The Catholic Church in its original Latin form, prior to modern subversion, appeals to the masculine, military instinct. It is an army, a state within a state which answers to Christian principles above all else. That is the reason that those who seek global domination have sought to slander it, corrode it and mortally dilute its power.
Your points on worship in modern Protestant services resonated with me. Ever since I was a kid, the prototypical worship setting felt hokey and usually embarrassing to participate in. Even as my faith grew into my college years, I could never get past how silly everyone looked with their arms raised in the air while a praise band played what amounted to a C-tier pop song with recycled Jesus lyrics. I’ve yet to experience “worship” in a group setting that felt right. I’d love to hear in detail from anyone who had this same experience and found something better.
For me it was the sacrifice for the Mass. I am blessed to have a very traditional priest. However, I have never enjoyed "worship services" so for me Mass is enough. I think I speak for most men when I say that many modern churches are wrapped up in emotionalism and they seek to elicit the feeling one gets at a concert rather than a genuine connection to God.
Raised Roman Catholic, I was on the worship team of my non-denominational Protestant church for five years - and share your experience wholeheartedly. Modern "worship" music is hollow and human centered. I love hymns. We are currently churchless - the Catholic faith I was raised in, which gave me almost nothing, and the Roman Catholic church are works based and anti-scriptual. Protestantism is permeated with evil and infected by squishy "tolerance". The COVID lockdowns finished off any thought of finding a church. No faith, no boldness - they offer nothing except a vapid, dead chuchianity. The closed churches and their wimpy leadership were the last straw. I worship God "in spirit and in truth" every day of my life, as Jesus talked about. We have a small community of bold Christian friends all over the world; brave, honest and vulnerable; we pray ceaselessly for each other. They are warriors for Christ in life and a needed support and continuing inspiration. Maybe we will find another church, I don't know. But I will never go back to what passes as "church" now. The only worship anyone can give to God is to recognize His holiness; His otherness. Believing Him; knowing scripture, believing it, trusting Him, relying on Him and living that belief and Truth; humbling and submitting ourselves to Him and letting go of any belief that what we DO saves us; that is worship. Most rely on routine, sacraments, pomp, ceremony - "tradition" - the very thing God and Jesus reprimanded the Jews against and told them He hated. Different people need different things to feel "saved" - pastors, priests and ceremonies do not matter in the salvation story. One KNOWS if they are saved. God never once requires Church attendance, rote repetition of prayers, prayer beads, icons, a "transfigured" eucharist, incense or all the rest of it to save us. And according to the Catholics, because I believe this based on what scripture says, I am anathema. Whatever. "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart". "And Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness". " Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the father but through me". So in the end if Catholicism keeps a believer on the right path, fine. For me, studying scripture, believing it and understanding how completely wretched I am is enough to keep me humble AND bold. God is my strength and my salvation. Thank you, Jesus, for saving a wretch like me.
If you're looking for a Christianity without sin, you are going to be looking for a long, long time. The faith you describe is a recent development; it requires you to think Christians of all stripes got it wrong until the 20th century.
If you describe Catholicism as "works-based" then you don't understand Catholic soteriology. I recommend you look more closely at the faith of your youth and hear what she actually teaches, not what others claim she does.
I did study it. Thoroughly. Lived in Rome. Read the canonical books. Read history of the early church. Was at the Vatican and the Basilica, studied there. Read about Constantine and his motivations for how he made the decisions that changed the faith. Read early historians, Nicodemus, Eusebius, John of Ephesus. Read Augustine and other saints. Read the history of the different popes, about their families and their power dynamics. Visited and read about the Borghese family and the Villa Borghese. Read the canons of Vatican II. AND it's history as well. How well do YOU know church history? And Christianity without sin? What a ridiculous statement. A little obedience would be nice; rare, but nice; but wow, are you a Catholic cultist if that's what you got out of what I said. But yours is the typical Catholic response; all loyalty to the canons and tradition with no real grasp of how and why it got there. It is not biblical - sola scriptura. Does it ever occur to Catholic laity that keeping the masses unable to read the Bible kept power in Rome? How do you explain the Borgias? Please. Go insult a naive and uneducated person. Oh, and according to Catholicism, because I have rejected the "Church" of Rome, but not Jesus, I am "anathema". Whatever.
