Why I left Protestantism for Catholicism

February 06, 2015

[Steelfish]

http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v1n5/ant_v1n5_why.html Why I Left Protestantism for Catholicism

Jeffrey A. Tucker

I am no fan of "conversion" essays, which are sometimes pompous and self-serving. My purpose is to achieve a greater spirit of mutual respect. How rare are Protestant conversions to Catholicism? More rare than reverse, but I know enough cases, including my own, to make the subject worth exploring.

J.I. Packer recently wrote in Christianity Today (May 1989) that the contrast between the "zany wildness" of Protestantism and the "at-homeness" of Catholicism alone is sufficient to explain conversions to Catholicism. It is the only Church that can, and does, claim institutional continuity from the time of Christ to the present. He contrasts the "at home" motive with a more genuine longing for the truth.

But the Road to Rome is a long one, and, I submit, the choice between instability and continuity, sectarianism and universality, is not a sufficient reason for conversion. The Christian ought to be willing to be a minority of one if the truth is at stake.

It is precisely the conviction of truth that led to my conversion to Catholicism. I wrote Rev. Packer that "My conversion to Catholicism was motivated by more than a feeling of 'at-homeness.' God makes us feel at home when we have a sincere conviction of truth. There is no dichotomy between the two, as you suggested. Truth is what I sought when God led me to Rome....My plea is for you to take my conversion, and others like mine, seriously."

Anti-Catholicism

Catholic and Reformed theological discussion has matured since the Reformation, when neither side was immune from using smear tactics to score debating points. Today the inflammatory rhetoric is largely gone, yet fundamental misunderstandings persist. My own anti-Catholicism was partly a product of ethnic prejudice, growing up, as I did, as a Southern Baptist in a largely Hispanic town in West Texas. It took years before I could look at Catholicism as more than a hypocritical, anti-scriptural, even anti-Christian cult.

The Baptist culture of my childhood treated Christianity as a wholly individualized phenomenon. No man was to exercise authority over any other, in the affairs of the church, or, more importantly, in the understanding of doctrine. There was no discussion of history, councils, creeds, saints, martyrs, or controversies. I don't think my experience was far from typical. Even in the "good-old days" when every family attended Wednesday night prayer meeting such instruction was absent. The Bible -- one's subjective interpretations of it -- was all that was necessary for individualized Christianity.

My high-school conversion to Presbyterian Church moderated my anti-Catholicism. I began to understand, for the first time, the significance of the creeds, of Church government, of liturgy (however loosely defined). But the most important thing being a Presbyterian did for me was to alert me to the meaning of Christian history. It was the overwhelming weight of 2000 years of history that finally convinced me of the truth of Catholicism.

The Devil Theory of History

Presbyterians do not want to tear themselves away from church history, but rather want to be part of God's eternal covenant with His people, from its inception to eternity. At my Orthodox Presbyterian Church, we read the words of the great Reformers with respect and even veneration. We discussed their theological views. We tried to imitate their liturgical styles. All of this is important; it helps in the maturation process.

Even though Presbyterians endorse the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura (formed in opposition to Rome), they recognize that the Church has a teaching role and that pious individuals in Church history have a level of understanding that supersedes most of our own. Individual faith and conscience are the final guides, of course, but our primary earthly allegiance must be to the teaching authority of the Church.

But there was still something missing from Presbyterianism for me. It seemed to concentrate too heavily on post-Reformation Church history, and the first 1500 years of Christianity received scant attention. Do these years offer us anything that will enhance our understanding of Christianity? One easy way to answer this question is to adopt the Devil Theory of History, which says the history of the Church is the story of corruption. The way to sound doctrine is to adopt the views of the Persecuted simply because they stand against Rome. The result of this view is intolerable: heresy becomes orthodoxy and anybody who shouts "to hell with the Pope" gets a hearing.

The Devil Theory collapses on the most superficial analysis. Christians justifiably take pride in their heritage, yet the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church for at least 1500 years (leaving aside the 11th century Orthodox break).

