Let me call her TeAnn.
She was raised as a Catholic, but poorly formed by Catholic Church and family. She was the wife of a deceased friend of mine and wrote to me about her take on the Catholic Church asking for a response. I responded in an attempt to correct the misunderstandings that all too often Protestants and Evangelicals level incorrectly at the Catholic Church. Here is an edited version of that exchange, having removed identifying information. Excerpts of her email are indented.
There are several books and DVDs at NinevehsCrossing.com that delve into this topic in more depth, e.g What Catholics Really Believe, Common Ground, and Why Be Catholic,
(Stan Williams)
--------------------------------
Dear TeAnn:
Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Although you revealed in your email that you were raised as a Catholic until age 21, it is clear that like thousands of others in the United States, you were badly catechized, for reasons unknown. The Catholic Church in the U.S. over the past generation did a horrible job of teaching its members the Christian faith. What you claim to know about Catholicism is significantly misunderstood.
You may recall that I grew up as an Evangelical Christian in a well educated and functional home. My parents were the children of pastors, missionaries, and at least one well-known martyr, stretching back hundreds of years. And as a teenager I memorized large portions of the Gospels and Romans during my years of Bible quizzing.
But chasing me through my young years, and well into adulthood, were the logical contradictions that Protestant-Evangelicalism presented to me. How I interpreted the Bible disagreed with what variety of Evangelical churches I attended taught, including the Lutheran Missouri Synod for which Pam and I were unofficial youth leaders in our early married life.
You may not know the story of why I finally left Evangelicalism (it had a lot to do with the church split where we both attended in the 1990s). I essentially gave up on Evangelicalism for its internal and Biblical contradictions. I started church hopping (again) for 2 1/2 years until, having run out of options, I walked into a Roman Catholic Church.
Pam and I wrote a book about the journey, filled with humorous stories. https://stanwilliams.com/NINEVEHSCROSSING/Order-GUC.php A Chinese reader in Beijing wrote of it: “Wicked humor, subversive satire, and brutal honesty.”
So, since then (1998) I have since become a part-time Catholic apologist (with dozens of TV program aired on Protestant and Catholic networks, along with many on-line articles, and a few books), Below, I offer an answer to your email (in-betweens) out of CLARITY and CHARITY. Please take my attempts to inform as such.
Hi Stan,
I recommend checking Abdu Murray's website, "Embrace the Truth" if you get a chance. This man is a "truth seeker" and eloquent speaker and has a Godly perspective which helps separate, clarify, and encourage understanding of Biblical Truth. Just to clarify....the Bible is my source of TRUTH. 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is God breathed..."
The FIRST thing Paul wrote to Timothy in 1 Timothy 3:15 (easy to remember references, both 3rd chapters and verses 15 & 16): "But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."
The significance of these two references is that Paul makes clear that the foundation of truth is the Church (1 Timothy), for only the Church can properly interpret the Scriptures mentioned in 2 Timothy. (But we’re not talking about just any “church.”)
Here is the context:
a. Paul’s reference to the Scriptures refers primarily to the Septuagint,
the Greek translation of the Old Testament, not the New Testament,
which had not yet been collected and authorized into a canon of texts
and proclaimed “inspired.” His reference to Scriptures could not have
included his letters, which he was in the midst of writing. It would be
centuries before his letters would be considered Scripture.
b. The NT collection of 27 books which we use today was being
written during the latter part of the first century (when Paul wrote
Timothy), and were being passed among the Christian Churches along
with many other texts that did not make the NT canonical cut. Some
churches considered writings such as the Gospel of Thomas, The
Didache, the Gospel of Mary, and others to be Scripture, but they were
not inspired. To decide which writings were trustworthy you need an
infallible authority led by the Holy Spirit.
c. So the Early Church took up the issue to decide what was inspired
or not. These decisions took hundreds of years after the texts were
written. Between the various churches a consensus was slowly
reached. The 27 books of the NT canon was first made official at the
Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. It was then that the council
(under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) declared 73 books (46 OT,
and 27 NT) to be the Christian biblical cannon. The selection of these
73 books were later affirmed by three additional ecumenical councils
(Rome 382 AD , Synod of Hippo 393, Council of Carthage 525 AD.)