You're projecting pretty hard here. I didn't insult; yet both your comments are full of insults. I never implied you were uneducated or ignorant, merely that you lacked understanding of Catholic doctrine. The Church teaches that you are justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. No works involved in your initial justification.
I was the one insulted by your assumption that I don't understand Catholic teaching. Twenty six years a Catholic. Catholic school. Confirmed. Married in the church. I rejected Catholicism because I DO understand it, not because I don't.
Ok, since you’re following up again, please clarify how Catholicism is “works-based”. This is what you claimed and is one reason why I said you lacked understanding.
Here’s Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
Here is the first canon of the council of Trent: “If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.”
I don’t understand how you can have this testament from scripture and from the magisterium and still think that the Church teaches a “works-based” soteriology.
It’s very to find a solid Bible believing fundamental church, not legalistic Church, but the fundamentalist Church. no hands in the air no praise bands no solid expository preaching. It’s hard to find but it’s out there. People are attracted to Catholicism because of the grandeur andthe lack of the sacred in the newprotestant mega churches. But RC is not biblically sound amazing when you watch Catholic start reading the Bible and actually learning. https://bibletruthpublishers.com/the-roman-catholic-bible-has-the-answer-gospel-brochure-9-5-point-type/o-j-smith/pd5866
Thank you, John. Some of the same reasons have led me to the Anglican Church, having grown up in the Baptist tradition. I'll point out that Augustine is a Church Father we all share, predating the Bishop of Rome's assertion of primacy by 700 years.
I really like this. Congratulations on finding your faith home. I too am not of my faith of origin. My people built a Baptist church as soon as the arrived anywhere. So I suppose I am Baptist royalty of sorts. But while I am southern, the Southern Baptists leave me cold. I simply do not believe in mandated submission or dominance according to gender. ( I do not believe that the intent is to say women are inferior so I am not offended in that sense but I know some really foolish men so it seems plain stupid at worst or lazy at best. That being said there are differences in the sexes and that leads to different skill sets. And IMO the family model that works best is an alpha male with a mate of his caliber. ) So I tried that Catholic light protestant religion. It was lovely. I felt the presence of the Lord there. Until it was invaded by Californians with far more tolerance than I was comfortable with. They began to preach the same sex tolerance dogma WHEN MY CHILDREN WERE ENTERING ADOLESCENCE. I am furious about the ramifications to this day. Neither are same sex inclined but they are tolerant of everything. In my heart of hearts I believe undiscerning tolerance is the devil's work. So now I am unchurched. I feel like a survivor of some catastrophe wandering a desert. But I am Baptist to my bone marrow. I can't go Catholic because I believe the Baptist tenet that one does good because they ARE saved, not to be saved.
Every Church today has its problem. My family and I have been blessed to have an extremely conservative priest and while we don't have a Latin Mass, we have a reverent Novus Ordo.
If differences in salvation theology are your main issue, I recommend reading "Salvation: what every Catholic should know" by Ascension Press. It is super readable, and the details of Catholic salvation theology may surprise you, if you haven't studied it before. Many protestants' understanding of what Catholics believe is simply incorrect.
As a life long Lutheran who sat in a Catholic Church for many years before converting I can confirm there are many misunderstandings about what Catholics believe from those outside the Church - including the grace vs. works controversy. I think Catholic communities that are willing to embrace their theology, study the bible, study their faith (lots of resources), and understand the theology behind the ritual of the mass find it to be a much better environment to support their own spiritual journey.
Really beautiful, John. Our stories are very similar on this point. The thing that steels my faith is that the world never made so much sense until I revisited, as an adult, the doctors of the Church and the great intellectual weight of their work.
Same. I honestly felt like I was reading things I knew to be true all along while simultaneously feeling like an idiot for ever having been so arrogant as to believe that I had it all figured out before. The depth of knowledge and spiritual insight from the Church Father's is timeless.
Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, if you sincerely confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, you are my brother. We can go round and round about doctrine and dogma, but in the end, we're all working for the same boss.
My search for the Church ⏳⛪ lead me back through England, Germany, ⚜️ Florence, Rome and Venice ⚓ home to Constantinople and the safe harbor ☦️ of The Holy Orthodox Faith. I had to let go of my cynical protest-ant iconoclasm and embrace the Trinitarian and Incarnational simplicity of my youth. ⛲♥️🕊️ God is Merciful and Holy......
Thank you for sharing this very personal journey. I suppose the journey in hope is always the best we can do and sufficient of itself. Better to travel hopefully (with a map) than to be lost.
The seriousness of genuine Catholic men who are patriarchal and have lots of children is what got me. I went to an Opus Dei middle school and didn’t know there were men who take the faith so seriously. Later I learned about the intellectual tradition but it was serious strong men who worshipped reverently that really made it all click
Catholic tradition holds the belief in what is known as the "Harrowing of Hell" (or the Descent into Hell). After His crucifixion and before His resurrection, Christ descended to the realm of the dead, traditionally referred to as "hell" (not the hell of the damned, but rather the abode of the dead, known as Sheol or Hades). This realm included the souls of the righteous who had lived before Christ, including figures like Abraham, Moses, and David. The souls, who had been awaiting the Redeemer, were then brought into heaven.
One could argue that he was lifted up at that time, however, I doubt Ceaser was waiting for Christ, but who knows?
Dante is probably pretty accurate on the subject. He mentions Caesar in Inferno (Canto IV), when he meets him in Limbo, the first circle of Hell. Limbo (according to Dante) is reserved for virtuous pagans who lived before Christ and thus could not enter Heaven due to their lack of Christian faith, despite their moral righteousness.
Doesn’t this just prove that it’s mostly aesthetic judgement – When I move to NYC I did a lot of shopping around for churches. It sounds superficial I know but I wasn’t raised in a religious household so had to do the decision making off instinct alone. There was a large variety of churches from hyper-modern cringe fest to ultra-traditional snooze fest. I did finally found a church that was traditional enough (in its service) that it felt authentic but the main criteria it met (for me) was the music (exceptional choir) and aesthetics (the church was historically significant and beautiful). I think my point is it was an aesthetic judgement I made and subsequently based off a visceral feeling than something carefully measured. I enjoyed reading your post, it made a lot of sense.
For me it was deeper. I didn't go into the theological reasons because I didn't want people to turn to fighting about theology. But for me my journey started in college when I read Plato and Aristotle and from there Aquinas. Once I believed Christianity to be true I reaschered branches and denominations and I firmly believe in the teaching and the apostolic succession of the Catholic Church despite its current problems. The aesthetics were important but they were secondary to the teachings themselves.
I don't expect everyone to agree so I try not and lean to heavy on the doctrine in order to keep the conversation where I want it.
Thank you for your response, I think it’s great that you arrived at your position through a philosophical lens, I’m not schooled into Greek philosophy as much as I’d like to be but it sounds like a very non-linear approach to Christianity?
I think I could potentially benefit from a similar method of discovery as the typical pedestrian arrival points to Christianity are often mired in alternative/more current agendas. I’m always looking to deepen my understanding (of christianity) and sometimes it’s posts like these that prompt it.
For me I saw the connection between Athens and Jerusalem through Aristotle's unmoved mover or unactualized actualizer. Plato also makes arguments for a single creator through the forms.
Essentially I saw the proof philosophical proofs for God in the Greeks and since Aquinas was the one who more or less married Aristotelian and Christian metaphysics he was my next step.
I would recommend Ed Fezer's "Five Proofs for the Existence of God," as a starting place.
I attend an independent evangelical church. Fortunately my pastor is a serious, well-educated, intellectual man, probably the most intelligent pastor in the state of Alabama, and the second or third-smartest man I have ever met. Still afflicted with some boomer pathologies-of-mind, just not as bad as the average. The singing is mostly old hymns or newer hymns following in that style (still too modernized for my tastes but leaps and bounds beyond the 'contemporary' trash you often hear at Protestant churches these days).