Why would Christ have allowed his Church to wallow in the mire of falsehood and heresy for so long? What kind of witness would that have provided to the world? If Christ did indeed establish a Church, wouldn't He have providentially protected her from significant error?

Partial Corruption?

An alternative view is to see the Church as only partially corrupt. As I understand it, this is the Presbyterian position (the new one; not the traditional). But given the Church's own historical claims of authenticity, authority, and infallibility, this view is difficult to sustain.

One cannot have it both ways: the Church was either in Christ's hands (as she claimed) or she was the anti-Christ by virtue of making such claims.

One can selectively draw from pre-Reformation doctrine and expunge from it its pro-Papacy statements. For example, Reformed thinkers are famous for quoting St. Augustine in support of predestination and election. But rarely quoted is St. Augustine's view of the Church, which anticipates ultramontanism (an extreme position on papal authority).

Yet the partial corruption thesis collapses from internal contradictions.

Christendom's greatest thinkers and the most pious saints were also devoted to the Church as a divinely protected institution: its catholicity, apostilicity, infallibility, and sacraments. It is anomalous to claim the authority of a saint like Augustine without mentioning his views on the Church. It's like discussing the development of a child without mentioning the mother's role in nurturing, sustaining, and reinforcing the maturation process.

Presbyterians must decide if they were ever part of the universal Church of Catholicism. Did they ever endorse the papacy as a legitimate institution reflecting Christ's will? Was it corrupt from the beginning or just become so in the 16th century? Under what conditions would Presbyterians have been willing to be in communion with Rome? Ideally, should the papacy have been wiped out? It seems to me the correct path is to regard the Catholic church as Christ's church and to regard her claims as true.

The Role of Tradition

Protestants look skeptically on the Catholic view that Christian tradition has doctrinal authority stemming from Christ and the apostles. Yet tradition (the teaching authority of Christ and His apostles) is essential to full Christian understanding for several reasons. First, not everything concerning Christ's work is found in Scripture (Jn. 21:25) and some Christian teaching is handed down by word of mouth (II Tim. 2:2).

The Bible instructs us to "stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle" (II Thess. 2:15).

Second, the early Church did not have a Bible in the sense that we do today; yet their faith was fully protected and sustained through tradition. The Bible itself is a product of the 4th century Church. Third, no single individual can fully derive the meaning of scripture by himself; it takes tradition to set up the proper framework for understanding and for asking the right questions. Say the Bible was given to a fully competent scholar and he was asked to write a creed based upon it. Even if he had ten years to do so, who doubts that he would not get it quite right? Christ never intended him to. The Church was established to articulate and defend Christian doctrine (Mt. 16:18-19).

As a Presbyterian, I rejected the subjectivist position of Biblical understanding, and I wanted to embrace Church history. Then I had to decide which parts of the tradition to embrace and which parts to reject. It seemed to me that the doctrine of the Reformers was too much in flux to provide a sufficient grounding in the Faith. And that approach freezes Christianity in time.

The Reformers had valuable things to say; but I thought their words and liturgical practices should be weighed against the whole of Christian tradition. I settled on this: I reject the part of tradition that is contradicted by the Bible. And that is the rule the Catholic Church herself has accepted. The consistent Christian finds that the Church is the anchor of his faith. The fair-minded historian finds that the Catholic Church is the anchor of history. In both cases, I came believe, Providence is at the helm.

My Conversion Process

There were many steps in my conversion, but the most important one was the initial one: investigating what the Church has to offer. My experience accords with G.K. Chesterton's: "This process, which may be called discovering the Catholic Church, is perhaps the most pleasant and straightforward part of the business; easier than joining the Catholic Church and much easier than trying to live the Catholic life. It is like discovering a new continent full of strange flowers and fantastic animals, which is at once wild and hospitable."

There were a host of Catholic terms and objects that have meaning with Catholicism with which I was completely unfamiliar: offices, the magisterium, mortal and venial sins, confession, penance, rosary beads, the saints and martyrs, and even, yes, Marian theology.

