- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (6/18)
- Next Post »A La Carte (6/19)
The Appeal of Roman Catholicism
- 06/18/07
- 122
Over the weekend a member of a mailing list I subscribe to asked an interesting question. Reflecting both on some of the highly-publicized “defections” of former Protestants to Roman Catholicism and some he has witnessed personally he asked “What is the appeal of Roman Catholicism?” I have sometimes wondered the same. Why is it that many Protestants eventually convert to Catholicism? To put things in context, my experience shows that a far greater number of Roman Catholics become Protestants than the other way around. I do not think the conversions to Catholicism represent an epidemic. Still, it is worth thinking about.
I think it is interesting and important to note the type of person who leaves Protestantism and turns or returns to Rome. It is my experience that the people who make this transition are not people who are simply Bible teachers or students of the Bible but are people who are enamored by philosophy. It is not the expositors who cross the Tiber, but the philosophers. For the man who regards the Bible as the highest source of authority and who loves to search the Scriptures and to share what the Spirit teaches Him in its pages, Rome offers very little. However, for those who love philosophy, it can be argued that Rome offers far more.
In my experience more people return to Rome than turn to her. It is not unusual to see people experience an apparent conversion but, after a period of time, to return to the Church. Just recently I heard from some friends we hadn’t spoken to in some time and were surprised to learn that their family news included the baptism of their youngest child and the first communion of one of their older children. While they consider themselves Protestant, their roots are Catholic and it seems they have either succumbed to family pressure or have not lost their convictions about certain Roman Catholic beliefs. This reminded me of another friend who did the same thing. Despite being saved and being baptized in a Baptist church, he still had his children baptized in a Catholic church. Clearly something in the Catholic system goes very deep into the soul and captivates people. There are some portions of the Catholic teaching that is difficult to leave behind.
Here are several ways I believe Protestants can become enamored with Catholic theology. I will also, very briefly, suggest some solutions:
History - The Roman Catholic Church has done a masterful job of presenting itself as the one, true church. It claims to have an unbroken line of succession from the Apostles and claims that it most accurately represents the faith of the early church. Most Protestants are not sufficiently educated in church history to refute or even to disbelieve these claims. Thus Rome seems to offer the privilege of returning to the church at its most basic and its most pure. This shows how important it is that we, as Protestants, educate people so they know that Catholicism is a perversion of biblical doctrine and the teaching of the early church. We cannot afford to give up this ground.
Harmony - Roman Catholics often point to the “hundreds of thousands” of Protestant denominations as evidence of the superiority of Rome which seems to have much greater unity. This view is simplistic and ignores the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has many factions and parties. Still, as Protestants we have to cede that disunity within the church has served to harm rather than to assist our witness to Roman Catholics and to others who need to hear the gospel. The solution, though, is not to band together despite the gospel but to make the gospel the point of our greatest unity.
Authority - The Roman Catholic Church offers a kind of security that is missing in Protestantism. Because in the Roman system ultimate authority is the realm of the pope and the Church, its members are absolved of much of the hard work of searching the Scriptures and seeking to properly understand and apply them. Protestants believe in the right and responsibility and privilege of each person to interpret the Bible with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. The Roman Church teaches that a person’s greater responsibility is simply to obey what the church stipulates. As Protestants we need to teach what a joy and privilege it is to have the Holy Spirit present with us so that we can search the Scriptures and have confidence that what we learn is true. Yet we need to understand that we cannot go it alone. We need to rely on the assistance of other Christians before us.
Ignorance - There is startling ignorance among Protestants about what Catholic theology and practice. Many Protestants are taught things about Rome that are simply not true. Thus when they meet Catholics or experience Catholic worship they are unprepared for what they experience. They are surprised to hear many of the same words, to share many of the same elements of worship. Many of the most important differences between Catholic doctrine and the theology of the Bible are quite fine and subtle. Those who know little more than “Catholics believe in salvation by works” can be easily wooed by the reality of Roman Catholicism. It is important that Protestants know Catholicism as it really as rather than being taught a mere caricature.
Ritual - Protestantism, especially in its more “popular” forms, has become very de-ritualized. While there are some forms of Protestant worship that maintain a greater amount of ritual (Anglican churches, for example, and even certain forms of Presbyterianism) most are very casual. What is meant to be casual can, to some, appear flippant and disrespectful. Conversely, Roman Catholic worship has the outward appearance of being much more serious and, in many ways, more respectful. This attracts certain people, and perhaps especially those who have been accustomed to worship that is based more on ritual. The solution here is not to return to ritual, but to return to a sense of gravity that marks times of corporate worship as being different from times of entertainment and amusement.
I think, though, that the ultimate reason is this: the Roman Catholic Church may well be Satan’s greatest masterpiece. I acknowledge that these are fighting words but I will stand by them. The doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church offers salvation to no one. This is not to say that there are no true Christians within the Catholic churches. Rather, it is to say that these people are saved despite Catholic doctrine, not because of it.
