http://www.crossroad.to/Excerpts/books/catholicism.htm
What Hides Behind the Public Image?
By Mary Ann Collins, a former Catholic nun
I dealt with the
person Mary Ann Collins already. Check out http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=1799
. It is doubtful that this former nun Mary Ann Collins even exists.
Fundamentalists tend to be easy marks for cons who masquerade themselves as
former priests or nuns who give them all the juicy stories of all the evil that
goes behind those convent walls – for a nice fee of course.Or sometimes they are selling book, like the book that this article was taken The book is called Catholicism Unveiled.
Chapter I: Hiding Behind Words
What happens if two people are talking, and they use the same vocabulary, but
they have a different dictionary? What if the same word means quite different
things to them?
They may think that they understand one another when, in reality, they have no
idea of what the other person is thinking. They may think that they are in agreement
about something when they actually disagree.
This can happen between Catholics and Protestants. For example, let’s look at
the word “grace.” According to the Bible, salvation cannot be earned. The
Apostle Paul said:
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the
gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)
She takes this verse out of context. She leaves out verse 10 – “for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works”. The word “for” shows the relationship between the two previous verses and verse 10. Verse 10 is an explanation of verses 8 and 9. Exactly how did He save us by His grace through faith? He saved us by making us His workmanship in Christ Jesus, in order that we may do good works.
The standard for judgment has never changed. God will judge us according to our works (Rom 2:6-8). God will give wrath to those who do evil, but eternal life to those who seek glory and honor. The problem is that because of the fall man has the tendency to do evil, instead of seeking glory and honor. We do thing that we should not do even though deep down we know we should not do them (Rom 7). Sheer will-power is not the answer. On our own we could never keep God’s laws. But the good news is that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1). The phase “in Christ Jesus” is the key. This means to rest in Christ, to be spiritual united to Christ, as a branch is connected to the vine – for apart from Christ we can do nothing (John 15). By letting Christ live through us, we then have the power to fulfill God’s law (Rom 8:4). We are united in Christ through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit gives us the power to live as we should. If we then continue to live in the flesh we will die eternally, but if we by the Holy Spirit put to death our evil deeds, we will receive eternal life and peace (Rom 8:13). So the grace of God does not work apart from us, but through us, so that we can then seek glory and honor, and thus receive eternal life.
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us...” (Titus 3:5)
Again she takes the verse out of context. This is more blatant this time – now she only gives the first half of a verse! The rest of the verse says “through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit”. The washing of regeneration is baptism. Through water baptism, we are baptized into Christ – we start our journey of being spiritually united to Christ. And we are also saved by the “renewing of the Holy Spirit”. Each day the Holy Spirit is renewing us to be the way God intended us to be – that is, to keep His commands. By this we are saved.
All this is a gift of God. It is only by God’s mercy I am able to repent and be reconciled to God again. But this is all by God’s grace – not by my own power.
However, according to Catholic doctrine, if people do good works, and they
fulfill certain specified requirements, then they can merit a “divine reward”
from God.[1] This is a doctrine of earning spiritual things by doing good
works.
This is a gross caricature of Catholic teaching. A person is saved by faith working through love (Gal 5:6). But faith working through love is totally by the grace of God. But even though it is totally by the grace of God, there are things we can do that inclines God to pour out more grace on us, so that we can love Him and others more and trust Him more. By doing this God gives us even more grace. The divine reward which we merit is to serve Him more. Also, the more we serve and love Him increases the glory we receive in heaven.
But, actually, the idea of rewards in heaven is not foreign to Protestant thinking, See
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-13-5.htm
http://www.so4j.com/five-crowns-rewards-in-heaven.php
http://www.revive-israel.org/2002/rewards_in_heaven.htm
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/rewards_in_heaven.html
http://www.christianet.com/bibleverses/rewardsinheaven.htm
So why is it legalistic for us Catholics to believe that we can merit divine rewards in heaven but it is not legalistic for Protestant to believe that we can earn rewards in heaven?
The liturgical ritual for baptizing infants includes a prayer asking God to
give grace to the water in the baptismal font (the water that will be used to
sprinkle the infant).[2] So for Catholics, “grace” is something that can be
given to inanimate objects, such as water.
