Before you convert to Roman Catholicism... (Top Ten List)

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2007/08/before_you_convert_to_roman_ca.php ^ | 7 Aug 2007 | James White

[Gamecock]

Last week I received the following e-mail, and I felt it would be best to share my response here on the blog.

Dear Mr. White, For someone considering converting to Catholicism, what questions would you put to them in order to discern whether or not they have examined their situation sufficiently? Say, a Top 10 list. Thanks.

When I posted this question in our chat channel a number of folks commented that it was in fact a great question, and we started to throw out some possible answers. Here is my "Top Ten List" in response to this fine inquiry.

10) Have you listened to both sides? That is, have you done more than read Rome Sweet Home and listen to a few emotion-tugging conversion stories? Have you actually taken the time to find sound, serious responses to Rome's claims, those offered by writers ever since the Reformation, such as Goode, Whitaker, Salmon, and modern writers? I specifically exclude from this list anything by Jack Chick and Dave Hunt.

9) Have you read an objective history of the early church? I refer to one that would explain the great diversity of viewpoints to be found in the writings of the first centuries, and that accurately explains the controversies, struggles, successes and failures of those early believers?

8) Have you looked carefully at the claims of Rome in a historical light, specifically, have you examined her claims regarding the "unanimous consent" of the Fathers, and all the evidence that exists that stands contrary not only to the universal claims of the Papacy but especially to the concept of Papal Infallibility? How do you explain, consistently, the history of the early church in light of modern claims made by Rome? How do you explain such things as the Pornocracy and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church without assuming the truthfulness of the very system you are embracing?

7) Have you applied the same standards to the testing of Rome's ultimate claims of authority that Roman Catholic apologists use to attack sola scriptura? How do you explain the fact that Rome's answers to her own objections are circular? For example, if she claims you need the Church to establish an infallible canon, how does that actually answer the question, since you now have to ask how Rome comes to have this infallible knowledge. Or if it is argued that sola scriptura produces anarchy, why doesn't Rome's magisterium produce unanimity and harmony? And if someone claims there are 33,000 denominations due to sola scriptura, since that outrageous number has been debunked repeatedly (see Eric Svendsen's Upon This Slippery Rock for full documentation), have you asked them why they are so dishonest and sloppy with their research?

6) Have you read the Papal Syllabus of Errors and Indulgentiarum Doctrina? Can anyone read the description of grace found in the latter document and pretend for even a moment that is the doctrine of grace Paul taught to the Romans?

5) Have you seriously considered the ramifications of Rome's doctrine of sin, forgiveness, eternal and temporal punishments, purgatory, the treasury of merit, transubstantiation, sacramental priesthood, and indulgences? Have you seriously worked through compelling and relevant biblical texts like Ephesians 2, Romans 3-5, Galatians 1-2, Hebrews 7-10 and all of John 6, in light of Roman teaching?

4) Have you pondered what it means to embrace a system that teaches you approach the sacrifice of Christ thousands of times in your life and yet you can die impure, and, in fact, even die an enemy of God, though you came to the cross over and over again? And have you pondered what it means that though the historical teachings of Rome on these issues are easily identifiable, the vast majority of Roman Catholics today, including priests, bishops, and scholars, don't believe these things anymore?

3) Have you considered what it means to proclaim a human being the Holy Father (that's a divine name, used by Jesus only of His Father) and the Vicar of Christ (that's the Holy Spirit)? Do you really find anything in Scripture whatsoever that would lead you to believe it was Christ's will that a bishop in a city hundreds of miles away in Rome would not only be the head of His church but would be treated as a king upon earth, bowed down to and treated the way the Roman Pontiff is treated?