If I grew up in a theologically weak Methodist or Episcopalian church I could see myself being drawn in by the siren's sound of Catholicism, but that was never to be. There are certain hurdles which prevent me from crossing over that great divide. I do think Protestantism will have to become more magisterial and less of a fractured, hippie-dippie clown show -- to reconcile itself with church history -- in order to win out in the long run. De-feminize the church, drop the kooky Dispensationalist end-times obsessions and jewdolatry, the persecution fetishes, etc.
I firmly believe that the majority of what people call "Christian" churches in the West are terribly mislead at best and (more likely) have fallen into outright heresy. People often complain that they can't understand how a nation like the US that is still majority Christian on the surface can be so beset by troubles and apparently subject to Judgement... I don't wonder about this at all.
I think Junger sums it up well, “Still more important is the consideration that in many people today a strong need for religious ritual coexists with an aversion to churches. There is a sense of something missing in existence, which explains all the activity around gnostics, founders of sects, and evangelists, who all, more or less successfully, step into the role of the churches. One might say that a certain definite quantity of religious faith always exists, which in previous times was legitimately satisfied by the churches. Now, freed up, it attaches itself to all and everything. This is the gullibility of modern man, which coexists with a lack of faith. He believes what he reads in the newspaper but not what is written in the stars.”
Man most definitely has a "God shaped hole" in his spirit which he will attempt to fill with almost anything he can.... but only truly finding God satisfies. That being said, the churches that continue to work hard and suffer shrinkage need to spend less time blaming secular influence and more time looking in the mirror, in my opinion. If people aren't finding the spiritual nourishment they need they will look elsewhere.
What’s so interesting to me about every analysis of why people fall away from faith is that it always boils down to “Christians doing Christianity badly.” Too many Christians don’t seem to consider that some people might examine Christianity and just find it untrue. It never occurs to them that no matter how hard they try to do Christianity better, it won’t make it any more true to those who find it wanting.
I understand that sentiment. But as I told another commentor my faith journey is more complicated than I explain in this article.
It was my philosophy courses in college that led me to Christianity. I saw the connection between Athens and Jerusalem through Aristotle's unmoved mover or unactualized actualizer. Plato also makes arguments for a single creator through the forms.
Essentially, I saw the philosophical proofs for God in the Greeks and since Aquinas was the one who more or less married Aristotelian and Christian metaphysics, he was my next step. I looked at other religions and I found Christianity true, for many reasons such as public miracles, the martyrdom of the apostles etc.
I click on every piece (here and elsewhere) about why people are leaving Christianity or fall away from faith. Almost none of them address the reasons why I left the faith, which is that I no longer found it reasonable to believe, quite apart of Christians doing Christianity badly.
I grew up Southern Baptist but for me it was getting serious with the faith a claimed belief in,then realizing that many of my fellow Protestants were getting things wrong. To me Calvinism or so called Reformed Theology made crystal clear sense in understanding the world and why people behave as they do.
Idk, see my issue with Catholicism is probably how your’s is with the SBC. I must clarify, I probably have more in common with 16th century Protestants in thought than modern ones but where I was going is that the Church of Rome hasn’t answered my questions nor do I see them or a resemblance to them in it. I have a lot of Catholic friends though, and while I’ll push my points hard I try to walk a line.
I have made this same journey. I could no longer intellectually or theologically justify Dispensationalism, so I had to leave my otherwise fantastic (but in my mind terribly misguided) church and Reformed theology is where I felt comfortable.
Did not mean to take this long in my reply. Max, when I actually realized I needed to rep what I claimed with my faith it immediately became clear to me that Biblical illiteracy was rampant and people were placing their faith it what the mainstream said about Christianity vis a vis “Left Behind” etc.
