I Hated the Idea of Becoming Catholic

Aleteia ^ | JUNE 20, 2014 | ANTHONY BARATTA

[NYer]

It was the day after Ash Wednesday in 2012 when I called my mom from my dorm room at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and told her I thought I was going to become Catholic.

“You’re not going to become Catholic, you just know you’re not Southern Baptist,” she said.

“No, I don’t think so.”

A pause. “Oh boy,” she sighed.

I started crying.

I cannot stress enough how much I hated the idea of becoming Catholic. I was bargaining to the last moment. I submitted a sermon for a competition days before withdrawing from school. I was memorizing Psalm 119 to convince myself of sola scriptura. I set up meetings with professors to hear the best arguments. I purposefully read Protestant books about Catholicism, rather than books by Catholic authors.

Further, I knew I would lose my housing money and have to pay a scholarship back if I withdrew from school, not to mention disappointing family, friends, and a dedicated church community.

But when I attempted to do my homework, I collapsed on my bed. All I wanted to do was scream at the textbook, “Who says?!”

I had experienced a huge paradigm shift in my thinking about the faith, and the question of apostolic authority loomed larger than ever.

But let’s rewind back a few years.

I grew up in an evangelical Protestant home. My father was a worship and preaching pastor from when I was in fourth grade onwards. Midway through college, I really fell in love with Jesus Christ and His precious Gospel and decided to become a pastor.

It was during that time that I was hardened in my assumption that the Roman Catholic Church didn’t adhere to the Bible. When I asked one pastor friend of mine during my junior year why Catholics thought Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth when the Bible clearly said Jesus had “brothers,” he simply grimaced: “They don’t read the Bible.”

Though I had been in talks with Seattle’s Mars Hill Church about doing an internship with them, John Piper’s book Don’t Waste Your Life clarified my call to missionary work specifically, and I spent the next summer evangelizing Catholics in Poland.

So I was surprised when I visited my parents and found a silly looking book titled Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic on my father’s desk. What was my dad doing reading something like this? I was curious and hadn’t brought anything home to read, so I gave it a look.

David Currie’s memoir of leaving behind his evangelical education and ministries was bothersome. His unapologetic defense of controversial doctrines regarding Mary and the papacy were most shocking, as I had never seriously considered that Catholics would have sensible, scriptural defenses to these beliefs.

The book’s presence on my father’s desk was explained more fully a few months later when he called me and said he was returning to the Catholicism of his youth. My response? “But, can’t you just be Lutheran or something?” I felt angry, betrayed, and indignant. For the next four months I served as a youth pastor at my local church and, in my free time, read up on why Catholicism was wrong.

During that time, I stumbled across a Christianity Today article that depicted an “evangelical identity crisis.” The author painted a picture of young evangelicals, growing up in a post-modern world, yearning to be firmly rooted in history and encouraged that others had stood strong for Christ in changing and troubled times. Yet, in my experience, most evangelical churches did not observe the liturgical calendar, the Apostles’ Creed was never mentioned, many of the songs were written after 1997, and if any anecdotal story was told about a hero from church history, it was certainly from after the Reformation. Most of Christian history was nowhere to be found.

For the first time, I panicked. I found a copy of the Catechism and started leafing through it, finding the most controversial doctrines and laughing at the silliness of the Catholic Church. Indulgences? Papal infallibility? These things, so obviously wrong, reassured me in my Protestantism. The Mass sounded beautiful and the idea of a visible, unified Church was appealing - but at the expense of the Gospel? It seemed obvious that Satan would build a large organization that would lead so many just short of heaven.

I shook off most of the doubts and enjoyed the remainder of my time at college, having fun with the youth group and sharing my faith with the students. Any lingering doubts, I assumed, would be dealt with in seminary.

I started my classes in January with the excitement of a die-hard football fan going to the Super Bowl. The classes were fantastic and I thought I had finally rid myself of any Catholic problems.

But just a few weeks later, I ran into more doubts. We were learning about spiritual disciplines like prayer and fasting and I was struck by how often the professor would skip from St. Paul to Martin Luther or Jonathan Edwards when describing admirable lives of piety. Did nothing worthwhile happen in the first 1500 years? The skipping of history would continue in many other classes and assigned reading. The majority of pre-Reformation church history was ignored.

