A Reader Asks - Part 1: Difficulties

Conversion of St. Paul - Murillo
I always find hearing about other people's faith journeys extremely fascinating. I love hearing about the similarities in thought processes, and also noting the differences. What one person found difficult to understand or accept along the way, another person may not have had a problem with at all. But, more often than not, especially when people are coming from similar backgrounds, there are striking similarities. As such, it can be helpful for those potential converts still in the midst of muddling through Catholic beliefs, trying to make heads and tails of so much new information, to know what it is others struggled with, what helped them and gave clarity along the way, and what they had to just take on faith.

I was recently asked just this by a reader of my blog and forum with whom I've enjoyed a bit of correspondence, and thought it would be a great chance to share it on my blog as well. :-) I'll cover each question in a different post, starting with the first.

The reader writes:

I was wondering what in particular you found the hardest to accept about the catholic faith during that long process

My answer to this probably stems from my "thinking" style personality, because as far as Church teachings went, all the arguments I read were so convincing to me that I simply can't recall being completely unconvinced on any one teaching or struggling to accept it. Once I had been convinced of the huge foundational matter of Magisterial authority, once I accepted that God didn't just write down rules for us to follow but actually gave us a living authority to guide and teach us, accepting what that authority taught almost came with a sense of relief. I didn't have to figure everything out on my own, Christ instituted and left us a guide, protected by the Holy Spirit! Hooray! Even more than that, what this authority taught sounded logical and was clearly steeped in wisdom, and further it opened up scripture to me in ways I'd never dreamt possible. But, that didn't mean my feelings kept up with my head!

For me the hardest part was grappling with residual feelings and gut reactions which I'd had all my life. For instance, one minor belief in the grand scheme of things but one which sticks in my mind as being particularly difficult was the matter of drinking alcohol. I'd been taught my whole life that it was poison, inherently and intrinsically evil. Daily evidence on the news of drunk drivers killing innocent people, drunk husbands beating wives, and college kids dying of alcohol poisoning at parties made it easy to accept that alcohol was indeed an evil, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I can honestly say I was never tempted by friends or circumstance to drink, because it just wasn't a part of my life and from where I stood it was only ever associated with negative outcomes.

Because of this, during the course of my conversion, while I did find the historical, biblical, and theological arguments in favor of alcohol to be logical and convincing, I still just had a mental hangup with it. I mean, obviously I knew that accepting that alcohol wasn't intrinsically evil didn't mean I had to start drinking myself, but it made my stomach churn to even think of having a husband who drank! I just didn't want to be anywhere near the stuff!

What finally helped me move past this knee-jerk reaction was realizing that alcohol ≠ drunkenness.

I was able to see responsible drinking modeled, especially in my not-yet-husband's French family. I could see that for them, appreciating a good wine was just a part of being thankful for God's many gifts, the way they were for the delicious food on the table as well. To this day, I can't say that I've ever seen my husband drunk, and while I generally don't drink much myself (unless something is sugary sweet, I just can't abide the taste, lol), I no longer have those knee jerk reactions. As with anything, moderation is key, and while scripture does condemn drunkenness, and while I still believe that abusing alcohol can and does often have tragic consequences, I have no doubt that alcohol is not the intrinsic evil I once thought it was.

Another quick example of my feelings not keeping up with my head is on the matter of Marian devotion. If you haven't read it, Mark Shea does an EXCELLENT (and often quite humorous) job describing the deep seated gut reactions we converts have against Marian devotions in the third book of his trilogy, Mary, Mother of the Son. I could identify with so much of what he said, it was spot on. While I'd accepted the teachings on Mary, while I was amazed at the beauty of these teachings and how every one of them ultimately pointed back to Christ, seeing the outrageous, too-colorful, too-flowery devotions of Catholics (and especially Catholics from other cultures) just made me want to get up and run away. After being raised in an environment where even a plain cross on the wall was viewed as unacceptable to God for graven image reasons, seeing such blatant and visually overwhelming love-bombs for Mary was a scary thing!

Some of getting over this visceral reaction was just getting used to the aesthetics around me, but some of it was also learning not to judge others' hearts or intentions. I would remind myself that it was not my place to judge whether this person was honoring Mary above God, and even if I wanted to I couldn't see their heart. I reminded myself that nothing I'd read from the Magisterium concerning doctrinal matters on Mary ever came close to elevating her above Christ. And most of all, I gazed at paintings of Mary looking at and pointing to her Son, and reminded myself that even *if* some people were going overboard in their devotion to her, Mary herself would guide them closer to Christ, because that is what she does.

So those stick out in my mind as some of the toughest parts of my conversion, I suppose it is always difficult to undo a lifetime of ingrained knee-jerk reactions and strong feelings. Thanks be to God, I feel that due to the Church's teachings on such things I now have a healthier and more balanced understanding of the reality. It's often easier to forbid something outright than to try and have it in moderation, which requires self-control and temperance. We've all been there...throw all the cookies away, get rid of them!! That typically seems easier than having them there as an option and having to practice self control. But while that may work temporarily, often those who focus on appreciating one good cookie now and then do better in the long run. The cookie isn't evil, but abusing the cookie is. ;-)

So how about you? If you're a convert or perhaps a revert, I'd love to hear what some of the hardest parts about converting were for you. :-)

I'll continue with the next question in my next post, so stay tuned!

What if?

I was recently asked about how my conversion started, and what arguments I found the most persuasive. As much as I've written about my conversion, I realized I'd never really talked in much detail about the very beginning.

It's hard to pinpoint because it really was a combination of many things kind of converging in my head at once. I think I really started to be challenged when I seriously entertained the possibility that this physical, visible Church could be God-lead, and not just man-made as I had always assumed. It dawned on me that there was nothing stopping God from working through human beings...after all, I already believed he had done this in creation of the Bible.

Prior to this the dichotomy always existed in my head, always assumed and never really challenged, that one either follows God or follows man, and the Catholic Church was obviously man-made because it had a hierarchy made up of men. The Catholic Church was led by the pope, a man (which they admitted), and seemed, from my POV, focused on paying respect to men as bishops and priests. I was so stuck on the notion that it was all for power or money (which is utterly laughable these days, lol) that I never even considered the possibility that these priests and bishops could actually be humble servants trying their best to do God's will, quite like the apostles we see in the scriptures.

So, I suppose it really all began with the simple question...what if?

Suddenly I felt compelled to really examine the possibility...What if Christ set up a visible Church on earth, and gave us a visible steward (the pope) not as a replacement of Him, but as a visible authority, led by the Holy Spirit to guide us on earth while He was away? What would that look like? What would I expect this to look like?

I couldn't deny it made sense, all I had to do was look around me at the 1001 interpretations of the Bible various denominations held, all quite sincerely and in good faith. And yet, I still believed God would surely have foreseen this kind of confusion among men and given us something to guard against it...the Catholics proposed a solution, the living authority of the Church.

Basically, it came down to authority for me. I already believed the Bible was God's word...but looking at the history of how the canon of the Bible was decided upon in the first place, I couldn't deny it was the Catholic Church who finally settled the canon. (This was a shock, along with the fact that the "extra books" Catholics had supposedly "added" at some point were, in fact, taken out by Martin Luther at the time of the protestant reformation.) This really kind of shook up my whole world, as I'm sure you can understand the Bible was the center and core of my faith...and now I see it was first canonized by the Catholics, and second tampered with by the Protestants! It really made me realize just how vulnerable a mere book is, and how much it depends upon living people...for canonization, for interpretation, for translation, all kinds of things. And while I believed God could of course work through humans to protect His Written Word, my question was..how did I know which humans to trust? The Bible didn't really tell me that!

