Comments on Conversion Diary: Why I'm Catholic

I stumbled upon your post 2 days ago via SpiritDai...

2010-01-31T09:31:26.902-06:00

I stumbled upon your post 2 days ago via SpiritDaily. I'm a cradle Catholic but still growing in my knowledge of the Catholic Faith. The more I know about Her, the more I love her, and the more I am thankful to the early Spanish missionaries who braved the Pacific Islands in the 16th century to sow the Word. It has been 2 days of intermittent readings but suddenly, like a cliffhanger, the episode of Russell & MM came to a halt. Is there any continuation? If I may say something, Russell seems to miss the point totally of what Catholics uphold as 'Tradition'. The Catholic Tradition is not bounded by time.

By the way, the first time I looked at my faith more maturely is when I was in the graduate school trying to find a mathematical equation that defines the leaf of a tree, and to my amazement, not a single leaf is like any other. Suddenly, I have that 'Eureka' moment: God IS! And then I started to fall in love with my Faith, not as a teen's infatuation, but as a man seriously looking for a coomitment for life. And I am just forever grateful that this ever-generous good LORD, Who knew me even before I was born, gave me the grace to love Him.

PS: I am planning to read your conversion story to my 3 children in episodes over dinner. Good discussion material.

Jennifer, thank you for your beautiful post. Than...

2010-01-25T08:42:54.625-06:00

Jennifer, thank you for your beautiful post. Thank you for ALL your posts, written in the service of our Lord.

aodhoruairc, if you ever come back here . . . please know that I pray, with all my heart, that you will one day accept the grace and the fullness of life that only Christ can offer you. He is the only hope that we have - "like it or not, believe it or not" - and you were bought and paid for by His blood. May you come to believe, before it is too late.

just a great inspiring story im reading this to my...

2009-12-23T19:46:30.027-06:00

just a great inspiring story im reading this to my students because very often i get the feeling that they feel like you -Moises C. [San Pedro CA. ]

I really enjoyed reading your conversion story. I...

2009-12-19T01:19:44.530-06:00

I really enjoyed reading your conversion story. I'm a Mormon myself but went to Catholic high school. My Catholic friends were always so nice and non-judgemental about my religion, which I definitely can't say about my Evangelical friends, sadly.

Blessings on your journey of faith!

I just found your post today, and it is wonderful....

2009-12-08T11:31:29.257-06:00

I just found your post today, and it is wonderful. The "sola scriptura" thing just does not hold up logically. I have been a lifelong Protestant, but for the past year have been reading and praying and thinking intensely about "swimming the Tiber." Thank you for sharing your story.

Thank you for this post. As a teenage Catholic, st...

2009-12-05T19:37:46.084-06:00

Thank you for this post. As a teenage Catholic, strong conversion stories like these help me to fully realize where I am, and strengthen my faith.
~M. Catherine-Rose

MM (Part 2) You said: “I will also note that, whi...

2009-09-08T23:08:48.627-05:00

MM
(Part 2)
You said: “I will also note that, while the canon wasn’t solemnly defined until Trent, it had been defined by the tradition of the Church since about the fourth century. That is to say, it’s not like there was no canon until Trent, it just hadn’t been set out in an ecumenical council yet.”
MM, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t INSIST that we “really need” infallible certainty on the one hand, and on the other hand, say it’s no big deal that we DIDN’T have it until Trent in 1546.
You also talked about the need for an infallible interpreter. But it is ironic that so very few verses of Scripture have actually been “infallibly” interpreted by the Catholic Church. The point is, there is all this insistence on infallible certainty and infallible interpretations, yet in 2000 years, only an incredibly tiny percentage of verses were thus interpreted (the exact number will differ from Catholic to Catholic).
You said that in no way could every aspect of God’s self-revelation be recorded in the Scriptures, and gave John 21:25 as proof. I would agree with that, but Sola Scriptura does not mean that every single bit of spiritual information is in the Bible, or, e.g., that it is some kind of exhaustive encyclopedia of every word that God has ever spoken. This is another misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura that Catholics very often use.

