Anyway, I'm going to start with some of the lesser issues and save what I believe to be the most crucial thing (and what 'sealed the deal') for last. I'm not sure if that's the best way, but it'll give me a chance to explore the other things for their own merit and not just because I accept the most important thing. I cannot possibly address every issue, but I'll explore some that stuck out to me.
1. Mariology
I think this may be one of the biggest issues that Protestants have with Catholics. It was the wall I hit many times over the years (this isn't the first time I've considered the Catholic Church!). It's the first issue I'm addressing in this post, but it's actually the last one I considered on this journey.
There are four major dogmas about Mary that Catholics are required to believe. The Immaculate Conception, her Perpetual Viriginity, that she is the Mother of God and her Assumption, body and soul, into Heaven.
Mother of God wasn't too hard for me to accept. Even Elizabeth calls her "mother of my Lord" in Scripture. We believe Jesus is wholly God and wholly man, and since the Catholics mean "Mother of God" in that since (not that she is Mother of God the Father, the Trinity as a whole or came before God), then it's fine with me. It also doesn't mean Mary is divine. She gave Jesus his human nature and played a huge (necessary) role in the Incarnation, so since he was also divine, it seems logical to say that she was the Mother of God even though she didn't provide his divine nature.
Her Perpetual Virginity is a little fuzzier with me, but I don't have trouble believing it. It isn't explicitly stated for or against in Scripture. Many people use some passages to infer that she was not, but if you plug in translation issues and compare it with other passages it's possible to see that they don't mean she ever had sex with Joseph. I also think our value of virginity as tumbled in this society, so we don't see the purpose in consecrating oneself to God, or pledging to remain chaste for the duration of our lives. I think the Catholic faith has preserved this very well. I still don't fully understand it, but I can accept it.
The Immaculate Conception. This is perhaps the hardest of all to accept. This dogma state that Mary was created without the stain of original sin. The idea behind it is twofold. First, that since Jesus received his human nature from Mary, she must by necessity be without sin. Second, that the "Ark of the New Covenant" (as they view Mary) must be without stain in order to carry Jesus. There is also another important lens to view this through. Just as Jesus is the New Adam, Mary is the New Eve. The story comes full circle. Where Eve disobeyed God, Mary obeyed. Where Eve's 'no' and sin brought sin and evil into the world, Mary's 'yes' to the angel and obedience to God brought salvation. Not because of Mary herself, but by God through Mary. The Incarnation is essential for our salvation and God brings the story full circle by keeping Mary free from sin. A common argument against the Immaculate Conception is where Mary call Jesus her savior (and says she also needs one). She was still saved. It is still not through any of her own doing that she was free of sin. Rather, God kept her free from it. I can accept the logic.
The Assumption. This was was the most bizarre to me. Why must I believe that Mary was Assumed body and soul into heaven? It's certainly not impossible as she wouldn't be the first that was taken into heaven. I just didn't understand why it was a dogma. It kinda follows from the Immaculate Conception. Here is a quote.
"If Mary was preserved from sin, at the instance of her conception, it follows that she would be preserved from the effects of sin, which is the deterioration of the body after death or at the instance of her death. Catholics believe it is Jesus who did this for her."
Greg and Mary also helped me a bit with this one. Mary experiences first what we shall all experience. Another quote.
"Mary is in many ways the "prototype" of the Church; what happened to her prefigures what will happen to Christians when we die and go to heaven, or at the Second Coming. For example, she was preserved by God from sin, and in heaven we will not sin; her glorified body was caught up to heaven, and on the Last Day the glorified bodies of all the saints will be taken into heaven
The doctrine of the Assumption is also based largely on the "fittingness" of the privilege given to her by God. Grounds for this include the fact that she was chosen to be the Mother of God the Son, and her perfect acquiescence to God's will. Since Jesus, who fulfilled the commandments perfectly, would have honoured his mother perfectly, it is not unreasonable to posit the Assumption as one of the ways in which she was honoured by her son. It is "fitting" then that she should be given the full effects of the Redemption, which is the glorification of the soul and body. The doctrine of the Assumption points us toward the glorious promise that awaits us co-heirs of God's kingdom, and it illustrates and reinforces the dignity we have as sons and daughters of God."
Again, I can accept the logic. Here is another reasonable point.
"One reason why it is difficult to assess where Mary's last days were is because she left no remains. The early Church prized the relics of early Christians, as can be seen by reading The Martyrdom of Polycarp. However, no one claimed to have Mary's remains, which would have been prized above all others. There is no historical reference to the relics of Mary, the corruption of Mary, or the place where her body lies. A skeptic who denies Christ's Resurrection should be asked to find evidence of the remains of Christ, and the same challenge can be extended to whoever denies Mary's Assumption."