So, as I asked myself what would it look like if Christ gave us a living authority in the Church, meant as a companion to the written Word which I already acknowledged as authoritative, I couldn't help but feel that the Catholic Church would be a likely candidate for what that shining city upon a hill might look like.

This, coupled with my reading of the Early Church Fathers, seeing that so much of what the core of Catholicism is about was undeniably present in the Early Church....the Eucharist as the center of their faith, the mass, the sacraments, confession (which seemed so obviousl in Jn 20:23, although I couldn't recall ever reading it before!), their view of Mary as held in great regard...I saw all this and more in the writings of Christians who lived not 100 years after Christ was on the earth.

And the amazing thing was, the Catholic Church, even if it was wrong (which I still at that point assumed) had kept these practices, these teachings just the same for 2,000 years. This was something that really impressed me, as I saw just how fickle mere human beings were, especially in the CoC with a new argument breaking out every couple years over the smallest little detail concerning doctrine or worship.

So...all of this kind of converged at once in my head, and the "what if?" really started to weigh on my heart. I couldn't believe I was even considering the possibility...but each time I did, although I really was looking for proof that the idea was absolutely ridiculous, it seemed from whatever angle I approached, it made so much sense, it fit like a glove. I'd try to snap myself out of it and remind myself of some of the Catholics' most horrid offenses, like their treatment of Mary, and their pompous exaltation of men...but the problem was, I felt a dutiful sense of fairness that compelled me to consider their own explanations of such things. And each time I'd read an explanation of why in their understanding, they're not exalting Mary above Christ or any man on earth above Christ, to my surprise and sometimes terror, their explanation, again, made sense within the context of their worldview.

The more I looked, the more I saw a depth of wisdom that I had never even had a glimpse of in the CoC...and it started with things we agreed on, and led me to consider their points on things I disagreed on. And the more I read and studied and examined, the more pieces of the puzzle that is life started to fall into place in my head. I found answers to questions I'd never even thought to ask brilliantly expounded upon, and little by little, quite despite myself, I started to trust this grand authority on matters of faith and morals. I didn't understand everything, to be sure, and there were some things I still felt quite queasy about...but I had yet to ask a question and not receive a well thought-out and exceedingly wise answer, so I set that queasiness aside and that's when I really started studying to learn, with the intent to become Catholic.

So, I think probably the biggest thing was the question of authority...whether the Bible alone was meant as our only authority, or whether Christ meant for us to have a living, breathing authority guided by the Holy spirit, meant to teach us, to help us interpret scripture rightly, etc. And when I asked "What if...?" and examined the possible answers, it was the Catholic Church that seemed the most logical choice as that living authority, for me, despite the fact that I sincerely hoped to find evidence to the contrary.

I still remained skeptically hesitant, mind you, even when I started seriously considering Catholicism, but each newly answered question and shining bit of supernatural wisdom slowly wore down my skepticism over time, and by my confirmation I couldn't wait to receive what I now believed to be Christ actually present in the Eucharist...and this, Christ in the Eucharist, replaced the Bible as the center and core of my faith as a Catholic, and remains so to this day, thanks be to God!

Traditions and Rituals

As Christmas approaches, I got to thinking about what it is I, and people in general I think, like so much about holidays. I think a lot of it is a sense of familiarity. We bring out those same decorations year after year, make those same cookies, practice our same family traditions, sing those familiar songs etc, and they bring us together and make us feel united. Humans crave familiarity, tradition, and even ritual.

I grew up in a church where tradition and ritual were seen as bad things, and yet we practiced them all the same without calling them what they were. The family prayer was always the same, complete with hesitations in the same spots that made it perhaps sound more like spontaneous prayer on the surface, but the truth is any of us could have repeated it word for word, hesitations and all. Church services were the same each week and would have fit any definition of ritual, for instance this one from a dictionary online: "Any practice or pattern of behavior regularly performed in a set manner." Well yeah, that's what we did!

I think an interesting side note is the fact that, as an introvert, I appreciate rituals and rote prayer even more because it allows me to really focus on my intentions and prayers, rather than frantically scrambling to find "the right words." I'm not a good thinker off the cuff, and I was always terrified of having to pray out loud in front of people (and thankful I was a girl so I didn't have to often!) But with rote prayer, the words are given to me so that I can focus on the meaning rather than finding the words.

But rote prayer and rituals were seen as vain and empty in the church of my upbringing, and yet we practiced them all the same. We practiced them without calling them what they were. And we practiced them in family settings too, especially around the holidays. It doesn't matter how much we said they were bad or wrong, in the end we were drawn to them and we practiced them anyway. Why did we do this? Because it is natural, it is good. God created us with this longing for tradition and ritual, it is not a bad thing or a dirty word.

People have their bedtime routines, their nightly prayers, their weekly Saturday morning breakfast or weekday game night. The seasons and the activities that come and go with them are also a form of tradition, we can see that our liturgical seasons mirror the natural seasons. These things comfort us, they give structure to our time and familiarity and closeness. So why wouldn't we embrace these things in our worship? Why pretend like we don't practice them when we do?

Of course the answer one would probably receive is because these rituals and traditions are "man-made." Well, so are church service programs, who gets to decide how many songs you sing before the sermon? A man does! But the thing is, man-made does not automatically mean wrong. Yes, some of these rituals and traditions are "man made" in the sense that men were there to organize them. But the desire, I believe, is God-given. It's why, even when we try to avoid rituals we end up fitting them in somewhere in our lives...in our weekly schedules, or in our holiday traditions, even in our daily family interactions. Seeing as God created us, and became one of us, certainly he's aware of this natural human desire for ritual and tradition. How, then, could we say it's a bad thing?

I love the structure that the liturgical year brings to my life, and I thank God for fulfilling the desires He places in our hearts for such things through the Church!

New Blog!

I'm pleased to see that R.J. Grigatis now has a blog! I'll be adding it to my blogroll. :-)

Tools of Grace

Jen has another great blog post with an analogy for how she came to be convinced of the truth of Christianity, and specifically Catholicism. She says she doesn't think the analogy is all that great herself, lol, but I think it's quite accurate. In fact, I remember long ago when I was talking to my husband online about religion long before we were married, I asked him why Catholics had all this extra stuff. After all, why not just stick to the Bible and the Bible alone? His answer was that all this "extra stuff" accompanied and complemented the Bible, all the "extra things" were tools that helped people to put the words on the page into action, to live a Christian life. Of course, that didn't convince me at the time, I still believed he was adding to the Bible and in error. But, those words stuck with me, and now I see clearly what he meant, and I'm so glad to have all those tools available to me. They are a gift from God, and they are what make living an authentically Christian life possible.


I remember once standing in the foyer at my childhood church, probably not too long after I'd been baptized, so I was likely in my early teens. I don't know why the thought occurred to me at just that instant, but I was thinking about all the sins I had committed, and how easy it was to commit little sins all the time. (And since I believed that all sin was, essentially, mortal sin, this was a scary thought indeed.) I also remember thinking of the verse that says God hates lukewarmness and will spew lukewarm people out. I thought...wow, I don't seem to be trying very hard to stop all these sins, because obviously I keep doing them over and over. The thought of battling these sins, of trying to remain free from them for the entire rest of my life suddenly felt like a massive weight on my shoulders and gave me an utter sense of hopelessness, because I knew instinctively that I couldn't do it, although I'd been taught I should be able to. It always sounded so easy, "Just choose not to sin. Don't sin. Just say no to sin." as if the choice alone would somehow come to fruition on its own, or by sheer force of will.