MM, (Part 1) I know that sometimes it’s hard to...

2009-09-08T23:01:47.753-05:00

MM,

(Part 1)

I know that sometimes it’s hard to respond to everything that we write, but I feel that there are a few points that I had made earlier that were too important to overlook. For example, the fact that all of us today start off with fallibility in all our decisions, including the final authority(ies) that we choose to follow. And the fact that we can have SUFFICIENT certainty on the canon (just as the Old Testament believers did). Also, your answer to the question about whether EVERY believer needs to have INFALLIBLE certainty on the FULL canon to be saved and to live for God, seems to be “No, they don’t.” And again, I am asking you: If they don’t, then why all the insisting on the “necessity” of infallible certainty in the first place?
Now, you did address Tradition to some extent, but I’m still waiting for a clear and meaningful defintion of it, before we can ever claim it as inspired. If the Catholic can demand an infallible list of the contents of Scripture, then Protestants can also demand that Catholics provide an infallible list of the full contents of “Tradition” – please show us the list.
Ok, you said, “…sola scriptura is refuted even in the assembly of the Bible, because we need the Church to elevate those books…” Once again, just because the church recognized the canon, it does NOT follow that the church is therefore infallible. You’re just ASSUMING the church is infallible, when there is no biblical evidence of it.
You shared Matthew 16:18-19 in an attempt to show that the Catholic Church is infallible. But Jesus telling Peter that the gates of Hell would not prevail, and that he would have the authority to bind and loose, is NOT the same as saying that the post-apostolic church would have infallibility. First of all, this same authority was given to ALL the apostles, and not just to Peter and his successors (Matthew 18:18-20). Secondly, there is absolutely no indication of a promise that any particular leader(s) in the New Testament church TODAY (i.e., after the apostles) would be exempt from error in his official pronouncements. It just isn’t there, explicitly or implicitly.

(part 3) How does this relate back to sola script...

2009-09-06T15:29:37.416-05:00

(part 3)

How does this relate back to sola scriptura? Well, even if the Bible had fallen out of the sky as it is, and the canon was not an issue, there are still many interpretations of the Bible, some of which are mutually enriching, but some of which are mutually exclusive. Since no text interprets itself, and furthermore every single person’s reading of any given text will be unique to them, we need a competent authority which can mark off “boundaries” of what is a licit interpretation and what is illicit. Therefore if St. Francis wants to focus on Jesus’ life of poverty and service, while St. Josemaria Escriva wants to focus on Jesus as the prototype of masculinity, the Church says: “Ok, these are different, but they are mutually enriching, and both valid interpretations” – i.e. they each describe different aspects of what’s going on in the scriptures. Meanwhile, if Augustine wants to say that Christ was Divine, while Arius wants to say He was not Divine, the Church will say: “Wait a second, these are mutually exclusive, so one of them must be an invalid interpretation. And it’s Arius’.”

Without the authority of the Church, how could we know which readings of the Sacred texts were valid or invalid? Without a definitive rule of faith, we will tend to degrade into relativism and warring factions (as have the Muslims, for example, and also the Anglican Communion) or we will tend to allow so much of our own human error in that we might lose the Faith altogether (as have many modern sects like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, or even certain developments within Catholicism, such as so-called “liberation” theology or “Marxist theology” for example, although there can be some legitimacy in the former if one is careful). Yes, there must be room for individual spiritualities and faith experiences, but a rule of faith is still needed to separate orthodoxy from heterodoxy even when the Scriptures are taken as a given.

I sincerely hope that your talk about no one being saved until Trent was just rhetoric; obviously the Church does not teach that one needs a solemnly defined canon in order to be saved. Hopefully the above has sufficiently exposed the reason why I brought up the canon in the first place: because it is so interconnected with the issue of the Church’s authority. I will also note that, while the canon wasn’t solemnly defined until Trent, it had been defined by the tradition of the Church since about the fourth century. That is to say, it’s not like there was no canon until Trent, it just hadn’t been set out in an ecumenical council yet.