So that kinda explains the four major dogmas. My understanding is still very limited though. There are also devotions to Mary, which I'm still a bit uncomfortable with. However, these are devotional in nature and not required. I think it must be pointed out that Mary (and anything about Mary) always protects, points to and expounds on Christ. It's never about her for HER sake alone, but for her Son.
Phew! That was longer than I thought and I still have several points to go. I might have to break this post up a bit.
2. Infant Baptism
This was an issue I investigated, of course, but ultimately it wasn't difficult to accept. Of course I've been brought up with 'believer's baptism', but when I understand the Catholic view of baptism, it makes more sense. However, the biggest argument for me was what the early Church did. Of course, the most common argument is that there are no examples in Scripture of babies being baptized. Only adults. I think that depends on how you interpret 'households, though. Besides, most baptisms recorded were of adult converts. Not actual believers. For example, there is no "and someone who was raised to believe decided to believe and was baptized". So, I found I had to turn to the Church Fathers to find out what the very early church did in this regard. Here are a few quotes. I'm going to link to them to save room.
I'm not gonna spend much room on this one. Perhaps because it isn't as important to me as some other points. I wanted to investigate it, of course, but the explanations were not difficult to accept.
3. Purgatory
This one was really hard for me! It was another 'wall' (though not as big as the Mary stuff) that I always hit. Basically, it goes back to the need for holiness to see God, the doctrine of justification and what Christ's death on the cross actually did. I feel so inadequate to explain this, but I will try! I'm tempted to just link to my favorite article about purgatory (which I might do!), but I need to get this down myself. I will quote the Catechism to help me get started though.
"All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned" (CCC 1030–1
I think the best way to explain this is to think about consequences for sin versus punishment. Even 'we' (by we I typically mean some protestants and my friends and family) believe that sin has consequences. We 'pay' for sin on this earth. We just don't think about it in the sense of 'purification' because we believe that Christ's righteous has been imputed to us. That God sees Christ when he looks at us. That in spite of how sinful we might be on the inside, God will let us into heaven anyway because we've put on Christ's spotless robe. However, Scripture says that God will cleanse us. He will wash away our sins. Purgatory is not to be viewed as vengeance by God, or punishment, but a natural consequence to cleanse us of our earthly attachments an the affects of venial sin so that we may be truly holy. There are verses to back up this need for holiness, but I'm unable to get at them at the moment. The idea is that sin leaves a mark on the soul that needs to be cleansed - whether in this life or the next. I like this quote about purgatory.
"The Fundamentalist resistance to the biblical doctrine of purgatory presumes there is a contradiction between Christ’s redeeming us on the cross and the process by which we are sanctified. There isn’t. And a Fundamentalist cannot say that suffering in the final stage of sanctification conflicts with the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement without saying that suffering in the early stages of sanctification also presents a similar conflict. The Fundamentalist has it backward: Our suffering in sanctification does not take away from the cross. Rather, the cross produces our sanctification, which results in our suffering, because "[f]or the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness" (Heb. 12:11). "and
Purgatory makes sense because there is a requirement that a soul not just be declared to be clean, but actually be clean, before a man may enter into eternal life. After all, if a guilty soul is merely "covered," if its sinful state still exists but is officially ignored, then it is still a guilty soul. It is still unclean.
Catholic theology takes seriously the notion that "nothing unclean shall enter heaven." From this it is inferred that a less than cleansed soul, even if "covered," remains a dirty soul and isn’t fit for heaven. It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections. The cleansing occurs in purgatory. Indeed, the necessity of the purging is taught in other passages of Scripture, such as 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which declares that God chose us "to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit." Sanctification is thus not an option, something that may or may not happen before one gets into heaven. It is an absolute requirement, as Hebrews 12:14 states that we must strive "for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord."
It's also one reason why Catholics pray for the dead (did you know Scripture talks about baptism for the dead? Interesting...). Another reason is...
4. Communion of the saints.
Basically, death doesn't separate the Members of the Body of Christ. The story of Lazarus and the rich man is kind of an example of this. We can 'pray' to the Saints and for those in Purgatory. Of course, praying to the Saints is NOT the same as praying to God.
5. Purgatory also leads me to Mortal vs. Venial sin. Mortal sin is "is the knowing and willful violation of God's law in a serious matter." Mortal sin leads to separation from God because it is a willful rebellion against his law. There are three conditions for sin to be Mortal. 1) serious matter, but 2) the person must know it is serious and then 3) freely commit it. So, for instance, contraceptives are considered a serious matter, but if someone doesn't know it is (and many people in today's society don't - especially me until recently) then they cannot freely rebel, so it is not a Mortal sin. The intentions and context are extremely important when defining what is and is not Mortal sin. Venial sins are "slight sins. They do not break our friendship with God, although they injure it." This is supported in Scripture when it (I believe it's John) talks about sin that "does not lead to death" and to pray for someone who commits such sin, but not to pray for someone who commits sin that does lead to death. Although all sin IS sin and wrong and damages are relationship with God, there IS varying degrees of such. If someone were to die without repenting from Mortal sin then he will go to hell because he has willfully rebelled against God. For Catholics this mean going to confession and receiving the Sacrament of Penance, but they do allow for a repentance of the heart if it is absolutely not possible to go to confession.
