Obstacles on the Road to Rome

[The_Iambic_Pen]

I thank all of your for your helpful explanations!

Cairisti:

Just keep praying that the Holy Spirit will reveal the Truth to you.

Believe me, I do all the time!

RobNY:

I’ve enjoyed reading your posts, Iambic Pen, I wish you the best of luck.

Thanks!

(And please tell me what you think of those links I gave you, I’d appreciate it.)

All of them were extremely helpful! The fourth one seemed to be incomplete, as it cut off near the end. Still, there was a wealth of information.

Mickey:

In the sacrament of Confession, the Christian confesses their sins to God in the presence of a Priest who acts as a witness only.

That makes sense, and I certainly don’t object to it. In fact, I can definitely see how having a witness would make a confession more genuine. However, Jesus Himself said, “if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven.” It seems that he is giving the Apostles the ability to forgive sins, not just be witnesses to the confession. Of course, I realize that I’m arguing more for the Catholic position now. You see why I’m confused these days?

E.E.N.S.:

The Iambic Pen, have you read the book entitled, The Spirit of Catholicism by [Fr.] Karl Adam?

No, I haven’t, though I will definitely have to consider adding it to my list.

Matt16_18:

Why would the Apostle John, a bishop of the Catholic Church, think that your Protestant understanding of confession is correct? After all, Jesus gave John the power to forgive sin, the power to bind and loose in heaven and earth – why would John be dismissing that authority from Jesus as totally irrelevant?

I guess it would be easier if 1 John 1:9 had said, “If we confess our sins to one who has been given the authority to forgive sins, He [God] is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” I guess the fact that the actual verse says God will forgive our sins, not any person, makes it difficult to see the necessity of a priest.

I don’t see that your interpretation makes any sense at all

The thing is, though, is that it’s not really my personal interpretation. It’s the interpretation held by the vast majority of Protestants. As a Catholic, you disagree, of course, but I don’t think this means that all Protestants have completely discarded all logic in ther interpretation. At any rate, I am very prepared to admit the possibility that you (and the Catholic Church) are right about this, so I’m not trying to be obstinate in my Protestantism.

scylla:

You are not alone, many of us had the same type questions since there are so many here that have converted to Catholicism.

I know, and that does make it easier. Many others have walked down this road before, and they made it through. If it is God’s will for me to continue down this road, I will make it as well.

VociMike:

In your church example, you would be (if you were Catholic) subtly denying the Catholic faith by suggesting by your actions that the Mass can be foregone for a Protestant service. Why not, instead, go to church with your family and then go to Mass. Then the whole situation becomes a positive witness to your faith rather than a denial of it.

I’ve heard this example before, and it certainly makes sense. I guess that it’s hard for me to see missing Mass as being a mortal sin, when more spiritually damaging acts (in my opinion) are venial sins only.

do you believe the teaching of Jesus you were taught as a Protestant are a burden or a gift? Is the command to love God with all your heart, mind and soul a burden or a gift? Is the command to take up your cross and follow Him a burden or a gift? You see where I’m going, right?

All of these are gifts, of course! And yes, I do see where you’re going. And when you mention how Protestantism is a simpler faith (in your Christmas tree analogy, I can certainly understand your point there too. The problem I have is that when it comes to our eternal salvation, why must it be so complicated? Getting a non-Christian to understand his or her need for Christ, and getting him or her to confess Him as Lord is far easier than getting him to do that plus believe in all the doctrines of the Catholic Church. At any rate, what’s really important is what’s true, not what’s simple.

continued…

 

[savone]

Something I’ve been wondering about. . .

Some of you posters have converted to Roman Catholic Christianity. Perhaps, you will share your perspectives on this. Also, I do hope that this ties in with the on-going discussion.

It seems to me that, in my Protestant experience, there is a more definite line drawn between the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant. However, on more than one occasion, conversations suggest that this is not the case for Roman Catholic Christians.

I’m not sure this is coming out the way I intend. When one speaks of the Church as a RCC, there seems to be much more of a sense of the Body of Christ. So, when one speaks of Sacraments, Apostolic Succession, the Pope, etc. it is with a sense that these actualize being this Body?

Still, not sure it’s coming out right. Maybe, your response will help me here.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

…continued from previous post

Matt16_18:

All Protestants are in rebellion against God, since God does not will for anyone to be a Protestant schismatic!

If Catholicism is true, then yes, I agree completely.

Christ established ONE church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and Christ identifies himself with his church.

And I don’t dispute this. The issue is what recourse do Christians have if the one true Church falls away from the truth? This is the Protestant argument, as they believe their only choice was to leave. The more I study, I am beginning to think otherwise, however.

It is an honor to pray for someone who is sincerely seeking the truth, no matter what it may cost. May God bless you and sustain you in your quest.

