Skip to main content

I've Got To Take A Moment

Would you believe that I have gotten some questions privately as to why I've become Catholic? I really appreciate the ones that start out like this: "Not trying to trap you, but what were the reasons?" I love that one, honestly. Because all I have to do is tell the story. I'm not at all interested in combat when it's just an honest question. I know that I'm not due to win any prizes for winsomeness and charitable dialogue (Lord, have mercy!) and frankly, dialogue is not the purpose of this blog, in the first place. This blog is Draft 1.37 of whatever comes into my head. I'm straight-up opining here, hopefully intelligently.

Also, I totally understand that some ex-Catholics would feel a little bit threatened by me; it's entirely possible that you lived an entire Catholic life without getting the memo on Jesus. That makes me cry. It makes me cry with joy that God in His mercy found you where you are. BELIEVE ME, we are all thrilled that the message of grace and salvation in Christ Jesus has made your very soul and life ring with purpose. This is not a "Catholic Church is awesome, and everyone else sucks" kind of blog. It is frank, and it is the work of someone who believes what the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God. Yet my life as a Christian going from Protestant to Catholic is a story of some truth flowering into the fullness of truth.

It actually angers me that you who grew up Catholic in many cases were deprived of that simple message of forgiveness and joy that is the plain and simple gospel, either by a culture that quenched the Spirit, or by lies. It wounds my heart, and I know it wounds Jesus' heart.

But I need to shoot you straight: I actually believe this stuff. This is true. I'm a real Catholic. I think you should be, too. So, I need to ask you to trust me. If I tell you that I was baptized in the Presbyterian Church in America, that I led Bible studies for 4 1/2 years, was a part of Reformed University Fellowship, went to seminary, where my torrid love-affair with God and his word in Scripture continues unabated into the present day--and I'm still Catholic--maybe it's possible that you are mistaken in your assumption that Rome teaches a false gospel. Just possible. I'll do you one better: I think Reformed theology leads right to the Catholic Church. That is, once terms are defined, and the superfluous knots and assumptions are untied.

As far as I know, I'm still the same guy. But I don't see rules when I breathe the Catholic air; I don't feel fear as I live the Catholic life, at least not the way you mean it. I know the love of Christ our Savior; Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for He is with me.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un