A Former Reformer is Coming Home

My old friend Andre has decided to swim the Tiber. Any Catholic readers here please go ahead and subscribe to his new blog Former Reformer and give him some encouragement and advice in this strange and exciting time for him and his family. On a personal note, it is nice to have a local Reformed friend here in the Twin Cities on the Catholic side of the river now.

On a recent post he compared the Reformed and Catholic liturgies/theologies and said that unlike the Reformed system:
 "...the true work and involvement is done at the Mass, where we meet Christ at Calvary and pray on our knees to break the power of the enemy. The fact that I was weary in my faith because I didn't feel like I was living up to the "Reformed theology standard of living" was because I was without the Eucharist. God's word did not return void,..."


I replied:

I just have to comment again! This past weekend, I went to confession and was totally renewed. I had some sins weighing on my mind and I let them go in the confessional, and Christ absolved me in the person of His priest. I then walked out of the confessional and kneeled down. It was the middle of the consecration, and as I joined my prayer with that of the silent group of people around me, I had a tangible sense of the "other-worldly" nature of what I was experiencing.
This was not about a sermon. It was not about tithing. It was not about being chummy with my buddies at church. It was about meeting God and destroying evil in myself and in the world. As RC Sproul would say, it was about being "coram deo". Before the face of God. When I looked up at the altar and saw Christ offering His body and blood to the Father, and thought of my former experience in Reformed churches, I thought how starved I had really been. Going from Reformed to Catholic is like going from an intravenous drip to thanksgiving dinner.

Saints, sola, and keys

"Death is consistently described in the bible as "being asleep". Someone who is asleep doesn't communicate in either direction very well."


Saints are not dead, so your example is a straw man. If they were dead, then they could not hear us, but they are Not dead, they are in the beatific vision. They experience God immediately (no mediation) and experience what both Catholics and Orthodox call theosis. It goes without saying that in that state: they can hear us!

And the faith of the church from the beginning has been one that prays to saints and uses images (my catacomb example etc.). You place your opinion above the first Christians who knew the apostles personally, and 2000 years of a Church who has prayed to saints, and prayed for the departed.

You are placing yourself above a council of the Church. For you to accept Nicaea I but reject Nicaea II is arbitrary. And it shows that your acceptance of Nicaea I is based on your previous agreement with it. If you someday decide Nicaea I is not sufficiently biblical (like Arius did and many others did and do) then you will cease to agree with it as well. So you are not submitting to the Church in your acceptance of Nicaea I, but are accepting it because it happens to conform to what you like.

"At the very least, the justification (from the bible) for veneration of icons from these passages would only extend to cherubim..."

I will not even get into your exegesis, which can be debated back and forth, and many smarter people than us have done so. And IF Wikipedia is your first exposure to the councils reasons for their decision, you need to go back to the drawing board and study the issue more. You seem to me to be judging their decision making process using a post-16th century criteria (sola scriptura). That might make it easy for YOU to judge them as off base (if you disagree with their exegesis), but you are missing the way they saw what they were doing and how they were doing it. Their giving biblical citations is not a cue for you to accept or reject their judgement! It is to help you understand how they reached their decision, not to try to convince you!

The point I want to make is that you have an UNBIBLICAL assumption that something needs to be "justified from the bible" to be accepted. Where does the bible say that? Nowhere. In fact it says the opposite, in many places. I've given the texts before, and I am sure you know them. So you need to ask yourself why you believe such a self-contradictory rule. The Christian faith is not only about what is explicit in the bible, and even the bible affirms that fact. A brief example: Polygamy was done away with very early in Christian history. Try to find a prohibition in the bible though, ... you cant. It is wrong because the Church says it is wrong. Period. Even Martin Luther had to cave on the issue and allow polygamy. He could not prohibit it with sola scriptura only.

Also like I said before, the infallibility of the magisterium does not extend to exegesis, but only to the final teaching (unless they specifically define the exegesis as infallible) For instance: Masturbation is a grave sin (mortal) according to the magisterium. They use the passage with Onan spilling his seed (Gen. 38:8-10) for a biblical reference to that act being a sin. But we cannot and must not assume that if that passage is somehow shown to not be talking against masturbation, that therefore the Church's decision to condemn it is not valid. For one thing, there are many OTHER REASONS that they can and do give for it being a gravely disordered act. Their determination is bigger than "the bible says X, therefore Y".

I maintain that you hold to a rule (sola scriptura) that is totally unbiblical. Of course that is insanely ironic, because the rule itself claims all rules should be in the bible. You also hold to a cannon which is not in the bible. You can brush these concerns aside around Rich Gall or other Reformed types that just want to plug their ears, but I will not sit by and let you parade around like the emperor with no clothes.
I will point.
I will laugh.
(I am saying I will call your bluff, not assume your obviously false paradigm)

I think you deserve that honesty.

You can personally disagree all you want at the Catholic beliefs, but at least our basic claim of revelation is not contradictory. We might be wrong, but our paradigm is self consistent.

We claim only the successors of the apostles can decide shit. And lo and behold, they do decide shit. No contradiction.

You claim that ONLY your 66 book bible can decide shit. But your 66 book bible itself explicitly says that it is NOT THE ONLY thing that decides shit! AND your book points to the successors of the apostles to do so! Not to mention not even having a table of contents. Oops. Talk about no clothes, the bible cant even tell you what the bible is. Next time you sit in judgement of all the bishops of Christendom assembled in solemn council at the 7th Ecumenical of Nicaea II, check your paradigm before you scorn theirs. Check to see who is holding the keys Jesus handed out. You will find your hands empty, cold and clammy. Their hands however are holding the keys and the swords. I don't say this to mock or score points, but because I seriously think you have misread your position.

You have read the constitution and are casually knocking at the door of the White House, wanting to come in to let them know what they are doing wrong. You have misread your position.


If you stay in that mindset of believing sola Scriptura is workable, or even plausible, you will be stuck as your own personal denomination. The traditions of men are a dangerous place to try to find truth. And nothing is more of an ANTI-biblical tradition of men than sola scriptura.

Dave

Romish antichrist zombies want your brains!

"If you will not be turned... then YOU WILL DIE!"

Bob,

If the pope can become the anti-christ, then the gates of hell can prevail against the Church... something Christ Himself promised SPECIFICALLY to Peter would not happen RIGHT AFTER He gave him the keys.


If you think that has happened or even that it can happen, then do not become Catholic. I am not sure what Protestant option is any better, but whatever.

As I have said a dozen times, a hundred naughty popes do not add up to the gates of hell prevailing against the Church unless they TEACH heresy. That is the ONLY way they are protected. They are not protected from being assholes! As far as bishops other than the pope, they are basically only protected from error corporately in ecumenical council. The goofball from Africa was not in council last time I checked, and the pope is not teaching doctrine by not immediately hammering him. Perhaps he was hammered, I don't even know. It happened 11 years ago, which is about 2 minutes worth of Rome time. The nickname is "Romanitas", because the Vatican moves so incredibly slow. Many heresies take a hundred years or more to resolve. The Reformation was already generations old by the time Rome finally got around to finishing the Council of Trent in 1563! And to some that was moving pretty fast! The Reformation was going full bore for 30 years before the council even started! And it took 18 years to conclude!

Was that stupid of the Catholic hierarchy to delay so long? YES!

Does it prove they are not the Church Christ founded? NO.

Your Hitler analogy works mainly in the fact that there have been some naughty popes. (some of the things you have brought up however are But Hitler was not divinely protected from teaching error, so obviously that is a big difference.
Show me where the magisterium has TAUGHT error.

"This is why I call it blinders. You Can't Leave. The anti-christ himself can sit on the chair of Peter, speak ex-cathedral,..."

No, a potential antichrist pope would not be able to speak falsehood ex cathedra. He could murder people, but he could not teach error with the full power of his office. At least not according to Catholic doctrine. Again, you are simply mistaken on a basic point.

Your "cant leave" thing is a huge fail. What it seems you want is the ability to overrule a judgement of the Church in favor of your own judgement. Once again, Catholicism is not for you then. I recommend being a Quaker or E. Free if that is how you want to roll. You get to decide every single thing for yourself.

If you think the Church can fail, what is the alternative? Making the Church in your own image somehow magically means it wont fail? Huh? Why will that prevent it from failing? Rejecting 2000 years of tradition for your own opinion is better than submitting to the magisterium established and maintained by Christ himself? If you believe that then stay E. Free or whatever. Just have church in your living room pastor Bob, then your family will BE SURE to be getting the straight dope on all these important topics ...right?

"...set up idols in its halls with people bowing down and wearing them away with their kisses - and you HAVE to stay in the church. "

That would be teaching error. If a pope were to teach people with the full authority of his office that they should bow down and worship an idol, that would be teaching error, which is not possible according to Catholic doctrine. Of course according to Protestant doctrine, any Protestant leader could potentially teach error at any time. At least Catholicism claims an ability to carry out what Jesus promised about hell not prevailing, Protestants will warn up front they might be all messed up in their doctrine.

I am starting to realize that you don't really have a problem with authority like I though you did, it is just any authority above your own that you don't like. Complete submission is demanded at that level however.

Unlike the bootstrapped Protestant churches, the Catholic Church does demand your complete obedience, just as Jesus demands your complete obedience, but somehow because you can think of Jesus as being in the "spiritual" realm, you can see yourself as being obedient to him when really it is YOU you are obeying. YOUR interpretations. Your likes and dislikes. If something rubs you wrong, your out of there. Your "Church" is hard to find because it is in the mirror. Let me say that again for emphasis:

You are having some difficulty finding a Church home because what you want is YOU.

