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.

 

[marbren]

Well said Quix.

Jude 1:22-23 (KJV) And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

It is also important to discern who you are talking to. Love means to love them as they are, doing no harm, and to respond appropriately so that they may grow.

Separating may be needed as well

1 Corinthians 15:33 (KJV) Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

[smvoice]

The Books of Zechariah and Isaiah prove the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all inspired prophecies concerning Jesus Christ.

1. Matthew: The Gospel of Christ as the Royal Ruler, the King of Israel. "Behold THY KING" (Zech. 9:9).

2. Mark: The Gospel of Christ as the Servant of Jehovah. "Behold..MY SERVANT" (Zech. 3:8).

3. Luke: The Gospel of Christ as the PERFECT SON OF MAN. "Behold THE MAN" (Zech. 6:12,13).

4. John: The Gospel of Christ as The Eternal God. "Behold YOUR GOD". (Isa. 40:9).

They prove the inspired prophecies of Zechariah and Isaiah true. And they record the proof of those prophecies. They confirm each other as inspired. What could be needed for more proof that they are inspired?

[papertyger]

Why did I become Catholic?

Because God does not act the way Bible-only Protestants say he does.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Stop prevaricating. The post is there for all to read in #253, exactly as I quoted it, and exactly in the context I explained it. I am not being unfair to you.”

You’re posting false claims. Post 253 DOES NOT SAY what you claim it does. It’s just that simple.

“Yours are increasingly desperate attempts to paper over your indefensible bigotry with subsequent excuses.”

I have no need for excuses, nor would I make any in any case. You’re posting false claims. You probably will keep doing it too.

“You cannot run away from it.”

I need not run, nor would I in any case. Again, you’re posting false claims. You have done so repeatedly.

“You can withdraw it, you can apologize for it. Nobody will hold it against you if it was misinterpreted and you at least admit that error.”

If it was misinterpreted, then the error is yours and not mine. I said nothing that must be apologized for. Everything I said was true. The very fact that you suggest something might have been misiunterpreted ON YOUR PART (for logically I could not misinterpret what I myself have written) says a lot more about your claims than it does about anything I have written.

“But you won’t do that because you irrationally hate Protestants, as is clearly on display with that post.”

You have made repeated false claims about what I have said. I have every expectation that you will continue to do so.

“So if you will not withdraw the statement, it is yours to be accountable for by anyone who chooses to read it and make their own judgement of you. It is your shame to wear forever.”

There is no shame in the truth, and I never posted what you falsely accuse me of posting.

[marbren]

I am getting some scary thoughts about what makes up a tribulation saint. IMHO the problem comes when we elevate things like our free will, common sense and/or pride above God's grace.

Also those, like many catholics for instance, who insist they need to contribute something to God's grace plan, or those who elevate the importance of the choice they make to accept God's grace invitation IN Christ Jesus minimizing the grace component of God in the decision. Or those who do not believe in true blessed assurance of eternal security(Not the cheap grace kind)

ONLY THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS NEEDED! It is all about grace If you make the rapture.

[smvoice]

Well, this is certainly interesting. How do Bible-only Protestants say God acts?

[marbren]

I see no need for the USA after the rapture.

[smvoice]

I feel the same way, marbren. Imagine what “enduring to the end” must entail. I don’t think our imaginations can come up with what exactly will be happening. I don’t think there are words to describe the Wrath of God being poured out. Especially in light of this age of grace where He is offering to man reconciliation based purely on the finished work of Christ. A free gift to all who will believe. And to those who hear the good news, and reject it for their own works for righteousness...no there are no words to describe His wrath on a rejecting world.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I’ll take a stab.”

Stab away.

“The book of Matthew records Jesus prophesying events that would happen after His death and resurrection, some of which were fulfilled in 70AD.”

This is one of the most interesting arguments I have seen. There is already a problem, however. I’ll say more about the problem in a moment.

“Since we are told that all prophecy did not come from men, but from the Holy Spirit, we have to conclude that the book of Matthew is divinely inspired, simply from the fulfilled prophecy contained within it.”