Mariae mancipium

(part 2) We are given the promise that the gates ...

2009-09-06T15:19:43.965-05:00

(part 2)

We are given the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Let us think for a moment about what that means. When Satan tempted our first parents into original sin, he said “No, you shall not die the death. For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.” He got them to believe that something true was false and that something false was true. This is what it means, then, for the gates of hell to prevail. He upended the order of Truth, he undermined Truth Himself. Thus, when Christ says the gates of hell shall not prevail, and gives Peter the power to bind and to loose, He must also give the guarantee that Peter and his successors will not misuse this power (accidentally or otherwise).

But as we see in the Gospels, Peter is a highly fallible creature, as have been all popes since. Therefore we say that infallibility is a charism which is granted to the Church by the Holy Spirit. It is God protecting His Church from teaching lies. We believe that “infallibility” means only that the Holy Spirit protects the pope (in solemn definitions – eg. an ex cathedra proclamation), or the bishops with the pope (as in an ecumenical council), from teaching formal heresy on matters of faith and morals.

amdg Russell – First of all, forgive me for the ...

2009-09-06T15:17:56.051-05:00

amdg

Russell –

First of all, forgive me for the delay in my reply and for the length of it. It seems fitting to divide it in three parts. Hopefully we continue to advance the conversation in the direction of the Truth - may we serve Him unreservedly in our discourse and in our lives.

(part 1)

The reason I bring up the definition of the canon with respect to the sola scriptura discussion is that, at the end of the day, this discussion fits inside a broader discussion of the Church’s authority to teach definitively. The reason that the canon is what it is today is ultimately because the Church said so. There is nothing else in which we put our faith in the canon of scripture than the authority of the Church. So, sola scriptura is refuted even in the assembly of the Bible, because we need the Church to elevate those books which were divinely inspired to the position of Sacred Scripture.

You also ask about Sacred Tradition, which fits into this discussion also. You seem displeased with the Vatican II definition of Tradition as “all that She [the Church] herself is, all that She believes.” Perhaps I might explain this a little. The Church does not have Tradition which is over and against the revelation in Scripture, but rather the understanding of Tradition is based in the recognition the God’s self-revelation to humanity was made complete in the very person of Christ. But there is no way that every aspect of this self-revelation (which is infinite) could be recorded in the Scriptures (cf. John 21:25) or even in all the writings of the Church. Rather, revelation is like a seed which was planted by Christ in His Apostles – in His Church – and which continues to grow, a living thing, throughout the ages. Thus Sacred Tradition is the sum total of this eternal revelation as it is formulated and unpacked throughout time.

Christ said to Peter: “thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven” He was providing a way for His authority to be transmitted through the ages – His Church. The idea of “infallibility” is so oft misunderstood by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Allow me an attempt at clarification:

MM, I’d like to share a couple of more points, if...

2009-09-05T21:31:46.608-05:00

MM,

I’d like to share a couple of more points, if I may.

Is it mandatory for EVERY believer to have INFALLIBLE certainty on the FULL canon in order to be saved and to live for God?

If your answer is yes, then wouldn’t we have to say that out of the multitudes of godly people who lived before the fourth century, that not one was saved, or not one could live for God until after the Councils of Carthage and Hippo? Actually, according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia (which bears the official Catholic seals of the “imprimatur” and the “Nihil Obstat”), the first time that the canon of Scripture was INFALLIBLY declared was at the Council of Trent (1546).

The online “New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia” also confirms the above source. (Quotes for both sources available upon request)

So, if these Catholic encyclopedias are correct, and if we really do need infallible certainty on the canon of Scripture, I find it strange that the Church waited for a millennium and a half before giving us an infallible judgment on the canon. Thus, no one was able to be saved or live for God for over 1500 years. Is this really the case?