Suddenly, I found that most of the anti-Catholic ideas that I held were canards with no basis in fact (e.g., that Catholics worship Mary and statues, that they don't believe the Bible inerrant, that they cannot pray directly to God).

Even the dreaded doctrine of the infallibility sounded more reasonable considering its limits: the Pope must speak ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) and he must do so in communion with the Bishops.

This discovery process led me to the proverbial slippery slope of Romanism.

As Chesterton describes it: "It is impossible to be just to the Catholic Church. The moment men cease to pull against it they feel a tug towards it. The moment they cease to shout it down they begin to listen to it with pleasure. The moment they try to be fair to it they begin to be fond of it. But when that affection has passed a certain point it begins to take on the tragic and menacing grandeur of a great love affair."

Finally, I cannot discuss my conversion without mentioning the Eucharist, the source and sacrament of Catholic spirituality. Here lies a central difference between the Catholic and Orthodox faiths as versus Protestantism.

The vast majority of Christians believe what scripture says about the Eucharist: the bread and wine is fully transformed into the body and the blood -- the doctrine of transubstantiation. The Real Presence is indeed a divine mystery (as is much else about our Faith).

I was amazed to discover that both Luther and Calvin, in different degrees, taught the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The Memorialist view--that the Eucharist is all bread and that communion is really without divine significance, done merely "in memory" of Christ--that is, the common teaching of evangelicals, wasn't believed or taught by the Reformers.

I rejected the Memorialist view, but could see no reason not to go all the way to a pure Catholic position.

From Geneva to Rome

It was in my search for a "pure" Presbyterianism that I found Catholicism. I became tired of "protesting"; I wanted a real and positive Christianity. I didn't want a liturgy and theology defined in opposition to something else; I wanted the Christian liturgy and theology that the Church throughout the ages defined and practiced. Moreover, I did not want these things because they were part of the past; I wanted them because they will be part of the future.

John Henry Cardinal Newman, among the most famous of converts from Protestantism to Catholicism, makes the point in Apologia Pro Vita Sua that the best and most orthodox elements of evangelical, Reformed, and Anglican Christian doctrine find their fullest expression and glory within Catholicism.

The bread in the Lord's supper becomes the mystery of the Real Presence; collective confession becomes private, specific, and efficacious; the claim of Church authority becomes the hard-core position of infallibility; Scripture becomes the infallible story of the covenant of God, both in content and canon; mere perseverance becomes a well-defined penance; martyrs and saints, whose lives are to be admired and emulated, become advocates on your behalf; the pastor becomes priest; the worship service becomes the Mass, with liturgy based on Scripture and imbued with holiness; the Christian "quiet time" becomes the requirement of a regular and disciplined prayer life, with litanies, memorization, and hours of intense contemplation on the Triune God.

Yet at the base, there is one reason why I converted to Catholicism. It is summarized by the line from the Apostle's Creed: "I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

It's no wonder that Catholics have been so hysterically hated and persecuted throughout history. The Church's claim to be a fortress of truth, fully expressing the whole of Christian doctrine, makes it the single biggest threat to the forces of modernism and atheism. If a person hates God, why bother attacking Lutherans, Methodists, or the Reformed movement when he can attack Catholicism?

I am not hostile to Protestantism in general, and certainly not to Presbyterianism, to which I owe a great debt.

I came to believe that Christ's Church subsists in Catholicism, which is why it has been so successful in defending orthodoxy and in standing against the tides of Christian sectarianism and atheistic modernism.

Catholicism offers orthodoxy, universality, and stability.

Conversion was not an easy decision; the agonizing process lasted nearly three years. My final step was taken out of a conviction of truth, and it was a step I shall never regret.

Conversion reading material: Vatican II; The Catholic Catechism by John A. Hardon, S.J; anything by G.K Chesterton, but especially Orthodoxy and The Catholic Church and Conversion; Apologia Pro Vita Sua by J.H. Cardinal Newman, Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating (Ignatius Press, 1988); and Evangelical is Not Enough by Thomas Howard (Ignatius Press, 1989).