I soon discovered I had less in common with the early Church fathers than I thought. Unlike most Christians in history, communion had always been for me an occasional eating of bread and grape juice, and baptism was only important after someone had gotten “saved.” Not only did these views contradict much of Church history but, increasingly, they did not match with uncomfortable Bible passages I had always shrugged off (John 6, Romans 6, etc).

Other questions that I had buried began to reappear, no longer docile but ferocious, demanding an answer. Where did the Bible come from? Why didn’t the Bible claim to be “sufficient”? The Protestant answers that had held me over in the last year were no longer satisfying.

Jefferson Bethke’s viral YouTube video, “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus,” was released during this time. The young man meant well, but to me he only validated what the Wall Street Journal called “the dangerous theological anarchy of young evangelicals,” attempting to remove Jesus from the confines of religion but losing so much in the process.

Ash Wednesday was the tipping point. A hip Southern Baptist church in Louisville held a morning Ash Wednesday service and many students showed up to classes with ashes on their forehead. At chapel that afternoon, a professor renowned for his apologetic efforts against Catholicism expounded upon the beauty of this thousand year old tradition.

Afterwards, I asked a seminary friend why most evangelicals had rejected this beautiful thing. He responded with something about Pharisees and “man-made traditions.”

I shook my head. “I can’t do this anymore.”

My resistance to Catholicism started to fade. I was feeling drawn to the sacraments, sacramentals, physical manifestations of God’s grace, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. No more borrowing, no more denying.

It was the next day that I called my mom and told her I thought I was going to become Catholic.

I didn’t go to classes on Friday. I went to the seminary library and checked out books I had previously forbidden myself to look at too closely, like the Catechism and Pope Benedict’s latest. I felt like I was checking out porn. Later, I drove to a 5pm Saturday Mass. The gorgeous crucifix at the front of the church reminded me of when I had mused that crucifixes demonstrated that Catholics didn’t really understand the resurrection.

But I saw the crucifix differently this time and began crying. “Jesus, my suffering savior, you’re here.”

A peace came over me until Tuesday, when it yielded to face-to-windshield reality. Should I stay or leave? I had several panicked phone calls: “I literally have no idea what I am going to do tomorrow morning.”

On Wednesday morning I woke up, opened my laptop, and typed out “77 Reasons I Am Leaving Evangelicalism.” The list included things like sola scriptura, justification, authority, the Eucharist, history, beauty, and continuity between the Old and New Testament. The headlines and the ensuing paragraphs flowed from my fingers like water bursting from a centuries-old dam. 

A few hours later on February 29, 2012 I slipped out of Louisville, Kentucky, eager to not confuse anyone else and hoping I wasn’t making a mistake.  

The next few months were painful. More than anything else I felt ashamed and defensive, uncertain of how so much of my identity and career path could be upended so quickly. Nonetheless, I joined the Church on Pentecost with the support of my family and started looking for work.

So much has changed since then. I met Jackie on CatholicMatch.com that June, got married a year later, and celebrated the birth of our daughter, Evelyn, on March 3rd, 2014. We’re now in Indiana and I’m happy at my job.

I’m still very new on this Catholic journey. To all inquirers out there, I can tell you that my relationship with God has deepened and strengthened. As I get involved in our parish, I’m so thankful for the love of evangelism and the Bible that I learned in Protestantism.

I have not so much left my former faith as I have filled in the gaps. I thank God for the fullness of the Catholic faith.

[NYer]

Their entire struggle was with what men would think. What their family would say. What their friends would say. Their struggle had nothing to do with their relationship with Christ.

Lol!

[Resettozero]

Ask yourself this: If Jesus had really meant to "again" and only "again" why didn't He use the word "Palin/ Palon"?

Since Lord Jesus Christ was speaking to Nicodemus in either Hebrew or Aramaic, you would need to ask one of them.

If you look at the words Nicodemus used in reply to Jesus, the full intent of what He was saying was very clear to Nicodumus, who was incredulous at His sayings.