I thank you for your prayers!

Genesis315:

You are saying that going to another church for whatever reason is more important than receiving Jesus Himself in Holy Communion.

Well, I can see why this would be wrong.

Remember, Jesus says that stuff about hating your family members

And if I determine that Catholicism is true, I will accept it, regardless of what my family (who I love very, very much) thinks.

Anyway, why can’t you just do both?

True, that would be probably be an option in most cases.

LSK:

I think of it this way - Jesus had a chance to win more converts if He had yelled “No, come back - I was speaking symbolically!”. He didn’t, instead He insisted that His flesh was food, His blood was drink.

And this example (straight from the Gospels, no less) is the best defense of transubstantiation I have heard. Perhaps it’s my Protestantism affecting my judgment, but I tend to look to the Bible first for support of doctrine.

You are in my prayers, my brother. Please pray for me too, ok?

I thank you for your prayers, and I will certainly be praying for you as well.

Ignatius:

You will find the answers to many questions here:catholic.com/library.asp.

That is certainly true. I think I’ve read just about every article they have.

scylla:

It is not like the Catholic Church just makes up rules, willy nilly there is good reason it just takes some looking into.

I’m not bothered by the fact that there are rules, and I know there are good reasons for them. I guess the problem I have is that so many of these rules seem to carry the penalty of damnation if broken (though, obviously, these sins can be forgiven). I’m not a “once saved, always saved” believer by any means, but I still struggle with the idea of one sin closing the gates of Heaven.

Sherlock:

Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Confession for solid, psychological reasons: it’s necessary for our mental health, truth be told.

Well, to be honest, I really like the idea of Confession, as I think private confession to God does not always produce true repentance.

God Bless!

 

[EA_Man]

IP,

Does it strike you at all ironic that in order to determine if the claims of the RCC are true, you must engage in the very private judgement which you would prohibited from using as a member of the RCC?

Peace

 

[E.E.N.S]

The Iambic Pen:

…but I still struggle with the idea of one sin closing the gates of Heaven.

First I want to say that I enjoy reading your posts, they seem to be very honest.

Here I just want to point out that a mortal sin doesn’t “close the gates of heaven,” but rather it is a self act of disobedience that cuts you off from the Body (the ONE True Body that enters into heaven, Christ Jesus), however it isn’t permanent, there is always reconcilliation.

Remember that for a sin to be “mortal” it must consist of three things (of which I am sure you know, but I will list them anyway); grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent. A person chooses to cut himself off from the Body (hence the “full consent”), and it’s not so much the ‘gates being shut’ on you.

 

[E.E.N.S]

EA_Man:

IP,

Does it strike you at all ironic that in order to determine if the claims of the RCC are true, you must engage in the very private judgement which you would prohibited from using as a member of the RCC?

Peace

I am not following you…what do you mean?

 

[EA_Man]

E.E.N.S.:

I am not following you…what do you mean?

Are to you use private judgement in interpreting the Bible or Tradition?

 

[E.E.N.S]

EA_Man:

Are to you use private judgement in interpreting the Bible or Tradition?

If IP became Catholic, it would not be because the Catholic Church fit his own personal interpretation (hopefully anyway ) but because of the Church’s interpretation is the right one. I fail to see the irony. (Though I see now what you are trying to imply.)

From the Catechism:

**85 **“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

 

[EA_Man]

E.E.N.S.:

If IP became Catholic, it would not be because the Catholic Church fit his own personal interpretation (hopefully anyway ) but because of the Church’s interpretation is the right one. I fail to see the irony. (Though I see now what you are trying to imply.)

And how is someone to determine that the Roman Catholic Church’s interpretation is the “right” one?

Because it says it is?

That’s rather circular.

 

[E.E.N.S]

EA_Man:

And how is someone to determine that the Roman Catholic Church’s interpretation is the “right” one?

Because it says it is?

That’s rather circular.

I love you bro!

“When the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you to all truth…” (John 16:13)

 

[Matt16_18]

The Iambic Pen:

I guess it would be easier if 1 John 1:9 had said, “If we confess our sins to one who has been given the authority to forgive sins, He [God] is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” I guess the fact that the actual verse says God will forgive our sins, not any person, makes it difficult to see the necessity of a priest.

It would be easier for a Protestant if John wrote this way, but John wasn’t writing to a community of Protestants.

John was a bishop of the Catholic Church that was writing to fellow members of the Catholic Church. Catholics that had received their catechesis directly from a bishop (and an Apostle!) would certainly understand what John means by confessing sin. St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was also a bishop of the Catholic Church, and who knew St. John the Apostle, writes this:"For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ.

