katolicyzm

devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/why-i-became-catholic/

ATHEIST
EVANGELIGAL PROTESTANTISM
-Bible studies, church, Sunday school classes, talks about Christian faith (teacings and practice)
-Why are we as Christian divided in our teachings and our worship?
-Bible versions/translations: Old King James Bible > New International Version English Bible
[I realized that I had chosen the Evangelical Protestant understanding of the Christian faith without deliberately giving other denominations a chance: Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, Pentecostal, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, etc.]

-The Bible was the sure basis for all of our beliefs because we believed it was the inerrant word of God. That sounded good, but there were two problems:

-- Other denominations claimed the same thing, and yet we were divided from them, too, in matters big and small.
-- The Catholic Church claimed there were 7 more books inspired by God that should be in the Bible.

The first problem led to the inevitable conclusion that it was possible for Christians who all claimed were being led by the Holy Spirit to veer off in different, often mutually exclusive directions with regard to the interpretation of the Bible.

They believed differently and so broke off from one another to form their own, new denominations, which seemed to me to violate Christ’s prayer and command for us Christians to be one, to be in unity (cf. John 17).

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and would never lead people to believe something untrue, so that meant that people who thought they were listening accurately to the Spirit’s promptings, in reality were not.



The second problem was of a different sort because it struck at the root of the tree: We believed in the “Bible alone” as the rule of our faith, yet that meant we had to know with confidence which books made up the Bible! Here we had the Catholic Church claiming that my Bible was missing 7 books that God inspired and therefore desired to be included in the Bible.

Suddenly I realized that I had accepted without question the Bible given to me by my good Evangelical friend, believing it and only it, nothing more, nothing less, to be the inspired word of God. How did I know that the Protestants got it right?

More broadly, what authority determined which books should be in the Bible, and when did they do so, and why should I believe them?

And if I trusted this authority to decide the canon of Scripture, as it is called, why don’t I trust them with the other decisions they made about what was true and what was false in matters of the faith?

So I realized at that point that one of two things must be true:

1 The Holy Spirit tried to guide Christians to know the canon of Scripture and how to interpret it accurately, but because we are so full of faults and don’t always listen, we may have gotten some of the books wrong, leaving some that were inspired out and/or including ones that were not inspired.
2 The Holy Spirit tried to guide Christians to know the canon of Scripture and how to interpret it accurately and by God’s power miraculously succeeded, overcoming the myriad individual and institutional faults that all humans are prey to, such that our Bible was made up of the exact books that God himself inspired.

In other words, God either preserved his Church from errors corrupting her teachings, or he did not, leaving us in a state where we can only be somewhat confident that most of what we believe is probably true, though for any given matter, who knows whether it was true or corrupted in some way.

If God did preserve his Church from errors in her teachings, which denomination had the boldness to claim that they were that Church who held the fullness of the truth?

The only “denomination” that made the claim and that I found credible historically and theologically was the Catholic Church.

I couldn’t believe it. The Catholic Church taught stuff about Mary, Purgatory, the saints, the sacraments, and priests that I disagreed with.

But I realized that my disagreements stemmed from my Protestant bias that had formed so quickly in my brief year as a Christian; I had to put these disagreements on hold to more objectively examine the Catholic Church’s claims and teachings.

With a sense of dread that I may have to one day soon tell my Evangelical friends that I was becoming, of all things, a Catholic, I began learning about the Catholic Church in earnest, looking and hoping for something that would let me off the hook and return to peace in Protestantism.
'
Alas, I failed to find it. I challenged my Evangelical friends to prove these ideas wrong and explain where I was going off course. They tried to do so but could not disprove them. We had debates and discussions over so many matters of our faith, but I returned again and again to the canon of Scripture and the authority by which it was formed.

The ax was at the root of the tree, but for most of them, who had grown up assuming as a given the 66 books of the Bible, posing these questions was something that they almost couldn’t fathom: Was I claiming the Bible was made up and not inspired? Why was I challenging the very Bible that they had derived so much wisdom and truth from?