The concept that we can do nothing to earn or merit or contribute to our salvation is repugnant to the natural man. Yet a religion of no grace at all may also prove repugnant. Catholicism manages to offer enough grace to give it a semblance of biblical orthodoxy, yet still attributes to man a portion of the work necessary to save himself. It masterfully interjects just enough grace that it can be said fairly that Catholicism is a religion of grace. Yet it also requires works so it can also be fairly said that it is a religion of works. If we believe what the Bible teaches—that our works merit nothing before God, then we know that we need to reject Roman Catholic theology as being not just unbiblical, but anti-biblical. Catholic theology is brilliant for its mimicry of biblical theology but when we examine it closely we see that it must be rejected. It is but a clever counterfeit of what Scripture teaches.
There will always be some Protestants who leave for what they perceive as the greener pastures of Rome. Yet preventing people from being attracted to Rome really should be remarkably easy. We need Christians to simply teach the Word, to teach Christian doctrine, and to provide the historical context that will show that it is the invisible church, the true believers, who are the true successors of the Apostles. We need to share the gospel and be shaped by the gospel, and then leave the rest up to God.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (122)
Your comments are thoughtful and helpful. I would only add this: Protestants must admit (and I am a PCA pastor), that our canon was decided by the authority of the Church. Christians decided which books belonged, and which did not. I believe this hard fact by itself sometimes tips Protestants toward Catholicism (East or West).
A lenghty article addressing this very subject is found 4” rel=”nofollow”>here. Its interesting reading, though you may not agree with all his conclusions
My neighbor is Catholic yet came to me several years ago looking for more than her church/faith could offer. She and I went through a basic Bible study and she did come to saving faith. She came to my Evangelical Free church with me on a few occasions but felt uncomfortable with the lack of ritual and decided to go back to her Catholic church where she felt more at ease. She does not embrace many of the teachings of the Catholic church but feels the draw of the familiar. Her husband will not venture inside the walls of a non-Catholic church so that has also kept her leaving. She is able to hear the homily with new ears and is better able to discern truth yet her faith has become stale.
My neighbor is Catholic yet came to me several years ago looking for more than her church/faith could offer. She and I went through a basic Bible study and she did come to saving faith. She came to my Evangelical Free church with me on a few occasions but felt uncomfortable with the lack of ritual and decided to go back to her Catholic church where she felt more at ease. She does not embrace many of the teachings of the Catholic church but feels the draw of the familiar. Her husband will not venture inside the walls of a non-Catholic church so that has also kept her leaving. She is able to hear the homily with new ears and is better able to discern truth yet her faith has become stale.
Quote: “Protestants must admit (and I am a PCA pastor), that our canon was decided by the authority of the Church. Christians decided which books belonged, and which did not.”
About the Roman Catholic Church making the canon, that is the wrong way around. No matter what church we talk about, it is not and never was the church that made the canon, but the canon that makes the church. When the books of the Bible were brought together, it was never a case of deciding which books were authoritative and which were not, but it was a case of recognizing the apostolic authority that the books had. There is no ancient council in which the books of the Bible were decided on, but only defended and listed so that heretics could not bring in false teachings wither by adding books or by removing books (like Marcian did with the OT).
No church has control over the contents of Scripture, rather Scripture has control over the contents of the church.
There’s apparently something wrong with my previous link, so here is the article again:
http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/45/45-3/45-3-PP451-472_JETS.pdf
It’s been described as “groundbreaking” in addressing the question as to why Evangelicals find Rome attractive.
I think, though, that the ultimate reason is this: the Roman Catholic Church may well be Satan’s greatest masterpiece.
Amen, Tim.
Every Protestant should understand that point.
Marshall, I’m surprised that you, as a pastor, would make no mention of the Holy Spirit’s role. Christians recognized the canon, they didn’t create it. There is a huge difference. The actual canon is what the Holy Spirit inspired—the Church’s job is to recognize this canon by means of apostolic authority and the guidance of the canonizer, the Holy Spirit.
interesting observations, and i agree with them. my family was roman catholic until i was 10 years old (my extended family still mostly is) and i remember it vividly for being so young. for a long time after conversion i was intensely bitter and angry at the lies of the Church. now my anger has subsided, but i don’t ever want to forget that, as a ‘governing body’ and body of doctrine, the RCC truly is satan’s masterpiece.
at the same time, i have recently begun to wonder about the place of ritual and ceremony and symbolism in Christian worship. i used to be so against it, because it reminded me of catholicism and so many things i despised about it. now, though, i wonder if there might be purpose for it after all. i think you’re right, tim - there is something attractive about it, and it’s a shame that protestants would perceive such a lack of aesthetic and ‘mystical’ elements that they need to “return to Rome” to get their fix.
maybe that’s something we protestants can think about - maybe we should be able admit more freely that not everything about God or even church can be broken down rationally. maybe the word “sacred” needs to reenter our vocabulary. there is a certain breathless wonder about the even the mere presence of the Holy Spirit, for example, and even the simple acts of gathering with the body of Christ, singing corporately to an unseen God or taking the elements in remembrance. whether that wonder needs be expressed in ritual or not is a different matter, but a sense of the sacred should be recaptured for some of us.