As mentioned before, in Titus 3:5 we are saved “through the washing of regeneration”. We Catholics are not the only ones who believe in baptismal regeneration. It is also held by Lutherans, Anglicans and Orthodox Christians. But again this is a gross caricature of Catholic thought. I never read that the Catholic Church teaches that God puts grace into water. God pours His grace through the activity of water baptism. It does not mean that the grace is found in the water. Protestant evangelicals have altar calls in go forward to the grace. Does this mean that evangelicals believe that God puts grace into the altars? Of course not! Neither do we Catholics believe that there is grace in the water.
When I was a Catholic, this made sense to me, because I was used to accepting
whatever the priest said without question. Now that I am a Protestant, and I
have some understanding of Scripture, the idea is incomprehensible.
I doubt that any
priest told her that grace is in the water.
In the Bible, grace seems to be a simple thing. But somehow the Catholic Church
makes it seem complicated and mystifying. The “Pocket Catholic Dictionary” has
a complex, technical, three-paragraph definition of “grace” that ends by
recommending that the reader also look at entries for actual grace, efficacious
grace, habitual grace, justifying grace, sacramental grace, sanctifying grace,
and sufficient grace. It also has entries for “baptismal graces” and “state of
grace.”[3]
You can say the same thing about Protestantism, but it just does not seem to be so because Protestants do not include the word “grace” in each of their topics. For instance Protestants have a very full, extensive definition of “sanctification”, but we call it “sanctifying grace” or “habitual grace”. Protestants have a complex doctrine of predestination versus free will, where we Catholics would use terms such as “sufficient grace” versus “efficacious grace” or “actual grace”. We are using different labels, and their contents are looked at differently. But a Protestant book on theology would be just as thick as a book on Catholic theology.
Here is an example of
how Protestants can think that they understand Catholicism, when they really
don’t.
A Catholic priest wrote to me saying that the Catholic Church teaches that we
are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. He failed to mention
something. It teaches that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus
Christ--PLUS being baptized, going to Mass on Sundays, receiving communion at
least once a year, going to confession at least once a year, believing the
official doctrines of the Catholic Church, and dying in a state of grace. (In
America, Mass on Saturdays can be substituted for Mass on Sundays.)
Most Protestants also add something to faith. Lutherans and Anglicans also say that one is saved by faith PLUS being baptized. Some Evangelical Christians say that one is saved by faith PLUS praying to receive Christ as Savior. Others say one must be pray to receive Christ as Savior PLUS to receive Him as Lord.
The Bible says that saving faith is faith in a Person, Jesus Christ. It is not faith in an event, even if the event is the crucifixion of our Lord. It is faith in Jesus, not just in His works. John 3:16 says that faith is believing in Him, not just believing that He died for our sins. Faith is being in everything about Jesus – whatever He did or say. So if Jesus said “Don’t do this or else you will suffer grave consequences” then if I believed in Him then I would not do it. So a flagrant disobedience to Jesus shows that I really do not believe in Him. I may say I may believe in Him, but if I do not obey Him, then I do really believe.
The Bible says that we are justified by faith apart from works of the law – such as circumcision or keeping the Sabbath. It never said that we are justified by faith apart from works of obedience or works of love. Rather, the Bible talks about the obedience of faith (Rom 1:5) and faith working through love (Gal 5:6). Faith, love, and obedience go together. If you believe Him, if will love Him. If you love Him, if will obey Him. Show me a man who really believes Christ and I will show you a man to wants to obey Christ.
But I know what most of you will say. It is one thing to obey Christ and another to obey the rules of man. Going to Mass on Sundays and going to confession and communion at least once a year seems so arbitrary. But ultimately these rules are based on Christ. It was Christ who said to the future leaders of the Church that whatever they bind on earth will be bound in heaven (Matthew 18:18). The Book of Acts shows how the first leaders had this authority of binding and loosing. And in Acts 1, the apostles casted lots to see who would replace Judas as one of the twelve. Casting lots to determine who would be an apostle sees pretty arbitrary to me! But no matter! Jesus said that whatever they bind on earth would be bound in heaven. The Holy Spirit made sure the right man was chosen, even though an arbitrary way of casting lots was used. In Acts 15, we have the first Church Council to determine whether Gentile Christians needed to be circumcised. They concluded that they did not, but they still laid this rule on all the churches:
|
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: |
||
|
Acts 15:28, 29 |
Abstaining from things strangled seems pretty arbitrary to me. But the Council said “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us”. The Holy Spirit was the one really guiding these rules, because Christ said whatever they bound on earth will be bound in heaven (Mathew 16:19, 18:18). Jesus said it, I believe, that settles it. So if I believe in Jesus, then I submit to His Church, even when the decisions of the Church seems to me arbitrary.