These were catholic (universal) councils before the Catholilc-Orthodox
East-West Schism that began with the iconoclast disagreements in
726 and became official in 1054.
declared what writings were inspired. They did this under the infallible
guidance of the Holy Spirit, as prophesied by Jesus when he told the
Apostles: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all
truth.” (John 16:13), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be found in
heaven..." (Matthew 16:19, and Matthew 18:18.)
what Scriptures are trustworthy—and what sins to forgive, et al... to
the Church in its official capacity. The Bible’s canon came out of the
Church; the Church did not come out of the Bible. The authority
structure is clear: Christ –> the Apostles –> the Church –> Scriptures.
to decide what is true by reading the Scriptures (the basis of all
Protestantism, thanks to Martin Luther)... the natural result are
thousands of different Christian denominations, all which declare the
others are wrong in their interpretation of the Scriptures. Luther’s Sola
Scriptura is destroyed by the fact that today the World Federation of
Lutherans is comprised over 100 Lutheran denominations who all
disagree with each other on how to interpret the Bible. If
Protestantism is right, that individuals can determine what is right and
wrong (based on the Scriptures), then the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic
and can’t make up its mind. But, what is really happening
is “relativism”...everyone can decided for themselves what is right.
even if you do not remember being encouraged to do so) has always
encouraged studying the Scriptures and how the doctrines of the
Church came about from Sacred Tradition (such as the Bible is) and
General Revelation to all mankind. The result is that the various
official teachings and doctrines, as time to time declared by the
Catholic Church, have never contradicted what was declared earlier;
nor do they contradict with the historic understandings of Christ’s
teachings.
prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation." (1 Peter
1:20) i.e. Study the Scriptures so you understand the development of
doctrine over the centuries... but don’t start your own church because
you suddenly decide you know better than what Christ ordained
through his Church.
Stan, my responses below are not to argue, but to give you a perspective of my belief system, since you graciously shared yours.
BTW ....one of my favorite sayings is from Dennis Prager "Seek clarity above agreement" which relates to another of my favorite scriptures: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry. (James 1:19)
The only doctrine I follow is the BIBLE.....my sole source of Truth. I do not believe that the Pope or My Pastor (sinful, fallible, humans chosen to shepherd the flock) are an authority on their own........
TeAnn, indeed, no pope and no pastor is an authority on their own. But the Catholic Church does not rely on one person. The pope’s job is not to decided on doctrine on his own (in fact, he can’t. He does not have that authority). HIs job is to protect and enforce what has historically been taught.
The truth according to the Bible is my authority, and my pastor is quick to remind us not to necessarily believe all that he teaches us, but to read the scriptures for ourselves to receive revelation from the Lord and confirm what he has taught through the Word.
This instruction from your pastor is what has split the church thousands of times, as individuals decide their pastor or teacher is wrong and start their own church. The independent evangelical church we attended together for years went through that, remember?
I think I have a pretty good understanding of the Scriptures........I have studied the Bible intensely since the 1980's (over 18 years on & off) through Bible Study Fellowship International (BSF) which is a non-denominational Bible study completely focused on the Word of God. Not to mention many, many other studies with multiple small groups I have led. I do agree with your statement that the Holy Spirit is not schizophrenic.......and I wish that we had more unity as Christians. There are many false manmade doctrines but one thing that never changes is the Bible....the true Word of God, our AUTHORITY as Christians.
While the Bible has not changed, the INTERPRETERS and the INTERPRETATIONS have. We can start with Luther, Calvin, Zwingli (none of those Reformers could stand each other’s doctrines), and thousands of others. They are all using the SAME Bible but coming to different understandings. Jesus prayed in John 17 that his followers would be one so that “the world would know that you (God the Father) sent me.” But since we are not one Church the world does not believe that Jesus was sent by God. The Protestant scandal persists.
I believe you when you say that the Pope was misquoted or represented wrongly.....so many people in the media that it happens to.....but to say that all religions lead to heaven...I believe MUST be corrected as soon as possible.....that is simply NOT BIBLICAL and WRONG. One of many examples: John 14:6 "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. NO one comes to the Father except through me"
I don’t always agree with Pope Francis. But he DID NOT say that all religions lead to heaven. Since he did not say that, he does not need to be corrected. The next day the Vatican did issue a statement that corrected the interpreter and the journalists’ reports. That social media posters and others don’t pick up on the correction is not Francis’ or the Vatican’s responsibility.
This is a perfect example of wrong interpretations, isn’t it?