Wonderful thoughts, especially on the ritual element. I love liturgy and formality. I think that’s part of what makes me a little envious of the tradition of Catholicism. :)
Marshall,
If the “church” created the canon, then how could Jesus hold the Jews accountable for not believing in Him as the messiah foretold in the OT scriptures? The church hadn’t decided that Isaiah was part of the Scriptures yet. Jesus could hold them accountable because the church doesn’t decide what is scripture, but acknowledges what is scripture.
I am compelled to agree that the Catholic church ultimately does not serve God but another authority. I do think there has been a faithful remnant in the church down through history that, as Tim said, was saved in spite of their church.
Let’s face it: Catholicism is just plain seductive. The pomp and pageantry, the romance of the idols, the ritual, the lie of apostolic succession. (Yeah right, like Peter, called by Jesus to be his rock, primus inter pares of the Jerusalem apostles, chief evangelist to the Jewish world, had a vision of the church triumphant, ruling the world from Rome.)
Would it be fair to say that it all went wrong with Constantine? Was he doing the adversary’s work by co-opting the church?
Lots of interesting questions here, and some addressed to me specifically, so I will respond.
First, I never said that the ROMAN Catholic Church made the canon. The Roman Catholic Church was in its formative stages at the time that believers decided upon the canon. However there was in existence what we might call a “generic” catholic Church. “I believe in the holy catholic church.”
Second, you may say the opposite, but the fact is that Christians of the 2nd century eventually made a list of which books belonged in the New Testament. That list is the canon of the New Testament. To the best of my knowledge there is no way to prove from Scripture that early Christians were guided by the Holy Spirit in making that list, and getting it “set in concrete.” I agree that one of the questions in the minds of our early brothers was “does this book bear Apostolic authority.” But they included SOME books that were anonymous. By saying that the Church decided the canon I am NOT saying that the Church decided the contents of the Scriptures themselves. I speak only of the list. That’s what is meant by the “canon.”
Third, the statement “The church hadn’t decided that Isaiah was part of the Scriptures yet” opens up a can of worms about how we define the Church. As a Reformed Presbyterian, I believe that the Invisible Church includes all those who are in Christ from the beginning of creation (for example, Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses, David, etc). The Visible Church (organized) also existed in Old Testament days, and was once even called “the church in the wilderness” in the New Testament. The canon of the Old Testament was decided by the Old Testament church, and was recognized by Christ, so we have no problem at all with the Old Testament list of books.
Christians made decisions in the second century about which New Testament books constituted the canon of the New Testament. This was a process that continued for decades. Eventually the list was officially recognized in Church councils.
This is a fact of history. It’s no use trying to explain it away.
The question was concerning the appeal of Roman Catholicism, and I believe that the origin of the New Testament canon may influence SOME Protestants, who previously did not understand about the origin of the canon, to go towards Catholicism (some go East, and some are attracted to the West- Rome).
Personally, I’m not inclined to go either East or West, and am happy with Reformed Presbyterianism, the Westminster Standards, and the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America). I see no problem in saying that godly believers of good sense, wide Christian experience, and education were able to discern which books belonged in the New Testament canon.
The Church that ‘acknowledged’ the canon was not the same church that so badly needed reforming over a thousand years later. The reformation was for the preservation of the true church, not its division.
Speaking of liturgy, having been a member of a good, evangelical Anglican church, I saw many ‘born-again’ Catholics find a home there. Most Catholics feel very comfortable with the Anglican form of worship, although, if you read the Anglican “Thirty Nine Articles” you will find them quite reformed.
My wife and I were blessed to visit Italy in May of 2005. I can tell you that a visit to St. Peter’s is truly stunning. As you walk around this incredible shrine of Roman Catholicism you start to think, “If I didn’t know any better, this building would give this organization some credibility.” I can’t imagine what it would be like to see the Pope speaking ex cathedra from his incredibly ornate wood throne. The pomp and pageantry of the organization is incredible.
My mother and stepfather are Roman Catholic, though my mom’s beliefs are more in line with the idea that Jesus died for “everyone”, so it is possible to be a Christian even if you don’t know Jesus. I can tell you from experience that being a Protestant with Catholic roots really puts some feet to Matthew 10.
Jesus said “My kingdom is not of this world.” He left not even a nail from the cross but only the proclamation thereof.
Rome admits the opposite.
So does carnal men. Hence the attraction of all Romish things bling bling, magical, powerful, spectacular. A relic here, a miracle or apparition there, a ton of hagiographai, and a living, hatted magisterium.
Ah … irresistible!
You knew I couldn’t stay away from this one, didn’t you, Tim? :)
I can’t argue with most of your points, as from a Protestant POV they make sense, and this isn’t the place to try and come up with an apologetic for the entire Catholic Church.
