Why I Am Still an Evangelical Protestant [And Not Roman Catholic]

Chris Castaldo ^ | March 15th, 2013 | Chris Castaldo

[Gamecock]

The election of Pope Francis has the world’s attention. It is fascinating to read the array of perspectives. Political pundits and cultural exegetes, with more or less knowledge of Catholicism, have expressed their opinions concerning the meaning and future prospects of this pope. But what about former Catholics, those of us who were raised Catholic and now identify with evangelical Protestantism? What are we saying? I can’t speak for others, but I’ll tell you what is on my mind.

My Upbringing in Catholicism

Hardly a week goes by in which I don’t receive an email from a Catholic reader of my blog expressing that he or she is praying for me to “come home” to the Catholic Church. On the whole, I find them to be incredibly genuine and therefore it is easy for me to give a sincere “thank you.” Over the last week, as I have participated in several interviews about the conclave and papal selection, my inbox has seen many such appeals. In what follows I would like to share with my Catholic friends the fundamental reason why I am an evangelical Protestant.

To start with, I should say that my experience growing up Catholic was exceedingly positive. Owing largely to the ministry of our parish priest, Monsignor Tom, I grew to love the Catholic tradition. I loved the grandeur of the sanctuary with its carved wood, arched windows, and stained glass. I loved the deep, resonate amalgam of voices confessing the Nicene Creed and the honesty and humility expressed in the kyrie: “Lord, have mercy; Christ, have mercy; Lord, have mercy.” I loved simple things, like braiding cruciform-shaped palm leaves for Easter.

Oh, what I wouldn’t give for one more Knights of Columbus dinner, with trays of pasta fra diavolo, risotto parmigiano, and pignoli nut cookies prepared by my uncles. These were the occasions in which boys became men, learning how to eat for God’s glory.

I vividly recall our confirmation retreat at the nearby Cenacle. In the tranquil surrounding of a Marian grotto we learned stories of heroic saints like Perpetua and Felicity, martyrs who stared down lions in the name of Christ. Dominick, my best friend, suggested that I choose Saint Jude as my personal saint since Jude was the Saint of “lost causes.” Despite our juvenile banter, we were challenged to be courageous for God.

I enjoyed watching reruns of Archbishop Fulton Sheen with his long flowing cape and clever quips, marveled during Lent at the seemingly endless number of recipes we had for preparing tuna fish, and took great pleasure in walking to the altar with my family during Mass to present the gifts of wine and bread. This was my identity—a member of the Catholic Church—and I loved it.

But I had to leave.

Why an Evangelical Protestant?

Having written an entire volume on the reasons why I (and other Catholics) have decided to leave the Catholic Church for Protestant pastures—my book Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a Former Catholic—I will not retell my story here. Instead, I would like to put my finger on the fundamental reason why Rome is not my religious home. The leading edge of this reason is perhaps best expressed by John Bunyan in chapter three of his Pilgrim’s Progress. It is the climactic point when the faithful protagonist of his story, “Christian,” comes to the cross of Jesus and has his burden of guilt removed once and for all.

Christian ran till he came to a hill; upon it stood a cross, and a little below was a tomb. So I saw in my dream, that just as Christian came up to the cross, his burden loosed from off his shoulders, and fell from off his back, and began to tumble, and so continued to do till it came to the mouth of the tomb, where it fell in, and I saw it no more. Then said Christian with a happy heart, “He hath given me rest by His sorrow, and life by His death.” Then he stood still awhile to look and wonder; for it was very surprising to him that the sight of the cross should thus ease him of his burden. He looked, therefore, and looked again, even till the springs that were in his head sent the water down his cheeks.

In my humble opinion, the above vision is the centerpiece of evangelical Protestantism. Through the preaching of the gospel, God removes the burden of guilt and shame from our shoulders and sends it into the grave, where it disappears, never to be seen again. As far as the east is from the west, so far has God removed our sins from us. And moving toward the Celestial City from one’s initial encounter of the cross, Christian and all who share his name do so as children of God whose identities are permanently marked by this salvation. Precisely because we have died to self and now live anew in our resurrected Lord, there is nothing that can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. Such assurance is God’s gift to his children and serves as the driving force of our lives.