Like a lone man on an island looking for human life, you are searching for something that subsists only within yourself, and therefore your search will be eternal. Because you will only be truly happy with a church that fits your whims EXACTLY. The Catholic Church will let itself be molded by you a bit, even letting you be an anarchist if you wanted probably, but it will not budge for you where you need it to. And it never will. When I realized that, I was drawn to it like a moth to a flame. My personal whims are exactly where I will not find the truth, I knew that more than anything else.

Unless you drop this way of thinking you should seriously just start a home church. (I honestly recommend this) I recently had an email exchange with a woman whose husband has been doing just that for the past few years. They were moving from church to church for years and he finally decided that they were all wrong and he started doing home church. Get this, she said to me that he was "tired of denominationalism". !!! Notice anything wrong there? He is now his own denomination! He has become the enemy he hated!

I think that if he is open to the Holy Spirit, he might eventually see this irony better in a home church than in a bigger denomination. And realize that submission to a plausible authority claiming to be THE Church is really the only logical answer. I hope the same for you. Take some time to be your own pastor, and see if you feel like you are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ.
Do you really believe that when you find the Truth it will match up with what you though it would be? Personally I have "found" enough "truth" in my many searches to know FOR SURE the Truth cannot be what I think it is. Truth is something we submit to. You can do it with blinders if it scares you, or you can do it with both eyes wide open, but either way, it will rub you the wrong way.

Peace,

David

Response to David Hagopian's Romeward Bound

Tiber river and the Vatican (the water is warm, dive on in!)

Dear anonymous potential convert,


You asked what I though of it, so this is my response to the article by David Hagopian on reasons people convert to Catholicism titled Romeward Bound: Evaluating Why Protestants Convert to Catholicism.

He rushes through lots of topics, some of which are obvious straw men. So I will skip some things. Overall he tries to be fair, but in the end misses the point of these conversions. The worst was his critique of the Catholic convert’s accusation of Protestant interpretive subjectivism. It is just a simple fact that there are many, many opinions of what scripture is saying among Protestants. It is just a fact! And yes, of course that does not consequently mean that they must all be wrong, Catholics are not implying that. But what is obvious to anyone who has ever been in the situation of interpreting scripture in order to find the truth or lead his family is this:

Godly, Holy Spirit filled men interpret the scripture differently.

That blows perspicuity out of the water! The only way to claim there is perspicuity AND Godly men disagreeing is to claim that *obviously* you are right and they are wrong. Or that the other guy has a devil. But that rightly strikes us as arbitrary and arrogant. If someone is content that their interpretation is correct, and is not bothered that men which are his betters in the faith in terms of learning, holiness, and wisdom have a different interpretation, then that is subjectivism, because his opponents feel the same way. He can complain all day that it is not “insipient subjectivism”, but it is. Hagopian says:

“[God] has given His people the means of understanding [the bible] such that the true believer has no need of anyone else -- let alone a Magisterium or Pope on high -- to teach him.”

Ohhh. A *true* believer eh? That reminds me of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, and I believe Hagopian is using that fallacy here. Well I guess we will just ask David Hagopian who a *true* believer is next time we need to do some biblical interpreting. The obvious problem with his statement is it does not reflect reality. Protestants that are *true* believers find themselves disagreeing on interpretation with each other all the time! We have all had the experience of having a trusted teacher who is a *true* Christian as far as we can tell, yet we find another of our preferred teachers who disagrees with him on an important theological issue. Which one of them is not a *true* believer? If they both are, then Hagopian is wrong, they do need someone else to guide them in their interpretation. If only one is a true believer, how the hell will I ever be able to tell that unless they fail in some obvious way, like adultery or something? If they both appear to be faithful, solid, true believers, yet disagree on important issues of interpretation, what should the sola scriptura Protestant do? Hagopian does not answer the question, and my guess is he would want to know what issue was being interpreted and then he would think it was obvious I should agree with his (or his favorite teachers) interpretation. But that is just more of the same. I have often had the situation of bringing up the different interpretations among Protestants of, say… the Eucharist. I bring up the fact to show that there are *true* believers who disagree on interpretation. Often the Protestant who hears this will start trying to convince you of his view of the Eucharist! He will say “the other views are wrong, my view is the right one”. That completely misses the point. The point is that godly and smart men will disagree, and the bible cannot be pointed to as a unbiased judge by both of them to resolve the disagreement. Each becomes their own authority.

That subjective situation just might be how Christianity works. It might really be all up to our individual subjective judgment, with all those who disagree being seen by us as not true Christians, or that they are deceived. I grant that Christianity might be that kind of religion. But if it is, it is a joke and I certainly don’t want a part of it.

But I don’t think it is that kind of subjective religion. I think it makes sense that Christ would leave us a Church to guide us, but it is more than just it “making sense”, it is part of the Tradition (in Scripture and the Church fathers) that Christ gave us such a Church! Even in scripture we have tons of evidence that He DID leave us that kind of Church. He himself says “take it to the Church” when there is a problem. But didn’t Hagopian just say that a *true* believer “has no need of anyone else -- let alone a Magisterium or Pope on high -- to teach him”? If that is true, why would Jesus tell us to resolve a problem by “taking it to the Church?” And what Protestant Church could honestly resolve a problem? What if I want to know about infant baptism, if it is scriptural or not. Well depending on which Protestant Church I ask to “resolve” the problem, I will get the answer I want. That is not a resolution! It is subjectivity! If I submit to the Baptist church’s decision, it is because I agree with them. If I don’t, I will go to the Presbyterian church and agree with their decision. Can they BOTH be the Church which Christ was telling me to ask to resolve my issue? Protestants say yes. With a straight face!

But, if I only submit when I agree, the one to whom I submit is… me.

“Reichert erroneously assumes that a plurality of interpretations necessarily entails subjectivism…”

I doubt that is what Reichart believes. This is a really dry, overstuffed strawman. Of course there can be a plurality of opinion while having a single truth. The subjectivism comes in in the determination of what the truth is, not merely in the plurality of opinion. Protestants have no set way of determining the truth and therefore have many separated sects. Catholics do have such a way in the magisterium, and therefore are united in the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Example: Did the Blessed Virgin Mary die before she was assumed into heaven? There is a variety of opinion among Catholics. The Church has no definitive belief about that issue. Yet there is only one right answer. So there is no “subjectivism” here for Catholics, because the Church has decided. It has decided to not decide. And that is an important decision.

The Catholic Church claims the authority of Christ to determine doctrine, and does so. Therefore the Catholic position is internally consistent, because it actually accomplishes what it claims it can accomplish.

Protestants on the other hand, disagree about all sorts of doctrines they consider to be crucial. Yet where is their authority to mediate the dispute? They say it is in a book they claim will lead them all to the same truth as long as they are a *true* believer. That does not work. Empirically, we can see that there are people who appear to be genuine believers, yet they disagree. Therefore, the Protestant system does not do in reality what they claim it will: resolve disputes and remove doubt about the truth. Right or wrong, the Catholic system does do what we claim it will.

“Just because there are many Protestant denominations and sects does not prove that all of those denominations and sects are false.”

This sounds childish to me. Like my 5 year old saying “just because there is jam all over my face doesn’t mean I was eating jam!” So yes, all the Protestant sects might not be false. But only one can be right at a time! So I guess one of them could have the *true* view of sola scriptura, and be the *true* and real heir of the reformation. And it is obvious to their tiny sect that they are the true believers. Just like it is obvious to all the other sects that they are not. Yes that could be the case that they are the one and only true sect. And my daughter could have not eaten the jam.

“while plurality is not necessarily an indicator of falsity, uniformity is not necessarily an indicator of truth.”

I agree. BUT, the true Church will be uniform! Uniformity alone might not prove it is the Church (there are other things necessary) but unity is a necessary mark of the Church. Obviously Mormons are unified to some degree, and claim to be the only Church, so unity alone does not prove they are so. But any sect or schism that has a non-unified view of the Church cannot be the Church. And very few Protestant sects believe they are the One True Church.

“Truth, you see, is not to be sacrificed on the altar of misguided ecumenicism.”

Thanks for the lecture you pompous blowhard. WHO sacrifices truth on the altar of ecumenism? Is it the Catholics or Hagopian? Lets see, which one sees dispensationalists as part of the Church? Answer: Hagopian. The Catholics do not. The Catholics will not sacrifice the truth for a false unity of ecumenism. The Reformed and most Protestants will. 1.2 Billion Catholics have ONE catechism. If you want to know what they believe, you can buy a paperback for $7 and find out. If you want to know what the “Protestant church” believes, you will simply never know. You will never get two answers that are the same. If ever there were a “misguided eccuminism”, it is the Protestant concept of the invisible Church! If you can understand Protestantism's "invisible Church", you might also be good at nailing Jello to a tree.

“they embrace transubstantiation and believe that at the sound of the bell, the substance of bread and wine turn into the physical body and blood of our Lord.”

This is just totally incorrect. The words of the priest offering the elements in persona Christi are what makes this change, the bell is just for the convenience of everyone at the mass to know when it happens so they can pay closer attention. Christ causes the change, not a bell. Hagopian says “they believe…” then lies about what Catholics believe on a very basic and important point.

“In passing we must also note that lavish churches, while architecturally and aesthetically pleasing to some, come with a hefty price tag. […] But advancing the kingdom of God and meeting the needs of others often compete for the same limited resources.”