In practice, though, I'd found those "simple" words much more difficult. And honestly, because the kind of statements I heard so often, ("Just choose not to sin") I wondered if I was so bad that it did come easily for others but not for me...and if so, why? What was I doing wrong? (Obviously, if I'd just read St. Paul's words that "I do not what I want, but I do the very thing I hate...I do not the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want," along with St. Matthew's famous words, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak," I would have seen I was most certainly not alone. Even the apostles struggled with avoiding sin!)

I share this story because it provides the backdrop for an example of one of these amazing tools I found in Catholicism, and how I first saw it working so well where my own tools had not. The specific tool I'm speaking of is confession.

There was a particular sin I struggled with growing up. I tried so many times on my own to stop. After I broke promise after promise to myself and God that I would stop, I started to try and find physical ways to manifest my resolve, thinking that would help me keep it. I made contracts to myself, I even once had a mini-ceremony all alone declaring I would stop and never do this sin again, complete with a candle. (Looking back I see how instinctive the need for a physical manifestations of spiritual things is in human nature, I craved sacraments before I knew what they were!)

Needless to say, although I often did better for a while after these promises, and often went longer than before without committing this sin, inevitably I'd fall back. In hindsight, I do believe God was giving me the grace to avoid the sin during those times, my problem was I thought it was supposed to be a one time thing, so when I fell back, I would basically be pushed to despair that I had failed, yet again, and become hopeless at the prospect of ever conquering this sin completely.

Enter Catholicism and her many tools.

Once I became Catholic I started going to confession for this sin. What I noticed is that each time I went to confession for it, the time until I started feeling tempted to it got longer and longer. First it was weeks, then it was months, and I'd eventually, unfortunately, fall again...but I'd head to confession after I fell. And the next time I would last even longer before giving in. One day, I realized it had been a while since we'd gone to confession, and thought we ought to go. And at the same time I realized, I hadn't committed the sin! That was my first confession without having to confess that sin. It felt wonderful...and since that confession, I've not had to confess it again (though, obviously, I have plenty others to confess!). It has been several years and it is hardly ever a temptation at all anymore, thanks be to God.

What is the difference? It's not me...my resolve has not gotten any stronger than it was when I was a teen trying to write myself contracts and have ceremonies. The spirit was always willing, but the flesh was invariably weak. So what changed that?

The difference, I believe, is grace. The grace we receive through the sacraments is a powerful thing. It is not some nebulous pardon of sins or a get out of jail free card. It is efficacious, it is ontic, it is real. I can truly say about this conquering of a certain sin, It is not I, but Christ who lives in me.

To go back to the tools analogy...I believe that all the tools God gives us through His Church work so well for one reason. What they all have in common is that they bring us grace. I'm certainly not saying non-Catholic Christians don't receive grace because they don't have all the tools. God cannot be put in a box, He is not tied to the sacraments, He can give grace where He sees fit. But, the sacraments and other tools are God's clear gift and promise to us, they are an assurance that when we need grace to overcome sin, He is there waiting in the sacraments to give it to us.

I didn't have all those tools (though I had some) growing up, just as I didn't realize the problem was that I kept counting on myself to stop sinning. I know now that I was right so many years ago, feeling hopeless about the thought of relying on myself to stop sinning, because that is simply impossible. Now, though, I have the remedy to the hopelessness I felt in the realization that I simply can't do it without God's grace, but our gracious God is there ready and willing to dispense the very grace we need to conquer sin through the wonderful tools He has entrusted to His Church.

Reclaiming Christmas

With Advent upon us and Christmas on its way, I am reminded of the kind of forced separation and compartmentalization I had to endure growing up around Christmas time in the CoC.

We did celebrate Christmas in our family, though it was stripped of all its religious meaning and reduced down to a time for family to spend together and talk about Santa Claus and reindeer and chimneys. While most Christians were attempting to "keep Christ in Christmas," we were trying to do exactly the opposite. My sisters and I once asked if we could write a message on the fence with Christmas lights, and our father said that as long as we used "xmas" so that people didn't think we really thought it was Christ's birthday, it would be ok. (Yeah, he obviously doesn't know what the "x" stands for, and apparently didn't mind that most people would just assume we were shortening the word to fit on the fence!) And so, our mission, alongside atheists and anti-religious folk oddly enough, was to keep Christ out of Christmas.

It was kind of a confusing time as a child. A mention of Jesus out in the secular world that I normally would have considered a good thing was tainted by the fact that it was because of Christmas, and so I had to frown upon it and regard it as bad. For once, images and pictures and talk and music surrounded us proclaiming the glory of Christ, but any good was overshadowed by the fact that this was of pagan (i.e. "Catholic") origins and was considered idolatrous and bad. It seemed that the most important thing was to be different. If the world didn't talk about Christ, we should. If the world was talking about Christ, they were doing so for the wrong reasons and we shouldn't join them.

And so now that I am pagan...er, Catholic, I love being able to embrace the good that comes from the general increase in awareness of Christ around the time of Christmas, and I welcome it with open arms! On the other hand, some well intentioned folks can risk running to the other extreme by wanting to completely separate their religious Christmas from any secular "tainting." But, even this gives me flashbacks and makes me cringe a bit.

I think for me, personally, the CoC just kind of wore me out on stressing the "we're SOOO different from the world" idea, and so that kind of makes me cringe now in any form, and even more I find it fascinating to see where the world actually picked up traditions because of our faith, and to see that our culture really is influenced by Christianity, even if they've forgotten, and I want to reclaim that and be proud of it! After being in the CoC, where we claimed that the best way to let our light shine was to continually separate ourselves from "the others" around us, it's still thrilling for me to see a real light shining in the midst of all those people in the world, even when they don't realize it. It's amazing to me that pretty much everyone in our culture knows the story of the birth of Jesus, even if it is only because they watched A Charlie Brown Christmas and heard Linus read about it from Luke. I also love just celebrating the authentic and original traditions, and pointing out to people where their own supposedly secular traditions came from when it turns out they originated from something religious.

I'm reminded of a blog post from Mark Shea I read a while back about Harry Potter and Pharisees. (Yeah, I know...go with me here!) He describes how the Pharisees are so focused on remaining clean by remaining separated from all "unclean things", that they completely miss the lesson when Jesus comes. The laws from God that were supposed to humble them and teach them that there was no way, through their own power, they could be sanctified, to prepare them for the idea that Jesus alone has the power to sanctify, were kind of twisted around. They set up so many rules to try and keep themselves clean (which was a noble idea) that they ended up convincing themselves they didn't need any cleansing.

And so in an ironic way, they take the mirror of ritual uncleanness that God has given them in the Mosaic Law, and instead of seeing in it an image of their own uncleanness and defilement by sin, the turn it around and say to those around them, "See how unclean you are!"

