How I Led Catholics Out Of the Church (And into Apostasy)

How I led Catholics Out of the Church STEVE WOOD I was a Protestant for twenty years before I became a Catholic. I led many people out of the Catholic Church. My formula for getting Catholics to leave the Church usually consisted of three steps.

Step 1: Get Catholics to have a conversion experience in a Protestant setting. Most Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and charismatic Protestant churches have dynamic youth programs, vibrant Wednesday and Sunday evening services, and friendly small-group bible studies. In addition, they host special crusades, seminars and concerts. At the invitation of a Protestant friend, a Catholic may begin attending one or more of these events while still going to Sunday Mass at his local parish. Most Protestant services proclaim a simple gospel: repent from sin and follow Christ in faith. They stress the importance of a personal relationship with Jesus and the reward of eternal life. Most of the Catholics who attend these services are not accustomed to hearing such direct challenges to abandon sin and follow Christ. As a result, many Catholics experience a genuine conversion.

Protestants should be commended for their zeal in promoting conversions. Catholic leaders need to multiply the opportunities for their people to have such conversions in Catholic settings. The reason is simple. About five out of ten people adopt the beliefs of the denomination where they have their conversion. This percentage is even higher for those who had profound conversions or charismatic experiences that were provided by Protestants. (Believe me, I know; I was a graduate of an Assembly of God college and a youth minister in two charismatic churches.)

Protestant pastors, evangelists, youth leaders, and lay ministers are acutely aware that conversion experiences in Protestant settings often lead to a Protestant faith and church membership. Why do so many Catholic leaders fail to see this? Why are they so nonchalant about a process that has pulled hundreds of thousands of Catholics out of the Church?

A genuine conversion is one of life's most precious experiences, comparable to marriage or the birth of a child. Conversion awakens a deep hunger for God. Effective Protestant ministries train workers to follow up on this spiritual longing.

Before a stadium crusade, I would give follow-up workers a six-week training course. I showed them how to present a Protestant interpretation of the conversion experience with a selective use of bible verses. The scripture of choice was of course John 3:3, the "born-again" verse: "Jesus declared, 'I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.'

I used the "touch and go" scripture technique, similar to that used by pilots training for landings and takeoffs. We would briefly touch down on John 3:3 to show that being born again was necessary for eternal life. Then I would describe conversion in terms of being born again. We would make a hasty takeoff before reading John 3:5 which stresses the necessity of being "born of water and spirit." I never mentioned that for 20 centuries the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, echoing the unanimous teaching of the Church fathers, understood this passage as referring to the Sacrament of Baptism! And I certainly never brought up Titus 3:5 ("He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit") as a parallel reference to John 3:5.

In my experience as a Protestant, all the Catholics who had a conversion in a Protestant setting lacked a firm grasp of their Catholic faith.

In twenty years of Protestant ministry, I never met a Catholic who knew that John 3:3-8 describes the sacrament of Baptism. It wasn't hard to convince them to disregard the sacraments along with the Church that emphasized the sacraments.

Proverbs says: "He who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him" (18:17). Catholics without a scriptural foundation for their Catholic beliefs never hear "the rest of the story." My selective use of scripture made the Protestant perspective seem so absolutely sure. Over time, this one-sided approach to scripture caused Catholics to reject their Catholic faith.

Catholics often consider Protestants who proselytize to be bigoted, narrow-minded, or prejudiced. This is unfair and inaccurate; a profound charity energizes their misguided zeal.

There was only one reason I led Catholics out of the Church: I thought they were on their way to hell. I mistakenly thought the Catholic Church denied that salvation was by grace; I knew that anyone who believed this wasn't going to heaven. Out of love for their immortal souls, I worked tirelessly to convert them.

I used Ephesians 2:8-9 to convince Catholics that it was imperative for them to leave the Church:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast. First I would say, "The Bible says that salvation is by grace and not by works. Right?" Their answer was always yes. Then I would say, "The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by works. Right?" (I never met a Catholic who did not say yes. Every Catholic I met during my twenty years of ministry confirmed my misconception that Catholicism taught salvation is by works instead of grace.) Finally, I would declare, "The Catholic Church is leading people to hell by denying salvation is by grace. You'd better join a church that teaches the true way to heaven."