If you don't fight Scripture, Scripture will co-operate with you, but only if the reader/hearer is guided by the one and only true God the Holy Spirit.

[Resettozero]

Hmmm. Nicodumus may be right, since there is no evidence in Scripture that he was ever born again of the Spirit.

Possibly, Nicodemus has been elevated to Sainthood by the RCC without ever having been saved from his sins.

[NYer]

I know that is what you have been taught. I know that is what you believe. But that is un-Biblical. Jesus was accused of profaning the Sabbath but in reality He never did. He defined it. The transferrence of Sabbath to Sunday as Gods day of rest is not in recorded history.

Sure it is. The early Church did not move the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Instead "The Sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday, which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ" (CCC 2190). Sunday is the day Catholics are bound to keep, not Saturday.

We see evidence of this in Scripture:

On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread, Paul spoke to them because he was going to leave on the next day, and he kept on speaking until midnight (Acts 20:7).

On the first day of the week each of you should set aside and save whatever one can afford, so that collections will not be going on when I come (1 Cor. 16:2).

Let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or Sabbath (Col. 2:16).

This is supported by the writings of the Early Church Fathers:

"But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).

[CynicalBear]

>>This is why we need Petrine authority.<<

No, it is not. We do not need "Petrine authority". True Christians have the Holy Spirit for that. Catholics look to man for their authority. True Christians look to the Holy Spirit promised by Christ.

[Resettozero]

If Christ had said...”born from above”, I would have trouble believing that Nicodemus would have responded with the words he did unless Nicodemus was that spiritually insouciant.

Yes. It stands to even human carnal reasoning.

I see there is an argument over the Greek translations. I do find it interesting that the Catholic English Bible the Douay Reims that many Catholics swoon over translates the phrase as “Born again!”

Oh? Now that is interesting indeed, considering the flak coming from a handful of RCC FR posters.

[tomsbartoo]

You may know your Protestant religion well. but you are a very confused individual when it comes to the Catholic Church. Yes, the Catholic Church teaches that the Catholic Church is the “one, true, holy and apostolic Church”, but that is not necessarily what is taught by every individual who walks the halls of the Vatican in Rome. In fact, you actually should be embracing many of them because they’re really trying to sound like you. The Second Vatican Council did as much as it possible could to confuse that issue with adopting their false “ecumenism”, and to lead people to believe that they would be saved by following a religion other than that of the Roman Catholic Church. You may be saved by living a good life “in spite of” your religion, but not “because of” it.

So if that’s your problem with Catholicism, you should be jumping for joy with the Modernist Catholic bishops and popes who promote this false ecumenism and do their best to suggest that those many other false religions are “almost” as good as the Catholic Church. Sadly, some Catholic clerics and religious even go so far as to suggest that one religion is as good as another. Mother Teresa, the soon to be saint of the Catholic Church, has said as much. Sorry, but that is not the true teaching of the Church and traditional Catholics follow the true teaching.

For your information, the Roman Catholic Church is the one and only true Church founded by Jesus Christ, and that every other religion (N.B. every other religion) is false. That includes the Evangelicals, the Baptists, the Muslims and so forth. It is the duty of every faithful Catholic to teach the truth to those who are not Catholic, and to encourage them to join this one true religion. Whether they do or not is their choice. And whether you want to believe that or not (which you clearly do not), is your choice. But it is the teaching of the true Catholic faith.

As for the issue you raise about Rome not being very “likable”, please understand that the goal of the Catholic Church is not to be more “likable”, in spite of the fact that many of the Modernist Catholics today often tend to think that same way. Understand that being a “likable” religion is a Protestant thought, not one of the true Catholic Church. The only issue is the “truth” of what is being professed and what is being followed. You may call that “arrogance”, and at some level it may well be seen as just that; but if you believe that professing the truth taught by the doctrines of the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ is to be “arrogant”, then you are entitled to your opinion. But for a Catholic to deny those doctrines is sinful.

[NYer]

ROFL!

[Resettozero]

True Christians have the Holy Spirit for that. Catholics look to man for their authority.

One Authority leads believers in Lord Jesus Christ into all truth. The other authority is hit or miss.