This lesson came into focus for me last month. A buddy invited me to his home to talk with his Catholic colleague who is struggling with religious guilt, feeling that he is never quite acceptable to the Father. This colleague described his experience in his Catholic parish as “salvation on probation,” a relationship with God that depended upon his ability to observe the precepts of the church (i.e., abstaining from meat on Lenten Fridays, holy days of obligation, auricular confession). Therefore, despite his best efforts, our friend bemoaned the fact that it was only a matter of time before he fell short of the church’s expectations and thus lost his eternal hope.

In response to our friend, I asked whether he had children. With great enthusiasm he proceeded to explain how much he enjoys his kids, attending all of their basketball games, going on vacations, and delighting in conversation about their future hopes and dreams. “Do they ever disappoint you,” I asked. “Of course; they are sinners like their mother,” he said with a smile. I then asked, “And when that happens, does it potentially terminate your relationship? Are they in jeopardy of losing their status as your children and being rejected from your family?” “You mean like a ‘mortal’ sin,” he responded? I could see he was starting to get my point. A long pause followed and finally our friend looked up with eyes full of tears and confessed, “I guess I’m secure as a child of God.”

My Current Relationship to Catholicism

I light of such evangelical Protestant commitments, is there any sense in which I appreciate Catholicism today? Let me answer the question like this. Most people who come from a Catholic background will probably identify with my sentiment, while those who weren’t raised Catholic probably won’t. It’s the kind of affection you have for that eccentric cousin whom you see once a year at Christmas. Despite your common upbringing, the two of you are now entirely different. He runs marathons, TiVo’s professional wrestling, enjoys dancing the polka, and somehow always manages to perform his Bob Dylan impersonation when the family is assembled. However, as first cousins, you have a deep, abiding affection for one another. Despite your differences, you share a common history that reaches back to your earliest memories, on the basis of which you possess a relationship that is deeper and richer than words can express. So it is for many of us who were raised Catholic. We disagree with much of Catholic faith, but these differences can’t erase the positive, Christ-honoring memories which we continue to cherish.

This is where my pursuit of Christ has led. I identify with the evangelical Protestant tradition because I believe that its approach to biblical authority and the gospel best reflects the will of God as revealed in Scripture. Insofar as the term “evangelical” describes such a person, despite its negative connotations and flaws, I hope to live accordingly, comporting myself and relating to others—including my Catholic family and friends—with the character of Christ. And I hope that what you read from this blog will serve you toward that end.

[af_vet_1981]

Re 274, read Matthew 7 completely. He is talking about false prophets/teachers who claimed many wonderful works in his name. These are not the good works we are called to by our apostles, and by the Lord himself. Verses 16-21 are about good fruit/works. Verse 22 is where they lie about their works and verse 23 shows their works are iniquity/sin, not good works, but sin. Verse 24 as works, Therefore whosoever Hearth these sayings of mine and forth them ; note the doing/work is required; James tells us the same thing.

[Religion Moderator]

Do not make this thread "about" individual Freepers. That is also a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[af_vet_1981]

heareth, not Hearth (tablet software is frustrating as it changes what one types)

[af_vet_1981]

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, (apologize for word changes; I type, software tries to change to commonly spelled words.

[af_vet_1981]

The point is Luther turned into very bad fruit and set the stage for the genocide against the Jews. I view his protest/rebellion by his fruit.

[Iscool]

Luther was in error when he called for the destruction of the Jews in his 65,000 word treatise. He personally prepared the way for Hitler. Do you think he is in heaven ?

Martin Luther was a product of his environment...The Catholic religion hated the Jews...Luther hated the Jews...So are any Catholics from that era in heaven???

Jewish hatred...

[Iscool]

There are a few posters here who I rarely if ever read, and posts like yours simply reinforce the wisdom in that decision.

I'll bet it's the ones with scripture posted that you ignore...

[af_vet_1981]

I don’t think any of the Gentiles who wrote as Luther did, or acted on it and did evil, are in heaven. Paul told him everything he needed to know in Romans, yet somehow he fell like Balaam.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Guess again. You’re on the top of the list of worst offenders.

[Alex Murphy]

You’re on the top of the list of worst offenders.

What's this I hear about you keeping lists?

[daniel1212]

There are a few posters here who I rarely if ever read, and posts like yours simply reinforce the wisdom in that decision.