That is the wimpy lecture Judas gave to Jesus when the perfume was used on him by the woman. There are no “limited resources” in the Church of Jesus Christ. Christ will provide it’s needs. Judging people for making something beautiful and implying they should have spent it some other way is the same sin Judas was reprimanded by Jesus for. Shame on Hagopian. Go back to your boring, stripped down, bare, regulative principle church and stare at your blank wall. Meanwhile, we Catholics will send money to Mother Teresa’s nuns from our beautiful cathedrals.
“You see, Neocatholics have to name drop because name dropping is built into their ultimate authority (Tradition).”

Yep. I am 100% a name dropper. Starting with the name J-e-s-u-s. Just like it was in the early Church. People listened to the apostles because they “name dropped”. Their authority was primarily from who they were, not primarily what they said. Paul himself says to follow the “traditions” he has handed down “whether by word of mouth or by letter.” Paul is the focus based on his position and his name.

“When all of their [Catholics] rhetorical dust settles to the ground, however, the only true authority left standing is God speaking to His people through His veritable Word.”

When will the “rhetorical dust” settle to the ground for Protestants? After 500 years the rhetoric is more diverse all the time. Would God really speak that kind of confusion to all these people through His word? Better to listen to the men who have the authority handed down from Peter and Paul to interpret the book.

Hagopian also just glosses over apostolic succession, which is historical, and scriptural, and for some people is the main reason for conversion. He also implies that Catholics believe only they have it. Not true. We believe the Eastern Orthodox still have all 7 sacraments, including Holy Orders.

“Falling in love with everything Rome has to offer is ultimately why Neocatholics have found their home in Rome.”

Wrong. Every convert I know has had and does have areas where there was anything but love for “everything Rome has to offer”. Areas where they needed to submit to the wisdom of the Church over their own desires. I find myself in that position frequently. By far the main reason for conversion I have personally encountered, and Hagopian barely touches on, is authority, not "falling in love" primarily. Right or wrong, most converts feel there was just no objective authority in Protestantism, and that it could not claim to be the true Church which Christ left on this earth. That is a big reason! Telling converts how all the other protestant sects are wrong (Hagopian does this near the end) is just more of the same. Even if his arguments are convincing, what authority does he have to interpret scripture and demand others listen to him? Has the apostolic authority landed on his shoulders? Puh-leeese.
Another thing here. What the hell is wrong with falling in love? Shouldnt Hagopian ask why people aren't busting down the doors of his "frozen chosen" Reformed church because they have just "fallen in love" with everything Reformed? I have a lot of reasons for being married to my wife. Lots of great reasons. But a kind of visceral, emotional love better be on my list of reasons for loving her. I converted to Reformed in '01, and Catholic in '10 so I think I can speak to this. I "loved" Reformed theology because I believed it to be the most biblical, the closest to the truth, but I didn't fall in love with it. Once I realized she was who she said  she was, I fell in love with the Catholic Church because she is my mother.

Overall, Hagopian does a weak job in his paper. As a convert myself, read many inaccuracies and falsely attributed motives in his arguments. Many of his examples are obviously not the only reason someone converts (more liturgical worship, beauty, or weekly Eucharist for instance), yet he often ends his critique with the following sentence:

“But [he names some minor issues] do not prove that Catholicism is true. Nor do they prove that Protestantism is false.”

Almost all converts have a couple dozen reasons for converting, and not all of them have the same priority. Sometimes 2 dozen little reasons add up to a very convincing reason for conversion also. That is very reasonable. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. I for one find the size and scope of the Catholic Church to be a very important proof in favor of Catholicism. It alone is not proof of course, but it is significant to me, and was on my list of "circumstantial" evidences in favor of conversion.
Hagopian treats each reason as if it were stand alone, and often even misunderstands the reasons, thus presenting a straw man. For instance, having the mass be the same everywhere in the world is not just nice because one knows what to expect in the way Mc Donald’s is nice because the “Big Macs will always taste the same!” as Hagopian says. It is *nice* because it is the ancient liturgy of the Church! The mass is what was handed down from the apostles! That is the main reason a convert wants the Catholic Liturgy, with matters of convenience or stained glass in second (but still significant) place! Hagopian chooses to gloss over what are probably the primary reasons though, and talks about Big Macs.

“Perhaps after travelling part of the way down the yellow brick road of Neocatholic rhetoric, we are now in a better position to "give an answer" -- in an introductory way, to be sure -- to those who are considering making their home in Rome and even to those who are already there.”

My criticisms of Protestantism are still hanging out there unanswered. So big F Fail on your part buddy. Giving just any "answer" is not enough. And if that is your goal, you will fail. What we converts want is for you to give us the truth, and give it wherever it takes you. It seems more often however, that people just want to give an "answer" even if it makes no sense.

“After all, even Dorothy, with the blink of an eye, realized that her adventure in the land of Oz was only a dream.”

If I wake up and realize Catholicism is a dream, I am abandoning the Christian faith entirely because to me it would be shown to be a complete joke. There is either ONE Church who has Christ’s authority and demands submission, or the whole thing is a big joke. What is implied here also is that Catholicism is too good to be true, like the Wizard of Oz. But this is Christ's Church! Doesn't that seem just like Him to do something so extreme? It is not obvious enough that people don't still think it is fake, but if you give it a chance, and look at its history fairly, it will surprise you as a 2000 year old miracle of beauty holiness and truth.

Bottle rockets from howitzer barrels

"I had joined the [Presbyterian] church because I had despaired of myself, and because despairing of reason I had wished to submit to authority. If the Presbyterian church had satisfied me that she had authority, was authorized by Almighty God to teach and direct me, I could have continued to submit; but while she exercised the most rigid authority over me, she disclaimed all authority to teach me, and remitted me to the Scriptures and private judgment. ‘We do not ask you to take this as your creed,’ said my pastor, on giving me a copy of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith; ‘we do not give you this as a summary of the doctrines you must hold, but as an excellent summary of the doctrines which we believe the Scriptures teach. What you are to believe is the Bible. You must take the Bible as your creed, and read it with a prayerful mind, begging the Holy Ghost to aid you to understand it aright.’ But while the church refused to take the responsibility of telling me what doctrines I must believe, while she sent me to the Bible and private judgment, she yet claimed authority to condemn and excommunicate me as a heretic, if I departed from the standard of doctrine contained in her Confession. This I regarded as unfair treatment. It subjected me to all the disadvantages of authority without any of its advantages. The church demanded that I should treat her as a true mother, while she was free to treat me only as a step-son, or even as a stranger. Be one thing or another, said I; either assume the authority and the responsibility of teaching and directing me, or leave me with the responsibility [of] my freedom. If you have authority from God, avow it, and exercise it. I am all submission. I will hold what you say, and do what you bid. If you have not, then say so, and forbear to call me to an account for differing from you, or disregarding your teachings. Either bind me or loose me. Do not mock me with a freedom which is no freedom, or with an authority which is illusory. If you claim authority over my faith, tell me what I must believe, and do not throw upon me the labor and responsibility of forming a creed for myself; if you do not, if you send me to the Bible and private judgment, to find out the Christian faith the best way I can, do not hold me obliged to conform to your standards, or assume the right to anathematize me for departing from them." Orestes Brownson, in The Convert; or, Leaves from my experience (1857), (pp. 23-25)

That was taken from a comment by Bryan Cross on Called to Communion. I think Orestes Brownson is spot on. His words mirror my recent experience in the PCA, and so well put! I want to read more of him. It is true about Presbyterians that they make discipline one of the “marks” of the church, and will certainly excommunicate, but at the same time will leave doctrine to the individual. That is just inconsistent. It is like they have a big howitzer, but instead of artillery shells they drop bottle rockets down the barrel with a helpless shrug. They know they *should* be firing the authentic magisterial rounds, but think the ammo ran out in the early church.

How do I deal with Catholicism's differences

This is a somewhat lengthy reply to Debbie from my former Presbyterian Church.

Hi David, This response is regrettably very,very late in coming. Please forgive me for letting you and your family leave GSPC and first reading this very thoughtful post without responding. It's hard to believe that you have been gone since July. The reason I am writing now is that after another family has left for what I understand are reasons similar to yours, I wanted to read your post again to try to understand the issue. I'm not sure that I'm any closer to comprehending your decisions, but this I know: you love the Lord and did not make this decision lightly. My main question is how do you handle the many differences between Reformed and Catholic doctrines? I'm not being judgmental, I'm seriously wondering how this happens. God bless you and Bridget and the children as you continue to love and serve Him. Debbie S.

