Why are all my smartest friends becoming Catholic?
Ryan Schutt:
Though it may be hard to believe after reading this list, I remain generously empathetic to the Catholic tradition. Yet, for these and other reasons, I remain an
Evangelical.
1. Despite the glossy pictures Scott Hahn, and most other Evangelicals-turned-Catholics, paint of the Catholic Church, the grass is never greener on the other side. Just watch the news.
2. Nothing annoys cradle Catholics and alienates Evangelicals more than an eager beaver Evangelical-turned-Catholic: they tend to be unbendingly dogmatic (“The magisterium says it, I believe it, that settles it”), liturgically strict (“I’ve got a fever, and the only prescription is more incense”), and fundamentally evangelical in attempting to convert their friends and family, not to mention prideful of discovering “the true Church.”
3. The Eucharist is the sacrament of unity. But, it is the beginning of unity, not the end, as if Jesus were some prize who is withheld until one bends the knee to a certain list of criteria. Do a husband and wife agree on everything before they consummate their relationship? No. So why is it asserted that ecclesial relationships must matter on all points of doctrine before unity is consummated in the Eucharist?
4. Simply replacing Evangelical individualism with Catholic hierarchical structure doesn’t solve all your Evangelical frustrations. It just creates a different set.
5. Appealing to the early Church as a water-tight apologetic for all things Catholic is not straightforward. What you do with the early Church is a matter of prudent retrieval of the tradition and not an undeniable apologetic “proof” that Rome is right. History is more complex than it seems.
6. Lots of Protestants become Orthodox and believe they have found the “true” Church. Lots of Orthodox have become Catholics (and vice versa) and thought the same. And lots of Catholics and Orthodox have become Protestants and thought the same.
7. Don’t assume that becoming Catholic is as easy as switching from a Baptist to a Vineyard church. It requires a complete change of mind-set, assumptions, actions, language, and obedience.
8. I cannot bend to considering other Christians churches as merely ecclesial communities and nothing more.
9. Think all your vexations about Evangelical worship will be solved? Search YouTube for “Clown Mass” or “Star Trek Mass” and think again.
10. Christianity is the sum total of a rich and generous retrieval of the Great Tradition, from the Early Church to the present day, not a singular expression of any one particular tradition.
Illustration by Olivia de Fleuriot de la Coliniere & Daniel Giesbrecht
Tom Scott
More often than not I’m motivated by less than lofty ideals. So I’ve split my 10 reasons into two lists. If you’re a Protestant thinking about Catholicism, I’d invite you to honestly examine my “Five Shallow Reasons For Becoming Catholic.” If you’re Catholic, hang in there for my “Five Not-so-shallow Reasons”. Things would be a lot easier if these two lists were as easy to separate in reality as they are in text. To some degree, each number in the second list corresponds with each number in the first, i.e. 5 with 5, 4 with 4, and so on.
Five Shallow Reasons For Becoming Catholic:
5. Catholic girls are gorgeous. Sorry Catholic guys, but Evangelichicks don’t seem as interested in converting to Catholicism as their male counterparts.
4. So I can drink with a clean conscience. Teetotalism is as much a vice as drunkenness, but even so, Catholics aren’t as concerned about exactly which drink is that one drink too many.
3. Protestants don’t appreciate Augustine or Aquinas. Sure we may have read The Institutes or 95 Theses, but mention the Summa and you’ll get blank stares at best and suspicious frowns at worst.
2. Chesterton was. And he could out-hipster today’s best hipsters with his pithy paradoxes. That’s why I have Orthodoxy on my bookshelf.
1. Why become a Catholic? Because my parents aren’t. In many ways, Catholicism is about as far away from mainstream Evangelicalism as I can get while retaining the deep Christian faith of my youth.
Five Not-so-shallow Reasons:
5. Beauty is safe again. There is a beauty in the rising arches of a Gothic cathedral that no gym ceiling will ever approach. If they lift us up to heaven, why be suspicious? For many, the liturgy becomes a more than adequate replacement for “Our God is an Awesome God.”