Such reaction to reproof only further reinforces the head-in-the-sand ostrich mentality that was already evidenced and exposed .

[daniel1212]

Invoking both Peter, and the Apostle Paul, that papal bull Exsurge Domine must be one of those classified as being "without error", "infallibly led by the Spirit...in matters of faith and morals" etc., would it not?

Eastern Orthodox author Laurent Cleenewerck asserts^[53] that Pope Leo X's condemnations technically satisfy the requirements of an infallible (ex cathedra) definition in accordance with the criteria laid down by Vatican I. The declaration of Pope Leo X that members of the Catholic faithful must "condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors" on pain of an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication is claimed to constitute an authoritative papal definition on doctrinal matters concerning faith and morals which must be held by the whole Catholic Church. He then notes that the practice of burning heretics poses a "serious ethical problem"^[54] and thus he finds in Exsurge Domine support for his conclusion that "the idea that Papal Infallibility can be presented as independent of any conciliar consent and as 'the constant belief of the universal Church' is rejected."^[55]

All one happy family.

Then you have

• Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, an authority on papal bulls and decrees” on Unam Sanctam: “This bull, then, was beyond all doubt an act ex cathedra... Whatever definition, therefore, is to be found in this bull is to be received as of faith." — Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1875. pg 57

More .

And thus you have the RC sedevacantists on the other side. And on here you have different interpretations of this and Lumen Gentium.

[Heart-Rest]

"Of course the verses are true but I don't see you attempting to explain the verses"

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

So, you agree that the statement "there is sin which is not mortal" is true (just like the Bible says), but you want me to explain what that means, in relation to statements made by other posters here who say that "every sin is mortal"?

Wouldn't you agree that something (like "non-mortal sins") cannot both "be" and "not be" at the same time, as that would clearly be a logical contradiction?

And wouldn't you agree that if the Bible is correct in saying there is sin which is not mortal, it would be incorrect to say that "all sin is mortal", as that would mean that there is no sin which is not mortal, and that would obviously be directly contradicting that truth proclaimed in the Bible in 1 John 5:17?

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Then you added this:

"What you need to do is look at the very next verse (18) and contemplate THAT for a few months, or a couple of years...1Jn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not"

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Do you think that that text somehow falsifies the two texts that came before it?    Do you think verse 18 somehow makes the statement preceding it "there is sin which is not mortal" false?

The statement "there is sin which is not mortal" in 1 John 5:17 is either true or not true, and anyone who says "all sins are mortal" is saying the Bible is not being truthful in 1 John 5:17.    (Unless the person asserting it is Bill Clinton, who does not know what the meaning of the word "is" is.)

[BlueDragon]

There are a few posters here who I rarely if ever read, and posts like yours simply reinforce the wisdom in that decision.

I admit daniel1212's writing can be a bit difficult to follow (as can my own) but the ideas come across well enough, as does evidence he frequently brings, which if not out-and-out direct refutation of some claim or another made by [Roman] Catholic faithful (if you don't mind those persons being labeled that way, too much) then at the least, often put those "claims" or statements to serious challenge.

Many times there are claims (peculiar to Catholicism) which valid rebuttal can be offered towards, for reason those claims are in some error, chiefly for just how far those same claims are being said to extend, with here myself speaking of items most often in dispute, on these pages. I find those sort difficult to navigate, being that partial truths, or misrepresentation/distortion can be the hardest to tackle. Refutations for that type, rarely can be trimmed down enough to fit on a bumper-sticker, while retaining that which is entirely true & holy, not causing the same some damage, while not letting conceptual "validity" overstep it's own bounds, becoming some thing never meant to be...and if not that... then not seen in the earliest Church, or in some conflict with what can be found there, including but not limited to how ECF's (Early Church Fathers) wrote about how they applied various scriptural precepts.

Certain types of "reaction", such as those of the sort daniel1212 makes mentions of, can often enough come when the rebuttals he and others provide, are themselves difficult to deny, hence his own mention of same, AFAIKT.

That being said...
The portion you cited as some sort of proof of your own "wisdom" as things to be ignored, due to being possibly inflammatory in your own eyes(?) or offensive to you, could be the inventive (RSS)? ... or was it also or more, the "...as indeed to do so in order to ascertain the veracity of Rome's claims is discouraged." part?