Hi Debbie, Thanks so much for commenting, it means a lot to Bridget and I! Only one or two others from GSPC have, so thanks for taking the time to try to understand our reasons for converting to Catholicism. This response could get long, I hope you don’t mind, and I want to invite you to ask anything you want without fear of offending me. In my opinion, the best, smartest thing people at GSPC (or any Reformed person) can do is to try to at least understand from the converts perspective why they left Protestantism. I have heard some very wild statements by some highly educated Reformed men (not from GSPC) that I am certainly going to hell, I am uninformed, uneducated, desire to worship something other than Jesus, etc. Of course you would not say that, but I only bring it up to show the real need of godly Reformed people like you to try to have an informed and not just a reactionary way of understanding these conversions to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I have had multiple people tell me I am sending my kids to hell. As you can imagine, that is not a very convincing argument! Actually it isn’t even an argument. Of course many I have talked with also are trying to understand. Jason Stellman (he has a great article in Tabletalk this month) is a PCA Pastor who is dialoguing with the converts from Reformed Christianity to Catholicism on the website Called to Communion, which was instrumental in my conversion. Keith Mathison has taken time to dialogue with me personally (read our correspondence on my blog) and has written a large reply to arguments made on the Called to Communion site. Anyway, I really hope more Reformed people take the time to at least understand the arguments. For one thing, I think some may become Catholic! ;-) Which of course I think would be great. If they don’t, they will at least be able to give an intelligent, informed response to those who do convert. Understanding disagreements in a search for the truth is NEVER a bad thing. I don't know if you are aware, but Hector and Bree Amaya are becoming Eastern Orthodox. Remember Fred Noltie? He was teaching through Deuteronomy in the adult Sunday School when Bridget and I joined GSPC. He has been a fervent Catholic for years now. Phillip Barnes and family are Eastern Orthodox as you probably know. Phillip Barnes' conversion to Orthodoxy was the reason I got fed up and started investigating why people were leaving GSPC. At the time, I lumped him in with the folks who left to form the CREC church. I see the difference now, but it took looking all the way down to the root of the tree; at the basic principles of Protestantism. There is also another family at GSPC (besides the Van Somerens) that are converting to Catholicism. I don’t know how public it is though. I apologize if that seems gossipy, but I say it to show that this issue is massive for the Reformed community. Every one of these families that converted are far and away more educated in Reformed theology than mine and certainly in education in general. They are all godly, serious Christians, some incredibly so. Chalking their conversions up to a mere desire for “Episcopal church government” (as I was told by one of your elders) or some such petty thing is sort of a slap in the face to their combined decades of living faith and deep learning. Their conversion is not so trivial. These people cannot be lightly dismissed as just not “getting” Reformed theology. They (and I) “get” it, and yet in their desire to follow Christ they have entered the Catholic Church. So, having said that, I commend you for wanting to understand better what is going on. If anything, if you agree with the WCF that the Pope is the antichrist, it would be good to understand why we are converting so as to prevent us from such a horrid error! Debbie, you asked: “My main question is how do you handle the many differences between Reformed and Catholic doctrines?” This is a great question that gets to the heart of why we converted to Catholicism. The main reason I am Catholic is because I was dead tired and worn out from trying to “handle the many differences” in Christianity in general. I no longer have to handle those questions as the final teaching authority. To explain what I mean, let me give background first before I answer your question in a direct way. Back in 2008-2009 when I was teaching my girls (mainly Annabel and Noel at the time) the Westminster children’s catechism, I started to change some of the answers and omit some questions and answers. Which ones aren’t really the point. I came to a type of despair in my ability to find the truth for them, and a longing for the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Once, when reflecting on this after I had just crossed out a question, I literally felt sick to my stomach, Debbie. I desire NOTHING in this world more that to teach my children the truth of Christ. I would be burned, drawn and quartered before I sent them to a public school even. But here I was giving them the sure foundation of… my opinions. I remember praying in the car on my way to work for weeks for wisdom. I remembered the promise given to Solomon and just simply poured out my heart to God and asked that if He gave me only one thing it would be wisdom to guide my family. I feared the millstone being tied around my neck. Now granted, Christ is in that children’s catechism! I still to this day respect Reformed Christianity above all other Protestant groups for their careful attention to the scriptures. But in the end Debbie, if I disagree on a point of doctrine, what would the GSPC session tell me to do? If I decided to become a credo-baptist, what would they say? I know for a fact they would gently admonish me that they believed me to be in error, but then they would point me to Piper’s church down the road. This knowledge of how “discipline” actually would work if I were to push the limits led to other, darker thoughts. What if I were, at this moment, in grave error or heresy at another church? How would that look any different from my current situation at GSPC? Again, let me restate my thinking at that time:

“What if I were, at this moment, in grave error or heresy? How would that look any different from my current situation at GSPC?”

Well let’s see, if I were in a church that the GSPC session considered to be teaching heresy, or error to some degree, I would still have a session I was under, right? Right. I would be excommunicated or possibly just frowned upon by the GSPC session, but to my “new” session I would be doing just fine. What looks different from my perspective? The awful answer is ‘nothing’. And it wasn’t enough for me to just tell myself that the “big doctrines” are all agreed upon by Protestants. It just ain’t true. Is Federal Vision a “big” deal? Some say yes some say no. Who do I listen to? I am an Electronics Technician Debbie, not a theologian. When godly, smart theologians like Michael Horton, Doug Wilson, and R.C. Sproul disagree on these issues, why do I think I can figure it all out? Do I have more of the Holy Spirit than them? It was painfully obvious to me that I was at GSPC for one reason: I agreed with their teaching and thought it was scriptural. If I ceased to agree with them, I would (with their sanction in most cases) find another session I did agree with. This is the mechanics of sola scriptura Debbie. This is how the root level, basic principal of Protestant ecclesiology works in the real world. Beyond intricately formulated definitions, this is how it works in real life. Scripture is the final authority, yes I agree. But the simple unchallenged fact of facts is that scripture MUST be interpreted, and only one interpretation is correct, while the others are errors of varying degrees with no thermometer held in common by all to measure how much error is too much. For someone like me who desires that my opinion be completely removed from the equation, that situation will not do. Christ is Lord. I want to obey Him, do what He says, follow who He wants me to follow, teach my children what He wants them taught, baptize them when He wants them baptized, give them the Eucharist when He wants them to have it, tell them to approach God in the liturgy the way He wants to be approached, give my children access to the sacraments Christ wants them to have, and to understand those sacraments the way He wants them understood. It is self evident that if brilliant men like Luther and Calvin cannot agree on serious issues of doctrine like the sacraments, (and certainly agreement has not increased in the Protestant experiment, but multiplied,) that I, a mere layman who likes beer more than Herman Bavinck have no chance of finding the truth within the sola scriptura paradigm. Each godly, intelligent, Bible loving Protestant will tell me “listen to me”. My response is, “Why? Why shouldn’t I listen to the other guy? He is just as smart and well meaning as you?” And yes, of course each man is pointing to scripture and telling me to listen to the scripture, not to him per se. And of course they would each tell me (as Josh Moon rightfully would) to flee from anything that was only their opinion and to hold fast to only the truth of God’s word. But let’s be real, If both men point to the scripture, and both men contradict each other, and I can’t tell who is right, how do I know what is truth? If they say it is not a central, important issue, how do I know it is not a central issue? What Phillip Barnes had said to me in passing (in a very joking context in a Christian Education Committee meeting) was that I was the pope of my family. The committee had been discussing some general education paradigms for the church. Is the “Sunday school” type education at church more a function of the church hierarchy or is it more a function of the families within the church? Should the teaching of the catechism and such come down from the session and be taught at church, or should fathers from individual households do that teaching at home? I was firmly on the side of fathers at home. To me it seemed self evident that the father is the spiritual leader of his family, and in the end is the one who makes those decisions… right down to which church is chosen to submit to or which catechism is taught to the children. I gave an example of an issue (paedocommunion I think?) where a father might decide he does not agree with his church session, and would have every right within the bounds of sola scriptura to teach his children what his conscience dictated. “So,” my reasoning went to Mr. Barnes, “I am not my own Pope, I am submitting to the scriptures.” Josh Moon, who was at the meeting voiced his agreement that a father was perfectly within his rights to do such a thing as the spiritual leader in the family. So, one day a few months later, while I was researching some theological questions about Paedocommunion online, I stumbled across the website “Called to Communion” that consists of a bunch of highly educated Reformed guys that have all converted to the Catholic Church. I laughed to myself at the strangeness of it. A week or two later, my curiosity got the better of me that these guys would do such a thing, and I went to the site again. I read an article about Keith Mathisons book “the Shape of Sola Scriptura”. This book was very influential on me when I read it back around 2002, and it is considered by many to be the high water mark in modern Reformed study of sola Scriptura. The idea of the book is that most of Protestantism has left true blue sola scriptura and descended into “solo” scriptura, or a “just me and my Bible” mentality. Mathison then calls for a return to the original “sola” scriptura which puts the Nicene creed and the doctrines of our fathers in the faith as a standard alongside (but subordinate to) scripture. The article on Called to Communion absolutely demolished the main thesis of Keith Mathison’s book by showing that there is no principled difference between the two views. As I labored to show above from my own experience, that and many other articles on that site showed that in the end the believer in sola scriptura is where he is based on whether his interpretation of scripture agrees with his church. The interpretation changes, then the church changes. I was staggered by the truth of it. I was stunned for a couple days wondering what would happen. I needed to see this article refuted and my faith in sola scriptura restored. So I emailed R.C. Sproul Jr., who had been my hero in the Reformed community. I trusted his opinion, and I told him that my faith in sola scriptura had been shaken to the core, what should I read or who should I contact to restore it? He told me to read Keith Mathison’s book! He also put me in contact with Keith and we corresponded by email while I tried to find reason to stay Reformed. Those letters are available here on my blog. I was disappointed with his arguments and found them quite unconvincing. I then contacted Doug Wilson, my other Reformed hero. He said there was one book that is better than any other on the topic of sola scriptura… yep you guessed it, Keith’s book! So, after reading Keith’s book again, and reading the article refuting it again, and then reading a few books from each side of the debate, I just could not in good conscience hold to sola scriptura. A doctrine that was supposed to provide a solid foundation of truth for my family, by giving us the unvarnished Word of God divorced from the traditions of men, ended up being a doctrine which led me to back to my own mere opinions and that ITSELF was a tradition of men! I knew then that no body of believers that held to this tradition could be correctly called “the Church”. Forgive me if I offend, I certainly know that most evangelicals and Reformed people are quite solid in their love of our Lord, I do not question that fact in the least, nor do I question their salvation if it is in Christ. This realization narrows the field of candidates for the title “Church”. The “Church” must at the very least *claim* to have a single doctrine that cannot ever contradict itself like the “branched” church of sola scriptura. The “Church” must also have some other reasons for its claimed title that correspond to the reasoning of a simple mind (like mine). In other words, Mormonism is out. Yes they claim to be *the* church, with a single doctrine, but their claim is ridiculous in light of history and scripture. I did not even consider such cults because of their fanciful claims. The only plausible claimants are The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. They both have apostolic succession; they both can plausibly claim to have always had a single, objective doctrine. Either option is fine by me, and really either option looks exactly the same from a Protestant vantage point because the doctrine of these bodies is so incredibly similar, so I won’t go into the reasons in Rome’s favor. So back to that question of what do I do with the different doctrines? I reject any doctrines not taught by the Church’s teaching office. I obediently receive those that are so taught as being from Christ. The doctrines it has not seen fit to define yet, I am free to come to an informed opinion on them. The Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church, and guides her into all truth. The Magisterium (teaching office) of the Church is there to interpret scripture; that is its job. When they do so and require the faithful to receive it, we obey the authority of Christ. Who am I to say “nope, you got it wrong.” St. Augustine (AD 354-430) writes:

“The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence, achieved through the prophecies of the prophets, through the Incarnation and the teaching of Christ, through the journeys of the Apostles, through the suffering, the crosses, the blood and death of the martyrs, through the admirable lives of the saints, and in all these, at opportune times, through miracles worthy of such great deeds and virtues. When, then, we see so much help on God’s part, so much progress and so much fruit, shall we hesitate to bury ourselves in the bosom of that Church? For starting from the apostolic chair down through succession of bishops, even unto the open confession of all mankind, it has possessed the crown of teaching authority.”

BUT, having said that, there are many doctrines I thought would be hard to accept. Purgatory was one of these. Some doctrines about the Virgin Mary I also was prepared to accept simply on faith without really understanding how they could be true. I was amazed at how my fears were relieved by studying what the Catholic Church actually teaches in her documents regarding these topics. I compare it with many Christian’s misconceptions of what Calvinism is, and how that conception can change once they actually read what Calvinists believe. The two that I mentioned (Mary and purgatory) are shockingly biblical, and have actually become a comfort and a beautiful part of my faith in Christ. These are simply wonderful doctrines that show forth God’s holiness and glory in ways I never dreamed of. Many of these doctrines that we “left behind” at the Reformation thinking they were additions to the deposit of faith are actually rich mysteries that are are quite important to how we understand the incarnation, salvation, etc, and important in our relationship with God in Christ. These are treasures that I am now discovering are not “barnacles” to be scraped of the hull by the reformation, but flags to be hoisted up the mast to the glory of God. Redemptive suffering is a doctrine I did not even know about before looking at Catholicism, but after learning this beautiful doctrine and experiencing it for myself, I feel as if I had been deprived of an inheritance! Many “differences” are not differences in a bad way either. For an example, the common refrain of R.C. Sproul and many Reformed people is that the sacrifice of the mass is a “re-sacrificing” of Jesus… again. Like he is being killed again. That is simply false. It is a re-PRESENTation of the once and for all sacrifice of Calvary. Just as the Reformed would say that in worship we are “carried to heaven” in a way, so the Catholic Church believes that in the mass we are present in heaven as the sacrifice of Christ is offered to the Father. There is no time in heaven, and therefore the sacrifice can participated in again and again. And hey, we weren’t alive in 30AD, so the sacrifice needs to be re-presented for us, right? Even if you “disagree” with this teaching of the Church for the past 2000 years, at least perhaps admit that the characterization of a re-sacrificing is out of line. The Catholic view of the mass does not resemble the one I was taught. Now I used that as just one example of a doctrine where perhaps Protestants see a huge gap that cannot be bridged. They see a sort of blasphemy to Christ where in reality there is beauty and an honoring of Jesus and His Blood shed for us. In this already long reply, I will forego boring you with other doctrines that are similarly just not as big an issue for me to accept, and actually quite good to accept. Believe it or not justification falls into this category. The issue is FAR more complex and nuanced than the average Christian can begin to understand (me included). Suffice it to say, Catholics believe in the work of Christ alone for salvation, just not in an “extra nos” imputation of that work. In both Catholic and Reformed soteriologies, the Father sees a clean, sinless person whom He accepts into glory. In both soteriologies it is Christ ALONE who makes them clean. Period. That is it. Nobody works their way to heaven, that is absurd. But I mention these things last, because like I said, if I were not inclined to believe some dogma of the Catholic faith (and perhaps that is or will be the case) I would still submit to the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and not lean on my own understanding. I will obey Christ’s Church. In Luke 10:16 Jesus says to the men He chose to lead his Church:

"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Otherwise the result can only be division and squabbling amongst isolated little groups of Christians who sincerely believe their interpretation of scripture to be correct. They become a kingdom of Popes. That statement is not theoretical, it is the reality of Protestantism. If you have any other questions Debbie, feel free to ask in the comments here. If you prefer more anonymity, feel free to email me at davidmeyerfamily[AT]gmail[dot]com Peace to you Debbie, thanks again for you kind comment and God bless you and yours. Bridget is Pregnant by the way, if you think of her in your prayers we would be grateful. -David

I am Catholic

On Sunday, my wife, my four daughters and I were received into the Church. My wife and I received the gift of the Holy Spirit in Confirmation (something I could never achieve as a Pentecostal), and I received my first holy Communion. I was shaking like a leaf up there (literally) because of the importance of the occasion and what I knew was about to happen and was embarrassed for that, but when Father Dufner raised his hand to bless us before our confirmation I felt immediately and physically calmed down. I'm not saying it was supernatural or whatever, but it felt like it to me. Anyway that was strange and very cool. A strange salty liquid came from my eyes during the consecration which my wife later told me were tears. ;-) I pulled myself together until it was time to go forward to receive Christ. The amazing full choir started "let all mortal flesh keep silent" and I had to will my body to move like in a fog. One of those moments when time did really and actually slow down. I tried not to think too much about the gift I was receiving in the Eucharist because I thought I might not make it through. My two oldest girls who were in front of me got a blessing and walked the wrong way away from our pew and I didn't even notice! (my wife told me later) What an amazing thing to receive a gift like that! I thought I knew the way God loved us before... as in "A lot". Now I don't think I would dare try to explain the extent of it. Seeing His Body layed on an altar for me and then being invited to partake of His sacrifice was the most... sacred... thing I have ever experienced in my life. I am convinced that God's love can never be explained now. It can begin to be understood by participating in a mass, but words words will just fail. It as if every sermon on God's love I ever heard was saying "I just told you about God's love, now go to a mass and let Christ show you!" As I walked weakly back to my pew and knelt down I thought to myself that this is more than just me partaking of His sacrifice. I realized that what I was in the process of eating was going to become part of my body. (Me becoming part of His Body more properly I think) This thought drove home forcefully the idea that I was being set aside for the same sacrifice I had just witnessed, again, no words necessary, it was all there to witness. The sacrifice of the mass explains these things in what is said, but even more in what happens. Absolutely beautiful!

Being recieved into the Church Dec. 19

Holy Family Catholic Church, St. Louis Park, MN This December 19th, which is the fourth Sunday of Advent, I will be recieved into Christ's Church, the Catholic Church. My wife and I will both be confirmed as well. My wife Bridget is a revert so only needs confession and confirmation. I can't express my feelings about all of this properly. It is... sublime, but at the same time strange and frightening. My family is so very blessed and I thank God that He lifted the scales from our eyes to see His Church. In our meetings with our Priest, Fr. Thomas Dufner, he has often asked what questions I have for him, or pointing out some doctrine that is radically different from my Reformed past he will ask if I understand it. My reply has been "That is why I am here, I want it all". In our first meeting, he drew a picture of Luther's snow covered dunghill on a piece of paper, and gave a very good description of the crucial difference between my former religion and my new one. Is the dung (me) covered with snow (imputation) or is it changed into snow (infusion)? When the question came to Papal infallibility, I said "that is why I am here, bring it on!" I want whatever Christ has to offer, and therefore whatever his Church has, I want it! Our church is just an amazing place filled with very holy people. There will be plenty of oportunities for spiritual growth for us if we look to their example! I am reminded of Chesterton's three stages of conversion now that I am reaching the culmination of the third stage. The first is giving the Catholic Church a fair viewing, or just being objective with it. The second is a result of the first... being aware of the percieved falsehoods as well as the stunning truths of the faith, and being excited and amazed at the quantity and quality of the truths. The third I will just let Chesterton himself give: It is impossible to be just to the Catholic Church. The moment men cease to pull against it they feel a tug towards it. The moment they cease to shout it down they begin to listen to it with pleasure. The moment they try to be fair to it they begin to be fond of it. But when that affection has passed a certain point it begins to take on the tragic and menacing grandeur of a great love affair. The man has exactly the same sense of having committed or compromised himself; of having been in a sense entrapped, even if he is glad to be entrapped. But for a considerable time he is not so much glad as simply terrified. It may be that this real psychological experience has been misunderstood by stupider people and is responsible for all that remains of the legend that Rome is a mere trap. But that legend misses the whole point of the psychology. It is not the Pope who has set the trap or the priests who have baited it. The whole point of the position is that the trap is simply the truth. The whole point is that the man himself has made his way towards the trap of truth, and not the trap that has run after the man. All steps except the last step he has taken eagerly on his own account, out of interest in the truth; and even the last step, or the last stage, only alarms him because it is so very true. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CONVERSION BY G. K. CHESTERTON As I prepare to take that last step, the image comes to mind of the Jewish High Priest having a rope tied around his ankle when he went in to sprinkle the mercy seat with the blood of the lamb on the day of atonement. (the rope was to pull him out if he didn't uh-hum make it out). How much more sacred and profound an event I will participate in when I finally recieve the Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist. I might come to mass with a rope around my ankle. Any local Twin City readers can come and celebrate with us at the 9am mass on Dec. 19. Directions in the link under the picture above.