However, this jumped out at me:It claims to have an unbroken line of succession from the Apostles… Most Protestants are not sufficiently educated in church history to refute or even to disbelieve these claims.
Neither are most historians. In fact, barring some very fanciful fiction out there, there IS no refutation of the Church’s unbroken line of sucession. I have yet to see any credible Protestant answer to the question of when the Catholic Church lost its authority. (The Eastern Orthodox could tell you exactly when, but since they’re even farther theologically from Protestantism than Rome is, I don’t think that will cut much ice here.)
Incidentally, you mentioned harmony, and before I poped, I thought the Catholic Church did indeed have a lot more harmony than Protestant denominations. I found out in a hurry that ecclesiastical unity and harmony were a long way from synonymous.
there IS no refutation of the Church’s unbroken line of sucession.
Joel,Just curious, but if you know, who was pope after Peter? And what documents support this person as following in Peter’s authority as pope? If there is an unbroken line of authority from the apostles onward, how and by whom was the person immediately after Peter confirmed?
Thanks.
This is an excellent post. I think you get it right that a mixture of law(works) and grace is the most deceptive and dangerous aspect of the catholic church. It’s great that you acknowledge that some Catholics are saved, but that it is in spite of their church, not because of it. I think this is also very timely.
I want to also suggest that we can learn much from where they went wrong, down the road of legalism. Protestant churches are far from safe from the dangers of falling from grace. Legalism can be found in some form in almost any church in North America. At least, I’ve not found one completely free of it. We need to stop shying away from preaching the true grace of God in a way that shocks and offends (what? are you saying we can go on sinning?!?!) anyone who relies on their self-righteous either for salvation or sactification. The gospel is not the gospel unless it is all grace.
In a less argumentative vein…
I think I may be the only Catholic convert who gets into this comment field, so I can answer a few of your points from experience. I had some rational reasons for switching feet, but some of my reasons were, well, a little more fuzzy.
Ritual, as you mentioned, was something I found very appealing. Not just a sense of gravity (that’s something you can find in Reformed churches) but the unabashed reverence of the liturgy. I had actually encountered the Orthodox Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom before I ever saw a Mass, and the former liturgy makes the Roman one look downright bland. There’s a sense that everything the worshippers have at their disposal is being turned toward the adoration of God. In its way, it’s more enthusiastic than a Pentecostal service. (And a lot less noisy.)
History was a factor in my case as well. Not just in a rational sense, the sense I alluded to in my last comment, but in a more subjective way as well. Protestantism simply hasn’t got the long, vibrant history that the traditional churches have. Then, too, it seemed to me that Protestantism required consigning thinkers like Aquinas, Augustine and Thomas a Kempis to the ash heap, which I couldn’t do. I was faced with the propositions that either (a) God left Christianity to its own devices for fifteen hundred years, during which time nothing of value was written or believed, or (b) God really was maintaining the Church before the Reformation, and inspired (in a non-Biblical sense, obviously) great men to expound on His truth. In short, if the Church wasn’t legitimate before the Reformation, then all those great writings had been so much scrap paper. I didn’t think God was that wasteful.
The ignorance factor you mentioned also came into play. I was kind of surprised to find that I wasn’t anathemized by Trent for being a Protestant. (Unless you actually read the documents of Trent, the whole thing, you really have no idea what it actually says. The anathemas are all you usually hear quoted, but they’re taken badly out of context.) They welcomed me as a Christian brother, united by baptism. Even though my baptism was done in a Baptist church, it was still the real McCoy.
I expected to see idolatrous Marian devotion pervading every fiber of the Catholic’s being, only to find that most Catholics don’t think about Mary all that much at all. She’s a much bigger deal to Protestants than to Catholics. No Catholic that I know thinks you have to earn your salvation, or lives in fear of not making the grade. The priests I’ve come to know are neither slavering perverts nor repressed tyrants. The confessional is a very low-pressure process, not the inquisition I had expected to find. And while I know some Catholics who aren’t well-versed (pardon the pun) in the Bible, it’s certainly not for lack of encouragement from the Church.
Honestly, if y’all want to keep your members from turning Romeward, you’ll have to let up on some of the more lurid stereotypes, or they’re apt to find out too late that they simply weren’t true.
Joel,
You write winsomely and charmingly.
But I wonder that the true gospel of Jesus Christ didn’t have much to do with your ‘conversion’, at least as I read between the lines of your last post…
Mark
Joel,
I definitely agree with you about one thing, and that is that Protestants need to understand what the real difference is between you and us…justification by faith alone. Can you agree that this point is really (or was when it counted) where the difference exists?
I would say that we believe in justification by faith alone and you don’t, but I must be honest with myself and say that a great number of professing protestants probably don’t even know what justification by faith alone really means anyway. My guess is that the same is true about typical catholics.