I cannot help but consider that your response to him (and possibly part of reason for it?) could well be demonstration in part, of that very phenomena of discouraging which he spoke of. You may disabuse me of that notion, if you care to do so.

...in other words...is it like sticking fingers in your ears and saying naa-naa-naa I can't hear you? which --- can be a fun thing to do, I do confess. Newer versions are always better of course.

But I can only score yours about a two-point-eight-five out of ten. Not quite Olympic caliber, but if a training regime could be devised and adhered to (watch your diet too, of course) then who knows?

[Heart-Rest]

"There are a few posters here who I rarely if ever read, and posts like yours simply reinforce the wisdom in that decision."

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

There is great wisdom in what you are saying there, Brian Kopp DPM, and I'm going to make a personal resolution right now to start doing a better job in the future myself of implementing that same kind of wisdom in my own decision-making about which posts to read, and which to just bypass completely.

I would just add that there are maybe about a football-team-size number (or so) of posters here who also strongly reinforce the wisdom in that decision, and who would also trigger the instant implementation and application of that wise decision.

[Cvengr]

Regarding the sin unto death:

As I believe you have correctly pointed out, it isn’t so much a particular sin as much as the situation which leads to death.

Expressed another way for many others,...God the Holy Spirit indwells us to further sanctify us as He grows us in faith.

When we step out of fellowship, i.e. we sin after believing, we fail to be able to perform a good work by His standards.

In God’s Plan, He might have a large number of good works for us to perform in His Plan. Let’s say His Plan has 20 good works to perform in a certain arena of our lives, but we sin, and miss an opportunity to perform a good work. His Plan still has another 19 good works for us to perform, so He still indwells us,..but if we continue to remain out of fellowship, remaining in sin, ...we might find ourselves missing another opportunity. Now there’s 18 more possible good works for us to perform by His Plan.

If this continues, there might even be different situations arising whereby we can still perform good works, but also there might arise a situation where we are running out of courses of action available to perform by His Plan.

If we continue to remain in sin, out of fellowship and fail in that last opportunity, it also becomes a sin unto death. At that point, God might take us home, still sealed by the Holy SPirit, even though we had fallen out of fellowship, but since He does nothing that is good for nothingness, and we cornered ourselves into a situation where we no longer are performing any good by His Plan, then His natural course of action is to remove us from this life by the first death.

There are also other situations involving the sin against the Holy Spirit, which may also qualify as a/the sin unto death for that person.

IMHO, this is how I have understood the term.

[BlueDragon]

When I just wrote previous...that daniel1212's writing can be a bit difficult to follow I should have added a qualifier such as "sometimes", for this latest comment of yours, here replied to, is very clear, packed with documentation, directly on point, and as brief and to-the-point(s) which you there made as perhaps reasonably possible.

I'm left uncertain how any could object to it, other than our usual debate/discussion opposition for reason of the logically unavoidable, far-reaching implications of the information itself, unless one wished to quibble over the links not functioning. In this instance, there is enough information, and sources "cited" or attributed to in the visible text itself, if there are any doubts as to veracity, then I surely hope any who held such would do some checking on their own as to sources and terms mentioned, rather than just say "how sad" for the imbedded links not working on FR pages, or some similar comment, though about now I'm daring them to do so, to give me opportunity to find sources, then provide a blow-by-blow for the concepts.

Otherwise;
Another fingers-in-the-ears naa-naa-naa moment induced? That simply has to be, lest it be risked to take notice that the bullet just hit the bone, and the bone is their own.

[boatbums]

Just to clarify...are you saying that you will refuse to read replies to your OWN posts if they come from someone on this “list”? What, may I ask, is the reason WHY you would bother to post comments on an open thread when you do not intend to read the replies? Isn’t that a form of denial right there? Where’s the wisdom in that?

[Elsie]

read Matthew 7 completely.

Tell this to MORMONs!!

They COMPLETELY ignore the False Prophet qualifier and insist the "judging 'them' by their works" refers to Christians.

[Elsie]

heareth, not Hearth (tablet software is frustrating as it changes what one types)

It seems some kind of 'help' is NOW going on when I type on this at least 3 year old laptop...