Bad Catholic is my new favorite blog. How I have not stumbled on this before is beyond me. Hilarious stuff.


Here is an appetizer:

Our world is in the pitifully awkward position of informing us that our gravest sins are not sinful at all, while damning the most modest and the most innocent of our vices. Thus we have it that abortion and euthanasia are in and with-it, masturbation is healthy, pornography is good for your marriage, sodomy is an old-fashioned, oppressive term…and it is illegal to smoke in a bar. (I mean, my dear man! We do have standards, you know.) The daring and exciting – Kinky Sex OMG! – is toted as normal, while boring, old, human vice – smoking, drinking and punching other men – is outlawed, banned, damned for ever existing. There is no shame in killing babies, but you better be sure you follow the sign: ‘employees are legally required to wash their hands before returning to work.’

More on the site: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2011/10/serial-killers-are-boring/

It finally happened

My two oldest were exposed to the reality of being the Catholic minority in a Protestant saturated culture. The little angels found themselves eating proverbial hamburgers in a Hindu cow shrine yesterday. Blissfully unaware of themselves.

First off, let me say that I love having other Christian kids on the block for my kids to play with. The alternative could be bad. There are two/three solid Evangelical households on the block, and having some of our values overlap is quite refreshing. But eventually the distinctives clash. As they did yesterday.

Near my house there is a roadside memorial for a lady who drove off the road and hit a phone pole. She was a young mother who had too much to drink and should have called a cab. Sad stuff. Every now and then someone puts up a fresh picture on the pole or ties a balloon to it or something. Yesterday I noticed a new balloon and suggested to my 6 and 8 year old daughters to ride down there on their bikes and say the Night Prayer in memory of her. They did, and a little while later they went back, but this time the Baptist and non-denom neighbor kids went with them.

Uh, yeah. lets just say these kids were not impressed about praying for dead people. My 8 year old comes back to her good ol' dad (who is enjoying his pipe and a vodka tonic on the porch), and says "I don't get it, they keep saying that there is no such thing as purgatory and we shouldn't pray for the dead lady." My response was "Annabel, you know Protestants don't believe in Purgatory right, and get upset about praying for dead people right? Remember?"

She gave me a puzzled look. "Really?!"

I guess the topic had never come up in any of my Reformed theological training with her from our Protestant past. "She is really getting the whole "Catholic thing" down as second nature" I thought to myself. "Cool!"

After further debriefing, I found out that the neighbor lady had said "she is long gone, so there is no point in praying for her." Her son also informed my girls that all they needed to do was say the "salvation prayer" and they could be guaranteed to go to heaven.

By the way, didn't Protestants used to call that the sinners prayer? I suppose that is to offensive now. The Jesus salvation slot machine cant have any words like SIN associated with it, goodness no! We just want to pull the lever once and hit the jackpot. Anyhoo...
The 12 year old neighbor girl also informed my daughter that purgatory is not real because it is not in the bible. (BS, it is in the bible) And then she informed Annabel that she only believed things that are in the bible.  Her pre-teen description of sola scriptura of course... is not in the bible, but lets not look at the man behind the curtain kids, keep your heads down and repeat the mantra please. Repeat after me:

we only believe what is in the bible...we only believe what is in the bible...we only believe what is in the bible...

Will it become true if it is repeated a hundred more times? 500 years of Protestantism and counting. I think they will be repeating it for a while more. And if each denomination they have spawned only repeated it once, it would take another hundred years just to hear them.

So click your heals Dorothy, and repeat after me... there's no place like home...there's no place like home...there's no place like home...

My daughter was a bit rattled by the forcefulness and preachiness of the other kids, but she is a trooper. And next time this happens, she can ask them why they don't confess sins to a priest like Jesus says to in the bible.

Or why they disregard Tradition contrary to the bible.

I love, love, love that she is getting some practice defending the faith. That's my girl!