6. Sacraments
This is pretty overwhelming, yet beautiful, territory for me. I don't fully understand it, but it's beautiful because they are "The Latin word sacramentum means "a sign of the sacred." The seven sacraments are ceremonies that point to what is sacred, significant and important for Christians. They are special occasions for experiencing God's saving presence. That's what theologians mean when they say that sacraments are at the same time signs and instruments of God's grace."
Most protestants still have Communion and Baptism as Sacraments, but they vary in their understanding of the nature.
7. A good number for the last - The Eucharist.
Ahh, the Eucharist! This was the 'make or break' issue for me. Although my questioning began with Authority, I made this my focal point because it would really narrow down some things. Not many churches believe in the Real Presence, and then the understanding varies between those that do. I was always taught that any 'presence' in communion was simply memorial. You know, that "In Remembrance of Me" meant that we simply reflected while communing with the 'body' of Christ. Catholics (and other strains of Christianity such as Orthodox) are considered bizarre in their interpretation and belief of transubstantiation. So, I did two things while investigating this subject. I looked up all I could in Scripture about Communion. It's origins and how it related to the passover and Judaism. I also tried to discover what the earliest Christians interpreted Jesus' words to mean.
John 6 is known as the Bread of Heaven discourse and foreshadows the institution of Communion according to Catholics. I recommend reading the entire chapter. However, for the sake of room I shall only quote a couple versus. In the beginning of the chapter Jesus feeds 5,000 with only five loaves of bread and two fish. The people followed him because he had fed them. They ask for a sign and refer to Moses who gave them manna to eat (bread from heaven). Jesus declares that he is the bread of life and says that "This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (v 51) They argue among themselves and Jesus says again that "truly, truly" his flesh is real food and his flesh real drink. Many disciples turn away because it is a 'hard teaching to accept'.
I've always been taught that Jesus was talking symbolically and that what he really means are his Words. That his words hold eternal life and we must consume those. The passage below is often quoted as the explanation to the 12 (note: Jesus had more disciples than just the 12, though they were his inner circle and chosen apostles)
However, this simply cannot be. Even as protestants we believe that Jesus coming in the flesh and becoming fully man is essential to the faith. Jesus cannot be saying that his flesh counts for "nothing" because is physical death on the cross and resurrection of his flesh is essential to our salvation. The intent of this verse is to speak of the Spirit drawing and enlightening where the 'flesh' is human understanding and striving. It 'profits nothing'. Peter saying that Jesus has the 'words of eternal life' does not change the meaning of the rest of the passage. My understanding is that he simply means that he believes whatever Jesus tells them. Not that his WORDS are the meaning of the entire passage.61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirite]">[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.
68Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."
SO...onto other passages! I Corinthians 11
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.The main question to ask about this passage is for verse 27-29. How can we drink judgment on ourselves for simply a memory? What does it mean to 'recognize' the body of the Lord?27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.
Now, another thing I should point out is the Passover Lamb. We know that Jesus has referred to himself as this as well. He is the sacrifice - a spotless lamb. Do you know what the Jews did with the Passover Lamb? They consumed it. Interesting, is it not? Also, when Jesus says "in remembrance of me" this phrase has strong ties to a 'memorial' that was always tied to sacrifices.
Another passage! I Corinthians 10
14Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. 15I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.Strong words. At the very least, Communion is a serious issue. Why, then, has it seemed to lose so much importance? Although some denominations celebrate it every week, many do so much less often.18Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons. 22Are we trying to arouse the Lord's jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
Ok, the latter passages can still be explained away. So, then I turn to what the earliest Christians and Church Fathers taught. If we believe that being close to the source has any weight, then it is wise to consider their writings.
Ignatius of Antioch
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).Augustine
"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).
Just a few examples from a site I've read. I believe there is much evidence to support the Real Presence, and although I still find it difficult to believe, I do. If this is the case, and the Catholic Church is the only one to have maintained this belief and practice...well, where does that leave me? Granted, there is also the Orthodox, and I did consider their Church, but there were other reasons for believing they are in schism instead of the Roman Church (each claims the other is in schism from the other). Namely, the Pope. I shall not address that issue in this post, but perhaps later. I've exhausted my brain with this post (written over two days) and need a small break. HOwever, I have about 4-5 blogs planned still. Subjects include making peace with 'church' (and Church), pride, prayer and the Pope and Peter.
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
...
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).
I recommend reading this article for more thoughts on the Eucharist.