Many Protestants, particularly Evangelicals (or Ex-vangelicals), are gradually becoming aware of the superficiality of what remains of the Western Christendom paradigm. As they reach this conculsion, many are looking back to former paradigms of Christianity for guidance. Some holding tight to last gasps of Liberal Theology (Enlightenment contributions) or Fundamentalist traditions shaped out of the Reformation, while others go further back to Catholic or Orthodox Traditions and the earnest, somber liturgies they provide, which seem a good solution when juxtabposed against the shallow individualist practices that have defined contemporary Western Christianity, but still miss Christ's grand strategy (Eph 3:8-10). I would contend that none of these go back far enough, as they are all products of the apostolic tradition altered by cultural priorities, and although they were sincere attempts to solve real problems from their time and context, they ended up creating static institutions that could not dynamically respond as new problems arose in succeeding generations or non-Western contexts. We need to significantly recover and return to the Deposit (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14) that was implemented in the early churches for the first three centuries of Christianity (based on the idea of household or extended family), which Jesus intended to shape His global family movement perpetually until He returns. This is part of His eternal plan. The social structure of Jesus church is household, which is present in every culture, but which He has reshaped into a new type of extended family that both addresses and challenges the values of any culture or time, out of a sincere, authentic, and loving community life.
The Catholic Church in its original Latin form, prior to modern subversion, appeals to the masculine, military instinct. It is an army, a state within a state which answers to Christian principles above all else. That is the reason that those who seek global domination have sought to slander it, corrode it and mortally dilute its power.
To my point. Forces behind the curtain absolutely hate the power of the Catholic Church. The attack continues unrelenting possibly because they haven't done enough damage. Just stumbled on this link (subject matter warning): https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13944981/Explicit-lesbian-sex-scenes-OPERA-leave-18-audience-members-requiring-medical-treatment-Graphic-features-naked-nuns-roller-skates-Christ-having-loincloth-whipped-off.html
Your points on worship in modern Protestant services resonated with me. Ever since I was a kid, the prototypical worship setting felt hokey and usually embarrassing to participate in. Even as my faith grew into my college years, I could never get past how silly everyone looked with their arms raised in the air while a praise band played what amounted to a C-tier pop song with recycled Jesus lyrics. I’ve yet to experience “worship” in a group setting that felt right. I’d love to hear in detail from anyone who had this same experience and found something better.
For me it was the sacrifice for the Mass. I am blessed to have a very traditional priest. However, I have never enjoyed "worship services" so for me Mass is enough. I think I speak for most men when I say that many modern churches are wrapped up in emotionalism and they seek to elicit the feeling one gets at a concert rather than a genuine connection to God.
Raised Roman Catholic, I was on the worship team of my non-denominational Protestant church for five years - and share your experience wholeheartedly. Modern "worship" music is hollow and human centered. I love hymns. We are currently churchless - the Catholic faith I was raised in, which gave me almost nothing, and the Roman Catholic church are works based and anti-scriptual. Protestantism is permeated with evil and infected by squishy "tolerance". The COVID lockdowns finished off any thought of finding a church. No faith, no boldness - they offer nothing except a vapid, dead chuchianity. The closed churches and their wimpy leadership were the last straw. I worship God "in spirit and in truth" every day of my life, as Jesus talked about. We have a small community of bold Christian friends all over the world; brave, honest and vulnerable; we pray ceaselessly for each other. They are warriors for Christ in life and a needed support and continuing inspiration. Maybe we will find another church, I don't know. But I will never go back to what passes as "church" now. The only worship anyone can give to God is to recognize His holiness; His otherness. Believing Him; knowing scripture, believing it, trusting Him, relying on Him and living that belief and Truth; humbling and submitting ourselves to Him and letting go of any belief that what we DO saves us; that is worship. Most rely on routine, sacraments, pomp, ceremony - "tradition" - the very thing God and Jesus reprimanded the Jews against and told them He hated. Different people need different things to feel "saved" - pastors, priests and ceremonies do not matter in the salvation story. One KNOWS if they are saved. God never once requires Church attendance, rote repetition of prayers, prayer beads, icons, a "transfigured" eucharist, incense or all the rest of it to save us. And according to the Catholics, because I believe this based on what scripture says, I am anathema. Whatever. "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart". "And Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness". " Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the father but through me". So in the end if Catholicism keeps a believer on the right path, fine. For me, studying scripture, believing it and understanding how completely wretched I am is enough to keep me humble AND bold. God is my strength and my salvation. Thank you, Jesus, for saving a wretch like me.