Because I would also do a "touch and go" in Ephesians, I rarely quoted verse 10 which says, "For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." Listen carefully to stadium evangelists, televangelists, and radio preachers. Nine times out of ten they will quote Ephesians 2:8-9 with great emphasis and never mention verse 10.

We are not slaves futilely trying to earn salvation by doing "works of the law" (Eph. 2:8-9). Yet as sons of God we are inspired and energized by the Holy Spirit to do "good works" as we cooperate with our heavenly father in extending the Kingdom of God (Eph. 2:10). Catholicism believes and teaches the full message of Ephesians 2:8-10, without equivocating or abbreviating the truth.

For twenty centuries the Catholic Church has faithfully taught that salvation is by grace. Peter the first pope said, "We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved" (Acts 15:11). The Catechism of the Catholic Church, fully endorsed by Pope John Paul II, says, "Our justification comes from the grace of God" (section 1996).

Protestantism started when Martin Luther declared that we are justified (made righteous) by faith alone. At the time I was leading Catholics out of the Church, I wasn't aware that Martin Luther had added the word alone to his translation of Romans 3:28 in order to prove his doctrine. (The word alone is not found in any contemporary Protestant English translation of Romans 3:28.) I didn't realize that the only place the bible mentions "faith alone" in the context of salvation is in James 2:24, where the idea of faith alone is explicitly refuted: "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." This verse was troubling, but I either ignored it, or twisted it to mean something other that what the verse and its context clearly taught.

I have no objection to Catholics participating in Protestant-oriented events and worthwhile ecumenical activities provided that:

they have a firm grasp of their Catholic faith. they know their faith well enough to articulate it to a non-Catholic, using scripture and the Church fathers. they have the maturity to realize that the most profound presence of Christ isn't necessarily found in the midst of loud noise and high emotion, but in quiet moments like Eucharistic adoration (see 1 Kings 19:11-12). Unfortunately, the majority of Catholic men born after WWII don't meet the above conditions. For them, attending Protestant functions may be opening a door that will lead them right out of the Catholic Church.

There are now thousands of Catholic men on the brink of leaving the one Church Christ died to establish. I recently heard of a group of Catholic men who decided not to consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church in their small-group bible study. They believed that all they needed was scripture alone. Three of these men claimed that they no longer believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I can tell you from experience where this group is headed: straight out of the Catholic Church.

Over the past three decades, thousands of Catholics have left the Church for Protestant pastures. The largest church in America is the Catholic Church; the second largest group of Christians in America is former-Catholics. The Catholic men's movement has a solemn obligation to help men discover the biblical and historical roots of their Catholic faith. Then, rather than leaving, they will become instruments to help others discover the treasures of Catholicism.

Remember that a man who leaves the Church will often take his family with him — for generations. It took my family four hundred years — 10 generations — to come back to the Church after a generation of my ancestors in Norway, England, Germany and Scotland decided to leave the Catholic Church.

As one whose family has made the round-trip back to Catholicism, let me extend a personal plea to Catholic men, especially the leaders of various Catholic men's groups: don't put untrained Catholics in a Protestant setting. They might gain a short-term religious experience, but they take the long-term risk of losing their faith. It would be highly irresponsible to expose them to Protestantism before they are fully exposed to Catholicism.

At my dad's funeral twenty-nine years ago, I tearfully sang his favorite hymn, Faith of Our Fathers. Little did my dad, a minister's son, or I realize that the true faith of our forefathers was Roman Catholicism. Every day I thank God for bringing me back to the ancient Church of my ancestors. Every year God gives me breath on this earth I will keep proclaiming to both my Protestant brethren and to cradle Catholics the glorious faith of our fathers.

Wood, Steve. "How I led Catholics Out of the Church." St. Joseph's Covenant Newsletter 4 no. 2 (March/April 1998).

Steve Wood is the founder of St. Joseph's Covenant Keepers (SJCK), a dynamic apostolate for Catholic men, and runs the web site dads.org.

If Mary had a sinful human nature then she passed this sinful human nature onto Christ.

This means that while christ had a sinless divine nature that he was still subject to original sin. This is contrary to what we know of him, that he was the new Adam.

“But sinlessness has nothing to do with Mary”

Mary is his mother just like your mother is your mother. Her sinfulness would be passed onto him.