I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on the Catholic perspective. I was born and raised Catholic and changed to a Bible based church because of all the "man made doctrine" in Catholicism.
Name one “man-made doctrine” in Catholicism.” (You attempt to
below.) What you think was a “man-made doctrine” is actually a
misinterpretation ... or the result of ignorance by who told you there were such
things. I have been a Bible student all my life and I came to the Catholic
Church because its teachings agreed with the Bible better than any other
Protestant or Evangelical denomination. I have an open challenge to anyone
at any time. Such man-made things simply do not exist. As Bishop Fulton
Sheen famously said, “There are not one hundred people in the United States
who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they
wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
My Pastor follows the Bible to a tee and I LOVE his teaching. I attended Catholic church from birth to 21 years old and never received teaching like it and was never encouraged to read or study the Bible as a Catholic.
The Church has always encouraged people to study the Bible. It was the Church that first translated the Latin, Greek and Hebrew into the vernacular so people could read it, once the Printing Press was up and running. The fist book to come off Gutenberg’s press with the Church’s encouragement was the Bible. That you didn’t pick up on that in Mass is amazing, insofar as the entire Mass is 90% Scripture. The first half is pure Scripture readings from the OT, Psalm, Epistle, and finally the Gospel. The homily is the priest’s explanation of the readings. The first vernacular Catholic Bible was the Douay Old Testament in 1582.
This idea that all you need is the Bible to know the truth makes a mockery of history. Yes, there was a canonically approved collection of writings by the 4th and 5th centuries. (What did Christians do before that?) But after the councils approval of a canon, the only (hand made) copies of the (very expensive) Bibles were in under lock and chain in Church buildings, and with a few scholars and the very wealthy. The printing press which made books available to the common person didn’t appear on the scene until 1455, and still it took 3 years to print a copy of the Bible. It would be 100 years for books to become widely available. So, for 1500 years how is it possible for the common man have a copy of the Bible and practice Sola Scriptura? In 1521 Luther no doubt had a copy of the Bible (in Latin) and then he translated it into German. But the printed Bible did not become widely available until the industrial revolution and the advent of steam-powered printing presses. So, this idea that it’s the Bible and Me that determines Biblical truth was impossible to execute for the first 1700 years of Christianity. The text and the interpretation still had to come from “a” church, NOT the individual with a Bible.
I disagree with a lot of the Catholic practices including not allowing priests to marry which I believe has led to perversion and even the Pope condoning homosexuality.
This shows what you don’t know about the Catholic Church.
First, the pope does not condone homosexuality. He has condemned the practice many times. What he does do is encourage Christians to show kindness to sinners, which includes homosexuals. There has been a homosexual scandal (and other sexual scandals) in the Church. But then that is true of all religions. My first exposure to sexual scandals was in Evangelicalism. The secular press, many anarchists, and even some bishops and priests have long encouraged the Catholic Church to embrace homosexuality, but it has not... although many other non-Catholic faiths have, like Anglicanism, Methodists, and some sects of Presbyterianism, and Lutheranism.
Second, there are 23 rites that are in fellowship with the Roman Catholic Church and the pope. All of these rites agree completely with the dogma and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Some of these rites are Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean. 22 such rites are within the Archdiocese of Detroit. The Roman rite is the only one I know what seeks celebrate and unmarried priests. I think, but I’m not sure that all the others can marry, You are right that it is a PRACTICE and not a doctrine or teaching. Big difference. But there are hundreds of Roman Catholic priests in America and England that are married and are in good standing with Rome. My friend Fr. Dwight Longenecker (Greenville, SC) is one of them. He has three children is still married, and pastors a growing church. (https://olr.church/) Many of these priests (like Fr. Dwight) came into Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism when Anglicanism when doctrinally corrupt.
Jesus recommended celibacy as a spiritual discipline ("for the sake of the kingdom of heaven") to those who could accept it. I also believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was chosen by God as the virgin to bear Jesus, but was not sinless.
This is where your interpretation of Scripture disagrees with 2,000 years of doctrine and all of the Early Church Fathers. You can collect Scriptures to argue effectively to the contrary that Mary was a sinner like anyone else, but you won’t convince St. Augustine, or St. Ignatius our hundreds of others who where discipled by the Apostles. At the same time the church teaches that Mary had a savor...her son. The analogy often used is that before Mary stumbled and fell into a mud puddle of sin, Jesus reached out and kept her from falling. It’s about interpretation, not what you think. Again, see 2 Peter 1:20
She was human (and therefore a sinner) and many of my Catholic friends and relatives pray to her and other saints which is not biblical.