If you're looking for a Christianity without sin, you are going to be looking for a long, long time. The faith you describe is a recent development; it requires you to think Christians of all stripes got it wrong until the 20th century.
If you describe Catholicism as "works-based" then you don't understand Catholic soteriology. I recommend you look more closely at the faith of your youth and hear what she actually teaches, not what others claim she does.
It’s totally works-based the treasury of merit the scala sancta I could go
My point is: yes, Kevin, I studied all aspects of Catholicism. Which is why I rejected Rome, the Papal hierarchy and the Pope's version of my faith.
I did study it. Thoroughly. Lived in Rome. Read the canonical books. Read history of the early church. Was at the Vatican and the Basilica, studied there. Read about Constantine and his motivations for how he made the decisions that changed the faith. Read early historians, Nicodemus, Eusebius, John of Ephesus. Read Augustine and other saints. Read the history of the different popes, about their families and their power dynamics. Visited and read about the Borghese family and the Villa Borghese. Read the canons of Vatican II. AND it's history as well. How well do YOU know church history? And Christianity without sin? What a ridiculous statement. A little obedience would be nice; rare, but nice; but wow, are you a Catholic cultist if that's what you got out of what I said. But yours is the typical Catholic response; all loyalty to the canons and tradition with no real grasp of how and why it got there. It is not biblical - sola scriptura. Does it ever occur to Catholic laity that keeping the masses unable to read the Bible kept power in Rome? How do you explain the Borgias? Please. Go insult a naive and uneducated person. Oh, and according to Catholicism, because I have rejected the "Church" of Rome, but not Jesus, I am "anathema". Whatever.
You're projecting pretty hard here. I didn't insult; yet both your comments are full of insults. I never implied you were uneducated or ignorant, merely that you lacked understanding of Catholic doctrine. The Church teaches that you are justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. No works involved in your initial justification.
I was the one insulted by your assumption that I don't understand Catholic teaching. Twenty six years a Catholic. Catholic school. Confirmed. Married in the church. I rejected Catholicism because I DO understand it, not because I don't.
Ok, since you’re following up again, please clarify how Catholicism is “works-based”. This is what you claimed and is one reason why I said you lacked understanding.
Here’s Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
Here is the first canon of the council of Trent: “If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.”
I don’t understand how you can have this testament from scripture and from the magisterium and still think that the Church teaches a “works-based” soteriology.
Assumed I was ignorant of Catholic doctrine. Quite an assumption, and incredibly arrogant. I know exactly why I am not "Roman Catholic".
It’s very to find a solid Bible believing fundamental church, not legalistic Church, but the fundamentalist Church. no hands in the air no praise bands no solid expository preaching. It’s hard to find but it’s out there. People are attracted to Catholicism because of the grandeur andthe lack of the sacred in the newprotestant mega churches. But RC is not biblically sound amazing when you watch Catholic start reading the Bible and actually learning. https://bibletruthpublishers.com/the-roman-catholic-bible-has-the-answer-gospel-brochure-9-5-point-type/o-j-smith/pd5866
"Jesus you are so good, oh you are so good" x 50 for 10 minutes doesn't cut it for anyone with a triple digit IQ.
Thank you, John. Some of the same reasons have led me to the Anglican Church, having grown up in the Baptist tradition. I'll point out that Augustine is a Church Father we all share, predating the Bishop of Rome's assertion of primacy by 700 years.
Same. I grew up Southern Baptist as well, most of my family still is, but there was much lacking and it drove me away.