4. Substance. More “this is my body” and less “in remembrance of me.” Also, reverence for God’s created world as “very good,” and a solid understanding of what it means to be made “in the image of God.” Just be careful not to counteract your inner Protestant Plato by swallowing too much Aristotle.
3. The democracy of the dead, no more historical amnesia. Christians did more than crusade between Acts and the 95 Theses.
2. Humility. I am not the final word on Biblical interpretation. Perhaps the Holy Spirit has spoken more clearly to wiser men than me, and I would do well to start with their educated interpretation.
1. Why become a Catholic? Because the caricatures I grew up accepting have turned out to be just that. Caricatures. We can’t criticize Catholic conclusions because they are inconsistent with Protestant premises (i.e. “The Immaculate Conception isn’t in the Bible!” well, for Catholics it doesn’t necessarily have to be). If we start exploring Catholicism on its own terms, we might glimpse a broader and more complete whole than the system we began with. Then we will be in danger of a more Christian Christianity kindling a deeper faith than that of our youth.
Great article guys. I think this is very relevant for a lot of Trinity students, and I love that we can have an open, respectful discussion about our religious traditions and strive towards unity in the church.
Ryan, can you elaborate on #5? Do you think the structure and beliefs of the early church merit much evidence for the Catholic faith being the true faith? And Tom, about #3: Can’t we learn our history without ditching Evangelicalism or Protestantism (contra John Henry Newman)? I agree that most Protestants don’t know about church history, but is that really a good reason to become Catholic?
My two cents: I agree with Evangelical-turned-Catholic Peter Kreeft that the only good reason to become Catholic is if Catholicism is true. I find it unfortunate that this reason does not feature very prominently in the discussion among Trinity students. Perhaps I am wrong on this, and I hope I am, but I would suggest shifting the debate away from the pros and cons of the Great Tradition and towards the veracity of its claim to be the one true church.
Toph, I will get back to you soon on #5. I’m nursing a rather rough cough and am only popping in to make a quick correction.
On #2 it should read:
“… and fundamentalistically evangelical in attempting to convert…”
Yes, “Fundamentalistically” It is a word.
I should have rephrased the sentence to not use it, but that was my fault.
Okay Toph, here is my explanation of #5 (I’ll try to keep it brief).
I am mainly pointing out that history is more complex than popular Catholic apologists’ proof texts of Church Fathers left and right. To any Evangelical stumbling upon these dead people for the first time, the proof texts will appear undeniable evidence for Rome being right. Little if any effort is made to appropriate the ECFs in their proper context. I can think of numerous examples where quotations have been ripped from ECFs by Catholic apologists in an effort to convince historically amnesiac Evangelicals (a point I agree with Tom) that once you read these proof texts, you can’t do anything but become Catholic.
But a significant problem is is that we forget, and Catholics forget, that the Protestant Reformers were intent on going back to the Early Church to shed light on the need for theological reforms. In other words, the Reformation was about retrieving the tradition to renew the Church. So I suppose what I’m saying is that we’ve got competing bids for the Early Church’s support and both have claimed (and are claiming) that they have the most support. Which is it? (This doesn’t even take into account that the Orthodox like to say that they represent the EC better than Catholics and Protestants and they obviously have some major, major, theological differences from the Catholics and their drawing from mostly the same sources…so who is right?)
This also has to do significantly with the whole notion of the development of doctrine. I think most of us would agree that doctrine has development. But while Catholics are quite liberal with what constitutes development (e.g. Marian dogmas), Protestants are naturally a little more suspicious. We can find support for development wherever we want. The question is, are we accurately representing the EC’s theology and are we being responsible with saying something is a true development.
Moreover, it has to do with how we do history. I think history is interpretation. And more often than not, our current agendas drive our interpretation. Fundamentalist Protestants are a perfect example of this. Confronted by Catholic claims against solo scriptura, Fundamentalists will scour ECFs, located a quote that seems to undeniably support “Scripture alone” and then say “See, Rome is wrong.” (So in other words, we Protestants are no less guilty.) We can find in history what we want to find and we can forget what might challenge the status quo of our beliefs.