2) Have you considered how completely unbiblical and a-historical is the entire complex of doctrines and dogmas related to Mary? Do you seriously believe the Apostles taught that Mary was immaculately conceived, and that she was a perpetual virgin (so that she traveled about Palestine with a group of young men who were not her sons, but were Jesus' cousins, or half-brothers (children of a previous marriage of Joseph), or the like? Do you really believe that dogmas defined nearly 2,000 years after the birth of Christ represent the actual teachings of the Apostles? Are you aware that such doctrines as perpetual virginity and bodily assumption have their origin in gnosticism, not Christianity, and have no foundation in apostolic doctrine or practice? How do you explain how it is you must believe these things de fide, by faith, when generations of Christians lived and died without ever even having heard of such things?

And the number 1 question I would ask of such a person is: if you claim to have once embraced the gospel of grace, whereby you confessed that your sole standing before a thrice-holy God was the seamless garment of the imputed righteousness of Christ, so that you claimed no merit of your own, no mixture of other merit with the perfect righteousness of Christ, but that you stood full and complete in Him and in Him alone, at true peace with God because there is no place in the universe safer from the wrath of God than in Christ, upon what possible grounds could you come to embrace a system that at its very heart denies you the peace that is found in a perfect Savior who accomplishes the Father's will and a Spirit who cannot fail but to bring that work to fruition in the life of God's elect? Do you really believe that the endless cycle of sacramental forgiveness to which you will now commit yourself can provide you the peace that the perfect righteousness of Christ can not?

[tioga]

The Bible is read at each and every mass........all Catholics hear the readings at mass and many read along. Then during the Homily the priest discusses the readings.

You are insulting and niave to think otherwise.

[Pyro7480]

Wisconsin ain't the Bible Belt, Charlie!

You didn't say Bible belt initially! You said

I would say the Catholic Church bears a cultural hostility to rural and small-town America. Now your changing the terms!

Then don't read my posts

And you feel the need to jump on many Catholic threads to point fingers? It is hard to read your posts, but I think I must, in order to stand up to them. I sometimes think I should direct my anger more at those who mistreated you, but out of your mistreatment, your cause has become a self-perpetuating jihad.

[dangus]

This Top 10 list just not all that funny. But it was still funnier than anything Alex Murphy ever posted.

[AFPhys]

It must really bother that more people are even now converting to Catholicism than to any other faith. Green-eyed monster alert.

[Resolute Conservative]

It is like a case of which is first the chicken or the egg.

Many Protestants are insulted when SOME Catholics demonstrate an air of superiority and call Protestants heretics and repeat the false church hogwash and insinuate that Protestants are divisive and not saved because they do not follow sacraments to the letter.

I cannot speak for Catholics but I feel they get the same displeasure out of SOME Protestants criticizing the traditions and dogma of the Church and attempt to cast a veil of evil on the RCC and belittle their belief in the praying to Saints and what not.

Either way it seem to be a perpetual cycle that will not get broken. Seems to me that if I want to not participate in confession nor pray to Saints why does it matter to Catholics as long as I do not try and stop them from their traditions. Some of the RCC traditions I find interesting and possibly beneficial but in my personal past I was discouraged because I did not want to take the whole Church style of things and was made to feel I was less a Christian than a Catholic which I know for certain I am not.

[Resolute Conservative]

I think most of the numbers out of China and the ME do not quote a specific affiliation only Chritianity so where are you getting these numbers?

[bert]

Ad hoc mumbo jumbo. Ano domino hocus pocus, dominocus

[Claud]

I would like to know if the apostles ( Paul mainly ) every time he got together with a group of new or recent believers if communion was performed?

I've wondered that myself. I don't think it's exactly clear, although when you hear phrases like "Breaking of the Bread" you can bet that Communion was involved.

I tend to doubt it. These early churches were all about learning about Christ and His promised return. I do think the act of communion was passed down and should be performed but not on a daily basis and surely not be denied to a person because they are not in your church.

Ah! You touch on an important point. There's this funny theory nowadays that says that the 1st generation of Christians was expecting Our Lord to come back in their lifetime...but they were sadly disappointed. Problem is, there really isn't any indication of said disappointment in the Christian literature of the time. But there may be a clue in the Emmaeus narrative of Luke...where the disciples recognized Him "in the breaking of the bread". It could well be that the early Church recognized that Christ *had* indeed come right away in a Eucharistic sense, which was to be crowned by a eschatological appearance in the future.