The reason it’s not turtles all the way down, so to speak, is because of the immculate conception. It’s like a jacob’s ladder. Christ pulls up his mother and his mother pulls up him.

If sin is inherited from the father, the Holy Spirits conception of a child in Mary would not have passed on sin as God has no sin.

So I understand Christs sinlessness. But If God could keep Mary from sin, while being born to a human set of parents, there would be no need for Christ in the first place.

So while Christ’s sinlessness I can see the need and fufillment of Gods plan in, the sinless Mary thing is not only not needed, but invalidates Christ.

I think at this point the Mary thing is more a throwback to the incorporation of Ishtar and the child than anything logical or spiritual. It is more mother worship than God worship. While in Rome for a few months I toured many Catholic churchs and noted that there were two basic types, the ones with lots of saint statues and huge pictures of Mary with a little Child, and the ones without all the saint worship, small pictures of Mary and huge pictures of Jesus with the centerpiece a crucifix.

So I suspect even within the Catholic family there is a divide on this issue. Quite interesting really.

“If sin is inherited from the father”

Why do you think this? Is there any evidence that sin is only inherited through the father?

“the Holy Spirits conception of a child in Mary would not have passed on sin as God has no sin.”

True, but there’s no evidence that sin is only passed on through the father.

“But If God could keep Mary from sin, while being born to a human set of parents, there would be no need for Christ in the first place.”

Well, no. You see, remember the other half of the atonement? Christ is the bridge between God and Man. Even if Mary were kept free from sin, she is just a woman. She is not God. She could not serve as the perfect substitutionary sacrifice on the cross.

“I think at this point the Mary thing is more a throwback to the incorporation of Ishtar and the child than anything logical or spiritual.”

If this is so, then when was Mary incorporated?

“So I suspect even within the Catholic family there is a divide on this issue. Quite interesting really.”

No, that’s not the case at all. Most cathedrals, (especially in Rome), go back for quite some time. Each cathedral is dedicated to a peculiar saint, and those saints are usually represented in the iconography.

They will all have Christ in the middle, Mary to the right, Joseph to the left, to represent the Holy Family.

We don’t worship statues, really, we don’t. They are just to honor the men and women who have followed Christ successfully, before our time.

If sin was passed through the mother, then Christ would have had sin. I would say that is evidence. And if sin is passed through the father OR mother Mary would have sin.

That then clearly says that Mary is not sinless.

Thats ok with me, Mary does not have to be sinless to be full of grace, or to be Christs mother.

But sinlessness is not “passed on” or Christ would not have had to die on the cross. The entire theme of the Bible is that the wages of sin is death, so God took the death upon Himself to free us. To negate that to make Mary sinless is pointless, unless you have some personal reason other than the Bible to justify that, it is not logical or respectful of Christs sacrifice.

I have no facination with the mother/child god thing and prefer simple bibilical Christianity.

Thanks for the talk.

“If sin was passed through the mother, then Christ would have had sin.”

That’s a circular argument. You are assuming what we are trying to prove.

Then we should see something about that in scripture, about how the sin of Adam passes through the father. It’s not there. Original sin passes from Adam, through both father and mother.

“And if sin is passed through the father OR mother Mary would have sin.”

Which she didn’t because of the immaculate conception.

“That then clearly says that Mary is not sinless.”

Again, not the case because of the immaculate conception.

“Thats ok with me, Mary does not have to be sinless to be full of grace, or to be Christs mother.”

Yes, she does, because, as I said earlier, she gave her human nature to Christ, and unless she was sinless the sin nature would have passed onto him.

“But sinlessness is not “passed on” or Christ would not have had to die on the cross.”

Again, Christ was both God and man. He had to be both in order to serve as the passover lamb without blemish. Mary, even kept free of sin, could not. Only Christ.

“The entire theme of the Bible is that the wages of sin is death, so God took the death upon Himself”

Yes, and because Mary was not God, she could not have served as the sacrifice. Only Christ.

“To negate that to make Mary sinless is pointless”

It’s not pointless, because otherwise, Christ inherited a sinful human nature from her.

“unless you have some personal reason other than the Bible”

The bible uses the word, “Kecharatomene”, which is only used for her. She is referred, by the Angel as being blessed beyond other women.