Naturally then, when Jesus appears on the scene, they simply do not know what to do with him and are motivated by their pride to misunderstand him. Jesus, in Matthew 8, turns the Pharisaic understanding of the law on its head. He touches lepers and they are healed (8:1 4), receives Gentiles and they receive faith (8:5-13), consorts with demon-possessed people in a cemetery and they are restored (8:28-31), and, in the next chapter, permits the touch of a menstruating woman and she's healed (9:18-22), touches the dead and she is raised (9:25), and eats with tax collectors and sinners and makes them saints (9:9-13). Yet, in all this, they see only the ritual defilement, not the revolutionary reversal in the flow of power. For, as Jesus points out elsewhere, pride has blinded them (John 9:35-41). They are so certain they are clean they cannot say, "Lord, if you're willing, you can make me clean." And so they miss the crucial lesson that the time for separation is past. In Israel's childhood, separation from uncleanness and sin was necessary just as it is necessary for us to keep our children from "bad influences" lest they become imitators. But with the dawn of the power of the Kingdom of Heaven, it is the bad influences that are to be conquered with good ones, sin that is to be conquered with virtue, and death that is to be conquered with life.

So what does this have to do with Harry Potter? [And Worldly Christmas?]

Well, the funny thing about the gospel is how often, in the history of the Church, the Church has fulfilled Jesus promise, "if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them" (Mark 16:18). The Church has drunk from all sorts of pagan wells, ranging from Plato and Aristotle, to the various ways in which Norse, German, Druidic, Roman, Indian, and other forms of pagan culture have been baptised and turned to the service of Christ. The Pharisaic approach is to reject--as the Pharisees rejected Christ--the possibility that he really holds power over the devil. It is a mentality that never considers the opposite possibility: namely, that Christ has power to conquer what defiled us under the old law and turn it to his glory.

And that is why I'd rather reclaim the worldly versions of Christmas and re-sanctify them in people's minds, and turn them to the glory of God as they were originally meant rather than separate myself from them completely.

And on a side note, it never ceases to amaze me how closely the CoC resembles the Pharisees when I read more about the Pharisees and their understanding of things! They both often have the best of intentions and the strongest of convictions, but they just miss the mark, largely because of blinding pride.

Edited to add: I just found out that Mark Shea made a whole 3 part series on the subject! All three parts are just piercing with witty truth, as usual!

Part 1: Pharisaic Purity
Part 2: A Christian Approach to Purity
Part 3: Sterility and Fruitfulness

The Early Church and the Eucharist - CoC vs. Catholic

On my board recently, a discussion was revived concerning John 6 and the question of whether or not Christ meant "this is my body" literally. The discussion eventually turned to the Early Church Fathers and what the most common belief regarding this was among them. Unfortunately the CoC participant felt he could no longer dialogue with us and had not yet been able to study what the Early Church's view was to be able to present evidence that supported the CoC view. So I was intrigued when, by a complete coincidence, I stumbled upon an article written by a CoC member concerning this very subject.

The author starts off explaining his view of the use of human history in the Christian faith.

"There is also human history to consider. Though it does not carry the same weight as Scripture, still, to consider how others responded to what God has done among us helps us, and the closer in time to the divine act the better."

The author mentions that the term Eucharist is often used among these early writers...the very term Catholics have used continually. He mentions that the "president" or "presider" was the one who led the "Lord's Supper" and equates it to the brother appointed to "head" the Lord's Table.

Seems to me to fit closer to a priest!

He says that Justin Martyr makes it clear that the Eucharist is to be taken every Sunday (which is also a Catholic belief.) He also mentioned that deacons take the "blessed" communion to those who couldn't come to receive it (also a Catholic practice, especially concerning the "blessed" part.)

The author claims that...

"The idea that the bread and fruit of the vine become literally the flesh and blood of Jesus, sacrificed anew [an incorrect representation of the Catholic belief] on the altar of the Presence [?] by the priest, is not found among these men. It is clear that they speak of commemoration and celebration, not transubstantiation."

I was intrigued to read this, looking forward to his evidence. More on that in just a bit.

Furthermore, he goes on to say...

"Yet there was a heresy at work that demanded of these church leaders (or so they thought) a stress on the reality of the symbol of Christ's presence at the Lord's Supper that some might consider today overreaching, or at least, extravagant."

Umm...I'm really not quite sure what it means to "stress the reality of the symbol." I think he's trying to account for the very literal language they use, but I'm disappointed to see such a claim without much evidence at all to support it.

"There seemed to be, at least among some, an invitation to confess sin offered by the president at every service; and this was to be done before the Lord's Supper was served, so that all might partake worthily."

Ring any bells, fellow Catholics? At the beginning of every mass, the priest leads us in calling to mind our sins and asking for forgiveness. "I confess to almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters...." Y'all know the rest I'm sure!

Now, I'm going to take a look at some of the quotes of the Early Church Fathers that were provided as support for the CoC view.

"And on the day called Sunday, there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a city or rural district...And, as I said before, when we cease from our prayer, bread is presented, and wine and water. The president in the same manner sends up prayers and thanksgivings according to his ability, and the people sing out their assent, saying the Amen. A distribution and participation of the elements for which thanks have been given is made to each person, and to those who are not present it is sent by the deacons," (Justin Martyr [ca. 156], Apology, 1, 67).

Once again, sounds very much like mass...where the wine and water are brought, and mixed, prayers are said, the people respond with Amen.

I found it interesting that on the CoC forum where this was being discussed, one person said:

"I am a little confused that one of the writers in the article said that during the communion they not only had the bread and fruit of the vine but also gave out water. I wonder if this was to assist in the need to drink something afterwards or if this was something added in addition, maybe as a result of the scriptures about being saved in Jesus through not only blood but also water, which we know is baptism but I am curious about this. Anyone know about this in any detail?"

If he were Catholic he would have known the significance of the water and wine right away!

But as for the quote from Justin Martyr, there's nothing contrary to Catholicism there, and from other writings of Justin Martyr we know that he did indeed believe in the real presence and was thoroughly Catholic.

Take the following quote (from here):

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology 66)

Food that is "made into" the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer, a "change," food which IS the flesh and blood of Jesus...sounds like a belief transubstantiation/the Real Presence to me!

Moving onto some other quotes in the article...

No one is to eat or drink of your eucharist except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord... Having earlier confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure, come together each Lord's Day of the Lord, break bread, and give thanks, (The Teaching [ca. 110]).

This is from The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, otherwise known as the Didache.

Is this text, as a whole, closer to CoC or Catholic views? It's one of the earliest extra-biblical Christian texts we have! But what is this about a sacrifice? The CoC says that the sacrifice is over and done with and we simply remember it...but this text seems to talk about a recurring sacrifice. Here's another quote from the Didache that wasn't included above:

For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure SACRIFICE; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."

The mass is a sacrifice, it does not sacrifice Christ anew but taps into the ever-present, eternal, perpetual sacrifice that was made once and for all. Therefore, this text seems to support the Catholic idea of the Eucharist as a sacrifice rather than the CoC idea of simply a symbolic memorial.

Furthermore, the Didache definitely does not match up with the CoC view of immersion as absolutely necessary for baptism.

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, POUR OUT WATER THREE TIMES UPON THE HEAD INTO THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND SON AND HOLY SPIRIT. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

No CoC person worth his salt would accept pouring water on someone's head as a valid baptism!

It seems clear to me that the document taken as a whole appears to be Catholic, not CoC.

Moving onto the next quote...

Be careful, therefore, to employ one eucharist, for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup for unity with his blood, one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and deacons, who are my fellow servants, in order that whatever you do may be done according to God, (Ignatius [ca. 112], Philadelphians, 4).