If your answer to the above question is no, then why all the emphasis on infallible certainty in the first place?

The second point is this: Why does the Catholic insist on the need for infallible certainty on the canon of Scripture for Protestants, when he (the Catholic) has no real certainty concerning his own “canon” of Tradition? Can anyone tell us exactly what the contents of Sacred Tradition are? Does the Catholic Church have an official, infallible, and unchanging list of its Traditions? There seems to be no meaningful definition of “Sacred Tradition” in Catholic sources. All I’ve ever seen were definitions like “the living and growing truth,” or it is “all that she herself [the Catholic Church] is, all that she believes,” or “the dynamic and living teaching authority of the Church.” But this is all meaningless and very circular (perhaps, intentionally vague?). What it really boils down to is the Catholic Church saying, “Tradition is whatever we WANT it to be!”

It’s pretty hard for me to see how anyone can claim inspiration or infallibility for something so vague and subjective. Ascribing infallibility to this kind of entity is surely a dangerous thing.

So, I think that “infallible certainty” and the whole canon issue hurts the Catholic Church more than helps it… and the canon argument does nothing to negate Sola Scriptura.

MM, Thank you again for your response. Concernin...

2009-09-01T22:32:51.366-05:00

MM,

Thank you again for your response.

Concerning the canon and how we know which books are inspired, it seems that the goal (for Catholics, at least) would be absolute INFALLIBLE certainty. I, for one, would be more than happy to have infallible certainty, but the truth is we are all fallible creatures with fallible minds and hearts… and we make fallible decisions. No matter what we end up choosing, or who we end up trusting, we ALL start out with fallibility.

Although you did allow for a third possibility, I so often see Catholics present a false dilemma: Either, 1) the books were INFALLIBLY chosen, or 2) they had to be WRONG in their choices – the middle ground seems to be lost. But I don’t believe any human today can have infallible certainty today on the canon (or anything else, for that matter). Infallibility is God’s domain. But that doesn’t mean that He won’t give us SUFFICIENT certainty about the things of God.

We have to ask, how did the believer in the Old Testament know that the books of Jeremiah, or Isaiah, or Malachi were inspired? There was no “infallible church” back then to tell them. But just like the fathers who recognized the books of the New Testament, they too, had to evaluate the available evidence, and reason with their fallible minds to come to a conclusion. Again, we don’t need to be infallible to recognize “the Infallible,” or else NONE of us would ever be able to recognize God and His dealings with us.

(part 2) Now this last statement seems to beg the...

2009-08-31T08:00:36.099-05:00

(part 2)

Now this last statement seems to beg the refutation that if the Holy Spirit had inspired the authors of the scriptures, then obviously the connection is in the act of writing the works themselves. I will not deny that; without this divine inspiration, we could not properly call the Scriptures authoritative. This, I believe, is what you mean when you say that God “determined” the canon, and rightly so. However, the assembly of the canon itself must also be authoritative, or else we cannot be sure that our Bibles include all of those works and only those works which were divinely inspired. If we cannot be sure that, for example, the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired, then ultimately there is no objective canon, or rule, of our Faith.

Now in response to the atheist's question, you mentioned a couple things. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by manuscript evidence, but I will venture a guess that this has to do with the fidelity of our current texts to the ancient sources. However, even if our texts were perfectly conformed with the ancient sources, that is by no means evidence of divine inspiration. You mention also the archaeological evidence and the inter-textual consistency of the Biblical writings, but even these things are a shoddy authority upon which to build the sort of life that you and I believe Our Lord is asking us to live. There are a million different archaeological and historico-critical arguments against the divine inspiration of the text of the Bible. In my opinion, any attempt to empirically demonstrate the divine inspiration of any text – not to mention the whole of the canon – is, by nature, going to fail.

I'll stop now, before this gets really long. Let me know if I am making sense.