Apathy pervades all corners of professing Christian religions. Maybe if people who profess Christ on both sides would be diligent to know what they believe and why (instead of relying on others to tell them), some real progress might be made toward the truth of what it really means to be a disciple of Christ, and what it really means to have his righteousness credited to one’s account on the sole basis of faith alone, and to have one’s sin imputed to Him as well.
Grace and Peace.
While the pomp and pageantry of the Roman Catholic Church may be impressive to some, my reading of the New Testament Scriptures reveals such practices to be foreign to the early church. It is for this reason that i do not find the RCC attractive at all. On the contrary, i find it to be quite odd and downright spooky in all its gradiosity. As a low to mid-churchman, i confess to finding the practices of even Anglicans and Lutherans to be a bit much, but at least they are inside the camp (confessionally).
In response to Joel:”I expected to see idolatrous Marian devotion pervading every fiber of the Catholic’s being, only to find that most Catholics don’t think about Mary all that much at all. She’s a much bigger deal to Protestants than to Catholics. No Catholic that I know thinks you have to earn your salvation, or lives in fear of not making the grade”
I am not sure where you are looking in your Catholic church but the ones I know of are filled with Mary statues and shrines. Crowns on her head, flowers at her feet, special songs, holy days etc. Just think of how many prayers on the rosary are to Mary. Even the Catholics themselves believe Mary to play a important role in salvation. And any “good” Catholic would know that they can not be assured of heaven they can only “hope.” I think you should go to your own Catholic websites and get your stories straight on what the Catholic church true views are on Mary and salvation.
“I think, though, that the ultimate reason is this: the Roman Catholic Church may well be Satan’s greatest masterpiece.
Amen Tim! The JW’s and Mormons have damned their millions, but Rome has damned their billions. Having grown-up near Notre Dame, and now living in a R.C. country, from my observation, less than ~1 or 2% of RC’s show any evidence of being regenerate and loving God.
Jesus said, “You will know them by their fruit.” But, Rome’s apologists twist that to, “You will know them by their primacy. We’re the first church.”
Greg Gibson
But I wonder that the true gospel of Jesus Christ didn’t have much to do with your ‘conversion’, at least as I read between the lines of your last post.
Mark, that’s because I didn’t get into that aspect of my conversion. As I said, I had some solid reasons for becoming Catholic, and what constituted the true Gospel was a crucial factor. I wasn’t trying to give an explanation of my switching over, but to discuss some of the things Tim was bringing up about the appeal of Rome to Protestants, frrom the perspective of someone who’s been there.
Brian, you asked,Just curious, but if you know, who was pope after Peter? And what documents support this person as following in Peter’s authority as pope?
History records hs name as Linus, and Irenaeus (writing in the second century) specifically says that Peter and Paul handed on the episcopacy of Rome to him. I don’t know much about how ordinations were done that early, but I know that only an apostle (or his successor bishop) could ordain another bishop. The current requirement is three bishops at the ordination of another one, but I don’t know that it stretches back that far.
Honestly, I don’t understand why it should be Rome that’s the traditional See of Peter rather than Antioch, but since the Patriarch of Antioch has never made any claims to be Peter’s successor, I figure there’s probably a good reason that I just don’t know about.
I am not sure where you are looking in your Catholic church but the ones I know of are filled with Mary statues and shrines. Crowns on her head, flowers at her feet, special songs, holy days etc. Just think of how many prayers on the rosary are to Mary.
Katie, don’t confuse superficial things with doctrinal ones. My own parish has a statue of Mary inside, the Fatima image, because the parish is called Our Lady of Fatima. We put crowns on her head and load her down with honorary titles and flowers, but none of those titles is Savior, Redeemer or God. We do know which of them is the King of Kings and which is only the queen mother, and we know exactly whom to thank for our redemption, too. The role Mary played in our salvation was in her obedience to God in birthing and nurturing His Son. I’ve read some of the Catholic websites you’re thinking of, but I’ve also been Catholic for eight years and acquired some experience. To be embarrassingly honest, I strongly suspect some of those websites are written with the intention of pushing Protestant hot buttons unnecessarily. (“Co-redemptrix?” Puh-leeze. That’s a phrase meant to be misinterpreted. Why do these people want to confirm the stereotypes?)
I agree with Katie, Joel. Just look at the “15 Promises of Mary” (complete with imprimatur):
15 Promises of Mary
+Imprimatur: Patrick J. Hayes, D.D., Archbishop of New York
1. Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the rosary, shall receive signal graces.
2. I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the rosary.
3. The rosary shall be a powerful armour against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies.
4. It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the hearts of men from the love of the world and its vanities, and will lift them to the desire of eternal things. Oh, that souls would sanctify themselves by this means.
5. The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the rosary, shall not perish.
6. Whoever shall recite the rosary devoutly, applying himself to the consideration of its sacred mysteries shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise him in His justice, he shall not perish by an un provided death; if he be just he shall remain in the grace of God, and become worthy of eternal life.