This is one that could apply to CoC or Catholic fairly equally, although I'd have to say that the mention of an altar and "one bishop" tips it a bit towards the Catholic view. Since the CoC doesn't present a sacrifice, they don't really have an altar, they have a table. And of course a plurality of elders is a must according to the CoC.

Furthermore, we know without a doubt that Ignatius was most certainly Catholic (his famous quote, "Where the bishop is, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church," is the first known instance of the term Catholic Church being used), and that he believed in the Real Presence, as can be seen in the following quotes:

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to Romans 7:3)

They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrna 7:1)

[As a side note, the whole idea of having one bishop most certainly did not come wholly from St. Ignatius as claimed in the article, and his "proof" that people fought against having one bishop or thought it was wrong from the Shepherd of Hermas is not very convincing, to say the least. But for now I'd like to focus on the Eucharist and not get sidetracked with Church hierarchy.]

Moving on to the next quote...

How can they be consistent with themselves when they say the bread for which they give thanks is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood, if they do not say he is the Son of the Creator of the world?...Let them either change their views or avoid offering the bread and wine. But our view is in harmony with the eucharist, and the eucharist confirms our view, (Irenaeus [ca. 160], Against Heresies, vol. 4; ch. 18; 4, 5).

Honestly, I'm not quite sure what this quote is being used to support in the CoC view. So I'll just say that it's very clearly Catholic! Those who do not profess Christ as the Son of God are not being consistent when they say their bread is His Body and their cup is His Blood, it seems they're playing copy cat but not accepting the Whole Truth. Likewise, Catholics ARE being consistent, our view is "in harmony with the eucharist, and the eucharist confirms our view."

Here is more from the same document by Irenaeus, Against Heresies, which clearly shows his belief in the Real Presence:

Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished WITH THE BODY OF THE LORD AND WITH HIS BLOOD, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD, BUT THE EUCHARIST, CONSISTING OF TWO REALITIES, EARTHLY AND HEAVENLY; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. (4:18:5)

If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY...He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD...receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST... (5:2:2-3)

Seems pretty clear where he stood on the issue!

Ok, the last two quotes seem to be trying to prove that the early Christians did not believe the Eucharist to be the actual Body and Blood of Christ, but rather a "memorial" and nothing more.

The first quote is from Tertullian:

Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples, he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is "a figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body. (Tertullian [ca. 200], Against Marcion, 4, 40).

At first glance, with our modern understanding, this would seem to imply that Tertullian does favor a symbolic view of the Eucharist.

However, the problem here is precisely the fact that we're reading into the words our modern understanding, rather than trying to understand what Tertullian meant.

In the text above, Tertullian is arguing against Marcion, who believed that Christ did not have an actual body, but was just spirit. Tertullian is using the Eucharist as proof that Christ did indeed have a body. After all, what kind of "figure" of Christ's body would the Eucharist be if Christ had no actual body?

First I'd remind everyone that Catholics DO believe that the Eucharist is symbolic. We simply don't believe it is merely or only symbolic, we believe it is both symbolic and actual, the way that we believe baptism is both symbolic and actual. So to begin with, even if Tertullian did mean to say, in the above quote, that the Eucharist is symbolic (in the sense that we mean it today), this would not be a contradiction to Catholic teaching, especially because, as we'll see in just a minute, elsewhere Tertullian definitely shows a believe in the Real Presence.

But the most important point is that "figure" in Tertullian's quote is not equivalent to our modern day idea of a mere symbol. This article goes into much more detail explaining the difference, but here is a short explanation:

"A scholar of great authority as to the meaning of early Latin documents has inferred from these facts that in Tertullian 'figura' is equivalent not to -schema- but to -charakter- [see Turner, Journal of Theological Studies, vii,596], that is, it would approach more nearly to 'ACTUAL and distinctive NATURE' than to 'symbol' or 'figure' in the modern sense of those terms.

"The question of the meaning of such words in connection with the Eucharist will recur again in a later period. It may be sufficient here to express the warning that to suppose that 'symbol' in Clement of Alexandria or 'figure' in Tertullian must mean the same as in modern speech would be to assent to a line of thought which is GRAVELY MISLEADING." (Stone, vol 1, pg 31)

Now, another way to know whether Tertullian really meant the Eucharist is merely symbolic rather than both symbolic and truly the Body and Blood of Christ is to examine what he says about the Eucharist elsewhere. Let's take a look:

Likewise, in regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the SACRIFICIAL prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive THE BODY OF THE LORD...THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participation IN THE SACRIFICE... (Prayer 19:1)

The flesh feeds on THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God. (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)

It seems clear that Tertullian did indeed believe in the Real Presence from the above quotes.

The final quote in the article is, I suppose, an attempt to show that the Early Christians did not consider the Eucharist to be really the Body and Blood of Christ because it is not "another sacrifice" but a "memorial."

It is evident to those educated in divine things that we do not offer another sacrifice, but we perform the memorial of that one saving sacrifice, (Theodoret [ca. 440], Interpretation of Hebrews, 8:4, 5).

The problem is that, once again, this reveals an underlying assumption that something cannot be a memorial and also real, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching about the Eucharistic sacrifice. Indeed, the above quote fits exactly with the Catholic understanding that we do NOT re-sacrifice Christ on the altar, rather, the Once and for all sacrifice is re-presented, made present again for us on the altar. It is a true memorial, a memorial which does not just bring to mind the event celebrated, but also makes it truly present.

Once again, if we look at other writings of Theodoret, we can see he did indeed believe in the Real Presence.

From a dialogue he wrote:

Eran.—What do you call the gift which is offered before the priestly invocation?
................
Orth.—Food of grain of such a sort.

Eran.—And how name we the other symbol?

Orth.—This name too is common, signifying species of drink.

Eran.—And after the consecration how do you name these?

Orth.—CHRIST'S BODY AND CHRIST'S BLOOD.

Eran.—And do you believe that you partake of Christ's body and blood?

Orth.—I do.

Eran.—As, then, the symbols of the Lord's body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing...

Orth.—...even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality.

This describes our understanding of the substance and accidents of the Eucharist and the change that takes place, and only makes sense if they are speaking of the Eucharist and the Real Presence, not if they're speaking of a merely symbolic "Lord's Supper" in which no change takes place, and no consecration exists.

So among the quotes presented, we see that where they support the CoC view, the CoC is in agreement with the Catholic Church. We see that none of the quotes contradict the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, in fact they fit right in with it. Furthermore, in cases where the specific quotes presented from certain Early Church Fathers could be interpreted either way, we can see from their other writings that they did believe in the Real Presence, and so these quotes must be interpreted in light of that belief.

The author of the article ends by saying:

"No one should build his faith or religious practice on the words of mere men. But using the Bible as the standard, drawing our conclusions only from there, we then turn to the words of later saints to hear their understanding. When we find ourselves in such concert, over so many centuries, it can only thrill and strengthen the faithful in Christ. For it is obvious we and all who follow the apostolic pattern are the one and the same church of Christ."

Indeed, it is thrilling to see Christians through the ages who profess the same beliefs as we do today. Unfortunately for the author, none of the early Christians he quoted do profess exactly the same faith as the CoC, and certainly not concerning the Eucharist, as I've shown. And in general, members of the CoC are not content to affiliate themselves with those with whom they only partially agree, nor should they be. But to be consistent, they can't claim these Early Church Fathers as their own any more than they can claim members of various modern denominations as their own just because they happen to agree on some issues.