“it is not logical or respectful of Christs sacrifice.”

Again, as you have stated, only Christ could be the sacrifice because he was God and he was Man. Mary was not God so even as sinless, could not have served as the sacrifice. You’ve said so yourself.

“I have no facination with the mother/child god thing and prefer simple bibilical Christianity.”

Well, then you have grossly misunderstood what I have said. I have been saying over and over that Mary is not God. It would be nice to see you acknowledge what I am saying rather then simply ignoring me.

Good day.

Interesting that you don’t limit God in believing that He can send His Only Son to be born of a Virgin, but you do have problems that He could keep her sinless. I read somewhere that the wood of the Ark of the Covenant was made of “incorruptible” wood.
See this link: http://www.indefenseofourmother.org/index2.html:
“For starters, it should always be noted that Mary’s selection as the dwelling place of God was not random. She had been prepared for him, as the Ark of the Covenant had been specially created to enshrine its sacred contents (Ex. 25:9).

The Ark of the Covenant was made of incorruptible acacia wood, and was laden in and out with the finest gold. A golden lid was placed upon it, and golden angels were mounted atop this. On the lid were gold rings, and golden poles were placed through them so it could be carried by sanctified priests, and for good reason: it was a sacred dwelling.In it was to be found the bread from heaven, the word of God in the commandments, and the staff of Aaron, which was used as an instrument for Israel’s redemption.

However, these were only signs pointing towards the reality fulfilled in Christ. He was the true bread from heaven, the actual Word of God, and the true instrument of our redemption. If God commanded that such a lavish dwelling be created for bread, stone tablets and a stick, how much more would he splurge to make fitting the dwelling of the second person of the Trinity!

Being the New Ark of the Covenant, how could Mary be a worthy dwelling place for the Second Person of the Trinity if she were, as John calls sinners, “of the devil”? (1 Jn. 3:8). If nothing unclean can enter heaven (Rev. 21:27), how could the very holiness of heaven enter something unclean? The Old Testament tells us, “wisdom will not enter a deceitful soul,” or dwell “in a body under debt of sin” (Wis. 1:4). Since Jesus is Wisdom incarnate, it was not fitting that he dwell in a body under debt of sin.”

I’m a recent convert, and looked at all the “stumbling blocks” which disappeared once you study the actual Catechism. A Wonderful Study!

I would suggest studying the actual Bible. If you wish to study the first half, the “old” testament, and God's plan there I might suggest the Stone version of the Tanach. It has the best translation of the original Hebrew to English.

When reading the “New” testament, read it looking for the understanding of how it is the fulfillment of the “Old” because if it is not, either it is wrong or you are.

There is absolutely no reason for Mary to be a Diety, and all reason for the Messiah to be in the “Old”. So, if you were to drop the focus on Mary and put it back on God you would be better off.

Gopher or Acacia wood is not incorruptible, don't know where you get that. She was not prepared, in any description of her in the original language, she was a righteous woman and that is why she was selected, but that does not prepare her.

As sin is passed by the seed of man, Mary would have had the sin of her Dad in the flesh. The only way for Mary to have been sinless is if SHE was born of a virgin, something that is not mentioned in the original scripture.

Christ is the fulfillment of the requirement for blood sacrifice, the fulfillment of the First Covenant. The second covenant does not violate or invalidate the first covenant in any way. Just because you fulfill the speed limit, does not allow you to run red lights. There is no reason to assume that there can only be one covenant active at anytime.

Worshiping Mary as a God could tend to really piss off the real God. Mother goddess with child was a common theme in idolatry, and Catholicism always had a problem with adsorbing the pagans instead of setting them straight.

This bronze idol is from the 8th to 7th century BC Nuraghic.

This Golden Idol, around the 17th century BC is from the Anatolia Hittite Empire in Nigeria

From Babylon we have the Idol Semiramis "Queen of Heaven" with her child Tammruz

What we do not have in the "Old" testament is a female Goddess of any kind. Now one would think that if God says "He" is today, yesterday and forever the same and that "He" is the ONLY real God, it might make it difficult to come up with a female Diety in the "New" testament.

If you stick with the Bible, you will come out ok, if you want the definition of Apostacy, Try adding to or taking away from the written Word.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.