Scriptural paradoxes?

[geekborj]

Can anyone explain a scriptural paradox to me? It has me scratching my head .

The author of 2 Maccabees suggests that 2 Maccabees may include errors. We know from Sacred Tradition and the Holy Councils that 2 Maccabees is inerrant, but the inerrant document itself suggests it might have errors. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 is more difficult to reconcile. He says explicitly, during a certain part, that this is him talking, not the Lord, but the Early Church Fathers were very specific that the whole Bible is the inerrant Word of God written by the Holy Spirit.

I like paradoxes . They’re interesting and fun puzzles. This in no way causes me to doubt the Word of God. It just has me scratching my head a bit in bemused curiosity. What do the rest of you think about these passages?

2 Maccabees 15

38
If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do.
39
Just as it is harmful to drink wine alone or water alone, whereas mixing wine with water makes a more pleasant drink that increases delight, so a skillfully composed story delights the ears of those who read the work. Let this, then, be the end.

1 Corinthians 7

10
To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband
11
–and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband–and a husband should not divorce his wife.
12
To the rest I say (not the Lord): if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is willing to go on living with him, he should not divorce her;
13
and if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to go on living with her, she should not divorce her husband.

One thing that these passages prove to me is that the Scripture’s writers, with the possible exception of the author of the Apocalypse, did not know that the Spirit was inspiring what they were writing. The Spirit was secretly inspiring their words. They did not know that they were writing the infallible words of Scripture as they penned the words we now cherish as from the Holy Spirit. This is very interesting to me. It gives a little clue as to how God conducted His inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and this reflects how He often acts through us when we have no idea of what good He is doing.

So that’s one interesting thing this shows me. I just say that as a reflection, though. It in no way resolves the paradox .

Here’s my little attempt to resolve the paradox. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 7, and the author of 2 Maccabees’ words, simply show that they were unaware of the inspiration of their words. They do not show that the words are not inspired. Therefore yes, Paul is technically wrong in 1 Cor. 7 about the fallibility of his words, but the Holy Spirit’s intent, to reveal Paul’s ignorance of his divine inspiration, endures untarnished.

That’s my best attempt to resolve the paradox though I admit it may not work very well.

But what do the rest of you think about the passages?

Scriptural paradoxes are what you get when one removes the person being inspired by the Holy Spirit. Just as every person is both a work of God and a work of parents, the Bible is obviously the same.

One should not ignore the presence of the person writing. That while they know they are inspired to write, they interpreted what the Spirit has to say based on what they are capable of understanding. E.g. the authors obviously have not coined the word “trinity” yet, or “real presence,” or “assumption” or … Plus, as one replies below writes: some people are just humble enough and honest enough to declare their limitation.

In the event that the authors actually admits possible error in their interpretation of what the Spirit has said to them, their eventual interpretation are nevertheless guided by the Spirit. This, the Church has never denied.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Where exactly does Jesus say that we are to individually interpret his message and individually to decide what parts we want to follow and which we don’t? My reading of the Gospels strongly indicates to me that Jesus established a Church (And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaved Matt 15:18-19)

I will give you my answer below, since you ask a similar question there.

My reading indicates to me that Jesus wants us to follow his commandments, and that he sent the Holy Spirit to guide his Church into all truth, and that we are therefore to follow the teachings of his Church (If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will pray the father, and he will give you another Counsellor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth. John 14:15-17) (When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth; for he will not speak of his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. John 16 13-14)

How about if we change the words about “church” in this? We would then have what my reading would be:

My reading indicates to me that Jesus wants us to follow his commandments, and that he sent the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, and that we are therefore to follow His teachings (If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will pray the father, and he will give you another Counsellor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth. John 14:15-17) (When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth; for he will not speak of his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. John 16 13-14)

How do you know what God wants - does he speak to you directly?

Yes, He speaks to all of us directly.

Of course the Scriptures are important, but we also need Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church if we are to really to know and to do God’s will.