Jeffrey Tucker is a regular contributor to Crisis, a review of conservative Catholic thought. He is a Fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the Managing Editor of The Free Market.

[Talisker]

Not a brand. It is on your soul, put there by the Father Son and Holy Spirit. I don’t see why you would call that disgusting. The same thing happens at Confirmation and at a priest’s ordination — Holy Orders. They are spiritual marks that are there forever

And just how honest is your response to my comment that baptism is done without the conscious understanding and agreement of the baby? That you full well know and understand that the subject is the violation of free will.

Catholicism is based on nothing but an endless string of such insulting and juvenile evasions. Yeah, as if the Word of God depends upon such trickery. You don't even see that your very attitude denies the truth of your words.

You compare confirmation and ordination with a baby's baptism? Do you even realize that works both ways - that you're agreeing that even confirmation and ordination, at some level, are imposed upon their recipients, and denies them free will?

"Soul marks" doesn't sound like a brand? Yet isn't that exactly what they are? Don't they mark someones as property of the church? Do they alone guarantee salvation? Nope. Then what are these "marks" upon one's soul?

Brands. Property claims. And you put it perfectly - even if such s person leaves the church, the mark never leaves them and they can always return. How? Because they always belong. Why? Because they have the brand. And in the case of babies, they had no say whatever in the matter.

That's the truth of that teaching. Why pretend it's not?

[Steelfish]

No its not disgusting. You have badly misunderstood. Baptism is a sacrament. If you choose to return you don’t need to be re-baptized. That’s all there is to it. Of course, you have atheists and agnostic and even as the write proclaims he was anti-Catholic. If he/she should return they just don’t need to be re-baptized. No more, no less. On the other hand if non-Catholics like Laura Ingraham, Judge Bork, Judge Thomas, Robert Novak, Bobby Jindal, Tony Blair, G.K. Chesterton “as an adult” wishes to convert to Catholicism, then baptism is a necessity.

[Steelfish]

So what has that all that got to do with one’s personal three year honest soul-searching journey?

[Talisker]

Oh, so you can read Hebrew and Greek? I mean, that would be “God’s word direct and unadulterated”

Some people believe that God's word transcends language. That a layperson can read a Bible in English, or another language, and pray for understanding, and they will receive the understanding they seek from reading those words of God, even through translation.

Other people think this is not possible.

[Steelfish]

No, that’s the nadir of stupidity. This is not a branding as you uncharitably describe it like a piece of property. Baptism is a sacrament that washes away “original sin” it does not guarantee a permanent state of grace. One simply does not have to go through this ritual if one leaves the faith and then decides to return. This is the teaching of the early Church fathers. This is not the branding you have in either Buddhism or pantheistic religions where creatures are born as men or serpents or fish or fowl according to their prior births.

[Steelfish]

Those who believe that Christ as the Son of God believes He taught ONE truth. To make sure this ONE truth survives through the end of time, He commanded this deposit of faith to Peter and his successors. Before the Bible. there was the Church and under whose authority, we call Petrine Authority, the books in the Bible were assembled ( they did not fall from the skies and self order them in the form they appear in the Bible). This authority continues to this day.

This authority did in evaporate with the Reformation or any time thereafter. Each person and their grandmother don’t get to read scripture -the Word of God- according to their lights and dream up stuff by saying “God’s word transcends language” This is an oxymoron. God’s word comes from scripture, the received oral tradition, and sacred ritual. Of course for those who do not believe that Christ is true God and true Man, then you can dream up your own “transcendant” God. Muslims do that too.

[Talisker]

No, that’s the nadir of stupidity. This is not a branding as you uncharitably describe it like a piece of property.

What is uncharitable is your contempt towards a genuine expression of understanding about the faith.

And the true nadir of stupidity is simply proceeding, even upon being reminded up the subject, to double down on refusing to address the issue of free will.

But don't worry, what elsewhere is intellectual dishonesty is, within the church, "faithfulness."

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

"I'm polymerized tree sap and you're an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns on its original trajectory and adheres to you."