… “For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop”

Letter to the Philadelphians [A.D. 110]The Didache, a set of catechetical instructions for newbie Christians says this:“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure”

Didache [A.D. 70].If you were to attend the Eucharistic Liturgy in a Byzantine Rite or Orthodox Church, you would see for yourself what it means to confess your sins in church on the Lord’s Day.

The thing is, though, is that it’s not really my personal interpretation. It’s the interpretation held by the vast majority of Protestants. As a Catholic, you disagree, of course, but I don’t think this means that all Protestants have completely discarded all logic in their interpretation.

If one makes the same assumptions as the Protestants, then the conclusions of the Protestants are logical. But is it logical to make the assumptions of the Protestants when there is absolutely no evidence that the early Christians ever made these assumptions? Not really.

Protestant errors in interpreting scriptures are always built on making bad assumptions about what the writers of scripture intended to convey. Martin Luther invented a whole new religion when he assumed that Paul was trying to teach Luther’s highly defective “faith alone” religion in the Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Why had no Christian ever heard of Luther’s interpretation before? What is illogical is to think that one thousand five hundred years after Romans was written that Martin Luther was the first person in the world to understand Paul. No, that isn’t logical at all, that is arrogant pride run amok, the same arrogance that led Charles Taze Russell, Mohammed and Joseph Smith to think that they were the true interpreters of scripture when the invented their new religions from thin air.

I guess the fact that the actual verse says God will forgive our sins, not any person …

Of course God forgives the sin. The bishop or the priest is acting in the name of Jesus; that is, the priest is exercising the authority vested in his divinely instituted office to reconcile the sinner to the church. When Paul exorcised demons, he wasn’t casting out demons by his own power; he was casting demons in the name of Jesus. The demons weren’t obeying Paul, they were obeying Jesus. The priest doesn’t forgive sins in his name; he forgives sins in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[scylla]

EA Man I have heard James White say pretty much the exact same thing.

In that we are using our own fallible interpretation to determine if the Catholic Church is right. So nothing is ever true or right for sure since it is a circular arguement. (then James White asserts that is why we trust the Bible alone)

This is an interesting way to look at things, yet never resolves anything unless you personally take it upon yourself to be infallible.

Is this what you are presenting as something to think about?

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Matt16_18]

The Iambic Pen:

The issue is what recourse do Christians have if the one true Church falls away from the truth?

The real issue is this, is it even possible for the powers of hell to prevail against the church founded by Jesus? If it is, then why should I think that the powers of hell have not prevailed against a particular Protestant denomination too? What is keeping the Protestant denomination from teaching error? Since there are now thousands of Protestant denominations all teaching different doctrine, how can any man ever know which Protestant denomination to join? And how can he ever be sure that the Protestant denomination he has joined hasn’t started sliding into decay, since EVERY Protestant denomination changes the doctrine that they teach from one generation to the next.

If Protestantism stood as a monolithic alternative to Catholicism, if Protestanism was a force in the world that spoke with one mind from generation to generation, then there might be some credibility to the Protestant claim that “the bible is all I need because the Holy Spirit guides me in rightly dividing the scripture”. But the reality of Protestantism is a scandal of thousands of bickering and contentious sects that cannot all agree on one single doctrine of the faith. To me, the greatest argument that one can give against the claims of Protestantism is to simply point to the reality of what Protestantism has produced - division, disunity, and doctrinal confusion.

If Protestantism is the answer, what would failure look like?

 

[CollegeKid]

EA Man,

Not to sound condescending, but you may have a misconception here about the Church. Catholics aren’t prohibited from using private judgement when reading scripture, in fact certain doctrines of the Church have been defined after a member of the laity initially petitioned the Magisterium to investigate a previously undefined portion of scripture and teach what it meant (I will try to find some examples if you’d like, I make this statement now because I have read stories of lay Catholics who’ve done this and I don’t have the documentation on hand at the moment ). What Catholics are prohibited from doing is embracing a belief regarding faith or morals contrary to doctrine the Church has already taught, such as denying the Virgin Birth or the Trinitarian nature of God. As for Iambic Pen’s use of private judgement in trying to determine if the Catholic Church is the true church, I think that’s about all he can do (aside from the aid he recieves from the Holy Spirit). Before I converted, it basically came down to this for me: the research I had done, and classes I had taken, showed that the Catholic Church is the only Christian church that has existed for almost 2000 years, and that for the first 1500 years after Christ’s death, it was the only Christian church that existed. I tried hard to find information from “neutral” sources, such as Encyclopedia Britannica. History shows us that there is a clear line of popes leading all the way back to St. Peter. Additonally, all of our sacraments are explicitly laid out in the Bible. In the end I made a decision based on the evidence and private judgement, (I believe I was also guided by the Holy Spirit) and I think that’s what Iambic Pen is trying to do. The evidence we have is overwhelminly in favor of the Catholic Church being Christ’s church. I may never be 100% sure that I’m right, so I’m taking the Church on faith, backed up by what I believe is a much better case for being Christ’s authentic church than any protestant sect can offer.