The same Church of Christ that these early Christians belonged to is not the one that came from the restoration movement. It is clearly the Catholic Church.

Another CoC-to-Catholic Journey Unfolds...

Erik, a now frequent poster on my board, has started a blog entitled Y Taith Cristnogol which is Welsh (Cymraeg) for “The Christian Journey,” to chronicle his journey through RCIA and, God willing, into the Catholic Church. Seeing as he's still a minor living under his CoC mother's roof, it should be interesting to say the least! It will take a lot of courage and conviction on his part, but I'm sure he's up to the challenge. Please keep him in your prayers, and visit his blog to follow him on his journey and offer him your support!

John Martignoni vs CoC

Erik, from my board, has found another gem of a debate. On this one, John Martignoni of the Bible Christian Society is a guest on an internet radio show run by CoC members. I very much enjoyed listening to this, it's about an hour long, and I have to add that I think the CoC hosts were very respectful, even in disagreement, and were fair in letting John have his say without unnecessarily cutting him off (like some radio folks out there do). I would have used some different word choices than John did at times to explain things in a way I know CoC people could understand better, but that's not his fault, as you can't really know that kind of thing unless you've been CoC yourself! Overall, I think he did a great job.

Thanks again, Erik!

Catholic Priest on the Churches of Christ

Someone posted this audio clip (sounds like it might be part of a debate, it's about 20 minutes long) on my board of a priest talking about the CoC, and I found it very interesting! And on a side note, is it just me or does a priest with an Irish accent just make you feel thoroughly Catholic?

Check it Out!

I always like to find fellow ex-CoCers who are on their way to becoming Catholic. Here's another one!

Attention Readers in California!

If there are any lucky readers in California, I just wanted to mention that Bruce Sullivan, a former CoC minister turned Catholic, and a poster on my board, will be speaking on Thursday May 3rd and Friday May 4th in Temecula, CA. The talks are centered around his conversion story and what he has found in the Catholic faith. The talk on Friday night will be on the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. You can see the flyer here.

Also, on Saturday, May 5th he'll be giving three talks in West Covina, CA.

If anyone lives in the area, Bruce would be very glad if you can come out to the talks and help him represent the growing number of former Campbellites who have gone from the "Church of Christ" in name to the Church of Christ in fact!

Also, Bruce has been on Marcus Grodi's wonderful program, The Journey Home previously to share his conversion story, and to help answer questions on the open line. On June 4th, he'll be on the program again for Open Line Monday, so be sure to tune in then!

God be with Bruce as he shares his faith, and talks about the unique journey from Campbellism to Catholicism!

Christ Centered vs. Man Centered

I was on the discussion side of the ex-CoC board, and saw some people talking about why they go to church, and if they would go somewhere if they didn't like the preacher, etc...and it got me thinking.

Without realizing it, I believe the people in the CoC make things man-centered, because they rely so much on having a "good and sound preacher." Without a good preacher, what else is there, really? There's the Bible, but even though they tell you you don't need anyone to interpret the Bible, in practice they expect the preacher to provide sound interpretation, and to give good sermons about that interpretation...that is the height and pinnacle of the CoC service, the sermon, which is completely dependent upon the interpretation of a man.

Isn't it interesting that Catholics are so often accused of being man-centered because of the hierarchy and setup of the Church...and yet, when I go to mass, it's not for any man, it's not for the priest, it's not to hear his homily, it's first and foremost for Christ, for the Eucharist. Even if it's a parish where there are some liturgical abuses that can get under my skin, or a priest that isn't my favorite, I still know that the mass is still the mass, and that Christ is there, and THAT is what matters primarily, and I don't have to worry about any man. I wish I could impress upon non-Catholics when talking to them how huge this difference is, and how important the Eucharist is to Catholics...it's hard to describe, though, it's much easier to understand when you experience it.

It's just such a difference, and it reminds me how well Satan can twist things and encourage people to believe that up is down and down is up. It's like bizarro world where everything is backwards! Man centered becomes Christ centered and vice versa. Let us pray that the reality is made apparent to all of those who currently see otherwise!

Introducing...

The CoC to Catholic forum!!! Welcome CoC-Catholic converts, seekers, questioners, anyone who is interested. Come on over and join the fun!

A Clarification

To all my ex-er friends out there, I wanted to make something clear. I'm not planning on running away to another playground and throwing sand at where I came from, not at all! I have given up the ex board for Lent, but I will be back! I thought that plenty of people would welcome a chance not to hear so much Catholic talk, and I thought the Catholics would welcome a chance to be able to talk about super-Catholic stuff without being looked at like we have three heads, lol. Let me make this very clear, the CoC-Catholic board will NOT be a place to bash the ex-CoC board!! I have no hard feelings towards the board as a whole, and I completely understand that I can't, and shouldn't expect all the non-Catholic exers to understand the unique struggles Catholics face in the modern world. Up until now, I had to waffle between different place to get support for different things...I'd go to a Catholic online community to get support from the everyday struggles we face as Catholics, but they wouldn't understand the ex-CoC stuff! So I'd go to the ex-CoC board to get support for the ex-CoC stuff, but they don't get the Catholic struggles! It's not the fault of either community that I don't get both kinds of support in one place, but I just thought, wouldn't it be great to have it in the same place?

It's true, I was feeling more tension as of late on the ex-CoC board, but I'm sure it could be because of me as well as others, which is why I felt a break would help me cool off and return later with a better attitude, and possibly some new self-imposed rules to help me avoid inflammatory posters and/or comments. But I am not picking up my toys and leaving for good, I'm just rearranging what topics I'll discuss where!

So, peace and much love to all you exers!

So I've Been Thinking...

There are a good number of us on the ex-CoC board who have become Catholic. Sometimes, we even tend to eclipse other groups on the board because we are pretty numerous and pretty vocal. I know, and understand, that this can sometimes be annoying for the non-Catholics on the board. And yet, I love being able to talk with all my CoC-Catholic converts who GET IT, who know what I'm talking about.

So, what would y'all think if I started our very own CoC-Catholic convert forum? Thoughts? Ideas? Opinions? I'm thinking this would let us get all our Catholic talk out without annoying the other exers. It would be an area free from anti-Catholicism where we can relax and not feel like we're on the defense all the time. I think we could also welcome our Orthodox friends, if they so desired to join us. And I wouldn't even mind people of other faiths interacting with us, as long as they understand that anti-Catholic remarks will not be tolerated.

So, what do y'all think? Let me know!

Why Didn't They Rewrite the Bible?

Sometimes, when discussing with people, I see some really great questions asked. The problem, though, is that often the person asking the question has already ruled out one or some of the answers, and sometimes they do this without even realizing it.

Among the flurry of recent Catholic related threads on the Preacher's Files, there was one question that made me want to shout for joy and pull my hair out at the same time. The question was a good one, but the refusal to acknowledge the most obvious answer was, to say the least, infuriating. The question was this:

IF what Adam is saying is based on actual fact about the Catholic organization representing God's ultimate intentions to the rest of the world AFTER the perversion by certain un-named individuals from an earlier time, then why didn't the Catholics re-write the Bible to coincide with their teachings and beliefs? They, the Catholic hiearchy dominated the world for over a thousand years during the Dark Ages in which they wouldn't let anyone but Catholic priests read and understand the Bible because they kept it written and taught in the ancient language of Latin.