This is where we move apart, since I consider those “add-ons”, and non-essential ones at that. Why do you have so little faith in your own ability to comprehend the Gospel of Jesus. Uneducated Palestinians of 2000 years ago got it; why can’t we? It really is quite simple. It is man who has made it overly complicated.

Interesting, where exactly does Jesus teach this “recipe”? And what do you think Scripture is telling us?

He teaches it in the Gospels, clearly and plainly. Although you can find the kernel of it in several places, one of my favorites is in Matthew 22:

Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?"
He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
This is the greatest and the first commandment.
The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”

I would humbly add that not only do the law and prophets depend on these two commandments, but also the core teachings of Jesus.

For further clarification of what Jesus means and how these commandments should be applied, start by reading the Sermon on the Mount (or Plain).

And when He tells us to listen and hearken to His teaching, He is talking directly to us. It is there for all who have ears to hear and a mind to understand. No magisterium or list of doctrines needed.

 

[Cachonga]

chaunceygardner:

I would be careful to put too much faith in 2 Peter as a proof for Paul’s writings. There are several problems with this letter as stated here in the NAB intro to this letter:

In other words, you don’t believe 2 Peter 3:15-16 is inspired Scripture.

I certainly hope everybody who reads your posts understands that you do not believe in Sola Scriptura (I say this because I’m certain someone may think that your way of thinking represents what happens when one beleives in Sola Scriptura).

 

[Mea_Culpa]

This is where we move apart, since I consider those “add-ons”, and non-essential ones at that. Why do you have so little faith in your own ability to comprehend the Gospel of Jesus. Uneducated Palestinians of 2000 years ago got it; why can’t we? It really is quite simple. It is man who has made it overly complicated.

We can see how well the Protestants are doing with this “individual interpretation of Scripture” doctrine after they rejected the authority of the Church - they have 30,000 different sects, each with their own interpretation of this or that part of Scripture. Jesus gave us the Church because He knew it was needed to lead us into all truth.

He teaches it in the Gospels, clearly and plainly. Although you can find the kernel of it in several places, one of my favorites is in Matthew 22:

I would humbly add that not only do the law and prophets depend on these two commandments, but also the core teachings of Jesus.

Note that Jesus calls these commandments, not suggestions. Commandments are to be obeyed.

For further clarification of what Jesus means and how these commandments should be applied, start by reading the Sermon on the Mount (or Plain).

And when He tells us to listen and hearken to His teaching, He is talking directly to us. It is there for all who have ears to hear and a mind to understand. No magisterium or list of doctrines needed.

If everyone is able to infallibly interpret Scripture on their own with no teaching authority of the Church needed, why are there so many different, often contradictory, interpretations of Scripture among those who have rejected the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church?

 

[chaunceygardner]

In other words, you don’t believe 2 Peter 3:15-16 is inspired Scripture.

Not inspired in the way you define it, but inspired in the way most of these writings are. They are inspired by God to in turn inspire us to know and understand God more completely. But totally dictated by God and without factual error? No.

I certainly hope everybody who reads your posts understands that you do not believe in Sola Scriptura (I say this because I’m certain someone may think that your way of thinking represents what happens when one beleives in Sola Scriptura).

You are correct in your statement. I don’t think I ever have believed in the Bible alone, or in the total inerrancy of the Bible. I do think that there is knowledge important to our relationship with God that can be found outside the Bible. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think the teachings in the Bible are not critical to our faith. They are. So I am neither in agreement with Catholic doctrine nor with most Protestant churches. As I have said before, I put my faith and trust in the Gospel of Jesus.

 

[chaunceygardner]

We can see how well the Protestants are doing with this “individual interpretation of Scripture” doctrine after they rejected the authority of the Church - they have 30,000 different sects, each with their own interpretation of this or that part of Scripture. Jesus gave us the Church because He knew it was needed to lead us into all truth.

I think the Protestant churches have failed just as miserably as the Catholic church has in this regard.

Note that Jesus calls these commandments, not suggestions. Commandments are to be obeyed.

Yup, I concur. The Commandments of God, as clarified and explained and taught and lived by Jesus.

If everyone is able to infallibly interpret Scripture on their own with no teaching authority of the Church needed, why are there so many different, often contradictory, interpretations of Scripture among those who have rejected the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church?