Actually, the Bible is full of commands from God that to us seem arbitrary. God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They can eat any other tree but not that one. But why not that one? What was so different about that tree? Nothing, really! God could have chosen another tree if He wanted. But God sometimes expect us to obey His commands even though they may seem arbitrary. When He tells us to jump, He expects us to not to say “Why?” but “How far?”.
So yes, some of the rulings of the Church seem arbitrary. Why must we have confession once a year? Why not twice a year? Why is eating meat on Friday forbidden in the past but allowed now? Yes, these are arbitrary. But we as parents always give arbitrary rules to our kids, and we change them as they become older. We tell our five-year old child that he must be in bed by 7:00, but we tell him that he must be in bed by 10:00 when he is twelve. There are different rules at different times.
So we obey the rules of the Church because of our faith that Christ has promised us that whatever the Church has bound will be bound in heaven. The reason disobedience to these rules can produce grave results is because disobedience to them shows that we really do not believe in Christ. If we really believe in Him, we would believe the Church He has established.
Now you may say “You do not believe that Christ delegated His authority. I do not believe those verses about binding and loosing means that the Church has authority to make these rules. Does this mean that you believe I am going to hell? Absolute not! The Catholic Church teach the invincible of ignorance (more on this later). If you sincerely believe that Christ did not give the Church such authority, then you will not go to Hell. God is merciful and just. He will not condemn us for what we do not sincerely believe or understand.
Until the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), popes openly declared that there
is no salvation apart from the Pope.[4] That involves more than faith in Jesus
Christ.
Well, I never read that outside the pope there is no salvation. I did read, however, that there is no salvation apart from the Church. But that has to be looked at with the view of the Catholic teaching of “invincibility of ignorance”. Yes, in principle there is no salvation apart from the Catholic Church. BUT this was never intended to mean that non-Catholics cannot be saved. If a person is truly ignorant or sincerely does not see the claims of the Catholic Church, then that person can be saved. Only God alone can look at the person’s heart.
This is not even a new teaching. This has always been taught by the Catholic Church, even before the Second Vatican Council.
This idea of the invincibility of ignorance goes all the way back to the Bible.
Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, `We see,' your guilt remains”
John 9:41
|
14: When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. |
[R] |
[+] |
|
Romans 2:15 Paul does not rule out the possibility that pagans (Genitles) could without the Word of God can still make it to heaven by living up to their consciences, which may accuse or perhaps excuse. That little word “perhaps” gives hope to even the non-Christian. That servant who knew his master's will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely [Hell?]; and the servant who was ignorant of his master's will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly [Purgatory?]. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more. Luke 12:47, 48 This is found in the teachings of the Early Church Fathers: |
|
St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration
18.5 [at funeral of his father, c. 374 AD)
said:
"He was ours even before he was of our fold.
His way of living made him such. For just as many of ours are not with us,
whose life makes them other from our body [the Church], so many of those
outside belong to us, who by their way of life anticipate the faith and need
[only] the name, having the reality."
St. Justin Martyr, Apology 1.46 (c. 150 AD): "Christ is the Logos
[Divine Word] of whom the whole race of men partake. Those who lived according
to Logos are Christians, even if they were considered atheists, such as, among
the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus."(Emphasis added)
This can be found in the teachings of the popes before Vatican II:
Venerable Pope Pius IX
Singulari quadam
Allocution against the Errors of Rationalism and Indifferentism
December 9, 1854
It must, of course, be held as a
matter of faith that outside the
apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark
of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood.
On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are
affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance,
are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord.
Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of
such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of
peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we
have
been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (1 John
3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine
mercy with divine justice. But as long as we dwell on earth, encumbered
with
this soul-dulling, mortal body, let us tenaciously cling to the Catholic
doctrine that there is one God, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5).