This thousand year period would have been the perfect time frame to have re-written God's Word and thus appear to the world as consistent with God. They could have written in whole chapters (indeed whole books) illustrating indulgencies, priests with robes, special collars and forbiding them to marry, instrumental music and all the other major differences with their "style of Christianity" and true Christianity as God describes it in His Word.

This statement is so full of false assumptions and misconceptions that it makes my head spin. But the thing that stuck out most to me was the part in bold (emphasis mine). This is a very good question! Why didn't they rewrite the Bible? What is the most obvious answer??? Because there was no need to, because nothing in the Bible is contrary to Catholic teaching! It's amazing to me that this idea is SO FOREIGN to the person who asked the question, that he doesn't even take time to consider the possibility, and in fact it seems even expects Catholics themselves to agree that Catholic teaching is contrary to the scriptures!

But see, in attempts to show that they have misconceptions about Catholic teaching, any use of the catechism or other non-biblical text is shot down as "teaching of men." Remember, at this point no one (on the Catholic side of things) is trying to prove anyone right or wrong, we're simply trying to show that Catholics do not teach what they say Catholics teach.

Now, what if I use their logic and say, "Show me in the Bible where it says Catholics teach XYZ?" If anyone were nonsensical enough to even take up this challenge, they might provide the many typical scriptures used such as, "Call no man father" and the whole "doctrine of demons" stuff and the verses about if anyone else teaches another gospel they are false prophets, etc. I would ask, "Yes, I see those verses and I agree with them, but where does it say anything about Catholics teaching those things?" They might try to argue that it's obvious it's talking about Catholics, because the Catholic Church teaches them. If I ask where does it say that the Catholic Church teaches them, I would probably get redirected back to the same verses. And this, my friends, is what we call circular reasoning.

If, however, someone was a bit more aloof, and actually attempted to use the catechism or other document to show where Catholics teach XYZ, it would be a complete double standard to disallow a Catholic to use the same catechism or document to show him where Catholics don't teach XYZ. And yet, this happens all the time. In fact, there's a good example of a similar double standard in that very thread.

The poster mentions that they are using an extra-biblical text in bible class, and someone (a non-CoC member, as far as I can tell) asks him why not just use the Bible, since non-CoC members are told over and over again that nothing but the bible is useful or necessary.

I see no problem in supplementing our Bible study with such books as long as they don't add anything or take away anything but present God's Word in an organized manner and draw solid, Biblically based conclusions.

Hmm...seems to me that if a Catholic (or other kind of Christian) ever dares to use a text besides the bible (which also backs the things up it says with scripture and comes to biblically based conclusions, for instance the catechism), he is told that anything other than the bible is adding to God's Word. So...I guess that only applies to non-CoC members?

Usually the biggest benefit I see from studying such books is that they sometimes help "fleshing out" the details in the background or history behind some of the scenes and/or the decisions made in the Bible.

And again, if a Catholic appeals to history he is often told the only history he needs is in the bible, and it doesn't matter what history says or what the background was if it's not in the Bible. But again, I guess this only applies to non-CoC members.

The sad part is, most of the time CoC members don't even realize the circular arguments they are making and the double standards they hold. They are caught in a vicious circle inside their heads, unable to break free unless they commit the horrible sin of actually considering someone else's viewpoint. And this is why it is so hard to discuss with them, because in their world, showing respect and consideration for another viewpoint is nearly as bad as agreeing with it.

Actions and Intentions

When I was in the CoC, there was a big disconnect with reality regarding intentions, especially regarding how we can know whether they are good or bad. In fact, intentions weren't talked about a whole lot, it wasn't often acknowledged that there was a difference between a bad action and a bad intention. This disconnect with reality often caused us to judge intentions unfairly, assuming that a bad action automatically indicated a bad intention. The focus was always on the outside, and rarely on the inside.

An obvious example of this kind of thinking is apparent on a few recent threads on the Preacher's Files. Specifically in this thread about Mary, and this thread about priestly robes and garments.

In the first thread, when talking about prayers and the usual "vain repition" verse, it does not even occur to the participating CoC members to acknowledge the difference between repitition, and vain repitition. They assume that all repitition must necessarily be vain. Because of this, they automatically judge anyone who participates in any kind of repetitive prayer as praying in vain.

Another example in the same thread is the use of statues. Again, a statue may certainly be used in an idolatrous way, by bowing down to it, believing the statue itself is somehow a deity higher than God. This is what God condemns. But the fact that someone may have a statue in front of them while they pray does not necessarily mean that they are treating the statue itself as a deity, as an idol. Anyone who recognizes the intention as distinct from the action can see this easily. But if someone has been taught that the two are inextricably entertwined, it is much harder for them to give someone the benefit of the doubt, and assume good intentions. No matter how much I may personally try to convince them that I do not think the statue itself is higher than God, they will discount my words because they cannot separate an action from an intention.

In the second thread, there are several expressions of incredulity at the idea that a priest wearing robes could be for any other reason than to puff himself up, show that he is more holy, etc. Again, this shows a failure to separate actions from intentions. I wasn't even asking that they agree that robes are ok, only trying to explain how wearing robes doesn't necessarily mean someone is trying to draw attention to himself.

This unwillingness to separate actions from intentions is a dangerous thing, because it leads to the idea that we can always judge people's intentions strictly by their actions. This leads to the judgemental attitude that so many who leave the CoC have been hurt by. It also leads to a scary understanding of a God who does not distinguish between actions and intentions, so that people are left to fearfully hope they have not unintentionally sinned without realizing it. It also leads to the idea that as long as our actions are ok, as long as we are keeping up appearances, it must necessarily follow that our intentions, our heart, needs no work, which leads to more pride. It's a sad, downward spiral that many well-meaning CoC members don't even realize is happening. But I always hold out hope that they may come to see the difference between actions and intentions, and to see the importance of acknowledging that difference. This realization is what first led me to where I am today.

Pelagianism and the CoC - Bootstrap Theology

An interesting characteristic of the Church of Christ is that they definitely know what they don't believe and love to point out where other denominations have gone wrong, in their opinion, but ask them what exactly they believe, and it's not always so clear.

While discussing Church history with some CoC members recently, the topic of Pelagianism arose and I decided to check it out. I'm still in the process of learning about all the various heresies, so it was interesting to learn that the CoC is very Pelagian in their beliefs!

Check this out, from Catholic Answers:

Much of its appeal lay in Pelagius's zeal: "[H]e set to work preaching against the lukewarm morality that had entered so many Christian circles. Soon the stricter Christians were flocking to his sermons."..(Here we see a foreshadowing of the appeal of present-day Fundamentalism, which may be weak theologically, but is strong morally--and therefore attractive.)
....
"Pelagianism was based on a very respectable moral rigorism, but its anxiety to champion man's free will and to urge him on to sanctity resulted in its denying original sin and the necessity of divine grace: For the Pelagian, access to the Kingdom is made possible by baptism, and since perfect sanctity is an obligation and a possibility for everyone, it rests with each individual Christian to merit eternal life by his conduct, modeled on the precepts and example of Christ."

Bingo! No wonder I grew up with a kind of vague idea of what grace was and why we needed it, or if we did at all. Underneath it all we believed we could simply avoid sin and be "good enough" all on our own. It sounds easy enough in theory...we have free will, we can choose right or wrong, all we have to do is choose right. Who needs grace to do that, right?