I really like this. Congratulations on finding your faith home. I too am not of my faith of origin. My people built a Baptist church as soon as the arrived anywhere. So I suppose I am Baptist royalty of sorts. But while I am southern, the Southern Baptists leave me cold. I simply do not believe in mandated submission or dominance according to gender. ( I do not believe that the intent is to say women are inferior so I am not offended in that sense but I know some really foolish men so it seems plain stupid at worst or lazy at best. That being said there are differences in the sexes and that leads to different skill sets. And IMO the family model that works best is an alpha male with a mate of his caliber. ) So I tried that Catholic light protestant religion. It was lovely. I felt the presence of the Lord there. Until it was invaded by Californians with far more tolerance than I was comfortable with. They began to preach the same sex tolerance dogma WHEN MY CHILDREN WERE ENTERING ADOLESCENCE. I am furious about the ramifications to this day. Neither are same sex inclined but they are tolerant of everything. In my heart of hearts I believe undiscerning tolerance is the devil's work. So now I am unchurched. I feel like a survivor of some catastrophe wandering a desert. But I am Baptist to my bone marrow. I can't go Catholic because I believe the Baptist tenet that one does good because they ARE saved, not to be saved.
Every Church today has its problem. My family and I have been blessed to have an extremely conservative priest and while we don't have a Latin Mass, we have a reverent Novus Ordo.
If differences in salvation theology are your main issue, I recommend reading "Salvation: what every Catholic should know" by Ascension Press. It is super readable, and the details of Catholic salvation theology may surprise you, if you haven't studied it before. Many protestants' understanding of what Catholics believe is simply incorrect.
As a life long Lutheran who sat in a Catholic Church for many years before converting I can confirm there are many misunderstandings about what Catholics believe from those outside the Church - including the grace vs. works controversy. I think Catholic communities that are willing to embrace their theology, study the bible, study their faith (lots of resources), and understand the theology behind the ritual of the mass find it to be a much better environment to support their own spiritual journey.
Thanks for the recommendation. I am by no means anti-Catholic.
Really beautiful, John. Our stories are very similar on this point. The thing that steels my faith is that the world never made so much sense until I revisited, as an adult, the doctors of the Church and the great intellectual weight of their work.
Same. I honestly felt like I was reading things I knew to be true all along while simultaneously feeling like an idiot for ever having been so arrogant as to believe that I had it all figured out before. The depth of knowledge and spiritual insight from the Church Father's is timeless.
Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, if you sincerely confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, you are my brother. We can go round and round about doctrine and dogma, but in the end, we're all working for the same boss.
Grace and Peace to you Amigo. ⛰️🔥🗡️🌦️🐎✨
My search for the Church ⏳⛪ lead me back through England, Germany, ⚜️ Florence, Rome and Venice ⚓ home to Constantinople and the safe harbor ☦️ of The Holy Orthodox Faith. I had to let go of my cynical protest-ant iconoclasm and embrace the Trinitarian and Incarnational simplicity of my youth. ⛲♥️🕊️ God is Merciful and Holy......
....Most Holy Theotokos save us!
One God and savior.
Excellent read
Thank you!
Thank you for sharing this very personal journey. I suppose the journey in hope is always the best we can do and sufficient of itself. Better to travel hopefully (with a map) than to be lost.
The seriousness of genuine Catholic men who are patriarchal and have lots of children is what got me. I went to an Opus Dei middle school and didn’t know there were men who take the faith so seriously. Later I learned about the intellectual tradition but it was serious strong men who worshipped reverently that really made it all click
Julius Caesar, heaven or no?
Catholic tradition holds the belief in what is known as the "Harrowing of Hell" (or the Descent into Hell). After His crucifixion and before His resurrection, Christ descended to the realm of the dead, traditionally referred to as "hell" (not the hell of the damned, but rather the abode of the dead, known as Sheol or Hades). This realm included the souls of the righteous who had lived before Christ, including figures like Abraham, Moses, and David. The souls, who had been awaiting the Redeemer, were then brought into heaven.
One could argue that he was lifted up at that time, however, I doubt Ceaser was waiting for Christ, but who knows?
Dante is probably pretty accurate on the subject. He mentions Caesar in Inferno (Canto IV), when he meets him in Limbo, the first circle of Hell. Limbo (according to Dante) is reserved for virtuous pagans who lived before Christ and thus could not enter Heaven due to their lack of Christian faith, despite their moral righteousness.