[Talisker]

Those who believe that Christ as the Son of God believes He taught ONE truth. To make sure this ONE truth survives through the end of time, He commanded this deposit of faith to Peter and his successors. Before the Bible. there was the Church and under whose authority, we call Petrine Authority, the books in the Bible were assembled ( they did not fall from the skies and self order them in the form they appear in the Bible). This authority continues to this day.

This authority did in evaporate with the Reformation or any time thereafter. Each person and their grandmother don’t get to read scripture -the Word of God- according to their lights and dream up stuff by saying “God’s word transcends language” This is an oxymoron. God’s word comes from scripture, the received oral tradition, and sacred ritual. Of course for those who do not believe that Christ is true God and true Man, then you can dream up your own “transcendant” God. Muslims do that too.

“And the disciples came, and said unto Him, Why do you speak unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but unto them it is not given.”
- Matt 13:10-11

Gee, sounds like that one truth can - and was - taught in different ways, and at different levels, for different people, by Jesus Himself.

And in parables, no less. Which are, by definition, metaphorical, requiring God's word to... transcend language.

And no, the Bibles books didn't fall from the sky. They were voted on in a highly political process under Constantine (which is why they're called Petrine, no doubt to hide their origins). And those which didn't make it were burned, and those who objected were burned. Praise God for the cleansing of the Word in the Fire of Love!

Oh and as for your thesis that those who don't believe exactly as you do about the teachings of Jesus Christ are Muslims, thanks for sharing. You've actually said far more than you realize.

But then, I do indeed approve of clarity. Getting people to admit what they really believe is always so enlightening - especially when disagreeing with them is something they believe will result in eternal suffering.

Muslims believe that, too.

[Talisker]

Nice. Every gets to interpret their own way and ignorance is bliss, so the naturally corollary is Christ allowed for multiple interpretations, multiple truths. Don’t worry, be happy.

Logic's not your strong point. I'd advise you to keep to the knee-jerk doctrinal recitation without sticking any toes into apologetics.

It's okay, you can still be contemptuous. But when you start conflating your imaginings of new age perspectives with denunciations of any independent thought at all, it's time to back away from the heretics on the rack and take a breather. After all, to much dungeon work can make anyone lightheaded. And the heretics will still be there tomorrow - a zealot's work is never done. So have a beer, put up your feet, and take a break. For like, oh, a decade or so.

[vladimir998]

“That a layperson can read a Bible in English, or another language, and pray for understanding, and they will receive the understanding they seek from reading those words of God, even through translation.”

If it were that simple then no Protestant would ever come to a different conclusion than any other Protestant. But they do. Everyday.

[vladimir998]

“Logic’s not your strong point. I’d advise you to keep to the knee-jerk doctrinal recitation without sticking any toes into apologetics.”

That’s hilarious coming from you.

[BlueDragon]

If it were that simple then no Protestant would ever come to a different conclusion than any other Protestant. But they do. Everyday.

And so do Roman Catholics, just as Christians everywhere (including those who would eventually become recognized as 'Roman' Catholic) have for centuries.

On the pages of this forum, upon more than one occasion I have witnessed Romanists make a statement, then in the very next statement refute the one which they had just made, immediately preceding.

I mean, it's more often that when there are contradictions and disagreements with one's self, then that would be spread out from thread to thread, and over a matter of days...but I've seen the self-refuting commentary be self-contained in one comment/reply, more than once.

Then again, perhaps those particular 'Catholics' who refute themselves in consecutive statements are (borderline?) schizophrenic, and/or are off their med's (or need the dosage adjusted), which could perhaps be a logical excuse for themselves to be blatantly and immediately contradictory.

I've witnessed 'Catholics' disagree among themselves (not just within themselves, lol) as to doctrine also, though that does not appear as often --- openly --- with myself getting the impression that part of the reason for the comparable, seeming rarity of that (compared with freepers whom are not "Catholic" but venture to make comment) is lest the more hyena-minded Romanists whom infest the pages of FreeRepublic gang up on them, and then devour them, resulting in those whom would disagree (or worse! agree with so-called 'Protestant' expressions as being accurate enough for many things, to be useful) often 'lay low', or venture comments here on the 'religion' forum but rarely.