7. Whoever shall have a true devotion for the rosary shall not die without the sacraments of the Church.
8. Those who are faithful to recite the rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God and the plentitude of His graces; at the moment of death they shall participate in the merits of the saints in paradise.
9. I shall deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to the rosary.
10. The faithful children of the rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in heaven.
11. You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the rosary.
12. All those who propagate the holy rosary shall be aided by me in their necessities.
13. I have obtained from my Divine Son that all the advocates of the rosary shall have for intercessors the entire celestial court during their life and at the hour of death.
14. All who recite the rosary are my sons, and brothers of my only son Jesus Christ.
15. Devotion of my rosary is a great sign of predestination.
Not exactly the Gospel of Jesus.
Carrie, I’m not even going to try to justify that. Things like this list make me cringe. I pray the Rosary sometimes, but I don’t get that into it.
FWIW, Archibishop Hayes may not have approved of this list, either. An Imprimatur is simply permission for it to be published in his diocese; it doesn’t imply agreement. All it means is that he didn’t find anything directly contradictory to the faith (the Bible or sacred tradition) in it.
Joel,
The papacy is filled with problems. One of the most problematic is the papal claim of infallibility ex cathedra (I think that’s what it is called). This seems very hard to believe in light of Honorius later being condemned as a heretic.
All it means is that he didn’t find anything directly contradictory to the faith (the Bible or sacred tradition) in it.
Even if what you suggest is true (that Hayes didn’t approve), the fact that the “promises” don’t conflict with the Catholic faith is quite a problem. It clearly conflicts with the Bible.
Excellent assessment! Good work Challies!
I am very disappointed in the amount of hatred that seems to be evident between Catholics and Protestants. To say that the Catholic church is of Satan is the type of thing that drives me away from Protestantism—particularly the Evangelical community. So much animosity.
I don’t know what Hayes thought about that list of Marian “promises.” I only know what I think about it, and that he allowed it to be published in his see.
Folks, I’m not going to try to defend every jot and tittle of Catholic Christianity here. There are just too many Protestant objections, and many of them are valid ones. But Tim’s analysis of many Protestants’ reasons for going over to the Catholic Church is a good one, as far as it goes. it leaves aside the question that I’m not about to try to answer here: What if the Catholic Church is exactly what it purports to be? What if, in short, the Gospel as Peter, Paul and John taught it really is the one the Church still teaches today? What if it was the Reformers who were wrong, and not the centuries of Christians before them?
I know what conclusion I came to on that question, and why. I also know that nobody reading this is likely to come to the same conclusion I did, and I respect their love of God and desire for the truth. But that is the question that Protestant converts to Rome (and anybody who seriously examines the issues) eventually have to answer, and after all the surface appeal that Tim talks about has been exhausted, that’s still the question on which the Reformation stands or falls.
I am very disappointed in the amount of hatred that seems to be evident between Catholics and Protestants.
Meg, it’s not hatred of the people. I don’t think there’s anybody here who wouldn’t rather see Catholics join them in heaven. They believe we won’t, which is a whole different thing from not wanting us to.
I recently ran across a blog called CatholiDoxies that’s done by a fellow who seems to be going through the same most of us Tiber-swimmers do. His reasons don’t look all that superficial to me. (I just noticed one of his posts entitled “Orthodoxy is the passages you didn’t underline.” I found that to be very true, myself.)
Man, that Joel is a brave fellow! One thought, Joel, on the history aspect — the way we classical Protestants see it is that the medieval Church is our Church which we inherited and reformed. The Roman church was the one who left the mainstream of Christian orthodoxy when she adopted Trent, so that she is the true break away (despite getting to keep a lot of cool buildings!), not classical Protestants.
Tim, good thoughts. See also, RL Dabney, “The Attractions of Popery.” Although written over a century ago, his observations still hold, I think.
After attending Catholic schools for 16 years (38 years ago), there is only one reason anyone who goes to Rome is because they do not understand God’s grace. Catholics have the perfect system for those who think they can earn their way into heaven.
Lot a folks are going to be surprised on judgement day.
I am a Mexican American that has witnessed firsthand the change of Roman Catholics who become Protestants. RC’s in Latin America are among the most zealous RC’s, partly because of others like their families being RC. What I have noticed in my mother’s side of the family is that all the former RC’s have become strongly anti-RC. Among Latin Americans, I have not noticed this tendency to return to Rome or to keep certain rituals (although I should add that Hispanic churches have been more reverent than many contemporary American churches). These people are convinced that Rome is no true church. I think the main reason is that you don’t have the type of people like N. Geisler and Chuck Colson who confuse people about RC among Hispanics. Hispanic preachers have denounced Rome as a false church as far back as I can remember. But I am sad to say that this may be changing, partly due to American Christian influence.
I think the much of the fault of this return to Rome is due to all those Christians, particularly church leaders, who don’t have the backbone to preach like the Reformers. If you don’t emphasize to people the falseness of a false religion, but embrace it (think of Chuck Colson), you will inevitably have people tthat will return to their prior secure state.