"But what does the Bible say about X?”

This is my comment to "Lawwife" and Zoltan on Called to Communion concerning new converts asking the "But what does the Bible say about X?” question. In short, we still ask the question, but with different intent, and a different result! Lawwife: My conversion process for my heart took only a day. Once I saw the naked “sola scriptura” emperor parading down the street I was through with the reformation. For the mind to do the due diligence study took a few more months. I do still find myself asking the “what does scripture say” question. All the time! And the nice thing about asking that question now is that MY QUESTION GETS AN ANSWER! Then I can actually learn from the scripture, and plumb the depths of it’s truth instead of so many doctrines staying on a surface level. In #895 Zoltan makes this statement:

Problems arise I believe when we become too precise with these matters (as transubstantiation does in my view) … [] With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I believe we will discern much in this through the centuries. However, it seems unreasonable to me that a previous generation’s limited view of the sacraments will hold sway over the rest of Church history as though they have already plunged the depths of such mystery and we need only blindly affirm what they believed.

This thinking is what I am glad to leave behind. (no offence brother Zoltan!) Notice how Zoltan refers to transubstantiation as being too precice a doctrine in his view. I thought that as well as a Protestant. But I couldnt repress the nagging thought “what if i’m wrong that it is too precice? Perhaps this issue of the the Lord’s Supper is one of the most important issues?” The importance level of an issue is its own issue and in Catholicism, those importance levels are well defined. Contrary to the Church having “already plunged the depths of such mystery and we need only blindly affirm what they believed” it is the opposite. Someone that knows better than me here can explain doctrinal developement, but one thing I know is that it is not about blindly affirming OR some how fully explaining mysteries. The Church self consciously has not plumbed the depths of Christ present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist. From what I have experienced in the Church so far, it is a profound mystery to Catholics! And contrary to blindly affirming, there is an ability to furhter plumb the depths of this inexhaustible mystery of faith when you have a starting point like the Real Presense to begin with. Scripture can then “come alive” and really speak with authority. But for the Catholic, it does not speak with a forked tongue, through Tradition it speaks univocally and with a richness and depth unfound in Protestantism. Protestants claim *mystery* concerning the Eucharist to the point of accepting opposing views as orthodox that are incompatible with each other. This is not somehow admirable or protecting the mystery of God. I know for me it was a cop out. I believed Calvin’s view but I knew it was more of a personal conviction of what scripture taught. Therefore I instinctively knew that someone who was a Zwinglian was probably in my same boat. They did the best they could to interpret the scripture but ended up with a different view. So in order to maintain MY prefered view, I claim the doctrine must be a *mystery* since two spirit filled believers came up with different interpretations. But disagreement of this kind is not the result of mystery. In my personal experience, the claim of mystery is an attempt to make the discord and schism seem not as bad as it is. Ironically my cry of “mystery” was a sort of blaming God for not being clear enough in scripture, where I knew instinctively He was/should be clear on such an important doctrine. What I love about Catholicism is the increased respect for the scriptures. I no longer say “where is that in scripture?” as a sort of litmus test or doubt, I say it because I want to plumb the depths of mysteries that are now true mysteries of faith, not mysteries of disagreement. And the scriptures have not disapointed this catechumen in any of his meager attempts so far! Peace, David Meyer

Catholicism or Orthodoxy?

A few months ago I had my sola Scriptura world crushed. I’ll skip past the soul searching and hair pulling to the acceptance of the facts. Protestantism cannot possibly be part of the church Christ founded. Wonderful, Jesus loving people, absolutely. Will they be throwing stacks of crowns at His feet in heaven? Absolutely. Do they have the slightest credible claim of being the church Christ gave to the world, no way. Even before I accepted this fact, I knew that if I did I would be forced into one of two rival churches both claiming to be the one and only church on the face of the planet. Those two communions are Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. The reason these are the only two in the running is that they are the only ones that have a plausible claim to succession from the Apostles. If sola Scriptura is false, which I became fully convinced of, then a tangible measure of orthodoxy in the form of submission to a particular leadership is needed. Rome and Constantinople are the only serious options. So where to go? First, my qualification. This decision between Catholicism and E. Orthodoxy was not a huge question for me. By that I mean that I was following the assumption that if Christ founded a single, visible church, then He made it easy for even a layman to find. If I ask for wisdom, do some looking into history from various sources on all sides of the question, I will be able to easily identify the true church. I really believe God gives us BIG, knock you on the head clues about the identity of the church. For instance, the disunity in Protestantism is a biggie. It is as inescapable as air, and it points the Protestant to look elsewhere. Also the lack of the sacraments in varying degrees pushes them away. So whatever the answer, the answer must include the element of simplicity infused through it. So that was my starting point: For me as a layman who can only spare an hour or so a day to reading Scripture, history and theology, I have to assume that the question “what is the church?” must be one of those big questions like “how am I saved?” that is both easy to answer initially, but also has depth. It must be a question that a child could answer easily, and a scholar could study for a lifetime. Knowing myself pretty well, I went for the “child could answer easily” half of the equation! I have no stomach any longer for the pompousness of scholars and theologians that come up with elaborate “systems” for simple things like the gospel that supposedly just can’t be understood without more and more study. This is the failure of Dispensationalism, which takes what it sees as contradictions in the Scripture and comes up with an either/or rather than a both/and hermeneutic. I am fully convinced that concerning Divine revelation, the most important things for humans to understand will be simple enough for a human child to understand. That doesn’t mean they can’t also be complex enough for a brilliant mind to spend a lifetime on, but when the brilliant mind can’t seem to coherently explain their “system” to me, I get suspicious that it is the thoughts in the brilliant mind itself being promulgated, and not Divine revelation. To answer the Catholic vs. Orthodox question, I quickly turned my sights on Rome, because it is the bigger target. Not because it is the larger communion, which it is, but because it’s claims are so audacious. To claim infallibility is to invite investigation. Also it has a unified hierarchy by having one Bishop claiming to be the measure of unity. These two aspects give it what appear to be big weak spots ready for prodding. Orthodoxy does not claim infallibility in the same sweeping and targetable way that Catholicism does, and has many “autocephalous” heads that although sharing a surprising amount of common belief, have no single unifying head who is himself the measure of true doctrine. So I set out to cut the Achilles heel, to show that the Catholic magisterium has contradicted itself, to prove to myself that they are just as autonomous in their doctrines as Protestants are. I was humbled by the 20 centuries of what could only be divine protection from contradiction. I sought out the best Protestant examples of where the Magisterium has shown itself to be fallible, and found their best arguments to be but straw in the face of 2000 years of stalwart protection of the faith that is the Catholic Church. For me this recognition came while watching an online debate on the infallibility of the Papacy between Protestant apologist James White and Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis. White’s best examples of a Pope contradicting previously defined doctrines were so minor, so petty, so infrequent, and ultimately very explainable, that I literally was flooded with an emotional feeling of discovering what must be the biggest miracle in history: that the largest (1.1 Billion adherents) and oldest institutional organization on the planet has never contradicted itself. The claim is huge. Papal infallibility of hundreds of Popes for two millennia. It is so huge it is dismissed outright as being impossible by Protestants and Orthodox. And in a way they are right, it IS impossible for a mere human institution to be infallible. IF, that is, it is merely human. But the next step is rarely taken by the naysayers, please show where it has failed. Please show where there has been even the slightest contradiction between one infallible statement and previous infallible statements. Once this is attempted to a reasonable degree, the biggest miracle (other than the Incarnation) in the history of mankind is revealed, and it points to the claim of infallibility being true. It is common at this point in the search for truth for Protestants to get hung up on the “yeah, but” argument. “Yeah, but Purgatory is false doctrine, so the Pope is fallible.” Or “Yeah, but Catholics believe in salvation by works, so the Pope is fallible.” These are important topics, but completely beside the point. All I wanted to do at this point in my journey (and what I challenge anyone to do) is show where a Pope has preached as true doctrine something later defined as heresy or vice versa. It is shocking how Protestants never seem to get around to actually attempting to show this. It is assumed that the very claim of infallibility itself can be dismissed outright, because after all the Pope is just a man, not God, and has to be fallible. Or the Galileo argument is put forth or some such nonsense. What is rarely attempted is to try to show where any one of these 265 men have contradicted each other in the last 20 centuries. Seems easy right? Go ahead and try. You will end up Catholic. As a Christian in the Reformed camp, I was always a staunch postmillennialist. Basically that means I think the millennium is now and Christ is here with us in his Church. Things will progressively get better and better until we wake up one day, and look around to find out history is over and sin has been eradicated for good. So for me to see this miraculous example of infallibility within recorded history of an organization that claims to be THE Kingdom of Christ, how happy that made me! I felt like a modern day Jew who has been waiting and hoping for the messiah who first hears about Jesus. Something he thought could never happen in his lifetime has already been going on for 2000 years! For me, Postmillenialism is no longer a doctrine to be studied, but a church to submit to. The Catholic Church IS Postmillennialism! Now after reading* a sufficient amount on this issue of the Papacy to convince me of its protection from error, the arguments for Eastern Orthodoxy became hollow. Strangely, their arguments against Papal infallibility were the same old Protestant ones that seemed to be “after the fact” arguments. For instance, when the Protestant Reformation happened all of a sudden Luther and Calvin were in the position of believing in the authority of the “church” as they defined it, but at the same time having removed themselves from the way true doctrine has always been measured by the church. i.e., communion with those Bishops in succession from the Apostles. So instead of submitting to the Bishops in succession, they conveniently denied the need for succession. “Apostolicity” (as defined by them of course) was to be the measure of true authority. In the same way I see ample patristic evidence of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome from very early on in Church history. The 7 ecumenical councils from Nicaea I (325) to Nicaea II (787) were all ratified by the Pope for goodness sake! When I first heard that I chuckled out loud. Not only were they ratified, but the ratification was seen by everyone as necessary for those councils to be binding. Many Orthodox still would say that the Popes ratification is still a necessary criterion for an Ecumenical council. Is it any wonder the Orthodox have not had an Ecumenical council since Nicaea II? There is disagreement amongst themselves as to how one would even occur! WAIT. HOLD ON. I can hear the gears grinding in the Orthodox heads with the objections to what I just said. Save it. I have had enough of the disunity and excuses of Protestantism for a lifetime, and I don’t want to further examine Orthodox disunity and excuses. Here is the undisputed fact: there is disagreement between leaders within Eastern Orthodoxy as to:

1. How an ecumenical council would be called. 2. If it were called how it would be ratified in a definitive way without the signature of the Bishop of Rome.

The fact that individual Orthodox Christians feel they have an answer to these questions is about as impressive as a Protestant who feels he has the correct interpretation of John 6. That is to say it is not an authoritative opinion. The only point I need to know is that there are a variety of views on this question within Orthodoxy and they have not had a council since 787 A.D. Does anything more need to be said? I don’t see how someone leaving Protestantism because of a lack of Divine authority would then go to a church that is so fundamentally emasculated. The Catholic Church is under no such fog of confusion when it comes to defining doctrine and holding ecumenical councils. Another reason I rejected Orthodox claims is what I recognize as a Protestant smelling circular reasoning in regard to identifying the church. The church is composed of those who believe the true doctrine, and true doctrine is that which is believed by the whole church. Hmmm, sounds very similar to the “bootstrap” theory of Protestant church identification I just left. Orthodox believers will have complaints with what I just said above. Keep in mind that your intricate explainations fall utterly flat for a Protestant tired of the subjectivity and self rule of sola Scriptura. I want simplicity, and I know that Christ must have made it simple. Here is simplicity: How do we find the true doctrine? The churches in communion with the holder of the keys to the kingdom (the Bishop of Rome) have the true doctrine. See how there is no circularity? Here again you Orthodox will complain, but there you go again, sounding so Protestant by trying to convince me of your interpretation! "But the Pope said X!... that can't be right!" This attitude sounds like the self serving authority of Protestantism I am fleeing from. I have discussed the Filioque issue with Orthodox people and it was shocking how Protestant they sounded, trying to convince me how the Orthodox view makes more sense from Scripture, etc. That’s not the point! The point is WHO DECIDES what the true doctrine is. Is it the church or me and you? When Bishops disagree about the Filioque, who do I follow? Orthodoxy has the same answer Protestants do... "follow us." Well that's not good enough. So in the end, Catholicism just makes sense to my mind. How best can unity be kept in the church? The answer is obvious to me: one, single, visible beacon of unity. Outside of communion with that beacon is something else than the one true church. How can multiple heads function if there is no ultimate uniting force? This is the point that a child can understand but is often lost on the “wise” and highly educated. Just the idea of multiple “autocephalus” “heads” is an oxymoron. A body has one head. Only a hydra has multiple heads. “Christ is the head” you retort. Yeah, but on earth as in heaven there needs to be a single head. Ask a child which system works better and they will tell you what you already know in your heart. Other reasons I rejected Orthodoxy that I would categorize as “intuition” are:

1.There have been times in church history where the Pope was alone in his holding to the true faith. This fits with Christ supernaturally protecting the purity of the church’s doctrine. During these times, the patriarchates that now comprise “Eastern Orthodoxy” were (by their own admission) an utter heretical mess. Again, smells like Protestantism. 2.Orthodoxy is still comprised of regional churches which strongly identify with the nations they are in. 3.Numerically, Catholicism is way bigger. This means something to me. It seems to me to be something we should expect 2000 years after Pentecost. 4.The Catholic understanding of the Filioque fits better with a proper understanding of the family as a picture of the Trinitarian relationship. From man comes woman, from man and woman comes child. Again, makes sense. 5.Orthodoxy is more likely to side with mystical experience than intellectual. I don’t trust mystical experience unless it is firmly rooted in the intellectual. I see Catholics as doing both, while Orthodoxy seems to distrust the intellect. 6.Orthodoxy does not have a well defined, universal dogma on some very important issues like contraception and divorce. This is a clue to me that they have stagnated theologically. Christians need firm guidance from the church on these issues. 7.I see more variety in the modes of service of laity and Catholic monks and nuns than Orthodox. (this touches on my #4) 8.Catholicism has objectively produced better art. To me this is a sign of better theology, and a sign of God’s blessing. 9. I get the feeling that Orthodoxy is a "step behind" Protestantism. My money is on Protestantism disolving within half a millenia. Orthodoxy has more momentum from having all 7 sacraments and from true succession, but if the Orthodox churches remain in schism from Peter, they will eventually dissolve. I want to leave my descendants a legacy of a christendom that is true and lasting.

I don't expect to amaze anyone with my critique of Orthodoxy here. These have just been the reasons I personally found totally compelling in favor of Rome. I hope the Orthodox can give up the autonomy soon and just come back into full communion with the key-bearer. Imagine the witness to the world that would be! *The Early Papacy To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451, by Adrian Fortescue and Studies on the Early Papacy, by Dom John Chapman were very eye opening for a Protestant unfamiliar with the early church.

Reply to anonymous Good Shepherd member

A member of my family's former church left a comment to my letter to them. My response got long winded so I post the comment and my response to it here.

Dear David, I am deeply troubled by your decision to leave Good Shepherd. The vows made by your daughters just a few months ago were made before God and before God's ordained minister and elders. Those vows were serious, just as serious as any vow made in the Roman Catholic Church. Those vows were real and binding and precious. Walking away from our church tells your girls that their vows were whimsical, temporary, and groundless. Your girls will conclude that Pastor Moon has no authority as an ordained minister and that our elders also do not represent God's authority over our lives. I also want to say that you are tearing your family away from its church family, the people who love you, took vows at your children's baptisms, grieved for you when you went through miscarriages, and celebrated when your girls were born. We are a family, and your leaving is a painful and sorrowful event. God is just as much present at Good Shepherd on Sunday morning as He is at the cathedral or the Vatican. We worship in spirit and truth. Isn't that good enough?