Proof texting ECFs doesn’t do them justice.
Having said all that, Protestants, particularly Evangelicals, are deeply amnesiac about the Early Church. A retrieval of the tradition is needed, yes. However, simply because the ECFs or the EC said or did something does not make it instantly worthy of a retrieval. In other words, there is a difference between responsible retrieval and application of what we retrieve to the present day and just willy-nilly pulling stuff from the past and saying its all good because it’s ancient. Ancient doesn’t always mean it’s better.
What an absolutely useless article that really only shows how little you know about the Catholic faith, and its church. I’ve read a lot of shocking articles in this newspaper over the years, but this one takes the cake.
Oh, and I’m an evangelical as well.
Wow ,and I thought most Catholics were ignorant of the teachings and history of the Church. Instead of writing about what you think you know ,I am inviting you to come over across the water to the little RPC chapel and visit with Jesus. He is calling you to come and visit Him in the Most Blessed Sacrament. Why not come and spend an hour with Our Lord? Jesus Body , Blood ,Soul and Divinity resides in the tabernacle. Our Lord want’s Christians to be one and united. Come to RPC chapel and pray. I pray that you will.
Andrew and CRL,
I am writing a large exposition of my reasons in a response to Tia Glenn Cooke’s post on her blog. Please check it out when it is up.
And all I ask is that before you begin assuming that I’m ignorant, you take a moment to hear my side of the story.
I happen to have come very close to becoming Catholic about two years ago. I attended Catholic mass for 1.5 years. I took four courses at RPC. I have read numerous apologetic accounts for the Catholic Church. I went through a few classes of RCIA but left after I realized they just weren’t Catholic enough. I could easily spar with Protestants over the merits of the Catholic church. John Paul II remains one of the most influential thinkers in my theological understanding of the world. I will gladly stand up and defend ridiculous caricatures of Catholics that are made by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists; I have taken Catholics sides in theological debates and asked my Evangelical friends to be more generous to understanding our Catholic brothers and sisters. I gladly remain quite Catholic in my thinking and will choose a Catholic theologian to read over just about any Protestant.
So, please, I ask that before you assume I’m just another Catholic-basher Evangelical, you understand the context of where I’m coming from. I have a story to tell and unfortunately, I can’t really tell it in 450 can I?
Unfortunately, I was limited to 450 words and as I now realize, it’s was probably not the smartest thing to write theology in that space because clearly it is being misinterpreted not only because of its brevity but because I had to keep things short and simple for a non-theological audience.
Thanks,
Ryan
Ryan ,
Please do not accuse me of assuming. You professed your ignorance by what you wrote in the article. No you cannot tell your journey about Catholicism in 450 or less, but your response to my post was more positive of Catholicism than your original article. Your right RCIA and 4 courses at RPC won’t make you a Catholic. Practicing Catholics think differently , at least they should. Your article and your post response are contradictions and tells me you need spiritual guidance from a GOOD Catholic priest. Fr.Gabriel at RPC would welcome you anytime.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but shouldn’t the Orthodox church be seen as the one true church? If I’m looking for a ‘higher’ church, I think I would have to go with them! After all, couldn’t one point to the excesses of the Catholic church as the catalyst for all the disunity in the body today, beginning with their behavior toward the Orthodox?
Hey “Na”, care to elaborate on your theological and historical support for those comments?
I don’t mean to start a flame war here, but, I think you guys are being too hard on Ryan. I say this as someone who is converting to Catholicism. I don’t think anyone on this thread can deny that many Catholic converts are delusional enough to think that becoming Catholic will initiate them into a group of people who take their faith more seriously. We soon realize, however, that our Catholic brothers and sisters are just as flawed.
Let’s show Ryan a little Christian love and stop calling him names. It is childish and doesn’t add any validity to our points.
If Catholicism is true (which I believe it is) it is not so weak as to need us to flame anyone who says anything nasty about it. We do a good enough job of discrediting it with our own sinfulness. Thankfully, Christ promised he would never leave us or forsake us and that the gates of hell would not prevail against us. So chill out friends, the Church is adequately defended without stooping to mud slinging at anyone who attacks it.