Here you are equivocating on the word “pray.” To your understanding, and clearly you didn’t get this from your poor Catholic upbringing, “to pray” means “to worship.” But that is not the classical definition of “to pray.” “To pray” means simply “to ask.” In a British court a lawyer will “pray to the court...” in order to “request” something. When I ask you to pray for me to Jesus, I’m actually “praying” to you, and asking you to request something on my behalf. Catholics do not worship anyone but the persons of the Holy Trinity. They do not worship saints, nor Mary, nor anyone else. But the saints are in heaven before the throne of God, and have access to pray to Jesus on your behalf. (c.f. Revelations 8:3-4 where the saints pray before God)
Jesus was the only "sinless" human. Jesus modeled how we are to pray and although I still have my rosary, because my grandma McMenemy was never without it and taught me the importance of prayer.....I do not believe in repetitive prayers as rebuked in scripture: Matthew 6:7-8 "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions"...
Clearly, you were taught wrong about the Rosary. Or maybe you were taught right as a child, but were later corrupted by Protestant heresies. Here’s how I pray the Rosary, none of it is “in vain.”
a. The focus of the Rosary prayers are not what is said (the Hail Mary, etc.) but what is contemplated...the mysteries of Christ’s life through the eyes and life of Mary. The verbal repetitions are a pacing device to ensure we are in prayerful contemplation for a set amount of time before moving on to the next mystery.
b. I pray the Rosary everyday. So does Pam. When I pray it I contemplate (in my mind) on the life of Christ and what can be learned by being with Christ and Mary at the foot of the cross, or at the wedding in Canaan, etc. Or, based on which one of the mysteries I’m on (there are four groups of mysteries, 20 in all), I pray for things in the world associated with the mystery. Each mystery is associated with a fruit of the spirit or a virtue. Humility is associated with the mystery of Christ’s nativity, and how that was a very humble event for the King of the universe to be born in a stable. So we are to learn humility by being there (mentally) and contemplate how to apply that experience in our daily life.
c. And yes, sometimes, I concentrate on the Hail Mary and the meaning of those words which came from the lips of Elizabeth when Mary greeted her and John the Baptist leap in Elizabeth’s womb. Imagine being Elizabeth and the Holy Spirit reveals to you suddenly who Mary is...the Mother of God and she’s come to visit and help you. That is so incredible to me, that Mary would come to me to help Elizabeth in her late pregnancy. "And Elizabeth filled with the Holy Spirit, said to Mary in a loud voice “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me....” Luke 1:39ff ... and then Mary’s words, “My soul magnifies the Lord...from now on all generations will call be blessed...for he who is mighty has done great things for me....” Wow. I just can’t get over that scene and its meaning for all time. It is the crux of all history. That is what I contemplate often when on the glorious mysteries of the Rosary.
d. Thus, when we pray the Rosary we are praying Scripture...which is beneficial for “training righteousness," etc.
e. Finally, my repetition of the Hail Mary, and the other prayers associated with the Rosary (like the Our Father) HAVE. NEVER. BEEN. IN VAIN. I can easily say the Hail, Mary 50 times in a row, and think about them, and be taken up in worship of God because they are the words of the Angel Gabriel, announcing the incarnation of God. THE INCARNATION. The most important moment in the history of all mankind. Never is contemplating the incarnation in vain.
I also, according to the Bible, can tell my sins directly to God and ask for forgiveness, no mediator, other than Christ my savior, necessary.
Yes, you can do that. But Scripture tells us that the normal way is to go to a priest. Why? Because it is harder, and it requires accountability with another person, who just happens to be in the person of Christ. The priest, is persona Christi, a Latin phrase in Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism, that means the priest acts in the presence of the risen Christ. Where is this in Scripture. Several places. Here’s one passage from the NIV (an Evangelical translation) Jesus is speaking to his Apostles: “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” John 20:23 The context is not between just any two persons.
And yes, it is only God that forgives sins, but remember the ordained priest is an ordained representative of God in direct success of the Apostles and Christ. In the Confessional the priest, in pronouncing absolution says, “I absolve you from all your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” Thus, it is God that forgives sins, though the sacrament effected by the priest and the contrite penitent.