Sorry, but your logic just ended. A prophecy within a text - even a whole series of true prophecies within a text - does not prove that the author of the text was inspired. Christ was the prophet, not Matthew. Thus, Christ was filled with God-given knowledge (inspired, that is) as one would expect God to be but that doesn’t say anything about Matthew, or his text, or even if he wrote the text. Remember, I was specifically asking for proof - from scripture alone - that Matthew wrote the Gospel (you provided none), that his Gospel was inspired (you provided none; an interesting theory, but one that logically fails is all you provided).

Let’s say you were a prophet. And I heard you making prophetic utterances and wrote them down. Does that automatically mean the written text was inspired? No, it does not.

“In fact, fulfilled prophecy is major proof of the fact that the Bible is divinely inspired, inerrant, and absolutely true, word for word.”

Not in the way you are describing it.

I salute you for trying.

[marbren]

I could speculate that only some protestants and no catholics are raptured. Very few people I see in the malls, or on facebook, or on FR, or my customers and suppliers or at the gym etc know how close the Lord Jesus Christ is in calling us up?

The rapture may be today!

On FR Newt is the solution I guess?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“The Books of Zechariah and Isaiah prove the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all inspired prophecies concerning Jesus Christ.”

1) Inspired prophecies do not prove that an entire text is inspired.

2) To say that an earlier book proves a later prophecy is inspired is anachronistic.

“1. Matthew: The Gospel of Christ as the Royal Ruler, the King of Israel. “Behold THY KING” (Zech. 9:9).”

That doesn’t prove any of the things I asked for. Also, please note that that might only show Matthew (or whoever the author is - since you have failed to prove who it is) modeled his writing on previous authors and prophecies. It does not in itself prove any of it happened or that he was inspired when he wrote the Gospel.

“2. Mark: The Gospel of Christ as the Servant of Jehovah. “Behold..MY SERVANT” (Zech. 3:8).”

Same as above.

“3. Luke: The Gospel of Christ as the PERFECT SON OF MAN. “Behold THE MAN” (Zech. 6:12,13).”

Same as above.

“4. John: The Gospel of Christ as The Eternal God. “Behold YOUR GOD”. (Isa. 40:9).”

Same as above.

“They prove the inspired prophecies of Zechariah and Isaiah true.”

At best that would prove the case for inspiration of Zechariah and Isaiah, not Matthew.

“And they record the proof of those prophecies.”

That’s what you claim, but that recording is not necessarily inspired in itself unless one wants to believe that a priori.

“They confirm each other as inspired. What could be needed for more proof that they are inspired?”

Actual proof and not a circular argument would be nice.

[marbren]

I don’t think our imaginations can come up with what exactly will be happening.

I understand you must resist the mark of the beast and have your head cut off during the tribulation to become a tribulation saint. What happens to the souls in NYC who miss the rapture and are vaporized 3 seconds later in a nuclear blast? Do they qualify as tribulation saints?

[Quix]

INDEED. INDEED.

Well put.

Thx.

[marbren]

Life is now back in FreeRepublic! The Holy Spirit sent Quix back! :)

[boatbums]

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.

I agree with you and Jesus also spoke specifically about the books of "Moses and the Prophets".

Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”

Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis, while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. (http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible

We also know that there are numerous errors in those Apocrypal books which disqualify them from being divinely-inpsired Scripture.

[boatbums]

If you are stating that the Apocryphal books are also divinely-inspired Scripture on the same level as all the other mutually agreed upon Scripture, then you need to explain how God would have permitted errors to be written in those books and passed off as God-breathed. From the link http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible, we see that:

The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4

Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after, but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.

The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha). (To check the following references, see http://www.newadvent.org/bible.)

•The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7).
•Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11; 12:9).
•Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).

And we wonder where the Catholic Church got the idea of charging money for "indulgences"?

[RFEngineer]

“There is no shame in the truth, and I never posted what you falsely accuse me of posting.”

You did, and anyone can read it.

[boatbums]

Here's a good online reference as well: http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-old-testament-quoted-by-jesus-and-apostles.htm

[boatbums]

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.

And, let's not forget that they even declared the Pope and the Magesterium are infallible when they speak ex-cathedra regarding dogma and doctrine on faith and morals.

[boatbums]

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.

And, let's not forget that they even declared the Pope and the Magesterium are infallible when they speak ex-cathedra regarding dogma and doctrine on faith and morals.