"Sneaky" Catholic Ten Commandments

Bob said:

I took your advice, and started reading the RCC Catechism. I'm pretty sure I found a place where the Roman Catholic Church is teaching error. It is sufficient evidence for me, but I'm sure that you lot won't accept it.



In particular, the issue is the teaching of the 10 commandments. I understand and recognize the ten commandments to be those laid out in Exodus 20: 3-17.


The RCC, however, in teaching their catechism does something quite sneaky. The first thing they do is diminish the 2nd commandment, making it a footnote of the first and stripping it of any meaning. Instead of "You shall not make for yourself an image", the teaching is "images of saints are OK".


All the other commandments then get bumped up a number... which leaves you with 9. Not exactly convincing, since at the very least people know that God gave Moses 10. To make up for this discrepancy, they split the true 10th commandment into 2 commandments - effectively "don't covet" and "don't covet v. 2".


You can see this teaching quite clearly from the Vatican website - just scroll through the table of contents, it should jump out at you. The 10 commandments are in part 3 section 2.


http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM


The obvious reason for this is that the RCC has tons of idols, but they don't want to admit they are idols. At the very least, they should have tackled this commandment head-on instead of playing a numbers game with them. I guess this is just a case where the tradition knows more than the actual Word of God.






Bob, you made it really far into the CCC! Or you are skipping around. Nothing wrong with that, just sayin. Either way, congrats for going to the source for your research. That makes choices easier.


Unfortunately you say:
"It is sufficient evidence for me, but I'm sure that you lot won't accept it."


Well, if it passed muster as being evidence, then I would consider it, but it just does not. Neither would Luther BTW, but I will get to that.
Here is what the INTRO to the section on the first commandment says:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7B.HTM

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT


I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.
It is written: "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve."


The prohibition against making graven images is right there in the catechism Bob!


My daughter learned the 10 commandments last year in her religion class at Holy Family and she learned the part about graven images. We just number them differently, as do many PROTESTANTS who have zero love for Rome.

Get this Bob, my LUTHERAN mother learned the “graven images” as part of the FIRST commandment too! That is right, perhaps you don’t know this (perhaps because you grew up Reformed) but Lutherans use the same numbering as Catholics! So did many church fathers, among which Augustine stands out. And Orthodox (who venerate images like there is no tomorrow) use the Reformed numbering, go figure. (or I guess the Reformed use the Orthodox numbering… chicken/egg thing)

So are Lutherans “sneaky” too?

“I understand and recognize the ten commandments to be those laid out in Exodus 20: 3-17”

Uh, yeah, so do all Christians. No crap. But if you’ll notice, they are not numbered dude. They are also in Deuteronomy 5, but there again, no numbering.

“The first thing they do is diminish the 2nd commandment…”


Huh? The second commandment for Catholics is to not take the Lord’s name in vain. Potentially a mortal sin because it is a serious matter. We don’t diminish it! You are using your numbering to correct their (and Luther’s and Augustines) numbering. Who cares about numbering. The point is what the commandments SAY. And Catholics still accept fully the command against graven images. As do you. We just understand it differently.


The point is though, the prohibition against graven images IS RIGHT THERE IN THE CATHOLIC FIRST COMMANDMENT! Nothing is ignored or deleted! For goodness sake Bob, even the Rabbis from the Jewish Talmidic tradition have traditionally held all the separate parts of the first commandment (Catholic one) to form one solid unit.

There are THREE parts of the same prohibition of idolatry, which I know you agree are all related: 1. Have no other gods before God, 2. Don’t make idols, 3. Don’t bow down to idols.

Catholics (and Lutherans) have ALL THREE in their first commandment. You have parts 2 and 3 as your second commandment. Both ways have them though.

Which begs the question, why isnt your third commandment Exodus 20:5/Deut 5:9 “You shall not bow down to them or serve them…”?

These Deuteronomy and Exodus verses are specifically about not bowing down, and are some of the more lengthy verses. Certainly longer than the “You shall not kill” ones. So WHY is that not one of your 10? Could it be because it is so similar to the other 2 parts of the commandment (no other gods, no graven images) that it is redundant to make it its own commandment?