None of the churches have helped in this regard. I think the reason for all the different views and interpretations is we have inserted our own human weaknesses and limitations into the teachings of Jesus. That is why I am focusing on the essentials; it seems, as Jesus said, when one does that every thing else follows from those and is much clearer.

This has been a very enjoyable discussion, but I must sign off for a while. Hope you all have a wonderful evening.

Peace be with you.

 

[Cachonga]

Mea Culpa:

We can see how well the Protestants are doing with this “individual interpretation of Scripture” doctrine after they rejected the authority of the Church - they have 30,000 different sects, each with their own interpretation of this or that part of Scripture. Jesus gave us the Church because He knew it was needed to lead us into all truth.

This is a bit off topic, but I think it needs to be addressed. You really need to check your sources, especially when you’re using someone else’s. The source for the “30,000+ Protestant denominations” is the Wolrd Christian Encyclopedia. This # includes any religiion that even hints that it is Christian (including Mormons, JW’s, 7th Day Adventist, etc…), and about 2/3rds of these fall into the category of “non-denominational” denominations. Among these 33,000+ “denominations” there are also over 760 Orthodox Catholic denominations and 242 Roman Catholic denominations. Before you go accusing protestants of having over 30,000 denominations, you should be prepared to explain which of the over 1,000 Catholic denominations is the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” Church. Furthermore, if you are going to ‘blame’ Sola Scriptura for these denominations, you should be prepared to show how each of these denominations actually apply Sola Scriptura (FYI - many of these “denominations” don’t even pretend to rely on Sola Scriptura).

Sorry for the side track, but I hope it has been educational.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Among these 33,000+ “denominations” there are also over 760 Orthodox Catholic denominations and 242 Roman Catholic denominations. Before you go accusing protestants of having over 30,000 denominations, you should be prepared to explain which of the over 1,000 Catholic denominations is the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” Church.

Any and all that are in full communion with Rome, obviously. The others are united with us by matters of degrees.

Furthermore, if you are going to ‘blame’ Sola Scriptura for these denominations, you should be prepared to show how each of these denominations actually apply Sola Scriptura (FYI - many of these “denominations” don’t even pretend to rely on Sola Scriptura).

I disagree with that. It’s unnecessary and an impossible task. It’s like saying, “don’t make any statement about biology until you can explain exactly how every organ works.” Or maybe a better analogy would be that it’s like telling a statistics major, “Don’t make any statement about what the general population thinks unless you know what every individual thinks.”

Some of the denominations don’t claim Sola Scriptura, but the vast majority are based on it and divided because of it. It’s very common in Protestantism for a group to form a theological difference with its denomination based on a different interpretation of some Bible passages, and they go off and form their own denomination.

Besides which, there are millions of non-denominational Christians as a result of Protestantism, and that number is mushrooming. Their doctrinal diversity is far greater than that which exists in denominational structures, even though there are tens of thousands of denominations.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

chaunceygardner, I don’t feel particularly desirous of responding to your last post because I sense that a long, complicated argument would follow and get neither of us anywhere closer to agreement in the end. I’m very sorry you feel the way you do. It makes me feel very sad, but I won’t argue this time. I think it would be more valuable if we both simply pray for ourselves and one another that God give us wisdom and, through the Holy Spirit, guide us both into all truth (John 16:13).

 

[Cachonga]

Lief Erikson:

Any and all that are in full communion with Rome, obviously. The others are united with us by matters of degrees.

This was supposed to be a quick aside, but since you chose to respond to it, I’ll respond back. Perhaps I should rephrase this particular question - Which of the 242 Roman Catholic denominations is the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” Church? I would think that since they are considered Roman Catholic denominations, then they must all claim communion with Rome.

I disagree with that. It’s unnecessary and an impossible task. It’s like saying, “don’t make any statement about biology until you can explain exactly how every organ works.” Or maybe a better analogy would be that it’s like telling a statistics major, “Don’t make any statement about what the general population thinks unless you know what every individual thinks.”