 

[VociMike]

EA_Man:

IP,

Does it strike you at all ironic that in order to determine if the claims of the RCC are true, you must engage in the very private judgement which you would prohibited from using as a member of the RCC?

Peace

In your church, would you allow somebody who determined, via private judgement, that Christ was not God Incarnate? Show me a faith that allows complete freedom of private judgement. I want to see what such a faith looks like. I’m sure it won’t look like Christianity.

 

[VociMike]

scylla:

EA Man I have heard James White say pretty much the exact same thing.

In that we are using our own fallible interpretation to determine if the Catholic Church is right. So nothing is ever true or right for sure since it is a circular arguement. (then James White asserts that is why we trust the Bible alone)

You mean why we use our fallible judgement to determine that the bible is infallible?

I don’t know why Protestants use that argument, since it is an argument nobody can win.

 

[VociMike]

The Iambic Pen:

…but I still struggle with the idea of one sin closing the gates of Heaven.

Very understandable! But look what one sin did in the Garden of Eden. Look what one look back over the shoulder did to Lot’s wife. There are many cases in the bible where God’s consequenses seem too harsh for the behavior. Why would you accept those consequences as just but not the consequences that His Church teaches?

I think mortal sin is rare among serious Catholics. Serious Catholics are in a relationship (yeah!) with Christ. Do e.g. seriously married people cheat on their spouses often?

Remember, in addition to grave matter a mortal sin requires full consent and full knowledge. To me this means one acknowledges (explicitly or implicitly) “this is a mortal sin” and does it anyway. This is not something a serious Catholic would do lightly. And if in a fit of pride or selfishness one does do it, one can immediately gain forgiveness if one has perfect contrition and resolves to confess as soon as is possible.

Personally I don’t believe for a minute that a lifetime of faithful obedience and service to Christ can be wiped out by a single act. People don’t just turn on a dime like that. If a person who believes in Christ and loves Him has a willful slip-up, they will naturally repent. If they don’t repent, then there’s more going on than just a single slip-up, there’s an ongoing rejection of God. To put it another way, I don’t believe that any person dies in mortal sin who would have been saved if only they had lived a little longer. I don’t believe God is capricious like that.

Bottom line: love God, trust Him, seek to serve Him, and do not be afraid.

 

[stanley123]

scylla:

As for the mediator thing, Jesus is the one mediator, all Catholics believe that.

However, the most pure and most holy Mary, the Mother of God, is the mediatrix of all graces.

See:

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htm

 

[reen12]

Dear Iambic Pen,

My own problem with Catholicism is that it has, IMHO,
a juridical mindset, rather than a relational mindset.

You call it “binding consciences” on matters that don’t
seem to pertain to salvation.

I agree with that.

In addition, I’ve come to see that the acceptance of
Blessed Assurance sidesteps, altogether, many
doctrines and all dogma.

When a theological speculation is raised to the
rank of dogma, goodbye Blessed Assurance, IMHO.
When that speculation is declared to be the case,
because of infallibilitly [another “incredible” claim, to many]
things start to get…well, it’s not Blessed Assurance.

Just a thought,

reen12

 

[Sherlock]

reen12:

Dear Iambic Pen,

My own problem with Catholicism is that it has, IMHO,
a juridical mindset, rather than a relational mindset.

You call it “binding consciences” on matters that don’t
seem to pertain to salvation.

I agree with that.

In addition, I’ve come to see that the acceptance of
Blessed Assurance sidesteps, altogether, many
doctrines and all dogma.

When a theological speculation is raised to the
rank of dogma, goodbye Blessed Assurance, IMHO.
When that speculation is declared to be the case,
because of infallibilitly [another “incredible” claim, to many]
things start to get…well, it’s not Blessed Assurance.

Just a thought,

reen12

As for Catholicism having a “juridical mindset”, it depends. I don’t know how one avoids being juridical in stating and defining the bare-bone skeleton of belief. Of course grace and joy and the right relation with God are essential in the life of the Catholic, but if those things are based only on vague, subjective, “non-juridical” notions of individual experience, then they will only carry lasting weight with those for whom individual experience trumps all, and are fertile ground for any belief whatsoever as long as it “feels” good. In contrast to that kind of relativism, Catholic teaching does not separate reason and faith.

I suppose the Ten Commandments have a “juridical” flavor as well, despite coming from God. Shucks, didn’t God know that His people would rebel against that juridical mindset? I mean, it felt darn good to worship that golden calf–much more “spirit” oriented and with lots of revelry and spontaneous worship, far more spirit-driven than anything that stuffy old Moses handed down…why, I wonder if there were altar calls.