[daniel1212]

As you know, James said faith without works is dead. So what “saves” us, a living faith or a dead faith? Obviusly the latter, as Reformers clearly taught. .

And while it is clear that "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the unGodly , his faith is counted for righteousness,"(Romans 4:5) yet since such faith and works go together, as can forgiveness and healing, (Mt. 9:2-7) so that one can be used for the other, then since true works which are effected by faith (all we do is an expression of what we true believe, at least at that time), then the faith-works that one does which validate him as having faith can be said to save him. Like as.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13)

Obviously it is not any moral merit in calling upon the Lord that appropriates salvation, nor is this what really does, but since this confession testifies to one truly having saving faith, and an act may even be when he comes to faith (an can be a catalyst for it), then it can be promised that whosoever shall call upon/confess/ be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus shall be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:10)

The confession aspect would exclude death bed conversions or others by souls who cannot manifestly confess the Lord Jesus, as would a strict reading of James, but God looks at the heart, which believeth unto righteousness. Yet the latter will manifest confession of Christ given opportunity. And as this testifies of faith, so such a one is given the affirmation of salvation, which is by faith. Yet which God rewards under grace. (Heb. 10:35)

The CE states on James vs. Paul: Until quite recently, it was almost universally accepted that the epistle of St. James was written against the unwarranted conclusions drawn from the writings of St. Paul. Of late, however, Catholic exegetes have become more and more convinced that the Epistle in question, so remarkable for its insisting on the necessity of good works, neither aimed at correcting the false interpretations of St. Paul's doctrine, nor had any relation to the teaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles. On the contrary, they believe that St. James had no other object than to emphasize the fact — already emphasized by St. Paul — that only such faith as is active in charity and good works (fides formata) possesses any power to justify man (cf. Galatians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 13:2), whilst faith devoid of charity and good works (fides informis) is a dead faith and in the eyes of God insufficient for justification (cf. James 2:17 sqq.).

According to this apparently correct opinion, the Epistles of both Apostles treat of different subjects, neither with direct relation to the other. For St. James insists on the necessity of works of Christian charity, while St. Paul intends to show that neither the observance of the Jewish Law nor the merely natural good works of the pagans are of any value for obtaining the grace of justification (cf. Bartmann, "St. Paulus u. St. Jacobus und die Rechtertigung", Freiburg, 1897). — Catholic Encyclopedia>Justification; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

Ratzinger went as far as this:

At the moment of his encounter with the Risen One he understood that with Christ's Resurrection the situation had changed radically...The wall is no longer necessary; our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary.

For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14)." (Pope Benedict XVI,11/19/08 General Audience; — http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html)

Yet Ratzinger is wrong by restricting works to simply works of the Law (nor is that an infallible interpretation of Rm 4 TMK), as the exclusion of works in Rm. 4, Titus 3:5 and Eph. 2:8,9 extends beyond works which were done under the law.

Believers are formally judged as redeemed and fit for being rewarded (Mt. 25:31-40; Heb. 6:9,10; Rv. 3:5) on the basis of what faith effected, but not because the works themselves actually morally justified them, nor due to a level of inner holiness as in RC salvation, resulting in having to become good enough to enter Heaven thru purgatory.

[CynicalBear]

>>Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother.<<

Wow! I hadn't seen that one before. What utter blasphemy!

[Mark17]

In fact, I remained a weekly practicing RC for 6 years after my conversion, and sought to find other RCs to talk to (though i was not pushy) about what God had and was doing in my life

I only lasted about 3 weeks before I hit the road. It was the Navigators who got to me. Their training programs in practical Christian living are quite good.

[Resettozero]

You may know your Protestant religion well. but you are a very confused individual when it comes to the Catholic Church.

Thanks...for nothing.

First, not a member of a traditional Protestant church anymore. Second, have NEVER claimed great knowledge of the Roman Catholic church in which I'm less and less curious as I read such FR posts as yours.

I stopped reading at your first insulting statement of your ignorance and do not wish to hear more from you regarding the supremacy of the RCC over the Church the Lord Jesus Christ founded on Himself with Christ alone as the Head.