Since this is the claim being made against Protestantism by the Catholic, I do not believe it is unfair to ask you to back up the claim. Your analogy, however, is flawed. Since JW’s and Mormons (like the RC Church) claims infallibility for their leaders, they do not rely on Sola Scriptura (this is easy to prove). This alone disproves the claim that Sola Scriptura is responsible for all these denominations.

Some of the denominations don’t claim Sola Scriptura, but the vast majority are based on it and divided because of it. It’s very common in Protestantism for a group to form a theological difference with its denomination based on a different interpretation of some Bible passages, and they go off and form their own denomination.

You even refute the claim that Sola Scriptura is responsible for all these denominations by your own words (“Some of the denominations don’t claim Sola Scriptura”), so why is this claim continued to be made?

Besides which, there are millions of non-denominational Christians as a result of Protestantism, and that number is mushrooming. Their doctrinal diversity is far greater than that which exists in denominational structures, even though there are tens of thousands of denominations.

And let’s not forget the more than 760 Orthodox Catholic denominations and 242 Roman Catholic denominations. I would make 2 suggestions at this point. 1) Check the source for this information (the World Christian Encyclopedia). 2) Start another thread on this topic (since this is not the topic of this thread).

 

[kepha1]

“242 Roman Catholic denominations”

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I feel no need to make a new thread about this. Sorry, I just don’t feel the argument is good enough to give that much attention. But I never questioned your sources or information. Only your interpretation of it and your way of handling it.

Cachonga:

Perhaps I should rephrase this particular question - Which of the 242 Roman Catholic denominations is the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” Church? I would think that since they are considered Roman Catholic denominations, then they must all claim communion with Rome.

All those that are in full communion with Rome are fully the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” What they claim isn’t as important as what Rome says, since they claim unity with Rome and Rome is the source of Catholic unity. Rome says that all Catholics, to be united with the Church, need to agree with her teachings. If they disagree with her authoritative teaching, they are not in full communion with Rome and are not fully part of the Church.

I don’t know how many of these “Catholic” denominations are in full communion with Rome, or for what reasons the World Christian Encyclopedia calls them denominations. But as many of them as are in full communion with Rome are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Cachonga:

Since this is the claim being made against Protestantism by the Catholic, I do not believe it is unfair to ask you to back up the claim.

I took a class in statistics in college. General statements can be made about a population without knowing what every member of the population thinks. General statements can also be made about denominations without knowing what every denomination thinks. The analogy is solid.

And the evidence is out there. The majority of Protestant denominations today are offshoots of other denominations. They do have doctrinal differences and they came to those doctrinal differences via different readings of Scripture, which obviously points back to Sola Scriptura.

Cachonga:

Your analogy, however, is flawed. Since JW’s and Mormons (like the RC Church) claims infallibility for their leaders, they do not rely on Sola Scriptura (this is easy to prove). This alone disproves the claim that Sola Scriptura is responsible for all these denominations.

I never claimed Sola Scriptura is responsible for all of them. I do believe it is responsible for the vast majority of them and that is plain simply from the way new denominations are formed. I’ve read about how they will form a theological/doctrinal difference, based on people interpreting the Scripture in different ways, and when they do, they’ll often simply split and form a new denomination.

Except that nowadays most of them are going non-denominational when such a split occurs, and non-denominationalism is a lot more doctrinally diverse than the denominations are. I’m saying that as a former non-denominational Protestant, based on all my experience talking with many other non-denominational Protestants and learning what their beliefs are.

Cachonga:

You even refute the claim that Sola Scriptura is responsible for all these denominations by your own words (“Some of the denominations don’t claim Sola Scriptura”), so why is this claim continued to be made?

Because the vast majority of those 33,000 denominations are Protestant and are the product of Sola Scriptura. I don’t know what a denominational difference consists of between supposedly “Catholic” denominations. But if it is doctrinal, then the denominations are not truly Catholic. If they claim to be fully united with the Roman Catholic Church, obviously the opinions of Rome on the matter are of paramount importance, and Rome teaches that to be in full communion with her, we must agree with all her teachings. That gives you a way of finding out if Catholic “denominations” are truly Roman Catholic or not.