MM

amdg Russell- (part 1) I largely agree with you...

2009-08-31T07:58:52.584-05:00

amdg

Russell-

(part 1)

I largely agree with your interpretation of 2 Timothy, and your clever “toolbox analogy.” But what is at stake, to my mind, in any discussion of sola scriptuta is the more foundational question of how the writings which make up our Bible (the word of God) are related to the person of Christ (the Word of God; cf. Jn 1:1) who is the fullness of God's revelation to mankind. Indeed, Christ is the self-revelation of God, and the self-communication of God to the whole of the human race, and any revelation available (eg. Natural law, Scriptures) must somehow flow from Christ Himself. What we seek, then, is the connection between Christ and the Bibles we have on our bookshelves.

Thus, with respect to the canon, you correctly point out that the fathers of the Church “recognized” rather than “determined” which works were in the Bible. Yet, you insist, they did not need the charism of infallibility to recognize these works. While I won't argue with the letter of this statement (ie. it seems at least theoretically possible that one could recognize a divinely inspired work without the charism of infallibility) I will suggest that if the Holy Spirit had not bestowed infallibility upon those whose job it was to recognize the canonical works, then the Church would be lacking both a guarantee that our canon is perfect and a “connection” of authority between Christ and the works themselves.

Mariaemancipium, (Part 2) Concerning the canon,...

2009-08-28T21:54:54.254-05:00

Mariaemancipium,

(Part 2)

Concerning the canon, and how we know which books are inspired, we all realize that no one alive today had anything to do with the formation of the canon, and therefore, we are dependent on others for this information. And, of course, we get this information from the early church. Now, the church did not “determine” the canon, the canon was “determined” by God. The church simply “recognized” the inspired books. But it doesn’t mean that recognizing the inspired books made those fathers infallible (as some believe), or that they needed to be infallible in order to recognize those books (as some believe).

And finally, you asked, what did Paul mean by “All Scripture” in 2 Timothy 3:16? I think he meant exactly that. We all know that the New Testament is also Scripture, and is just as inspired as the Old Testament. It’s true that at that time there was very little of the New Testament available, but that doesn’t change the truth of what Paul was saying. As an analogy, if a Catholic says that all ex-cathedra statements given by the pope are true, does he mean that only the ex-cathedra statements made up until this point in time are true, and not future ones? Of course not. All ex-cathedra statements would mean ALL ex-cathedra statements, just as “all Scripture” would mean ALL Scripture, whether the canon was complete or not. Since Paul is speaking of the nature and purpose of Scripture in this context, we have no reason to believe he was limiting his definition of Scripture to ONLY what was available in his day.

Thank you again, Mariaemancipium, and I’m certainly looking forward to your response.

In His Name,
Russell

Mariaemancipium, Thank you for your kind and thou...

2009-08-28T21:50:45.503-05:00

Mariaemancipium,

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response.

I’ll divide my response into two parts:

Part 1

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:16-17 - NASB)

Concerning this passage, it is true that verse 16 does not explicitly say “Only Scripture,” nor does it use the word “sufficient.” But I think the impact of this passage is often missed when the phrase “every good work” (v. 17) is overlooked. If Scripture equips us for “every good work,” then it is, BY DEFINITION, sufficient as a Rule of Faith.

Please allow me to share the “toolbox” analogy: If you were an auto mechanic and your boss gave you a toolbox that equipped you for “every mechanic’s job” possible, then this toolbox is sufficient for its specific purpose, i.e., for auto mechanic work, and it would be the only one you need. In the same way, Scripture is the “toolbox” which equips us for “every good work,” and is therefore sufficient as the infallible Rule of Faith. Now this doesn’t mean that there aren’t any other sources of truth (e.g., creeds, councils, traditions, lexicons, commentaries, etc.), it just means that there is no other inspired (“God-breathed”) source needed (or even available, I would argue) today. These other sources may also be useful and “profitable,” but they need to be tested by that infallible source that Paul is speaking of.