-I read books, read internet discussions and apologetics, read stories of faithful and intelligent Protestants converting to the Catholic faith (Scott Hahn, Mark Shea, David Currie, and others).

“Seek, and you shall find,” Jesus assures us. May God be glorified in all people and things, and may He bless you in your search for truth!

Once I entered into full communion with the Catholic Church, I found even more evidence that confirmed my decision, which you can read about here. For deeper exploration of the central issue of the authority that Christ gave His Church and how Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons differ in their beliefs, read on here.



CATHOLIC


...


why Roman Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox?

At the time of my conversion from Evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism, I did not deeply study the differences between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I visited one Orthodox convert site that explained why they decided to become Orthodox instead of Roman Catholic, but their reasons did not seem compelling to me.

Similarly, I did not seriously consider Anglicanism, which is often a stop along the way to Rome for Evangelicals and Reformed Protestants. It seemed like Catholic-lite to me and historically did not seem to have a credible claim to the historic Church.

Since this time, I have learned much more about Reformed Protestantism, Anglicanism, and the Orthodox Churches. My questions for an Orthodox person would be about the issues of papal supremacy and the lack of (Eastern Orthodox-recognized or -held) Ecumenical Councils for the past 1,000 years.

Unfortunately, I have no Orthodox friends, nor have I ever had any; there don’t seem to be many around here. Because of that, I have never had to delve deeply into Orthodox claims and theology, though I have read a history of the schism between Rome and Constantinople, which from my reading had little do with differences of doctrine and much more with power and pride.

..

There are three major streams of Christianity that all hold the Bible to be God’s Word and all share the same core beliefs. There are several variations on the canon (including more than one within Orthodoxy), but the different canons have no impact on the essential truths of the faith (cf. CCC 188-193). On the other hand, the role of the papacy, the Marian dogmas, and other things closely identified with Rome today cannot be traced to the teaching of the Apostles, the founding fathers of the Church. In light of these things, how did you decide that Rome has unique authority over not only the canon but also of every area of faith and practice for the universal church?

.
Thank you for your tactful response.

I found a number of churches that met these criteria,

These criteria were ones of your own devising. How do you know that they are the right ones?

I never felt the need to find the “one true Church” because Scripture describes the Church as made of many members, many branches from the true vine, Jesus Christ. Reading the church fathers confirmed my observations of the diversity within the Body of Christ on just about every subject other than commitment to God’s Word and to the essential truths summarized in the creeds. Diversity was not a barrier to communion in the early church – why should it be so today?

Legitimate diversity can only exist within unity. I have coworkers with rainbow bumper stickers that say DIVERSITY. What is the criteria for determining whether something is a legitimate _branch_ versus a heretical _schism_? Read this post for a deeper explanation of this dilemma: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/branches-or-schisms/

Which of the men deemed “heretics” by the Church were actually just new, diverse branches on the tree versus schisms (Sabellius, Arius, the Monophysites, the Monothelites, the Cathars, etc.)? Who decides, and by what authority?

Irenaeus gives a much stronger description of the unity of the Church than you claim existed: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

On the other hand, the role of the papacy, the Marian dogmas, and other things closely identified with Rome today cannot be traced to the teaching of the Apostles, the founding fathers of the Church.

Says you. Read Carroll’s History of Christendom series to see how the papacy existed and was understood throughout the centuries. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all believed in most of the Marian dogmas; they believed that these dogmas all traced back to the Apostles. Why should I believe you on them over the magisterial Reformers?

In light of these things, how did you decide that Rome has unique authority over not only the canon but also of every area of faith and practice for the universal church?

We both have made assents of faith, and both of those assents have reasons supporting them, but I found that the reasons behind my assent as a Protestant were inconsistent whereas the reasons behind the assent of faith to the Catholic Church were consistent.