David,
Where is the name calling in the posts? Where is the mudslinging? Be careful as you cannot tell tone in electronic forums. The OP wrote an article and there is a comment section for readers. Is it only for praise and high fives?
David you actually start your post by stating ” don’t be too hard on Ryan”. Then you admit that members of the visible Church should not defend the Church from attacks. Can you explain please.
Hey Toph, great points. Thanks for starting the dialogue.
I too like what my homeboy Peter Kreeft has to say about ecumenism, but I’m not sure your paraphrase is entirely accurate. He says that Protestants should not become Catholic until they see that Christ is the center of each of the Church’s sacraments. He also says that Protestants won’t become Catholic until Catholics are more Protestant than Protestants (and vice versa). I won’t presume to fully grasp his meaning, but after reading his two points, you might as well skip to my last two paragraphs.
I agree with you that many Protestants’ ignorance of church history is a shallow reason for becoming Catholic. That’s why I included this in my first list. But notice my second #3 is different. What makes a reason shallow is its dependence on people. That is the distinction between the numbers on my first list, and the numbers that correspond to them on my second list.
I echo your call to focus the debate, but I don’t understand your suggested means of doing so. My method is to forcibly separate the reasons that are based on how a denomination of imperfect people act from those based on the denomination’s unique truth claims.
Arguing over shallow reasons that appeal to the way people act causes more heat than light.
That being said, there is a continuum from one list to the next. Scratch the surface of my first #3 (as I think you did) and I think you’ll find a substantial point over which constructive dialogue can occur:
We can learn our history without ditching Protestantism only if Protestantism hasn’t fundamentally ditched history first.
If Protestantism is founded on an unwarranted suspicion of pre-Reformation theology and philosophy, its foundation must be reconsidered. Suspicion comes from ignorance which comes from suspicion. Similarly, the art of reaction is difficult to master.
Unfortunately, my point boils down to the question “What Protestant can remain Protestant after encountering the tradition?”
Well, I can. See, this point is based on ignorance as well. For I will not become Catholic till I have reconciled my reason to that portion of Rome that is still unknown to me, yet that unknown is precisely where I might come to the frightening realization that Rome encompasses Wittenberg.
It’s just like my overambitious Enlightenment appetite to seek certainty in ‘reasoning’ through this debate. Does that mean that we throw out reason? No, I don’t think the conversation on this page can be classified as excessively rational yet. But it does make me suspect that my goal of divorcing the personal from the impersonal reasons for becoming Catholic is vanity.
Ultimately it’s both Catholicism and Catholics that mix to form a bewildering elixir for Protestants. It’s both the head and the heart, both the metaphysical and the physical, both the timeless and the temporal that scare us alive.
Which brings me to my final point. The Eucharist. The only papist doctrine the Protestant can’t incorporate.
John answered, ‘Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.’ But Jesus said to him, ‘Do not stop him; for whoever is not against you is for you.’
-from LK9, NRSV
I shall no seek to stop you, but why would other Christians not endeavour to “follow with us?”
Here’s what I’m referring to, the Fourth Crusade, which, because of lack of funding, was rerouted to Constantinople. … Eww. Sorry to drag up this bit of ugly history, but I thought it was common knowledge …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade
Has everyone here read Gonzalez’ History of Christianity vol 1?
CRL:
Insult: to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.
To call someone ‘ignorant’ fits the description of insult, which also also aligns itself with ‘name calling.’
Also, the ‘visible Church’ as you call it has larger issues to deal with than Protestantism. Christ has promised to maintain the Church, he also has commanded us to love our enemies. I do not consider Ryan my enemy, but you seem to consider (at least the things he said) to be antagonistic. Then obey the religion you defend so vehemently and love him.
These are not convincing reasons for or against anything. Obviously some of these could be dealt with in more depth, but very few if any of these “reasons” have anything to do with whether or not Catholicism, or Evangelical Protestantism is true.