In the inquiring atheist scenario, you asked, “On what authority, then, does the fact that the Bible is the Word of God rest?” Well, I would share with him the fact that the manuscript evidence of the Bible (especially the New Testament) is far better than any manuscript evidence we have of any ancient literature… overwhelmingly so, in fact. If the manuscript evidence of the Bible is not good enough, then we could never accept any other ancient works of literature, either. Secondly, there is also much archaeological evidence which supports the veracity of the Bible. Furthermore, consider this… if we found only eight or ten different Old Testament prophecies pointing to the Messiah, the chances of all of these being fulfilled in the same Person would be astronomically slim. It would be virtually impossible (apart from divine assistance) in terms of probability. Yet we have dozens (perhaps hundreds) of prophecies that have already been fulfilled concerning Him. These are just some of the many examples of the Bible “proving itself,” or more accurately, God proving Himself through His Word. If we look, we can see the “fingerprints of God” all over it.

amdg Russell- You have rightly observed that the...

2009-08-26T16:25:05.883-05:00

amdg

Russell-

You have rightly observed that the "debate" above was nothing more than a setting up and knocking down of straw men by both parties. In the disinterested pursuit of Truth then, perhaps we may continue:

You cite 2 Timothy as Biblical support for sola scriptura. In my Bible, these verses read: 16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. I will note that these verses do not explicitly state that scripture is the only instrument by which the man of God can be furnished to every good work.

However, rather than dwelling on any particular verse (I'm not a big fan of "sound byte" arguments from anything, especially the Bible) I would instead draw the discussion to a more fundamental question.

Say that I am an atheist and I ask you why you believe that the Bible (i.e. the writings that have been brought together as the Bible we now know) is the word of God. Obviously, if we are considering whether the Bible is the word of God, a citation from the Bible will not suffice as proof. On what authority, then, does the fact that the Bible is the word of God rest?

Another way of framing the question is by asking why certain books are in the Bible while others are not. For example, Paul wrote several letters to the Church in Thessalonica, so why were only two included in the canon of scripture?

If the answer is (as I might suspect, however uncharitably) that you simply have faith that the Bible (as we know it today) is the Word of God, then one is tempted to ask why your faith is in that particular set of ancient writings? When Paul said "All scripture" as you referenced, he couldn't have possibly meant the canon as we now know it, because it had not yet been assembled as such. What did he mean by "all scripture"?

Thank you in advance for a civil and stimulating debate. May we both humbly submit ourselves to the Truth and seek Him fervently.

I love your conversion story to the Catholic Churc...

2009-08-16T05:08:13.140-05:00

I love your conversion story to the Catholic Church. It makes my faith stronger.

God bless you Jen and your family. Congrats for bringing forth your youngest angel to the world.

Hello Jen, Your story is amazing. Thanks for shar...

2009-08-16T05:06:17.679-05:00

Hello Jen,

Your story is amazing. Thanks for sharing this story to us. I linked your blog to mine.

God bless.

Hi Jennifer, I just ran across your blog and fou...

2009-08-15T21:43:29.342-05:00

Hi Jennifer,

I just ran across your blog and found it interesting. I would just like to comment on some of your posts from earlier (October / November 2007) concerning the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. This topic seems to be really misunderstood and misrepresented by many Catholics, and I would appreciate the chance to defend the concept. One poster had suggested that Romans 10:17 proves Sola Scriptura, but I respectfully disagree. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is where I would turn to demonstrate that Sola Scriptura is a biblical concept. I believe that this passage is clear and is showing us that Scripture is the only infallible Rule of Faith for the church today.