As to issue of philosophy and Rome, I think this may be true (but not that they have a better philosophy). A professor who was fired from Wheaton, J. Budziszewski and Beckwith come to mind. As to the former two, I remember Thomistic philosophy having some role in their stories.
…the way we classical Protestants see it is that the medieval Church is our Church which we inherited and reformed. The Roman church was the one who left the mainstream of Christian orthodoxy when she adopted Trent, so that she is the true break away (despite getting to keep a lot of cool buildings!), not classical Protestants.
Tim, that is an excellent point. I hadn’t realized how much validity there was to that perspective until I discovered Tim Enloe’s Societas Christiana blog. There’s some evidence to back up that take on history.
It’s also one of the major reasons I became Catholic, because I couldn’t pin down a point at which the Catholic Church (Roman or Eastern) had actually left the rails and abandoned orthodoxy. Almost everything Catholic that Protestants associate with apostasy is at least as old as the establishment of the canon. In any case, I couldn’t see a definitive break between the Church that ratified Nicea I, Nicea II, Lateran, and Trent. (The Schism of 1084 came between Nicea II and Lateran, true, but since nobody’s arguing for Eastern Orthodoxy, it doesn’t really apply.) I don’t see why the Church was empowered to make the one decision at Nicea, and not the others.
And we may get the cool buildings, but y’all make it up by getting all the good hymns. Have you ever heard the bilge that passes for post-Vatican-II hymnody?
although I should add that Hispanic churches have been more reverent than many contemporary American churches
Alberto, I live in a parish that has both Spanishand English masses, and I have to say I really envy the Hispanics their reverence. Our masses tend to be bland, and I think it’s because Gringo Catholics feel like they have something to prove to our Protestant neighbors. The Hispanics in our parish don’t have that problem, and they have a lot more respect for the Church than we have.
Marshall said:I see no problem in saying that godly believers of good sense, wide Christian experience, and education were able to discern which books belonged in the New Testament canon.
I notice that God’s grace and the Holy Spirit are absent from your list of credentials. Marshall, you seem to imply that the canon is a product of man. I think it’s important to remember that the canon is not an inspired list of books, but a list of inspired books. The books attest to their own authenticity. Randy Brandt (8) said it well - there is a difference between “creating” the canon and “recognizing” it.
Use the analogy of counterfeit money and real money. A police officer can only recognize that which is authentic and that which is is false. By his determination, however, he does not make one bill counterfeit and another real. He can only discover that which is evident.
Joel, what keeps you in the RC church?
You’ve validated the view that Rome became apostate at Trent, you admit to schisms within Rome, and you’ve shown that you may not have put a lot of thought into the rosary. Just curious.
“For the man who regards the Bible as the highest source of authority and who loves to search the Scriptures and to share what the Spirit teaches Him in its pages, Rome offers very little.”
And that is a big part of why I crossed the Tiber AWAY from Rome. I couldn’t find its doctrines in the Bible without twisting it from the context. Reading the Bible lead me away from Rome into truth.
As to Joel (we comment on each other’s blogs—so I’ve been through some of this with him before.)
“there IS no refutation of the Church’s unbroken line of sucession.” Whether there is or not—so what? Are all the men who followed faithful? Is it a succession of men or of faithful adherence to truth & the gospel? I think it would be one of men only. So the truth of it matters little—especially since the Scriptures are silent on it.
“it seemed to me that Protestantism required consigning thinkers like Aquinas, Augustine and Thomas a Kempis to the ash heap, which I couldn’t do. “Well I read Augustine—he wrote a lot of good stuff—stuff that refutes Rome. But I also read him for the historical aspect. No need to give him up—I agree with some of his writings & disagree with other writings—but I base that on the Bible.Also RC Sproul likes & recommends Aquinas. So no need to give them up. a Kempis on the other hand I can’t get into. It’s been a while since I’ve read his works.
And I agree with Katie on the Mary thing…
I almost hate to even make a comment in regard to Catholic beliefs, yet I find myself drawn to at least say something. Not in the form of a ‘hate’ of anyone Catholic, but so many of their beliefs diverge from scripture in so many ways. I have to agree with Tim, in that, I would say more people return to Catholicism than convert to it.
A system of hierarchy that is copied from the Roman government of the first century - The inclusion of Mary as a personage of importance in aspects of prayer and salvation that was never even hinted at in scripture. - Placing Peter as the first Pope, when no evidence exsists that he ever visited Rome, much less stood as a focal point any more important than any other Apostle. - Ritualistic forms of worship and dress more closely related to Jewish Pharisees and Sadducees than to the worship described in scripture. - The constant use of paintings, statues, and more; when God expressly forbade the use of anything that was to represent Him….the list goes on…
And yet….
The depth of Catholicism that reaches into it members is ingrained in a culture that goes from generation to generation. How this can be is not something I, nor anyone else, can easily explain.
Thanks Tim for your thorough insights.