Within the CCC section titled “the first commandment”, is a whole section about graven images. No sneakyness. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7F.HTM


What you don’t like is your interpretation contradicting the other ¾ of Christendom of the past 2000 years.

The Orthodox have your numbering, yet venerate images!

The Holy Spirit, through the Church at the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) has spoken, and you want to do your own thing.

“The obvious reason for this is that the RCC has tons of idols, but they don't want to admit they are idols.”


Yeah, it is a big conspiracy. With the Orthodox as well. 2000 years of godly men are all deceived, but Bob is not. Yeah.


“At the very least, they should have tackled this commandment head-on instead of playing a numbers game with them.”


It was tackled in 787AD! Been there done that! And the Orthodox have YOUR numbering but yet still venerate images! So there is no numbers game.

“ I guess this is just a case where the tradition knows more than the actual Word of God.”


The Word of God IS the Tradition AND the Scripture! You are making a false division of two inseperable things. And what you are calling the “Word of God” is really just your interpretation. Unless you want to show me where the numbering system is in the scripture. Even Luther would be looking at you with the squinty eyes right now man.

Veneration is not idolatry. Saying it is "obviously" idolatry is not convincing. Because MOST Christians of all ages have had zero problem with veneration of saints through images. Even ones who were angered by pagan images of false gods have venerated images of Christ and the saints! They saw a clear distinction between the two practices.
 
Peace

Reformed "Authority"

This is a comment I left at the Reformed site Green Baggins:

I am glad they exonerated Lawrence, and my former pastor Josh Moon. The confession you all subscribe to says all disputes are to be resolved by scripture. That is what everyone here is doing, and you all are doing the best you can. When I read Rev. Dr. Moon, or TE Lawrence, or most of what has been written here in these comments, I think to myself “sounds fair enough”. You all have very good points, and take the scripture at its word as best you are able.


The obvious problem is you all disagree as to WHAT the scripture is saying.


That is problem one.

Problem two comes in when your own authorities decide a matter, and those who are supposedly in submission to that authority decide they will just ignore it in favor of their own! (Comment #36,)


And all those who disagree with their exegesis are “Christ’s enemies” (#100)!


Hmm, well, having been someone you would probably accuse of being an “FV” guy myself fro having believed in baptismal regen and paedocom, (although I would have just called myself a bible believing Reformed Christian) and having known Josh Moon and many men like him which you accuse of being FV, all I can say is have fun in your tiny denomination. If you are willing to turn on men like Moon and lawrence and refuse to even call them brothers, and call them “enemies of Christ”, and yet these men agree with you on so very much, much more than most evangelicals certainly, then you will just have to leave the PCA and start your own new micro-denomination I guess (gee that is a new concept). When will it end?


What do the worker bees in the pew do? I was one of those guys. No theological training beyond bedtime theology reading and R.C. Sproul videos. But I desperately loved Reformed theology. But when someone like me starts to agree with Wilson AND Sproul, Horton AND Leithart, both “sides” sounded biblical to me. Who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong? what do I do then?


You cannot answer that question. All you will say is “read the scriptures” or on a bad day you will say “listen to me read the scriptures”. But in the end, when I cannot choose who is right or wrong, and both sides sound scriptural, what do I do? Who do I listen to? Who is right and who is wrong? Where is the authority which is supposed to be so solid in the Reformed polity when the GA passes down a verdict and people choose to ignore it anyway? Doesn’t that prove who is really in charge? Doesn’t that prove that that person will only agree with the GA decision if it agrees with their opinion?

Instead of “semper reformanda” or “sola Scriptura”, I have a new suggestion for the 21st century Reformed motto:


“When I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.”

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/


Though I am now a Catholic, I still long for unity with you brothers. Ironically, some here would not consider me a brother as a Catholic OR an FVer. I can’t win.

Peace,

David Meyer

True love. I love the part of the movie where Francis cuts her hair off. These two are in love with Christ.

