the REAL facts.”

Facts? Rarely have I seen such specious reasoning. It would have to be better to rise to the level of sophistry.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Your post #253 sounds like a paranoid rant.”

Nope. You would think differently if someone threatened to murder you or your family.

“It sounds like you are paranoid about Protestants.”

Nope. I just recognize who I’m dealing with at all times.

“You can say it’s 100% correct. That’s fine. You shouldn’t be surprised, or take it personally when people don’t take your word for it.”

I’m not. But it still is 100% correct.

“I’m sorry for you if your personal anecdotes are true (there is no way to know for sure), but if so, you should be grown up enough to not simply blame Protestants - whether crazy or not.”

No where in that post did I ever blame those who are merely Protestants. That is the second time you have falsely accused me on that point (see post 308 and 309). I doubt that will stop you, however.

[boatbums]

So perhaps it would be prudent to stick to the text of the Bible.

That sure is my plan. ;o)

[boatbums]

I gave you the "real" facts. The OT in use at that time was the Septuagint. Jesus quote in the Temple from Isiah was taken from the Septuagint. The text you guys love to cite was from the council of Jamnia 70 years after the crucifizxtion.

So, are you saying that you believe the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books are divinely-inspired Scripture on the same level as all the other books in the Bible?

[Just mythoughts]

So, are you saying that you believe the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books are divinely-inspired Scripture on the same level as all the other books in the Bible?

Who did Christ have with Him on the Mount of Transfiguration? Do you consider Moses and Elijah Christians?

[boatbums]

I think your observation is correct. There are a few who come off exactly like you say. You aren’t alone.

[boatbums]

So in other words, “My mind’s made up don’t try to confuse me with the facts”? Do you believe those Apocryphal books are divinely inspired Holy Scripture?

[boatbums]

Who did Christ have with Him on the Mount of Transfiguration? Do you consider Moses and Elijah Christians?

First, what does this have to do with my question?

Second, Moses and Elijah most definitely are in heaven because they had faith that the Messiah would come to take away their sins. Now that they are in the presence of Jesus they are believers in him, of course.

So, do you believe the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books are divinely-inspired Scripture on the same level as all the other books in the Bible?

[Just mythoughts]

First, what does this have to do with my question? Second, Moses and Elijah most definitely are in heaven because they had faith that the Messiah would come to take away their sins. Now that they are in the presence of Jesus they are believers in him, of course. So, do you believe the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books are divinely-inspired Scripture on the same level as all the other books in the Bible?

Mark 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. (Then Christ quotes Isaiah 13:10.)

We do not need to ask anyone what is divinely inspired Scripture when we already have the Words of Christ. Christ made Isaiah one and the same as the Gospel... Christ quoted the prophets and Christ by including Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration gave what no flesh being can His approval of their writings as inspired.

Paul says ICorinthians 10:11 NOT quoting, but that we have the 'script' of what happened to them as our example to be warned as to what would happen again to end this flesh age.

Now notice I did not include the Apocrypha as source from where Christ quoted. But Moses was the first prophet and rarely did an instruction get given by Christ but what it was first penned by the prophets. Reason why Christ would say before one word of the so called new was placed upon animal skins or plant materials, He had already foretold all things. Psalms 22 penned by King David is the crufixation prophecy foretold long long before the event.

Peter says that while in the tomb Christ went first to all those that came before and offered salvation. That means Christians, followers of Christ. IPeter3:18-22 and IPeter 4: Whole chapter but in particular 6. Peter put into WORDS the 'key' given him so we can all see what Peter 'bound'.

[verga]

So, are you saying that you believe the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books are divinely-inspired Scripture on the same level as all the other books in the Bible?

Yes absolutely!

FRiend I m a revert Catholic. I left over several issues and became a virulent anti-Catholic for years.

I was Challenged by Fatheroffive over several issues and began to do a lot of research and found out what the Catholic Church actually taught and why. One of the issues was the canon of scripture, When you look at the textual translations the similarities between the Septuagint and every Bible we use today is mind boggling.

The site I showed you has 200 verses.

There is a book on amazon that has even more I will look up the URL later and send it to you.

[RFEngineer]

“No where in that post did I ever blame those who are merely Protestants. “

How about when you say “It seems quite common” when referencing Protestants who you say are crazy?

How are crazy Protestants any more or less common than, say, Catholics, Jews, Mormons? Mental illness doesn’t care what religion you are.

That’s how you roll.....you construct self-selecting delusions and then claim “I’m 100% correct”.