Venerable Pope Pius IX
Quanto conficiamur moerore
August 10, 1863
And here, beloved Sons and Venerable
Brethren, it is necessary once
more to mention and censure the serious error into which some Catholics have
unfortunately fallen. For they are of the opinion that men who live in
errors, estranged from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain
eternal life. This is in direct opposition to Catholic teaching.
We all know that those who are
afflicted with invincible ignorance
with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the
natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they
are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can
attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace. For God, Who
reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and
habits of all men, will not permit, in accordance with His infinite goodness
and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal
torments (suppliciis).
However, also well-known is the
Catholic dogma that no one can be
saved outside the Catholic Church, and that those who obstinately oppose the
authority and definitions of the church, and who stubbornly remain separated
form the unity of the Church and from the successor of Peter, the Roman
Pontiff (to whom the Savior has entrusted the care of His vineyard), cannot
attain salvation.
Pope St. Pius X
Catechism of Christian Doctrine, para. 132
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Catholics-955/Salvation-5.htm
This can be found in one of the leading Catholic theologians before Vatican II:
Further, among non-Christians (Jews, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls which are elect. Jews and Mohammedans not only admit monotheism, but retain fragments of primitive revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a God who is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even to pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God. These, as Pius IX says, can arrive at salvation. God never commands the impossible. To him who does what is in his power God does not refuse grace.
Life Everlasting
Fr Reginal Garrigue LaGrange
http://www.catholictreasury.info/books/everlasting_life/ev35.php
See also
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907chap.asp
http://www.aboutcatholics.com/life_in_christ/salvation_conscience/
This shows that even way before Vatican II the popes taught that a non-Catholic can be saved by the invincibility of ignorance. Now do not misunderstand me. It is much easier to be saved by being explicitly within the Church and receiving the sacraments with much devotion than by being outside the Church even though you may be ignorant. But no one can be a judge on this – only God is our judge.
Modern popes taught that salvation comes through Mary.[5]
So according to this author, popes before Vatican II taught that you were saved through the pope and after Vatican II modern popes have taught that salvation comes from Mary????
Again, since the Church has always taught the “invincibility of ignorance” it cannot mean that those who sincerely do not believe in the Church’s teaching on Mary are going to Hell. Rather, it means that Mary is praying for of us, Catholic or Protestant, whether we honor her or not, and no one can be saved without her prayers.
According to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” Mary has a “saving office” and her intercession brings us our salvation.[6] In 1993, Pope John Paul II said that Mary “obtains for us divine mercy.”[7]
So what? We are all called to perform intercessory prayer for the salvation of others
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men
1 Tim 2:1
If Paul calls us all to
the ministry of intercessory prayers for other, then how much more so would
Mary have such a saving office of intercessory prayer?
Words can cause confusion. For example, Catholic theologians speak of three
degrees of homage, which have Latin words. “Latria” is the kind of worship that
is due to God alone. “Dulia” is appropriate for honoring the saints.
“Hyperdulia” is appropriate for honoring Mary. It is higher than “dulia,” but
not “latria.” Because of these three words, Catholic theologians say that
Catholics do not worship Mary.
However, in the real world, these theological distinctions don’t work. Most
Catholics have never heard of these words. Of those who have, how many know how
to apply them in practical ways? Catholics are not taught how to engage in
“hyperdulia” without crossing a line that results in actually practicing
“latria” towards Mary without realizing it.
She is making a mountain out of a mole hill. Ask any Catholic if he is worshipping Mary as God and he will say “Of course not!”, even though he may have never heard of latria or hyperdulia. It is extremely rare for a Catholic to say that he is worshipping Mary as God. I myself have never met a Catholic who did that.
But remember! We Catholics believe in the invincibility of ignorance! So if there is some Catholic who, unbeknownst to him, has crossed the line from devotion to worship, God is not some legalistic tyrant who is ready to toss this person into the lake of fire! Instead, God is all-merciful, and looks at the person’s heart and sees that he sincerely wants to please God by having a proper devotion to His mother. God is not going to throw him into Hell on some technicality of crossing a bit from hyperdulia to latria. God looks at the heart.