Beautiful.

St. Francis and St. Claire, pray for us.

P.S. Thank you to my Mom, who introduced me to this movie. I still havent watched it as a Catholic, I cant wait. If you have not seen it, it is Brother Sun Sister Moon, By Franco Zeffirelli.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069824/

I just found out that Yabby You (Vivian Jackson) died in January 12, 2010 at age 63. This means zero to anyone reading this. But it means something to me. This man has been a great encouragement to me in the faith. May he rest in peace, may he reach heavens joys. I can't wait to glory in God's presence with him in the beatific vision. Please say a Hail Mary for him.

Eternal rest, grant unto him O Lord,

and let perpetual light shine upon him.

May he rest in peace.

Amen.

Best. Argument. Ever: Vicar of Christ = Koran Kisser

Bob,
you said:

Defending Spain is Spain's problem. I'm sure Spain had a competent king who could have asked France and Germany for aid. He could have even appealed to their shared Roman Catholic belief.



England, France, Germany - their all currently "under siege" by the Muslims again. Are we to expect another Crusade? If the Crusades were a good idea, I would expect to see them done again. Perhaps this time good Roman Catholics should come to the aid of the Iraquis or Afghans against the imperialist USA and our evil god of Materialism.


Again - Vicar of Christ = Koran Kisser (that jab will never get old :) ). Go google it, there are pictures and everything.


My response:
"I'm sure Spain had a competent king who could have asked France and Germany for aid. He could have even appealed to their shared Roman Catholic belief."


1. That is what the crusades were! The fact that the pope recognized who was on the right team is somehow bad to you though? When a dozen modern popes recognized the fact that communism was evil, does that mean they are stepping out of bounds? You really have not shown why that is wrong of them to take a stand. And you certainly have not shown that it disproves their claim of authority.
2. The term "Roman Catholic" did not exist until the Reformation in England. Google ANACHRONISM. Most of your complaints against the Church are dripping with it.

JP2 was dumb to kiss a Koran. Even the current pope has said as much. But what is dumber is that you think you have proven something by pointing it out. What does it prove? Just like your south African bishop example, it proves nothing I didn't already know: People are stupid and do stupid things. JP2 could have been a porn star and you could chuckle at pics all day, but in the end you have proven nothing. I take this stuff seriously dude, so meet Catholicism at its claims or don't bother. Pointing out a pope doing something scandalous is not the same as showing he taught error.

Also it proves that you like to get information from sensational sources on the internet. But again, if you reflect on what you are trying to prove by that example, you might find that you don't even know. I certainly don't. If you are trying to prove a pope can do stupid shit, then congrats, you win! But if this is the kind of thing that you are researching and think is important, then obviously you really don't care to investigate Catholicism honestly. Have you even read through the catechism?

I will tell you the answer: NO you have not.

It probably isn't sensational enough for your taste. You might as well find a site that describes Priests that have abused little kids. Get the graphic details and bring it up as an example for me of why the Catholic Church is bad. That seems to be your level of argument.

Actual Catholic Catachism... nah.

Sedevacantist websites... yeah!

I remember when I became a Calvinist a fundamentalist friend pointing out the whole Servetus thing in Geneva where Calvin killed a dude. I thought then and I still think now that that example simply does not prove whether Calvinism is correct or not. It proves (perhaps) that Calvin did something stupid, but it does not disprove any of the tenets of Calvinism. My friends argument was bad then, because he did not prove that Calvinism is inconsistent, and it is bad now. Just like your arguments.

If he would have proven to me at the time that Calvinism was internally inconsistent, (or even attempted to do so)  I would have given an ear, but he did not do so.

Also his continued form of that type of argumentation made it clear to me he was simply not interested in the truth, but merely jacking off.

Oscar Wilde quote

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.


Oscar Wilde

Reminds me of the "cowboy caviar" I saw in the grocery yesterday. As a typical American, I was strangely intrigued by the barbaric decadence of it. I bet it's yummy.

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