Another person suggested that Sola Scriptura just "doesn't work" because of the divisions in Protestantism. But there are also many disagreements and divisions within the walls of Catholicism. So, if the Protestant Rule of Faith (Sola Scriptura) is invalid because divisions exist in its ranks, then we would ALSO have to say that the Catholic Rule of Faith does not work, since there are divisions in its ranks, as well. So I think that this is one of many straw-man arguments against Sola Scriptura. I will be glad to address any other concerns on the topic from you or any of your posters. Thanks, Jen, for hearing me out.

Russell

Jen, Thanks for sharing your story with us. Accept...

2009-08-02T22:15:49.562-05:00

Jen,
Thanks for sharing your story with us. Accepting Pascal's wager was an inspiration from the Holy Spirit, aodhoruairc notwithstanding. I would pray that any skeptic, who thinks he/she has right reasoning, also accept Pascal's gambit. As a scientist myself, I find it difficult to believe that any scientist could be an agnostic. The order and beauty of the universe beg for a Creator. As for Paine and reason, it is no more than the age-old temptation to be like gods ourselves by rejecting God. We become like God by accepting God, the One who became our servant. Following the Way, the Truth, and the Light as passed down through the Church reveals true reason, as you found out in your "experiment." The quote from Chesterton is so appropriate. You were fortunate not have been burdened with an immature Catholic education terminated by the controversies of Vatican II that disrupted the Body of Christ. I, like many of the posters here, am glad that I took a second look at my Church as an adult. It is much different when we seek to understand her with experience, education, and, oh yes, humility under our belts. The fight to keep the Church true to Christ has been going on for 2000 years and will continue successfully until He returns. Thanks for your blog.

I am amazed and dumbfounded that anyone in the 21s...

2009-07-30T12:39:47.550-05:00

I am amazed and dumbfounded that anyone in the 21st century can become a Catholic.
I was taught as a "cradle" Catholic that babies that were not baptized would go to a place called Limbo and remain there forever when they died and that if I missed Mass on a Sunday and died without confessing my sin to a priest I would go straight to Hell. Also everyone who was not a baptized Catholic would burn in Hell when they died and that the Devil was constantly doing the rounds seeking potential Hell residents that he could torture and abuse for eternity.
Of course that was Vatican One and I believe that they've changed the rules now — does that give millions of Hell residents a "get out of jail" card?
By age 11 I began to wonder about all this and actually missed mass a few times to discover that nothing untoward happened. By then plain old reason and logic began to kick in aided by reading Tom Paine's Age of Reason who confirmed how illogical the whole Christian doctrine was. He wrote this in the 19th Century. It's quite depressing that 2 centuries later people are still buying into myths and superstitions. Why not believe then in ghosts, fairies, Santa Claus, Thor and any other thing that tickles your fancy.
Please people wake up and smell the coffee.

Great story. This key item: not being able to trus...

2009-06-23T20:39:57.982-05:00

Great story. This key item: not being able to trust myself to hear God properly, was one of the major reasons I left evangelical Protestantism for Catholicism.

The other part of this issue was that there are so many devout God-loving people of so many Christian denominations, yet they all have such radically different beliefs. I had to either believe that they were rejecting the Holy Spirit when reading scripture, or I had to believe they were using the wrong method of interpretting scripture (e.g. leaving out the Church).

I also recognized the issue of illiteracy, and realized that the Christian really needs to trust some person or some body of people, even if just desiring a proper translation of the Bible.

This, plus history were major factors in deciding to become Catholic.

Oh, and to AF, I read some good Evangelical apologetics, but they don't really touch the reality of Catholicism. They just don't grasp that in Catholicism we believe that everything flows out from Jesus Christ, but that he comes to us from many angles in many forms.

I was baptised Catholic, when I was an infant. I ...

2009-06-15T12:02:49.696-05:00

I was baptised Catholic, when I was an infant. I remember being raised in an orphanage. It was run by Franciscan Nuns. Everyday we had to get up at 5:30 and go to mass. The sisters were very strict, today at eighty years old I am well grounded in the Catholic Faith. I believe everything the Catholic Church teaches. Even that abortion is murder, and homosexual acts are an abomination.