Most of these “Roman Catholic” denominations probably are reactionary traditionalist groups biting back at Vatican II. Many of these Catholic splinter groups claim to preserve the true faith and reject the current line of popes. Some claim Pius IX was the last true pope. Others say one of the later popes was the last true pope. I think some go as far back as Leo XIII when trying to determine who the last “true pope” was.

These “Roman Catholic” splinter groups actually behave very much like Protestants, because using their own private interpretation of Scripture (and in this case, Tradition), they break from Rome. They put their own judgment of the meaning of Scripture and Tradition above the Magesterium’s, which is very much the same error that causes division in Protestantism, the error of making private judgment and interpretation paramount and elevating the self unjustly.

Many Protestants also call themselves “Catholic,” like these “Roman Catholic” denominations do. The Protestants just change the traditional meaning of “Catholic” so that the word suits their beliefs, making it mean “all Christians that are truly members of Christ’s invisible Church,” which is different from the traditional meaning, that we are all part of one Catholic visible and invisible Church which has a specific hierarchy and set of beliefs. Protestants exclude the official doctrinal teachings part of the meaning of “Catholic” and the “visible Church” part, and reinterpreting the in their own belief framework, many will call themselves “Catholic.”

The Mormons do the same thing with all kinds of words that have specific meanings in Christian theology, but they change the meaning of the words and then often sound very Christian in conversation, but what they mean is very different than what we mean.

I’ll note that you threw Orthodox and supposedly Roman Catholic “denominations” all into one big clump as 1000 Catholic denominations, though neither we nor the Orthodox claim to be in full communion with each other.

 

[Cachonga]

I was hoping that someone would be interested enough to actually go and check the source. Actually, the World Christian Encyclopedia (from which many RC apologists and their followers get the 33,000+ protestant denominations), counts “denominations” in a strange way. To be specific, they consider the Roman Catholic Church in America as a seperate denomination from the Roman Catholic Church in Canada (which is a different denomination from the RC Church in England, etc…). This is true of all the other “denominations” as well. The point is that the claim of over 33,0000 “Protestant” denominations (remember, this count includes over 760 Orthodox Catholic and 242 Roman Catholic "denominations) is greratly exagerated, it’s misleading, and borders on dishonesty to continue spreading this fallacy (especially after having this pointed out).

To be sure, some will simply rejoice that the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” Church is undivided, and continue to spread incorrect, misleading and deceptive information. However, it is my hope that someone would be honest enough to actually verify what I’ve presented here, and honestly present the facts. To be sure, there are many “protestant” denominations, but it is nowhere near 33,000!

Pax!

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I have no problem with your point, and because you made it, I will be careful about the “33,000” figure in the future. However, this doesn’t invalidate the point Catholics make when pointing out the 33,000 denominations. So they have their numbers wrong by a few thousand? Either way, Protestantism has resulted in thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of denominational divisions and millions of non-denominational Christians whose doctrines are more consistently divided and more deeply divided than are the beliefs of denominational Protestant groups.

These massive numbers of doctrinal divisions contradict the Bible’s warnings against avoiding “false doctrine” and holding firm to the teachings the apostles passed on to the Early Church. They also fly in the face of Jesus’ warning that “scattering” is a sign of division from Him, and Paul’s call that the Church be one in mind and thought. These divisions also contradict Jesus’ prayer that the Church be united in Trinitarian unity, the most profound declaration of what the Church’s unity should look like that exists in the Bible. He prays for the Church to be one as He and the Father are one, which entails infallibility, purity, total unity. The essence of all this is found in the Catholic Eucharist, which is the perfection of unity in Christ Himself. In the Eucharist, all Catholics are united in thought, in heart, and in all things. We can only receive Him if we are in doctrinal unity and free from any stain of mortal sin, thus in a state of grace which is oneness with Christ. How beautiful that is . . . In the Eucharist is the essence of the Church’s Trinitarian unity, oneness with God and with each fellow member of Christ’s Body. That is the perfection of unity in Christ.