1. You remain evangelical because people remain people in the Catholic Church.
2. You remain evangelical because some converts actually believe what their Church holds as a divinely revealed truth, i.e. The Catholic Church is the true Church?
3. You remain evangelical because you can’t be Catholic and deny Catholicism at the same time? Even most evangelicals believe that one must believe in Christ and the Trinity to be saved or take “communion”, they just have a smaller list of Dogmas.
4. You remain evangelical because you’ll be frustrated either way. This has more to do with which path has the least resistance, not truth.
5. You remain evangelical because as a Catholic you can’t create your own Christianity and pick and choose what traditions you like better. Its not a debatable matter or “prudent retrieval” that the Early Church taught Apostolic Succession, The Real Presence, Confession to a priest its a fact.
6. You remain evangelical because people come to believe different things. Is this your reason for staying a Christian too? Some Christians become atheists, and some atheists Christians.
7. The list changes focus here – here we have a warning that you might have to believe different things and live differently when changing religions. I can’t see how this is a reason to influence one in any direction.
8. You remain evangelical because you want to hold on to your own definition of what a Church is.
9. You remain evangelical because there are disobedient Catholics.
10. You remain evangelical because you believe it is an expression of the Great Tradition of the Christianity. If this was true, it would be a fair reason. I would ask where this Great Tradition was ‘retrieved’ from.
“Though it may be hard to believe after reading this list, I remain generously empathetic to the Catholic tradition. Yet, for these and other reasons, I remain an
Evangelical.”
The reason is that you have been called but not yet chosen. The grace of God is still at work in you.
Many of the evangelicals you are referring to who have turned (converted) Catholic are not yet truly catholic because they still carry with them the excess baggage of their fundamentalist evangelical ethos which they bring along with them to the Catholic faith. Just because they survived the swimming across the Tiber doesn’t fully make them Catholic. They must first divest themselves completlely of their past and accept and embrace the Faith without stings attached. One problem dominates this ethos is the acceptance in toto of what the Second Council of the Vatican has “taught,” rejecting as the conciliarists have done everything that was “before” the Council (even one convert now a “prominent” Catholic “apologist” Mmaking fun of the the motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” which liberates the Latin Mass, referring to those Catholics who prefer this Mass to “to the point of alluding to a fixation one may have for shoes (!) that a Catholic looks to the liturgy of this Mass.” Is that being a true Catholic? The conundrum is the dismal lack of Church history (“To be deep in history is to ceased being a Protestant” — Cardinal Newman).
I post this as someone who grew up Baptist (SBC) – by choice, my parents weren’t religious, I had to get them to take me to church on Sundays and on Wednesdays when I went during the week. During college – after doing my research – I was received into the Catholic Church as a member of the Roman Rite.
Your smart friends are likely becoming Catholic because they have started looking into what has gone on in the past with regards to Christianity. While the Eastern Orthodox issue is completely different from the Protestant issue (there are very few actual differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics, with the Catholic Church fully recognizing Orthodox sacraments as valid), the Protestant-Catholic issue is rather cut and dry.
The Protestant Reformation was a serious, major break with the history of Christianity up to that point and constituted drastic changes in theology and radical behavior on the part of early Protestants.
For example, Protestants hold that the Bible is the only source of God’s truth and that it holds everything we need to know. Yet Luther removed books from the Bible based on the fact those books were not accepted by the early Jewish community (the books of the Old Testament that he removed are derisively called the “apocrypha” by non-Catholics). He removed those books because he couldn’t put his hands on a Hebrew copy of them – that said, books like 1 and 2 Maccabeans (about the Maccabean revolt that led to the Hannakuh story) were almost certainly written in Hebrew at some point, it’s not as if this is not considered part of history, even by modern Rabbinic Jews. On the basis used by Luther for excluding those books, the entire New Testament is invalid and therefore not part of the Bible.