Since Adam's sin was personal, argued Pelagius, everyone is born sinless, there being no such thing as original sin. (In modern parlance, we are all immaculately conceived.) This makes infant baptism useless; a child, being incapable of sin, needs no washing away of sin, and an infant who dies goes immediately to heaven. Baptism should be reserved for adults.

This is certainly right on track with CoC beliefs!

Then why, one might ask, is sin so prevalent? Pelagius speculated that, from childhood, we contract the habit of sinning and this habit become second nature. The newborn child is as pure as Adam and Eve at their creation, but, as he advances in age, the child learns to sin from those around him. Specifically, he learns from the bad examples of his elders, and then he becomes a bad example himself. If he were isolated from the "contagion," he could grow into a sinless adult, but no one grows up in complete isolation. Pelagius's problem, wrote a historian of dogmas, is that "[h]e saw only guilty individuals, not a whole sinful human race."

Again, since the CoC is often kind of vague on their beliefs, I can't say with certainty, but I think they would agree with the above. (I especially think the part in bold is relevant, more on that later.) However, I don't think they would go quite this far:

Since the human race does not labor under original sin or any other consequences of the Fall (since the Fall affected only Adam and Eve), there was no need for a redemption as such--there was nothing to be redeemed from. Why did Christ come then? To give us an example, to be a role model. Adam was the bad role model, Christ the good.

I know the CoC sees Christ as their savior, and would say they could not be saved without Christ...although, I'm not sure if they've thought through their theology here, because if they think they can be good enough on their own (even theoretically) I'm not sure why Christ's sacrifice would be necessary.

Now, hold onto your hats, look at this next part:

"As spiritual director, [Pelagius] became tired of hearing men excuse themselves for sin and tepidity on the plea of human frailty. To such alibis he gradually developed the retort that these were but excuses for indolence [and that] every man is quite capable of perfection by his own efforts provided that he only apply them to action."

How often do we hear of the pressure CoC members feel to be perfect? And of the judgemental attitudes and condemnation when someone fails to live up to perfection? THIS IS WHY!!! Because they don't believe grace is really all that necessary, they believe you really can do it all on your own if you just try hard enough. Remember that "guilty individual" thing mentioned previously? When people are having a hard time, there is a sternness of attitude that basically implies that it shouldn't be all that hard...just do it! Just choose not to sin! Why can't you do that? You have free will, it's simple enough, just don't sin! And then we sat around wondering why we were so weak that we couldn't make a simple choice not to sin. I mean, they made it sound like picking out which color socks to wear...just pick them! What's so hard about that?

Aaahhh...the pickles we get ourselves into when we miss crucial aspects of human nature, and in this case especially our *fallen* human nature. We set ourselves up for failure time and time again because we rejected, or simply didn't realize the necessity of grace. We cannot do good without it! It seems pretty clear from scripture that this is, indeed, the case:

Phil. 2:13 - For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work.

John 15:5 - I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing.

Another quote on Pelagianism from the Catholic Encyclopedia made an interesting assertion:

[Pelagianism] laid down the proud assertion that the sovereign will may ultimately raise itself to complete holiness and impeccability (impeccantia, anamartesia) through the persevering observance of all the precepts, even the most difficult, and through the infallible triumph over every temptation, even the most vehement. This was an unmistakable reproduction of the ancient Stoic ideal of virtue. For the self-confident Pelagian, the petition of the Lord's Prayer, "Lead us not into temptation", served, properly speaking, no purpose: it was at most a proof of his humility, not a profession of the truth. (emphasis mine)

The proud assertion...self-confidence...pride...what was that post I had a while back on arrogance? It all makes sense when one looks at the Pelagian beliefs, the boostrap theology. If we are all depending upon ourselves to be "good enough," we'll end up being self-centered instead of Christ centered. And that's why it's so important to recognize the necessity of God's grace.

It was interesting to see the similarities between Pelagianism and the CoC, there is truly nothing new under the sun!

Faith and Doubt

This post will probably be most understood by readers who have an affiliation with the CoC, because faith is something that is extremely understressed there. Understanding what faith itself is was a big step for me, because in the CoC we do not rely much on faith. We try to prove everything, and we really deep down believe that everything can be shown from the Bible, and so there's no need for faith because it can all be argued and explained rationally (so they say).

Often, what happens when someone from the CoC decides to leave, is that since all their faith was really in the "scriptural evidence" rather than God, when that scriptural evidence falls to pieces, their faith falls to pieces. (It goes without saying that there are always exceptions, this is just a general observation.) There are others, though, who are fortunate to somehow hold onto that thread of faith in God, and have to sort out where to go from there.

True faith is a God-given gift. It is one of the three theological virtues (faith, hope, love) which we cannot fabricate of our own accord, they must be given to us by God. And so, our reason takes us to a point, we see the reasonable arguments for the Church, but there comes a time when we must finally rest on faith, especially if there are lingering doubts. This is a hard thing to do for ex-CoCers! It is so pounded into us that any doubt is BAD BAD BAD that we're afraid of joining up anywhere unless we're absolutely 100% sure. If there are any doubts at all, it feels like we're in limbo, not able to go back but not able to move forward either.

What is important to realize is the distinction between voluntary doubt and involuntary doubt. Here's something from Catholic answers on that:

Obstinate doubt is a person’s refusal to give assent to something and persistance in this refusal through his own fault. It is important to distinguish this willful refusal to assent from merely having hesitancy or conflicted feelings about something that one accepts.

Doubt is distinguished as either voluntary or involuntary. The Catechism explains:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated, doubt can lead to spiritual blindness (CCC 2088).

Involuntary doubt is not sinful and may be experienced by any sincere believer. Voluntary doubt, on the other hand, is grave issue.

When doubts arise, we must rely on faith. Now, that statement kind of sounds obvious, but think about this...if we are expecting to understand everything and rid ourselves of all lingering doubts before we do anything, would we really have faith then? Or would we just be counting on our intelligence and reason alone to get us through? This kind of outlook could result in a very weak faith ultimately, so that if someone who converted in this way one day came across a teaching that they couldn't understand intellectually, it might cause a loss of whatever little faith they had to begin with, because they haven't been really relying on faith, just as those who relied so heavily on scriptural evidence can see their faith in God dashed as the evidence for their scriptural interpretation is dashed.

All this to say, the fact that we may have lingering doubts about some things the Church teaches is absolutely normal, and in fact is good practice for relying on faith! Remember that faith is not something that comes from us, it comes from God, and so we need to be sure to pray for faith. God knows we need it, be He also wants to see that we acknowledge that we need it, and that we know we can only receive it from Him.

A few months ago at mass, a reading from Luke was read, and my husband made a comment about different ways it could be read. Read this passage, and think of the blind man, not as physically blind, but as spiritually blind, as not being able to see the truth clearly, but wanting to.

And it came to pass, that as he was come nigh unto Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the way side begging:
And hearing the multitude pass by, he asked what it meant. And they told him, that Jesus of Nazareth passeth by. And he cried, saying, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me. And they which went before rebuked him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried so much the more, Thou son of David, have mercy on me.

And Jesus stood, and commanded him to be brought unto him: and when he was come near, he asked him, Saying, What wilt thou that I shall do unto thee? And he said, Lord, that I may receive my sight. And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.
And immediately he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God: and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God.

Gives a whole new meaning to it doesn't it? For those struggling with doubt, remember this prayer, and say it often. "Lord, I believe, help my unbelief." Ask for faith, and you will receive.