Expert: Fr. Timothy Johnson - 10/21/2011

Question
Hi,

For 35 years I was a very loyal Roman Catholic. I was even an extra-ordinary minister of the Eucharist for one year...till I left the church. I left the church because in the summer of 2003 I found a book on the bargain book shelf at Barnes and Nobles. It was "A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" by David Bercot. All the book really is is quotes from the Ante-Nicene fathers about 700 different topics in early Christianity. I began studying the book, along with other books I had, such as "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Ludwig Ott. Also I read other writings of the Ante-Nicene and Early Church Fathers that I found online. Mostly I used the online Catholic Encyclopedia to find the writings I needed.

My intended purpose of studying this was to prove to myself that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church and that it is the same church as the one that existed in the first 3 centuries of Christendom. But within 2 months I came to the conclusion that the teachings of the church evolved over time and that the early church of the first 3 centuries was not the Roman Catholic Church. Even within the first 3 centuries there was a lot of evolution of theology, but it was evident to me that in the first century the faith of Christianity was nothing like what it turned into during the middle ages.

One of the things that broke me was the evolution of the confessional. Originally there was no confessional. But for some reasons (reasons which could be speculated upon) the church developed the idea that if a baptized believer commits one of the 3 worst sins of Judaism, that that person becomes eternally lost, having committed an unforgivable sin. These people became the "lapsed", and once they had committed the offense there was no coming back. The church leaders therefore came up with a formula to allow these people back in by giving them a second chance in the form of what was referred to as "the second baptism". It was confessing the sin before the congregation, doing a long and harsh penance, and then being readmitted by the laying on of hands by the local bishop. For all this one can find Bible quotes, that if taken out of context, make it all sound plausible. Once I learned that the confessional was invented at least 180 years after the resurrection of Christ, I broke. I denounced the Catholic faith and left the church. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. It was a sacrament, which by definition was instituted by Christ, but in reality it didn't see the light of day till over a century after Christ died on the Cross of Calvary.

Then I learned about the evolution of the papacy, and how early bishops of Rome who tried to exert power outside of their jurisdiction were denounced and accused of over stepping their authority. Victor, Stephen and Damasus are all examples used by good Roman Catholics to defend the papacy, but Victor and Stephen were both ignored and condemned by other bishops of the time. And Damasus came to power with a 3 day massacre in with at least 137 people were killed This happened 53 years after Constantine legalized the church, giving it's bishops power and money. The position of the Bishop of Rome went from a position for which men were willing to die, to a position for which men were willing to kill.

When it came to studying Catholic Dogma in Ott's book, I realized that popes and councils have contradicted each other over and over again through out history. Even Luther said that when he started the Protestant Reformation.

I have realized that no modern day church is an example of the Apostolic church that existed in the first century. So I joined a denomination which I felt was closest to the early church. I became a Conservative Baptist. And that is where I am now.

A friend of mine who is a priest told me after he learned of my conversion that he never wants to see me again. When I was a child the nuns in Catholic school were some of the worst people I had ever met in my life and I think to myself that Jesus said: "Know them by their fruits." And no Catholic I know ever reads the Bible. I began thinking about these matters, and now 8 years later, I am happy I left and have no desire to return. If Jesus said know them by their fruits, and these are the fruits I see, then what other choice do I have but to leave such an institution?

Please Fr. Timothy, tell me what you think of my conversion story. I'm curious as to what you might tell me if you were advising me. The reason I write to you is partly to get your answer, and partly to show you why so many people leave the RCC.

Thank you!!

Answer
Hi, Chris:

Thanks for the question.
You also included a lot of commentary and statements that were not questions as such; but I will briefly comment on some of them.
I would look more deeply into the claims of the Baptist Church if I were you, because it is worth a critical analysis, as well.  One of the tenets of Baptist belief from what I've studied and experienced is "Scripture Alone."  But the New Testament Scriptures were written by the Apostles and Evangelists of the early Church, and came to be declared canonical by the Church in later Councils.  The Catholic people heard the Scriptures through proclamation in the Sacred Liturgy as virtually nobody knew how to read until relatively modern times.  So while the Sacred Scriptures have their place it is wrong to see them as the foundation or only guide to knowing Christ's Teaching, etc.
You are correct that there has been development in the practice of the Sacrament of Penance or Confession; but the underlying principles are that there are mortal sins (sins unto spiritual death) that can occur after Baptism, the Washing of Rebirth and Divine Adoption.  Christ provided the means to restore Sanctifying Grace when He gave the Apostles the Authority to bind and loose sins in John Ch 20.  How it has been applied and carried out in practice throughout Church history has certainly developed.  You are correct that there did exist in ancient times that such sins would be publicly confessed; but it is important to keep in mind that only henious sins that were already known publicly were to be confessed publicly.  In addition, by analogy with Baptism, there had even been the idea that Sacramental absolution and forgiveness could reconcile the penitent only one time in his/her life, similar to how one may be baptized only once.  Yet it was seen over the centuries that such a limitation on God's great healing forgiveness really did not show forth God's full and overflowing mercy and forgiveness, and that the Sacrament of Confession could be repeated.  The only sin that is unforgiveable would be the refusal to respond to the Grace of the Holy Spirit to repent of sin, called final impenitence.
The Papacy in its externals has certainly developed over the centuries - no denying that; but the Catholic Church has always pointed to Matthew 16:18 as witness to Christ giving the Keys of the Kingdom (Divine Authority) to St. Peter in an Office of Universal Governance of the Church on earth as Christ's own Vicar.  This has a correlative in the Old Testament of the Key of David given to Shebna which Office he lost, and it was passed on to another (I hope I have the name correct).  This shows a precedent for both the giving of Divine Authority to govern and well as the fact that the Office can be transferred.
I don't know which dogmatic teachings you claim have been contradicted, as you give no examples.
You also give examples of some Popes after Constantine's time, and some nuns you knew in order to make the ad hominem argument claim that unless one possesses moral perfection, he/she certainly cannot be a true christian person, and that the Catholic Church cannot be the True Church because there are sinners in her on earth.  Would you agree that the Jewish People were God's chosen people and true flock in its time?  There is certainly record of grevious sin among some leaders, even David, etc.  Individual moral imperfection does not mean the institution is not true, or that God did not establish it with spiritual authority.
Are all individual Baptists and other christian people among the denominations (re-named ecclesial communities) morally perfect?  I don't think they are - any more than all Catholics being morally perfect.
My own personal conversion story would follow the lines that I did not find any of the early Church structures and Apostolic Authority in the Baptists or any other of the denominations.  I started looking at history, liturgy, Church Fathers, the place of Sacred Scripture, and the rest, looking for objective Truth of teaching and prescribed practice, realizing that the only place where the Church in her complete and fulfilled perfection would not happen until the end of the world and the Final Judgment.  While on earth, there will always be the weeds in among the wheat, just as Jesus tells us.  Nobody will EVER find on earth any group or society in which each and every individual is PERFECT; therefore, since this will never be found, I came to realize that Jesus Christ and His True Teachings in an objective way could ever be known and experienced.  I accept the Saving Power of Jesus Christ, His healing love and forgiveness, and must rely on His merciful Redemption to which I am called to respond by Faith, working through Grace, as defined by the Council of Trent.
In my opinion, most people who leave the Catholic Church do not do so as a result of intense study or prayer.  They often misunderstand something and are filled with unresolved anger; they are often just lazy and worldly; or they have an attachment to some sin deeply rooted sin that they do not want to resolve in the Light of God's Truth by the help of Divine Grace.

Fr. Timothy Johnson