Additionally parts of the Bible have to be ignored to keep from substantiating Catholic claims. People who claim the Bible must be interpreted as literally as possible dismiss the many explanations of the Eucharist as being “truly/really” Christ’s Body and Blood as simply metaphor. Then why does Saint Paul talk about how people shouldn’t receive the Eucharist unless they believe that it is indeed His Body and Blood and that anyone who receives without believing this drinks judgment upon himself?
Another instance of ignoring scripture is with regards to Confession. Jesus literally says “Whosoever sins you forgive are forgiven, whosoever sins you retain are retained” to His Apostles. I’ve heard lots of Protestants (some quite angrily) tell me “that’s not what he meant,” but I have never heard an actual explanation of what Christ supposedly meant – just that He didn’t mean the people He was addressing could forgive sins.
In short, in my exploration of religion during college I found that Protestantism has narrowed its theological scope to consider what it wants to consider and ignores the actual progression of history – creating a gloss that tries to equate modern Protestant churches (communities that are a maximum of less than 500 years old) with the Church founded by Christ. Think about that again…a 500 year old organization with 500 year old ideas…founded by Christ, who walked this Earth 2,000 years ago.
Also, unfortunately catechesis in the Christian world at large (and in the Catholic world in particular) are famously awful in our times. Find a good orthodox Catholic priest to talk to, or check out a website like http://www.fisheaters.com to see a solid explanation of the 2,000 year old religion started by Jesus. There’s nothing quite like it. :)
Ryan, I read your article and I’ve also being keeping up with the discussion you’ve been having on Tia’s blog. Thank you for posting your response and clarifying your stance. She offered you some legitimate concerns and I appreciated the lengthy and somewhat thorough (with consideration to the medium) response.
I’m Catholic myself and I’d like you to know that I actually found your original article to be an entertaining read. I like that this sort of discussion is even happening on Mars’ Hill. MH has always had its up and down issues but I feel this one hit it out of the ballpark. Just look at all the discussion on the internet (despite the useless inflammatory trolls). It seems a few misplaced words here and there have somehow earned you the impotent wrath of ecumenically defective Catholics who hide behind internet anonymity.
Someone made mention in one of the previous comments that you can’t read tone from “electronic forums”. I find it funny that same person is capable of offering such wisdom and still be here attacking you for writing something that he himself misinterpreted in tone.
I hope articles like yours can continue to inspire discussion worthy of a Christian institution of higher education. As far as the trolls are concerned, Matthew 7:5 says it all.
If it is prideful for Catholics to believe we’re in the “true Church,” then how is it not equally prideful for all Christians to believe that Jesus — and Him alone — is the one and only Savior of humanity? Because that’s in the Bible? Well, once again, all Christians can deemed as prideful because we believe that our Scriptures — and only ours — were given by God to man.
Calling just one of the Christian churches the “true Church” is no more prideful than our similarly unique — and commonly held among all Christians — beliefs concerning Our Lord and Sacred Scripture.
About #8: Where did Jesus say, “You are the rocks upon which I shall build my churches?”
Jim, where is the pride of a Catholic who utters, “I am in the true Church”? He is simply stating what is true. Why did Christ have a need to establish a Church (Matt 16:18) if not for the purpose of man’s salvation, which is the supreme law ordained by God, to be accepted or not according to man’s will. There is no reference whatsoever in the bible that states, you will find salvation in this collection of books, but which offers merelu as a roadmap to salvation. However, the reference to the Church as the means of salvation is clearly defined (“the pillar and foundation of the truth: the house of God, which is the church of the living God.”) The commission (command) to teach all nations and to baptize all who believed was already made and the Apostles and their disciples set out to spread Christ’s teaching without THE Bible, which would not be codified for another 400 years.
Besides the Church established by Christ on Kephas (Peter), how many other “true” churches are there? Is there actual pride in saying “My (Evangelical) church is the true church” which is apart from the Church founded by Christ?
Christ is the Way and the Truth but He left the legacy of His Church for us men and for our salvation. And indeed He sent the Holy Spirit to abide in her as the Paraclete (Advocate) to keep Christ’s teaching pure and bereft of error. What Church has kept Truth universal for 2000 years? How many of the myriad of churches doting the world hold the same truth which which was given them 500 years or less?