Om . . . I got sidetracked there. The point the Catholic apologists make is solidly true, even if the 33,000 figure is grossly inflated (and I personally don’t know how inflated it is). Even if there are “only” thousands of Protestant denominations and substantially less than 33,000, that’s still thousands of denominations too many and is a simply huge number, far, far bigger than it was in the beginning of the Reformation, though it has been ever-growing since the origin of Protestantism. Also, there are millions and millions of non-denominational Christians whose divisions are ever deepening and spreading.

Protestantism has been disintegrating into ever deeper division since its very origin, and has continued to disintegrate more and more deeply to this day. Compare the number of agreed doctrines today in Protestantism, its “essentials of Christianity,” to what they were in the beginning of the Reformation and you’ll see these “essentials” are much fewer. That is very logical. The essentials are fewer because the divisions are far more extensive and people don’t want to fight over their fellow Protestants’ differences. The only “acceptable” solution is that doctrinal differences don’t matter that much unless they relate to what modern Protestants consider Christianity’s “essentials.” That’s the main way they get around this problem. The early Reformers did not consider that a valid solution; they knew the value and vital importance of true doctrine as Protestants today in many ways don’t seem to .

Got to go for the moment and watch the Olympics .

 

[chaunceygardner]

chaunceygardner, I don’t feel particularly desirous of responding to your last post because I sense that a long, complicated argument would follow and get neither of us anywhere closer to agreement in the end. I’m very sorry you feel the way you do. It makes me feel very sad, but I won’t argue this time. I think it would be more valuable if we both simply pray for ourselves and one another that God give us wisdom and, through the Holy Spirit, guide us both into all truth (John 16:13).

I understand, and I was running out of things to say anyway. I don’t want you to feel sorry or sad for me (although praying for each other is very welcome); I would hope you would be happy that I am diligently working at increasing my faith and understanding of God through the teaching and example of Jesus. That should be cause for rejoicing, not sadness. But I think I know what you are talking about.

We are both headed to the same destination, seeking the same goal, but are taking somewhat different paths. There are many roads to heaven, and many who are journeying with us; I pray that we will all be there together some day.

Blessings for a fruitful journey, and peace be with you during your travels.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I understand, and I was running out of things to say anyway. I don’t want you to feel sorry or sad for me (although praying for each other is very welcome); I would hope you would be happy that I am diligently working at increasing my faith and understanding of God through the teaching and example of Jesus. That should be cause for rejoicing, not sadness. But I think I know what you are talking about.

I used to be Protestant, and I had a personal relationship with Jesus in Protestantism. I heard His voice truly many times and He gave me several spiritual gifts. I was very devout. All the Protestants around me saw me as the model Christian, something that changed horribly when I began to follow God’s call to the Catholic Church.

I loved Jesus very much and was seeking ever deeper union with Him. He mattered (and still matters) more to me than anything. I read the Bible, went to church, prayed a lot and had private devotions. I know how much light one can enjoy in Protestantism because I enjoyed a lot, and so did (and so do) my family.

. . . I cannot describe to you as I wish I could the difference between this and knowing God in the Catholic Church. I will try, though.

I suffered a lot when God called me to Catholicism. People very dear to me thought I was following demons or the “spirit of the anti-christ,” and my relationships with all my family suffered deep wounds. I felt like I was infected with a sick and possibly contagious disease and if any of my friends knew what I had, they would revile me. I was tortured by interior fears and doubts daily for months. But at the same time, the Lord gave me pure intellectual light so that I could see the glory of the Catholic Church and the evils of Protestantism’s errors with more purity and precision than I’d ever been able to see anything in my life.

If the Spirit has not revealed to people the truth of Catholicism, they are not guilty when they stay away from it, but in subtle ways the Spirit does let the light shine in people’s minds and because of their prejudices and upbringings they reject it without ever knowing that they are turning away from God. I did this a few times as a Protestant and only later as a Catholic could I look back and see how God had spoken to me several times earlier, calling me in this direction.

When I was confirmed into the Catholic Church, all the sufferings immediately ended. I knew peace and light such as I never had known before.