Hi anonymous. I can tell you are from Good Shepherd, as you remember my girls taking membership vows. Also, we were so incredibly blessed to have Good Shepherd at our side during our recent tragedy. I will forever thank God for the mercy of having a pillar like Josh to comfort us at our son’s funeral and the many people that comforted us in that bitter time. Perhaps God was waiting for that event to pass before moving our family to join the Catholic church? Perhaps the solid believers at Good Shepherd was what he knew we needed in that dark hour? You are the only person to respond to this letter so far. I am surprised at that. I thought more people would at least leave a quick note to wish our family well. But perhaps I have made people upset at how I handled all this. I can’t blame them. They perhaps have written us of as flakes that never were truly Reformed or something. Or perhaps they see us as apostates now and could care less about saying anything at all to us. Lord knows I could have done things in a better way. For that I am sorry, and I have said as much to the elders as well. But thank you for your caring attitude. I can tell our decision has troubled you and believe me, our family is very sad to have to leave. Honestly, on a personal level it has been painful for us (Bridget especially) but I decided on the “pulling off a bandaid” way of leaving. Quicker the better. What follows will be lengthy, as you are the only member to respond, and I want to fully respond to you. I hope you will hear me out. Now about our membership vows. Try to see things from the perspective I am at. I have come to believe the Catholic church is the one and only church that Christ founded. From that perspective, can you see how any vows to other Christian communities or churches are not at all valid? I did not enter into any vows at Good Shepherd in a “whimsical, temporary, and groundless” way. Neither did I teach my children those vows were such. I took them deadly serious, faithfully teaching my children to take their obedience to the elders seriously. But can you see how the perspective changes when one comes to see the true nature of Christ’s church? I am sure you can think of all sorts of vows one makes that later they cannot in good conscience feel obliged to fulfill. (Luther and his wife Katharina come to mind) You said I made vows before “God's ordained minister and elders”. I will be frank. The elders at Good Shepherd are committed Christian men that love Christ with a passion that shows. What they are not, however, is validly ordained. This is something that is easily shown, and if they can show me evidence of their being ordained to ministry by someone having succession from the apostles, I will immediately bring my family back to Good Shepherd. The fact is, however, they have been ordained by men with no more authority than you or I. Their connection to the apostles is one of a perceived “apostolicity” based on a certain interpretation of scripture. As I have said before many times, their idea of “apostolicity” is different than many other Christian’s ideas and I have no way of knowing who has the truth and who doesn’t unless one of them claims the Holy Spirit protects their apostolicity from error. There is no Protestant that will claim this. If they did claim infallibility, they could not then show a valid succession from the Apostles to back it up. So the idea that I must submit to them is really saying I must submit to some session somewhere I agree with right? If I decided to become Lutheran to fit my interpretation and transferred my “vows” to an ELCA church with a lesbian Eskimo pastoress, I am nearly certain the session at Good Shepherd would transfer me. I think they would have to per the BCO. They wouldn’t like it, but they would. Where is the authority there? Where is the exercise of church discipline? If the WCF is true then force submission to it on pain of excommunication. If it is not true, and just some guys opinions, then it is just scratching my itching ears. I desire above anything in the world that my family follow Christ. Not men. Not my opinions. Not the PCA’s opinions, or the Westminster Divines opinions. Not Calvin’s or Luther’s opinions. NOT THE POPE’S OPINIONS EITHER. But the Pope does not claim I must listen to his opinion, however. When doctrine is defined by the church, it is being recognized as from God. Neither the Pope, nor any man can change that doctrine or make me take a vow to submit to any man’s opinions. Ask the session at Good Shepherd the following question: Is Christ’s body and blood truly present in the elements of bread and wine during communion? Listen for the well reasoned answer (your Pastor is smart) Now ask them if the answer they give you is from the Holy Spirit, and if you need to completely submit to their answer as a matter of faith. You know what they will say. They will say you can basically believe what you want if you are convinced by scripture of it. Of course they will give you some basic “guardrails” of doctrine outside of which you may not go, (Coca cola may not be used, never, ever, ever.) But who decides where those guardrails are? Should I bow down and worship Christ in the elements? Can we throw the bread in the garbage after the sevice? What is their answer? Whatever it is, their answer has absolutely no authority over me. It is merely the opinions of men. Even they would say that I can disagree with them up to a point, and then they would, based on their own interpretations, ARBITRARILY set a point at which disagreement becomes heresy. (let’s call it the Coca Cola heresy) I want the true doctrine of the Apostles. Not smart men’s best guesses. The church Christ founded must have a special ability, guided by the Holy Spirit, to determine where that heresy boundary is, and to determine what is true doctrine. Any organization which does not claim this supernatural ability is automatically disqualified as being that church. Of course claiming it (Mormons) is not enough either, but at least that is a starting point. The Catholics and Orthodox are the only two choices by a long shot. Reformed Christianity, and Protestantism in general has never claimed the Holy Spirit guides their leaders in such a way that disobedience to their doctrinal definitions is heresy. As a Protestant this makes ME, the one who is the authority. So you can see, anonymous, how from my perspective the vows my family has taken are actually very dangerous. I am the final arbiter of authority under those vows. That means that I have taken vows to submit to myself! This leaves me in a position of having absolute ecclesial authority over myself and my family. As much as I trust the motives of the session and know for a fact they have nothing but the purest intentions, and an earnest desire to serve our Lord, I cannot trust my soul or my family’s souls to good intentions. I must follow Christ.

You said: “Your girls will conclude that Pastor Moon has no authority as an ordained minister and that our elders also do not represent God's authority over our lives.”

That is a true conclusion. Where does Pastor Moon’s authority come from? To say it comes directly from God would be pretty cocky. And anyone can say that. I could say that and start my own church tomorrow. (Just like Doug Wilson did) There needs to be a standard of succession from the apostles to determine which leaders claim to authority is real. (see Turtullian below) As far as the authority of the session, I challenge you to put yourself in the position of (theoretically) disagreeing with them to confirm the fact that they do not communicate God’s authority over your life. Only so far as you agree with them do they have “authority” over you. You only submit to them because you first CHOSE to put yourself under their authority based on your agreement with their interpretation of scripture. I will say it again: Only so far as you agree with them do they have “authority” over you. Search your feelings, you know it to be true! You only submit to them because you first CHOSE to put yourself under their authority based on your agreement with their interpretation of scripture. Why are you not a Pentecostal? Why not Reformed Baptist? Why not Lutheran? Why not PCUSA? Kenneth Copland? You do not and would not take vows and submit to the authority of at least one of the above options, because they disagree with your interpretation. So the fact that you and I have taken vows to submit to the authority of a Reformed Presbyterian church, simply means we have chosen to submit to people that agree with us. If that agreement should shift, we then form the CREC down the road like the people we know did, and on with the Reformation! Semper Splintera! Uh cough… I mean Semper Reformanda! Do you see now how the guy in the pew is the authority in Protestant churches? Our Pastors and sessions have only the authority we allow them to. They were not given their authority by Christ, but by mere men like you and me. Please try not to take it personally, like I am condemning Protestants as not being Christians or not worshipping the triune God. I think no such thing! Remember, I have very recently been one myself, so I think I have at least earned the credibility with you to say that people at Good Shepherd (of which I was one) are SOLID Christians that are totally sold out for Jesus. That is really beside the point.

Finally you said: “God is just as much present at Good Shepherd on Sunday morning as He is at the cathedral or the Vatican. We worship in spirit and truth. Isn't that good enough?”

No, it is absolutely NOT good enough. Good motives and intentions are absolutely not good enough for my family. I don’t mean to be rude or overly curt, but you need to look at the above sentence you wrote and put it in the mouth of a Pentecostal, Reformed Baptist, Lutheran, or a health and wealth gospel church. Now move to the non-Christians and put it in the mouth of a Mormon or Jehovah’s witness. ALL of these people believe they are worshipping God in Spirit and Truth. Is God present at Good Shepherd? 100% absolutely. Is he present at my brothers Assembly of God church where I first believed and was baptized? 100% absolutely. Are you folks Christians that will be in heaven if you have true contrition for sin and trust God according to what you know? 100% absolutely. But you must admit, these groups can not all have the “truth” simultaneously. And unless you are willing to say that the Holy Spirit disagrees with Himself, which I know you are not, you must admit that they are not all proclaiming the truth of the one true faith. So how do I escape this dilemma of choosing between different interpretations and finding the true church Christ founded? What makes my choice of Catholicism any different than your choice of Reformed theology? Am I not just basing it on my preferences just like I am accusing you of? Am I being a hypocrite? No. And here is why. The way the early Christians identified where the church was is polar opposite from the self serving way we have done it since the Reformation. I will give but two quotes. If you want more I can give you dozens. Again, how do we find the church?......

St. Augustine: “You know what the Catholic Church is, and what that is cut off from the Vine; if there are any among you cautious, let them come; let them find life in the Root. Come, brethren, if you wish to be engrafted in the Vine: a grief it is when we see you lying thus cut off. Number the Bishops even from the very seat of Peter: and see every succession in that line of Fathers: that is the Rock against which the proud Gates of Hell prevail not.” St. Augustine to the Donatists

Tertullian: Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origin of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just this same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles. Let the heretics invent something like it. After their blasphemies, what could be unlawful for them? But even if they should contrive it, they will accomplish nothing; for their doctrine itself, when compared with that of the Apostles, will show by its own diversity and contrariety that it has for its author neither an Apostle nor an apostolic man. The Apostles would not have differed among themselves in teaching, nor would an apostolic man have taught contrary to the Apostles, unless those who were taught by the Apostles then preached otherwise. Therefore, they will be challenged to meet this test even by those Churches which are of much later date – for they are being established daily – and whose founder is not from among the Apostles nor from among the apostolic men; for those which agree in the same faith are reckoned as apostolic on account of the blood ties in their doctrine. Then let all heresies prove how they regard themselves as apostolic, when they are challenged by our Churches to meet either test. But in fact they are not apostolic, nor can they prove themselves to be what they are not. Neither are they received in peace and communion by the Churches which are in any way apostolic, since on account of their diverse belief they are in no way apostolic (The Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:1 [A.D. 200]).

This is the only objective way to identify the church! Christ gave authority to the Apostles and tells us to listen to them. In John 13:20 Jesus said to the Twelve: "Amen, amen I say to you, he who receives the one I send, receives me; he who receives me, receives the One who sent me." Without an objective way to identify the true teaching of Christ, and the true identity of the Church, we are left with well, Protestantism… every interpretation with its own “branch” and no authority. So there HAS TO BE an objective way. Christ would not leave us stranded with our own interpretations. We need to look to the successors of the men Christ sent and see which churches are in communion with them to find the true faith. Outside of this, no matter how sincere, Godly, and well intentioned, there can be only opinions and division. Not the unity Christ said we would have in John 17. If any Reformed Pastor can show me a bishop in the line of succession from the apostles that he is in full communion with, (The Bishop of Rome or an Eastern Patriarch) I will fully submit myself to his authority. If he cannot do this simple act, I will assume his authority to be arrogated and illegitimate. It is as simple as that. All the theological arguments in the world can be spilled, and spilled, and spilled, but in the end, we need to submit to the church like a child submits to her daddy. She looks around for him, runs to him, and hugs him. She knows who he is. Christ gave authority to our “daddies” the Apostles. I can see where those men are 20 centuries later, and I am running home to them. I wish you all at Good Shepherd the continued grace and blessings from the Holy Spirit. And I pray you all come to the fullness of the Truth waiting for either you or your descendants in the Catholic faith. Peace, David Meyer and family