Why? One example: a Protestant assents by faith that God inspired books to be written such that they are inerrant but don’t believe that he infallibly guided the men leading the Church to know which books those were (hence Protestant pastor R.C. Sproul’s unsettling but eminently logical “fallible collection” of inspired books). So as a Protestant, it is impossible to have certainty in the canon of Scripture. Or you can claim to have certainty but it will not be consistent with your beliefs.

The Catholic assent is consistent: God infallibly inspired the books to be written and infallibly guided the Church to know exactly which books those were. Why? Because God wants us to know the truth and be set free by it, so he made sure we would know it. These two beliefs are not ad hoc the way Protestants’ are because they are only two examples of the belief that God protects his Church from error in _all_ her teachings on faith and morals.
...

From the Inside Looking Out

I wrote a blog page a while back explaining why I became Catholic.

However, one aspect I didn’t touch on in that article was the numerous pieces of evidence that confirmed my decision to enter full communion with the Catholic Church that I only found once inside of it.

The Saints

As a Protestant, I once called them “the Catholic Hall of Fame members” when discussing Protestant-Catholic issues with my (Catholic) friend Gerardo.

While that is true, it’s true in the same somewhat irreverent sense that the Pope is “God’s homey”.

I was upset and felt cheated when I as a Protestant started reading the lives of the saints. “Why haven’t I been told about all these amazingly faithful people?!” I demanded. Their writings don’t show up anywhere at the Christian bookstores I went to, nor the secular bookstores. I had read most of the “Left Behind” series but nothing of St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, St. Therese of Lisieux, or St. Francis de Sales.

Something was wrong about that. My Protestant reading went from the Bible, then skip years 100 AD – 1800 AD, then “modern” Christian writing, though doctrines of the first-centuries Church and the reformers were interspersed throughout my beliefs.

These men and women loved God and accepted His love in a way I longed for and to a degree that I did not see among anyone I knew. They were special; they were the way Christians could be and should be, the fulfillment of Christ’s commands to us to obey His teachings and to love God and one another with all our heart.

And, all of these people were unabashedly Catholic. They were as Catholic as the Pope, believing in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, in the authority of the Church and in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of Her.

Ask any Protestant you know if they know who St. Therese of Lisieux is. Very few do, even though she is the “greatest saint of modern times” and one of the few Doctors of the Church. All Christians should learn about her and her little way to help them grow closer to Christ, yet she is hardly known outside of the Catholic walls.

This factor was one of the strongest confirmations that this was the Church Christ established.

The Theology of the Body

Pope John Paul II’s landmark work. Every person in the world should be taught this understanding of the human person, but so far, even most Catholics don’t know what the theology of the body is.

However, that is changing, especially with young Catholics, who are devouring these liberating teachings on who we are as male and female persons, how to understand our sexuality and sanctify our sexual desires, and how to understand who man was, who he is, and who he will be because of Christ.

I believe that our Protestant brothers and sisters will open up to this teaching as well, sparking a powerful movement within their communities, too. It is just too awesome to be contained and is the antidote for the post-modern world’s enslaving doctrines of hedonism and selfishness.

The theology of the body was a gift given the world by God through Pope John Paul II. It could have been given through others, through a Eastern Orthodox priest, or an Anglican priest, or a Reformed Protestant pastor, or an Evangelical one, but it was not.

It was given through the Pope of the Catholic Church, who spent his life for Christ enduring all manner of evil in World War II and communist Poland, who studied philosophy and theology and wrote encyclicals on how faith and reason complement each other, how women have tremendous dignity and gifts for the Church and the world, and how critical the family is to society and civilization.

Through the theology of the body, God gave me the grace to overcome habits of sin that had shackled me for years. Truly it is in hope we are saved and for freedom that Christ has set us free!

These two factors, the saints and the theology of the body, were the most powerful in confirming the decision I made to enter the Catholic Church. There were others, too, like the vocation to religious life and the priesthood, which perhaps I will write about sometime in the future.

Nie ma plików w tym folderze