Now I will try to describe to you the difference between what is in Catholicism and what is in Protestantism.

In Catholicism, I found everything bright and beautiful that there is in Protestantism, only perfected and fulfilled. Everything good and desirable was there, and only the things that created division and disharmony were outside.

My Protestant grandmother once made a very good explanation of Protestantism when she was trying to justify and explain its divisions to me. She said, “it is like the story of the blind men touching an elephant. One grabs its tail and says it’s a rope. Another grabs its leg and says it’s a tree. Another grabs its trunk and says it’s a hose. And so on. They all have part of the truth and from that they extrapolate and may make mistakes about what other parts of it look like, but that doesn’t mean that what they have is in error.”

I agreed with her and said, “I think that’s a true explanation of Protestantism, but here’s the difference between that and Catholicism. In Catholicism, Christ opens the eyes of the blind so that we can see the whole elephant.”

That’s what I have experienced. In Protestantism, I held the trunk and said, “it’s a hose,” and what I did have under my hands was good and desirable. But when God miraculously opens your eyes and you see the whole elephant, this blows away the old experience of Him by comparison because it fills your life with the purest joy.

In my conversion to Catholicism, I saw purest beauty and light. The very purest and most delightful, and it has never left my heart for a moment.

I feel as though I’d grown up with a bunch of men on a desert island and had never seen a woman before. The companionship between men is great and everything, but then you make a raft and float off the island, you meet a beautiful woman and you find out about femininity. You fall in love. You get married.

You try to return to the island but people there have little way to relate to your experience. They have not seen that beautiful woman themselves and do not know what it is in their hearts. There is no way for you to describe it to them, though you can try, and hope and pray with all your soul that they listen. They’ll say, “we have a fine and perfectly fulfilling way of life here; everyone has different paths,” but they have never known the alternative. Their way of life will pass away because they have no children, and if most of them knew the joys that accompany a united human family, they would not want the solitary life they now have. The imperfect only knows the imperfect and cannot relate to what is beyond its reference frame, but the perfect is there and is available.

Here’s an example I often thought about while in the conversion process. Imagine a city shining with light. Outside its walls is a broad, open valley that is illuminated by the beams shining from the city, and on the other side of the plain is a dark forest in which nothing can be seen because of the density of the trees.

In Protestantism, I was walking through the valley. There is light there. There is a lot of light because the beams from the city shine down on the valley and give people the ability to see a great deal. Many souls are in that valley now, in that light outside of the city itself but nearby it, some further away from the city at the outermost parts of the valley and some very close – and many in between. Some souls drift away from that valley and go into the forest, and there, blocked by the trees and foliage they can see nothing. They dwell in darkness.

But some souls go into that city, the Heavenly Jerusalem, and they are consumed by the abundance of what they find there. That Heavenly Jerusalem is not only on the other side of life on Earth, waiting in Heaven. That city is Christ’s Body, the Church, which is one and here on Earth for us to enjoy and eat our fill.

That is a very serious reason why I feel sadness about your contentment with not going in. I know the beauty and I cannot give it away to you except by praying.

I also have seen many visions of Heaven, of the Virgin Mary, of angels, and once of Jesus. I see the purest, most fantastic beauty. And in my soul I have seen virtue in the essence of Catholicism in a way I never knew it before, however closely I followed God outside the city. The brightest, most profound purity, the overflowing source and fountain of all purity, is the Sacred Heart of the Catholic Church. In this is all the good that is Protestant, and more.

This is the Church Jesus founded, the way He meant Christianity to be, the way it has been from the beginning and always will be. He did not will that we feel the elephant blindly and come to different conclusions . . . He came to Earth to open the eyes of the blind so that we might see the whole creature.

I pray that you might see such beauty yourself and be mesmerized in His glory. I gave my life up for it, everything I knew and held dear, because it is Life itself. It is the treasure a man found in the field and then sold all his property to own that field (Matt. 13:44); it is the pearl of great value that the merchant sold all he had to buy (v. 45).

Feast upon it and never be hungry.