I have a pet cat. He is a devout catolic. ;p
M.V. Forrest:
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:19-20)
If only there was place where all arguments were fair! Where all resentment is subject to fall upon the soft pillow of food and alcohol!! If only there was such a fascinating Secret Society that meets most weekends in Cloverdale!
If only I could go!
If only I could send an email to the below address expressing my high interest in all-permissive and stimulating theological conversation of all subjects great and small!
iamdoubtingthomas@gmail.com
Not causing trouble! Not touching anything! Just fixing the primus stove!
David Parker ,
Insult: to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.
To call someone ‘ignorant’ fits the description of insult, which also also aligns itself with ‘name calling.’Also, the ‘visible Church’ as you call it has larger issues to deal with than Protestantism. Christ has promised to maintain the Church, he also has commanded us to love our enemies. I do not consider Ryan my enemy, but you seem to consider (at least the things he said) to be antagonistic. Then obey the religion you defend so vehemently and love him.
David,
The article was ignorant of true Catholic teaching. You really think saying someone is ignorant of Catholic teaching is name calling? I consider Ryan to be ignorant of what the Catholic Church teaches, whether or not that is his fault I do not know. Perhaps I am not as PC as you David but your last sentence about “love him” was over the line. You brought it up.
e-mail me if you want
claytonrichardlong@mac.com
Kevin,
It seems a few misplaced words here and there have somehow earned you the impotent wrath of ecumenically defective Catholics who hide behind internet anonymity.
Kevin , since you are a Catholic what is the Church’s definition of ecumenism? You think I am ecumenically defective? Anonymity? My name is Clayton Richard Long 38 years old father of 5 , 2nd year at TWU , if you want to take this to a higher level e-mail me .
claytonrichardlong@mac.com
Someone made mention in one of the previous comments that you can’t read tone from “electronic forums”. I find it funny that same person is capable of offering such wisdom and still be here attacking you for writing something that he himself misinterpreted in tone.
The article was ignorant of true Catholic teaching. I didn’t misrepresent tone. Whether it was meant as a joke or as a serious piece it was still ignorant of a true representation of the one Holy Church that Christ founded.
At least Kevin used his real name.
Clayton,
You want to know the Church’s definition of ecumenism?
Catechism of the Catholic Church 817-819, page 235, entitled “Wounds to unity”:
“But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”(CCC 817)
“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers….All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”(CCC 818)
“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”(CCC 819)
I have nothing to hide from my Christian brothers and sisters at this university so I see no reason to have a private conversation with you over emails on this matter.
Kevin , Yeah I have a CCC as well , I wanted to know how you interpret what the CCC says rather than a quick cut and paste. I believe and support true ecumenism ( not false ecumenism) I never denied that. I didn’t write the original article I was commenting my well formed opinion on a forum thread.You called me out that I was ecumenically defective and that I was posting anonymously? Why those false charges against me? Meet me at RPC anytime and you can explain these charges against me.
I merely didn’t want to keep coming back to this forum to converse , if you ask anyone who knows me I don’t hide from anything either.
Don,
I think you misunderstood me. I was noting the irony in calling “belief in the Catholic Church as the true Church” prideful, because other beliefs, held by both Protestants and Catholics, can also – by the same standard – be called prideful, namely, belief in Jesus as the sole Savior and in Scripture as the only revealed word of God. So it doesn’t make sense to call a particular Catholic belief “prideful” when one’s own beliefs can also be described in the same manner.
P.S. – I am Catholic.
The Kingdom of God is not something that wells up from within us, as if we were its source, it is given to us from God, it is life of grace (example sacramental, John chapter 6, “unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you shall not have life in you.”) received through the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e. the church. and it lives within us when we make a response to God by an act of love, which is the turning of our will and intellect to Him.
The church of Jesus Christ is His mystical body. It does what He did when He was on Earth. It teaches, it rules, it sanctifies. those who receive its teachings, who live by its rules, and are sanctified by its life of grace are living members.