When I was a Catholic, sometimes people would ask me about praying to Mary and
the saints. I used to say that I was just asking them to pray for me, like I
would ask a friend. But there is a difference. When I talk to my friends, I am
talking to people who are alive--not people who have died. The Bible tells us
that we should not communicate with dead people, that we should not seek the
dead on behalf of the living. (Isaiah 8:19; Deuteronomy 18:11-12)
Look closely at Deuteronomy 18:10-12. This passage says that we should not be one who sacrifices his children into fire, one who uses divinization, a sorcerer, a charmer, or a conjurer of spirits. That is not exactly what we Catholics are doing when we praying to the saints. We are not attempting to conjure them up. We are not using magic. We are simply asking them to pray for us.
It’s funny how Protestants such as this one would tell us that we are no longer under the Law but under Grace, and yet then they quote from the Old Testament Law as if we are still under the Law. No one ever quotes from the New Testament to show that we should not seek the dead. They only quote from the Old Testament. But there are many commands in the Old Testament that we do not keep. The Old Testament says we should honor the seventh day of the week as the day of rest. It says that we should kill lambs and goats and sacrifices for sins. It says that we should avoid eating pork. It says that the males should be circumcised. It says that we should kill our children if they are rebellious toward us. It says we should kill the blasphemer. So are obligated to keep the Old Testament Law or are we not obligated to keep the Old Testament Law? If Christ has set us free from the Law then it is legalistic to then use the Law to put us back under bondage.
The Catholic Church never taught that a person must ask a saint to pray for him. A good Catholic can go through his whole life without asking a saint to pray for him. It is not sin to ask a saint to prayer for me, anymore than it is sin to not ask a living friend of mine to pray for me. We have freedom in Christ. If you choose not pray to a saint – fine. No one is saying you must. But it is wrong for someone to say that I must NOT pray to a saint. This is seeking to place me under bondage, of placing me under the Law. But Christ has set me free for Law. I am no longer under the Old Covenant. I am under the New Covenant. Unless a person can find a verse in the New Testament that tells me that I must not talk to saints in heaven, then I am free to do so. It is legalism to try to place me under the bondage of the Old Testament. It is like someone telling me that I must still rest on Saturday, or I must not eat pork, or I must be circumcised. Paul wrote to the Galations “For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage.” (Gal 5:1). Some people were trying to force the Christians to live under the statutes of the Old Covenant, such as circumcision. But Christ has set us free from that. So you are free to ask a saint to pray for you, and you are free not to ask a saint to pray for you. No one should judge you one way or another. Either way you have not sinned. But when you judge someone who is praying to the saints to not be a Christian then you are being a legalist. You are robbing us Catholics of the freedom Christ has purchased for us. Mind you, if there was a verse in the New Testament against communicating to the saints, then we would be obligated to keep it. But verses that were written in the Old Covenant of the Law are not binding to those under the New Covenant of Grace.
In the Old Testament, those who died were not allowed into heaven. They went to a place called Sheol (what we Catholics call Purgatory). Sheol was a place of sorrow (Gen 44:29, 31). It was definitely not a desirous place (2 Sam 22:6). It consumes those who have sinned (Job 24:19). Sheol is a shadowy sub-existence where its inhabitants are not even able to praise God (Is 38:18).But Jesus Christ has changed all that in His death and resurrection. After His death, He descended into Sheol and delivered all the Old Testament saints into heaven (1 Peter 3:19).
So in the Old Testament dispensation it made sense that God would command them not to communicate with the dead. The dead were not in heaven; they were in this shadowy netherworld called Sheol. But now under the New Covenant, it is possible for a Christian to bypass Sheol and go directly into heaven. These Christian are what we call saints. And the New Testament says that we can have fellowship with these souls in heaven.
|
you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in festal gathering, and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, 6 and God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just made perfect, and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood that speaks more eloquently than that of Abel. |
||
Hebrews 12:22-24
Note that it says that
we HAVE approached, it does not say we WILL approach in the future. This is a
present experience. Right now, we have come to the heavenly Jerusalem, to the
angels, to God and to SPIRITS OF JUST MEN MADE PERFECT. I do not know how the
Bible can make this any clearer. Just as we have a relationship with God, we
can also approach the angels and saints in heaven.