Do not be confused. When we talk about a mediator, we are talking about a mediator between us and God the Father. The mediator is always Jesus Christ. The priest does not replace Jesus, but acts officially in space and time as Jesus...at Jesus’ command. (c.f. John 20:23, Matt. 16:19)
Another practice that I consider ridiculous is an "annulment of marriage" for however many thousands of dollars it is now. No human has the authority to "ANNUL" a marriage as if it did not exist (and what about the children of that union). GOD,JESUS, and the HOLY SPIRIT (Trinity) is the only AUTHORITY as far as the Bible teaches and I believe this truth. These are only some of the Catholic doctrines that I disagree with based on the authority of the Bible.
Again, you misunderstand what “annulment of marriage” is and why it is necessary.
a. The Catholic Church takes marriage very seriously. IT IS A SACRAMENT parallel in importance with a priest’s ordination. Marriage and Ordination are both sacraments of one’s VOCATION. The Church protects people by ensuring they are hearing God correctly about what vocation they should pursue as a result of God’s calling on their life. The decision is sacred.
b. Annulment is not divorce. The concept of “divorce” does not exist in Catholicism. Once a couple is sacramentally (validly in the eyes of the Church and God) married, there is no going back until the death of one of the spouses. The church’s authority here, as in many other things, is based on Christ’s words to Peter and the Apostles about the Church’s requirement to bind and loose. “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19) Here’s another verse: “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (John 20:23)
c. Annulment simply means the marriage was never valid in the first place. But determining (legally) can take time and some investigation usually with multiple interviews and the work of a psychologist. Consider the terms of a valid marriage (sacramentally in the eyes of the church).
(1) Both spouses must be baptized.
(2) Both spouses must be free to marry and have no prior marriages. (3) Both spouses must be of the age of consent (typically 18).
(4) Spouses must be of the opposite sex.
(5) Both spouses must be given freely to the consent of the marriage and not coerced, which means neither spouse is open to divorce at the time of marriage. There must be a firm, life-long commitment.
(6 et al) And there are a few others, like the marriage must be consummated with sexual intercourse freely given to by each spouse.
NOW, if any of these are not true then, under canon law, the marriage was never sacramental, and was invalid, and never occurred. Thus an arranged marriage where the woman is forced to marry the man....is an automatically invalid, and easily annulled.
d. Again, your reference that only the persons of the Trinity have the authority to annual a marriage is interesting. Since the persons of the Trinity do not physically appear on earth. and since you are allowing the possibility that the marriage can be annulled if the Trinity so wishes or declares it...who therefore can stand in for God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit?
e. You can disagree, of course, but since you put a lot of faith in the Bible Alone (a doctrine that does not exist in the Bible) here is where the final authority lies. Note it is NOT in the Bible, but in the leaders of the church given their inspiration by the Holy Spirit. Again, Jesus says to Peter “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)
SIDEBAR
Can humans (men of the Church) be inspired by the Holy Spirit to make such decisions? Of course, just as the Holy Spirit inspired the human authors to write the Scriptures, and select which ones should be canonically included in the Bible as inspired.
f. In many diocese (e.g. Detroit) the annulment of marriage costs nothing, although it may be thousands of dollars in places...but for good reason.
The bottom line is that the authority to determine Christian doctrine does not lie in a personal interpretation of the Bible, but in the Church’s infallible interpretation of the Bible and the Sacred Tradition that preceded the Bible.
Bottom line, is we as Christians, regardless of our manmade denominations, are unified through our salvation in Christ....."For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that who ever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." And one thing I love about BSF is that they always encourage us to focus on what unites us rather than divides us.....Jesus Christ our savior!
Okay, that sounds good, so let’s do what Jesus said and avoid a wrongly understood saying of Jesus, which leads to a divided Church. Such divisions occurred at the time of Christ because his followers misinterpreted what he said. Here’s an explicit example from the Gospels.
In the last half of John 6 Christ taught about The Eucharist, something that does not exist in Evangelicalism. Jesus tells his disciples over 20 times (explicitly and implicitly) “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you do not have life within you.” Then in verse 6:60 and 66 John writes, “Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” ... As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to the former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”
Were you ever baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church? If so it’s time to come home.
stan
 |
| Interior of the Sagrada Familia Cathedral, Barcelona, Spain by Antoni Gaudi |
No comments:
Post a Comment