Just as the actual body of Jesus Christ was present as one person visible in the world, the mystical Body of Christ, is present as one church, visible in the world.
Behemoth:
BE SILENT!
Saint Michael the Archangel defend us in battle, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray, and do Thou, o prince of the heavenly hosts, by the power of God, cast down to hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Kind of hard to argue here when one side doesn’t even see the other side as part of the church at all.
I guess we get the fancy name of seperated brethren, that makes me feel better.
Ryan,
I’m done being a jerk. Truthfully, I still don’t really like the original article, but I have read the additional posts you’ve made and I can associate my experiences and thoughts quite closely with yours.
Maybe the allure of switching to the Catholic Church for your friends is realizing the official stance of the CC is that us evangelicals are probably hell bound. Maybe all the intellectual insight is just a cover for fire insurance. I’m speaking out of experience because I’ve felt that way in the past, but I see through it now. I see too many evangelicals living lives according to that of Christ, yet they don’t hold the club card so thats it for them. Who cares about orthopraxy anyways right?
I appreciate your point of view on this subject. As a Catholic convert, I have seen what you speak of first-hand, but I still wouldn’t change my decision for the world. I attended and studied Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, and non-denominational churches before becoming Catholic after studying the Bible, early Christian writings, and the Catechism. I respect many aspects of the other churches I attended, but going back would feel like (spiritually and intellectually) passing up a Thanksgiving with the family for a T.V. dinner alone. I know that seems harsh, but my intent is not to offend, Rather; I hope to welcome others who may feel “hungry” too…
“the official stance of the CC is that us evangelicals are probably hell bound”
This an interesting statement Andrew, since in my time as a Protestant and then a Catholic, I have found Catholic teaching to be MUCH more open-minded about the fate of Protestants than vice versa.
Which is the Church that Jesus Christ himself founded?
If he found a Church, its a duty to find it and join it.
If he did not found a Church, then one is free to follow whatever denomination is easiest, makes him happy, or suits his fancy.
The Church with the most authority for being founded by Christ is the Catholic Church. Only Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches can even make these claims and be taken seriously. Either Christian Anarchy or Catholicism are the only real choices to the thinking person.
“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude people be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, 107 AD
Let truth be your only objective in search for a religion. Study the Church fathers, history, theology, philosophy, and then if you go wherever it leads you, atleast you know you have done the right thing in matters of choosing a true religion.
But better a good evangelical then a bad catholic, indifference and apathy are the worst sins.
Could someone explain to me why the Eastern Orthodox claim to be the “one true Church” is unfounded? From where I stand (a curious and interested Protestant), the Orthodox make some legitimate claims that appear superior to both Protestant and Catholic claims. Could someone tear them down for me?
You have a lot of good points, but I will say that for me I came to the conclusion to be Catholic, because I truly believe God wants and Scripture wants us to be ONE Church.
Also I find the Protestant Churches’ argument that the Church completely went off hill, to be very scary and contrary to the promise of God. What about Jesus promising He would send His Holy Spirit to guide the Church into Truth? And what did Scripture say the Church did when there was a big theological disagreement (what about the uncircumcised) They had a church council, prayed and followed the Church agreement, with the believe that the Holy Spirit would guide them. And Paul himself said “if anyone comes to you with a Gospel other than the one you have accepted.”
If the Holy Spirit was lying to the Church all those centuries.
The above is the real reason I had to go with Catholicism/or Orthodoxy. Because for me the heart of how we do things/understand things is right. The idea of holding on to the faith that has been passed down to us We choose to go with how the Holy Spirit has directed the Church throughout time. And if a disagreement is had we have a Scriptural Church council, and trust the Lord to guide us.
To me trusting the Lord is the main thing. So many can get caught up in these fights about different theological issues. But really God is so all uncompassing that we could never truly understand Him-he’s a mystery.
I randomly came across this post. So thankful to see all the Catholic converts.
Not so shallow reason to become Catholic
6. It was founded by Jesus Christ
I couldn’t find osas in the bible and I found that the church is the pillar of the truth
1 Tim 3:15
Revert to matt 16:18