So what I said was
misleading. However, I didn’t realize it at the time.
Some ways of using words can result in statements that are technically correct,
but the result is misleading. Here is an example.
For centuries, the Catholic Church would not allow the Bible to be translated
into English. It was only available in Latin.
A Catholic apologist told me that this made no difference, because the common
people were illiterate. They were unable to read and write. They would not have
been able to read the Bible even if it had been available in English.
However, during Mass, the priests read passages from Scripture out loud. Even
people who can’t read are able to understand what they hear. If the Scripture
passages had been read in English, then the people would have understood them.
English was no more a universal
language than French or German was in the Middle Ages.In the Middle Ages,
English was not the universal language as it is today; Latin was. Just as it
makes sense for our country to have only one language, English, to be used in
our schools and public documents, so did it make sense to encourage everyone in
the Middle Ages to use one language that they had in common, and that was
Latin.
Also, let us remember that the
printing press was not invented until the 1500’s. Making copies of the Bible
had to done manually, taking years just to finish just one. The only ones who
could dedicate the time involved to this grueling task were Catholic monks.
Considering the difficulty in such a task, I think we can cut them some slack
for not having the time to translate the Bible into the vernacular of every
region in the Empire.
When the Bible was finally translated into English, it was kept in a church.
All day long, men took turns reading the Bible out loud, while crowds of people
listened.[8]
Sure it was kept in a church, and it was even under chains! Remember, this was before the printing press. Making one copy of the Bible took years. To purchase a Bible, it would cost a year’s wages. So the church had to keep it chained in a church. It was extremely valuable, and there was a high risk that a thief would steal it.
PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF MISLEADING VOCABULARY
I have an Evangelical friend who has seriously studied Catholicism. He had an
urgent, practical need for the information, because he married a Catholic
woman.
At the time that he married her, he believed that Catholicism was “just another
valid form of Christianity.” He attended Mass with his wife on Sundays. After a
while, he began to feel that something was wrong. Then he started investigating
Catholicism. This is what my friend Jeff has to say:
“Today's ecumenical movement draws many Protestants and Roman Catholics
together, because they believe that they share a common faith. The Protestants
believe that there are outward differences, but the faith is the same. The
Catholics believe that their faith is Biblical, and that Protestants are just
separated brothers and sisters who need the Mother Church in order to
experience the fullness of the faith. When you look into it, though, you'll
find that the majority of Protestants and Catholics are unfamiliar with the
history and official doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, and, indeed,
unfamiliar with the Bible. They prefer to get along with one another in matters
of faith, rather than to investigate, understand, and contend for the Gospel of
Christ, as laid out in the Bible, and to compare it with official Catholic
doctrine. As a result, many Roman Catholic teachings remain out of view for the
average church-goer and mass-attendee. Those who do earnestly investigate
Catholicism, and compare it with the Bible, find that some of the language
appears to be the same, but the definitions, beliefs, applications, and
perspectives behind this language are anything but the same. They also find a
multitude of additional layers and dimensions to Roman Catholicism that they
would never have imagined.” (Jeff Lawlor, used by permission.)
But by whose interpretation of the
Bible to we go by? Even Protestants themselves cannot agree on the one, correct
interpretation of the Bible. If they did, then we would have only one
Protestant denomination.
In Jeff’s case, the situation worked out. His wife became an Evangelical
Christian. Jeff and his wife are in agreement about how to raise children,
where to go to church, and how to practice their religion in their home.
I have corresponded with many suffering Christians whose situation did not work
out well. After they married a Catholic, they discovered that Catholicism is
radically different from what they thought it was. Because of that, they are no
longer able to attend Mass, or to instruct their children in the Catholic faith.
They have discussed their problem with their Catholic spouse, but their spouse
remains loyal to the Catholic Church. As a result, their home is full of
conflict and confusion, and their children suffer because of it.
Catholic spouses can complain of the
same thing, especially when their Protestant spouses are being told by someone
like Mary Ann Collins that their Catholic spouses are going to hell.
Because these people didn’t understand the differences between Catholicism and
Protestantism back when they were courting, they and their children are
suffering today. Verbal confusion can result in serious practical consequences.
In a way, I would agree. I would never recommend a Catholic to
marry someone who likes to read Mary Ann Collins.