I'm glad you see that communion was passed down. As for it being offered on a daily basis, perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't. But if it were only once a year back then and the Church only later expanded on that, I don't think it's any skin off anyone's nose.

As for who receives it or not....it was always denied to manifest heretics. That's always been the case. But you have to realize that there wasn't different denominations in the Apostolic Age. Basically, if you were in a community connected by an Apostle or a bishop that was appointed by an Apostle, you were able to receive. I'm sure, however, that the Gnostics and other unauthorized Christian sects were denied communion though. St. John, Eusebius tells us, wouldn't even stay in the same building with them.

[Petronski]

Prolong your embarrassment, help yourself.

[Petronski]

I will weather your bitterness, and continue in love.

Satan is the father of all lies.

Truth is truth.

And you are lying.

[Petronski]

So the earth is how old?

[Petronski]

No, if you're a rural American Protestant and you convert to Catholicism you're supposed to morph automatically into an urban Irish intellectual and join in the Catholic media in decrying the "bigotry" and "ignorance" of rural Protestant America.

A whiff of bigotry in bold there.

Did an Irishman steal your milk money?

[Matchett-PI]

"You don't believe Christ is in the habit of contradicting Himself do you?"

Nope. :)

"...that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word." Eph. 5:26

[Resolute Conservative]

I agree that 1st century believers felt the return was imminent ( as every generation has ) and I too have not seen any signs of disappointment in the writing of the time.

During the “breaking of bread” I wonder what liturgy was performed ( if any ) or if it was an informal gesture of friendship between believers.

“I don’t think it’s any skin off anyone’s nose.” I see no harm if you want to perform it once a day or once a year. It is kind if like the simple act of prayer, you can do it once to many times a day, the more you do the better you are able to relate to the Father, but I do not think it harms you if your are infrequent except in the sense of making you more open to straying from your Christian walk.

It would be great if both RCC and Protestant Churches would take a firmer stance on refusing communion in regards to public persons who openly act against Church beliefs but expect to be welcomed as a faithful sheep. As an example some politicians come to mind that are pro-life.

[Pyro7480]

Ad hoc mumbo jumbo. Ano domino hocus pocus, dominocus

Be careful there. You mock the words of Our Lord.

Hoc est enim corpus meum "For this is My Body."

[Claud]

So the earth is how old?

According to the Septuagint, the Peshitta, the Masoretic text? What are we using here?

;)

Don't have this argument with ZC on this thread, because you'll expose me as a pro-evolution defender of Zionist Conspirator's staunch plank of Biblical inerrancy and literalism. I'm not sure that's good for anyone LOL

[Campion]

I specifically exclude from this list anything by Jack Chick and Dave Hunt.

Serious question: why?

Some of Chick's stuff is just recycled, comic-book Alexander Hislop (etc.). Hislop's nonsense is an established part of at least the fundamentalist apologetic against Catholicism. (And the JW's, WWCOGs, etc., would embrace it as well.)

However, Chick has torched his credibility considerably with things like the Alberto Rivera affair, so maybe I can understand excluding him.

But Dave Hunt? Aside from the fact that Dave Hunt is not a Calvinist, what has he said that isn't an expansion on or explanation of stuff that the Reformers and their successors said?

[Claud]

Well good. Then somehow what Christ said about eating His Body and Blood has to be true, and what he said about His words being Spirit and Life have to be true.

And I believe both are fulfilled quite well in the doctrine of the Eucharist, which is as old as Christianity itself.

[Campion]

During the “breaking of bread” I wonder what liturgy was performed ( if any )

There isn't much attestation from the first century, but there's plenty from the second. See Justin Martyr and Hyppolytus of Rome, etc.

[Alex Murphy]

Prolong your embarrassment, help yourself.

For the Lord GOD helps Me
Therefore, I am not disgraced;
Therefore, I have set My face like flint,
And I know that I will not be ashamed.
- Isaiah 50:7

For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.
- 2 Timothy 1:12