Your initial burst of posting arrogance produced no fruit at all.

[ealgeone]

I know...amazing what the cultists believe.

[CynicalBear]

Catholics sure do like to play that word game don’t they. As if somehow it’s going to change the concept or meaning of the passage or idea being talked about. Humans are born of a woman here on earth. Christ said they must be born a second time from above. Please tell me how that is different than born again. What is your intent on the word play?

[BipolarBob]

They broke bread and spoke seven days of the week!! They were Apostles. That is ALL that is evidence of. here's YOUR Church in action though.
James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, 88th ed., pp. 89. "But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."
Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism 3rd ed., p. 174. "Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? "Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her-she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."
John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies (1 936), vol. 1, P. 51. "Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days."
Daniel Ferres, ed., Manual of Christian Doctrine (1916), p.67. "Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holy days? "Answer. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of, and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church.'
James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), in a signed letter. "Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church change the seventh day -Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer yes . Did Christ change the day'? I answer no! "Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons"

[boycott]

>>These Evangelical leaders, like many others, are theologians who were emotionally invested in their Evangelical faith.<<

Emotionally invested in Evangelical faith. Not invested in the faith of Christ. Their entire struggle was with what men would think. What their family would say. What their friends would say. Their struggle had nothing to do with their relationship with Christ.

---

I don’t know why I am included in this one but since you’ve added me, I believe you’re getting to caught up into one post. I won’t let my faith get caught up in such silliness.

Some folks act like we’re going to need lawyers to get to heaven. The Pope cannot save me. My minister cannot save me. A lawyer cannot save me. I need Jesus to be saved.

[Resettozero]

I only lasted about 3 weeks before I hit the road. It was the Navigators who got to me. Their training programs in practical Christian living are quite good.

Back in the late 70's, some Navigators helpers tried talking sense to me. I didn't respond positively during those times but I heard them and later remembered that the guys had really wanted to help me in a permanent sort of way.

Sometimes, more watering helps the seeds grow. Navigators provided needed water at a dry point in my life.

[ealgeone]

Likewise, the "Assumption of Mary" is a depiction of one event in the life of Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, passed down through the Tradition of God's Church. While that was good news, it is not what would be called a "gospel" by any stretch of any sane imagination, and the Catholic Church does not teach that that event in Mary's life is "the gospel", and anyone who tells you otherwise is peddling a falsehood.

And, furthermore, anyone who claims that if something is not in the Bible, that somehow proves it didn't happen, is lying, and not only that, they are calling the Bible a liar, because the Bible plainly says the Jesus did many other things that were not written:

✝============================================================✝ But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. John 21:25 ✝============================================================✝

If you will read this verse carefully you will see that the other things Jesus did were not written down nor were they intended to be written down.

Catholics take this verse to be a carte blanche card...they can claim any teaching they want by using this verse...."oh, just because it's not in the Bible doesn't mean it didn't happen or that we shouldn't adhere to it." This mindset has been used to give us such false teachings as Mary being sinless, remaining a virgin, indulgences, etc.

If we use catholic thinking on this then we cannot say no to Mormonism. After all, how do we know Jesus didn't take a detour to North America? Now, I don't believe in the Mormon claims for one second.

I merely use them as an example of what happens when we start taking verses out of context or reading something into a verse that's not there as catholics do with this verse.

Did Jesus do a bunch of stuff we don't have record of? Of course He did. He ate, slept, worked as a carpenter, interacted with His brothers and sisters, and a whole bunch of other stuff. We don't have a detailed daily diary of what He did. Nor do we need one.

What we have in the Bible is the record that God intended us to have. We have all we need to know about how to be saved...how to have a relationship with Christ and how to live the Christian life. We have the consequences of what happens if one rejects Christ. We have all we need to know regarding God,how to grow in God and how to serve Him.

There isn't any new revelation as claimed by catholicism.

[BipolarBob]

Also Col. 2:16 is out of context and dealt with additional man made holidays that Churches and emperors liked to impose at the time.
And Didache and Barnabas letters may be clever forgeries of the Catholic Church for all I know. They do NOT hold the same weight as Scripture.