We need Christians to simply teach the Word, to teach Christian doctrine…
I agree. No one who truly understands the Biblical gospel and sound Christian doctrine could ever return or turn to Rome.
Placing Peter as the first Pope, when no evidence exsists that he ever visited Rome, much less stood as a focal point any more important than any other Apostle.
SteveE,
I mostly agree with you, but since I’ve recently begun reading 2 Peter I’m not sure your statement above is accurate. I’ve got more than one study Bible that says that Peter most likely wrote the epistle from Rome, in prison, shortly before his martyrdom. Maybe I shouldn’t count prison as a “visit” LOL.
Peter stands out to me as a focal point in the gospels and in the book of Acts. He was clearly part of Jesus’ inner circle during the Lord’s earthly ministry, and he was obviously a major player in Acts (from the earthly, not eternal, perspective). He was a primary source for the material in Mark, and he wrote two books of the canon. Somehow that makes him stand out more than Bartholomew or James the son of Alphaeus, kwim?
As an aside, 2 Peter’s emphasis on exposing and defeating false teachers has proven to be timely reading in light of Tim’s post. If anyone could suggest some solid layman’s commentaries on 2 Peter, I’d appreciate it.
Almost everything Catholic that Protestants associate with apostasy is at least as old as the establishment of the canon… I don’t see why the Church was empowered to make the one decision at Nicea, and not the others.
And yet your arguments, Joel, break down on many levels. I find that this “historical” argument is used by many Catholics (and something which Tim included in his post) and yet it makes no sense.
We can see in the epistles that it doesn’t take long for man to mess up God’s good work. How often did Paul have to chastise different churches for getting the message wrong - the message he himself had preached to them. Likewise in Revelation, many of the churches were admonished for the departure from the true message. That is just within a few years.
If man couldn’t keep things straight after direct discipling from Paul (and the other apostles) what makes you think that man was able to keep things straight 2000 years later? Even Peter after all his progress with the gospel tripped up at Antioch.
And when we look back at the history of the RCC we see the same story. Purgatory, Mary worship, rosaries, indulgences - you won’t find those at the time of the canon. Can you show me in the writings of the early church fathers where the assumption of Mary (which is now dogma) is mentioned? Do you have any evidence that the early church fathers received extra-biblical revelations from Mary-like apparitions like has occurred with Fatima?
And if you want to make your decisions solely around history how can you know without a doubt that the Eastern Orthodox is the “one true church”? They make the same claims to history.
The only compass that man has to set himself straight by is the Bible. When I read the bible and look at the RC, it is clear that they are apostate. Every former-RC now Protestant that I know (and there are too many to count) says the same thing.
And yet from a strictly logical assessment of what you have said, your arguments still don’t hold water. If I simply compare what the RC says about itself and its authority, and then look at history and practice, it all falls apart. Actions speak louder than words.
I have always understood that the majority of your born and raised Catholics were just ignorant of the truth, but frankly, how anyone could actually choose Rome after some study is mind-boggling to me. There clearly is a force at work there and it is not God.
Thank you, Tim, for your well-reasoned analysis. I was born and raised Catholic, but left it as a teenager. I got saved and was evangelical for fifteen years, then went Catholic again for five. Finally, in submission to my husband (whom I believe Biblically is a higher authority than any church), I abandoned it for an evangelical church again.
You assess the situation better than anybody else I’ve ever seen. Thank you again!
You wrote:
“I think it’s important to remember that the canon is not an inspired list of books, but a list of inspired books.”
That’s EXACTLY what I mean. As far as the Holy Spirit is concerned, please show me the verse in the Bible which says that the Holy Spirit guided the early Church in the formation of the canon. I’m not saying He didn’t, I’m just saying you can’t PROVE that He did from Scripture. It is an assumption, and a matter of faith that the Holy Spirit guided Christians in their creation of the canon.
Can you prove that there were no inspired epistles from Paul that were left out of the canon? How many letters did Paul write? How did the early Christians know which to include in a list of inspired Scriptures? Is inspiration ENOUGH to justify inclusion in the canon? Can you prove that each book in the canon today was correctly placed in the canon?
Again, my point is not really about the canon itself, but about why some Protestants MAY be attracted toward catholicism. The Church DID create the canon.
Tim, I can personally substantiate the reasons you gave for why Protestants become Catholics.
I have another reason to add: I was very attracted to Catholicism by the mystics, who seemed to have a vital, experiential relationship with GOD. That kind of writing is almost entirely absent in Protestant literature. I pursued Catholicism and monastic spirituality to fill a gap in my own heart. For years, I threw myself into reading and research, exploring especially the more recent Trappist/Ciscercian monastic writers like Thomas Merton and Basil Pennington. I even completed the Rite of Catholic Initiation for Adults (RCIA) class. But I could not pull the trigger. After GOD led us to our current church with it’s Reformed emphasis, my interest in things Catholic has all but dried up. I am finding what I was looking for by revelling in The Gospel and The Person who bought it for me.