The indiscriminate condemnation of "protestants" which is often indulged in by Roman Catholics, the insults to the intelligence of this or that person, etc., are not exactly official doctrine and dogma of the RCC either, which means that when broadly sweeping criticisms & condemnations are dished out -- by the likes of, for example, yourself, then it could be argued that at those instances you yourself are "coming to a different conclusion" than men such as Ratzinger (a.k.a. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) often has, himself having gone so far as to say the likes of "we must listen to our partners" when referring to theologians outside of the ecclesiastical community to which he himself belongs.

But go on, yourself, be at odds with the "Magesterium" if you like, do whatever... whatever blows your own skirts up (as long as it's bashing 'protestants' is has to be right, eh?).

Meanwhile, did you do any checking into the background and personality of this latest 'convert to Catholicism' (converted in 1989, I take it)?

I AM ANARCHY - Jeffrey Tucker

I am not one of those who has much in the way of 'gay-dar', but one doesn't need highly tuned discernment in that area to realize the man is a flaming pillow-biter.

I could hardly bear to listen to him talk...uh, I mean lisp

All these years in the RCC, partaking communion in the RCC, and he's still a fag? And here I thought that doing so was supposed to inwardly change a person's soul, be as a veritable gnawing on the flesh of Christ, a means for grace itself.

In the video..the first thing the guy says is "is that a hot dog...with chile?" while performing a quick little squirm in his seat, then asking if the sellers accept Bitcoin.

Yeah sure, "can I have change for this Bitcoin?" (from the price of a sandwich). WHat a maroon!.

Oh well. Maybe that can be blamed on the Presbyterians (all the sins of the world, the very downfalling of human nature into sinful nature and condition -- IT"S ALL THE FAULT OF THOSE PROTESTANTS --- isn't it?) for he was allegedly one of those, once, for a few years, I think.

It's no wonder he trotted himself and his little bow-ties away from the 'Baptists' he was born among.

[trebb]

My story went in the other direction. Once Catholic, now Protestant.

Born into the Catholic Church - became agnostic for years then tried it and other religions and had my fill of them. Finally got what I needed (understanding of redemption through Christ) via non-denominational church.

[ThePatriotsFlag]

Frying pan to fire, my friend. The progressives are taking it over just like they did the Episcopal church. The best church is the church of Self. I found i didn’t need all the prayer books and liturgical mumbo jumbo. And the “rules” I set for myself wouldn’t get passed by any “organized church” in these ...anything goes...days. I don’t have to convince people there is a God, ...I know He exists. And evolution is God’s ongoing , and amazing, work of continuous creation. You don’t believe this? ...guess what, I don’t care. :-)

[Old Yeller]

If you are a baptized Catholic -— then you will always be a baptized Catholic. The make of Baptism does not leave your soul.

Unless of course, you want to say something in a Catholic caucus thread.

[Old Yeller]

It takes a legal mind to navigate all the rules and regulations that the Church of Rome has established, then changed over the centuries. Surely God did not intend for salvation to be so convoluted. Many times in Scripture God promises that you can have assurance of your salvation. The Church of Rome always leaves you in doubt, so that you always fear death because you can’t have that promised assurance.

[CynicalBear]

>>the "at-homeness" of Catholicism<<

I've heard many people claim that "at home" welcome in bars also. Just sayin

[melissa_in_ga]

I haven’t read through the entire thread, nor have I yet read replies to your post. But I’d like to clarify something here.

Catholicism does require understanding and agreement as an adult (or older child). Babies born to Catholics are typically baptized as babies, but as they get older they move into the Sacrament of Reconciliation, their First Communion and then finally into Confirmation. Children take catechism classes that teach what the Church and the collect believe. I’ve taught some of these classes myself. Confirmation is a public affirmation of belief and agreement.

That’s as straight-forward as I can be without more coffee :)

[CynicalBear]

>>And why the misleading publication date?<<

This is a Catholic piece.