Yours are delusions though. But they have nothing to do with you being Catholic.

It is sad, and our dialog evokes not anger or resentment, but pity and a wish for healing and sanity on your part.

[verga]

Here is the Amazon link to the book I mentioned:

Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey

Gregory Chirichigno (Author), Gleason L. Archer (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/Old-Testament-Quotations-New-Complete/dp/1597520403/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328021732&sr=1-3

[dartuser]

Lets look at your math ...

1. We want to understand Christ’s teachings. ACCEPTED AS AN AXIOM WITHOUT PROOF, AGREED.
2. The most authoritative source is the Bible.ACCEPTED AS AN AXIOM WITHOUT PROOF, AGREED.
3. Catholic writings are of infinite value in understanding the Bible. OFFERED AS AN AXIOM WITHOUT PROOF.
4. Therefore ... No need to go on, the logic is already broken at step 3.

If the Bible is the most authoritative source (primary), does that not imply that any other source is OF NECESSITY secondary? If the Bible is the most authoritative, should it not be used to judge the worthiness of any other secondary source?

I would think all rational Catholics would have no problem with this statement, yet for all practical purposes, the RCC applies this exactly backwards!

When the RCC or an individual Catholic uses a secondary source to judge the meaning of the most authoritative source, it/he/she has de facto reduced the authority of the primary source (which in your view was the most authoritative source) and made it less authoritative. It has, in practice, taken the most authoritative source and reduced it to a secondary source. At the same time, it takes the secondary source of the catholic writings, and elevates it to the primary source for understanding what used to be the most authoritative source.

The RCC merely pays lip service to the authority of the Bible. You may claim that the Bible is the most authoritative source, but the catholic writings are the interpretive filter by which you understand the Bible; instead of understanding the Bible from the text of the Bible itself.

Whenever one of those extra-Biblical Catholic doctrines is discussed on FR, the Biblical evidence presented always comes down to one of two things, either an allegorical interpretation of some obscure passage that has nothing to do with the original topic; but whose words, when assigned mystical meanings, can be shoehorned into meaning whatever is required ... or, second, an appeal to what some church father thought the text meant.

[verga]

If the Bible is the most authoritative source (primary), does that not imply that any other source is OF NECESSITY secondary?

You begin with a faulty premise. The Bible Neever says it is a Primary source. as a maater of fact it says that the Church is THE primary source.

1 Tim 3:15

so that if I am delayed, you will know how people must conduct themselves in the household of God. This is the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if I may...

You begin with a faulty premise. The Bible Neever says it is a Primary source. as a maater of fact it says that the Church is THE primary source.

1 Tim 3:15

so that if I am delayed, you will know how people must conduct themselves in the household of God. This is the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

I see this also as begging the question, a logical fallacy, because the meaning of the word "church" is presupposed to be A (the Catholic Church) when to non-Catholic Christians, it is not A but B:

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? - I Cor 6:19

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9

Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. - I Cor 12:27

And again:

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. - Ephesians 5:24

For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. - Ephesians 5:30-32

And again:

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast [them] into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. - John 15:4-7

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. - I John 2:27

And again:

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. - John 17:20-23

And again:

And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. - Revelation 5:6

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. - John 3:5-6

God's Name is I AM.

[dartuser]

You begin with a faulty premise. The Bible Neever says it is a Primary source. as a maater of fact it says that the Church is THE primary source.

1 Tim 3:15

Wasn't my premise. It was one of your fellow Catholics ... though I would agree with him on that point, the Bible is the most authoritative source.

If I had a buck for every time a Catholic read the RCC into I Tim. 3:15 ... I would be paying only 15% income tax.

There is nothing in the text that even hints of Rome.

You clearly see what you want to clearly see; but none of what you see is in the text.

[metmom]

Thanks for the ping.

Jesus Himself appealed to the authority of Scripture to verify who He said He was.

A few other verses come to mind.....

Matthew 22:29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?”

Luke 24:44-47 44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

John 5:39-40 39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Matthew 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

>Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

Luke 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.

Scripture is unchanging because it is written down. Anyone can verify by going back to the original manuscripts instead of having to depend on the inherent unreliability of the spoken word passed on from one generation to the next.

Another glaring inconsistency is that The RCC claims to derive its authority from Scripture and yet also claims to have written Scripture. The only way that the RCC could have that authority is if it was given it from an outside source, not a source which it claims to have authored.

[metmom]

Ping to excellent post #334.

[Quix]

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

!ABSOLUTELY INDEED!