Doesn’t this just prove that it’s mostly aesthetic judgement – When I move to NYC I did a lot of shopping around for churches. It sounds superficial I know but I wasn’t raised in a religious household so had to do the decision making off instinct alone. There was a large variety of churches from hyper-modern cringe fest to ultra-traditional snooze fest. I did finally found a church that was traditional enough (in its service) that it felt authentic but the main criteria it met (for me) was the music (exceptional choir) and aesthetics (the church was historically significant and beautiful). I think my point is it was an aesthetic judgement I made and subsequently based off a visceral feeling than something carefully measured. I enjoyed reading your post, it made a lot of sense.
For me it was deeper. I didn't go into the theological reasons because I didn't want people to turn to fighting about theology. But for me my journey started in college when I read Plato and Aristotle and from there Aquinas. Once I believed Christianity to be true I reaschered branches and denominations and I firmly believe in the teaching and the apostolic succession of the Catholic Church despite its current problems. The aesthetics were important but they were secondary to the teachings themselves.
I don't expect everyone to agree so I try not and lean to heavy on the doctrine in order to keep the conversation where I want it.
Thank you for your response, I think it’s great that you arrived at your position through a philosophical lens, I’m not schooled into Greek philosophy as much as I’d like to be but it sounds like a very non-linear approach to Christianity?
I think I could potentially benefit from a similar method of discovery as the typical pedestrian arrival points to Christianity are often mired in alternative/more current agendas. I’m always looking to deepen my understanding (of christianity) and sometimes it’s posts like these that prompt it.
For me I saw the connection between Athens and Jerusalem through Aristotle's unmoved mover or unactualized actualizer. Plato also makes arguments for a single creator through the forms.
Essentially I saw the proof philosophical proofs for God in the Greeks and since Aquinas was the one who more or less married Aristotelian and Christian metaphysics he was my next step.
I would recommend Ed Fezer's "Five Proofs for the Existence of God," as a starting place.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Five_Proofs_of_the_Existence_of_God/il8yDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
Thank you, I appreciate the recommendation.
I attend an independent evangelical church. Fortunately my pastor is a serious, well-educated, intellectual man, probably the most intelligent pastor in the state of Alabama, and the second or third-smartest man I have ever met. Still afflicted with some boomer pathologies-of-mind, just not as bad as the average. The singing is mostly old hymns or newer hymns following in that style (still too modernized for my tastes but leaps and bounds beyond the 'contemporary' trash you often hear at Protestant churches these days).
If I grew up in a theologically weak Methodist or Episcopalian church I could see myself being drawn in by the siren's sound of Catholicism, but that was never to be. There are certain hurdles which prevent me from crossing over that great divide. I do think Protestantism will have to become more magisterial and less of a fractured, hippie-dippie clown show -- to reconcile itself with church history -- in order to win out in the long run. De-feminize the church, drop the kooky Dispensationalist end-times obsessions and jewdolatry, the persecution fetishes, etc.
I firmly believe that the majority of what people call "Christian" churches in the West are terribly mislead at best and (more likely) have fallen into outright heresy. People often complain that they can't understand how a nation like the US that is still majority Christian on the surface can be so beset by troubles and apparently subject to Judgement... I don't wonder about this at all.
I think Junger sums it up well, “Still more important is the consideration that in many people today a strong need for religious ritual coexists with an aversion to churches. There is a sense of something missing in existence, which explains all the activity around gnostics, founders of sects, and evangelists, who all, more or less successfully, step into the role of the churches. One might say that a certain definite quantity of religious faith always exists, which in previous times was legitimately satisfied by the churches. Now, freed up, it attaches itself to all and everything. This is the gullibility of modern man, which coexists with a lack of faith. He believes what he reads in the newspaper but not what is written in the stars.”
Ernst Jünger,
Man most definitely has a "God shaped hole" in his spirit which he will attempt to fill with almost anything he can.... but only truly finding God satisfies. That being said, the churches that continue to work hard and suffer shrinkage need to spend less time blaming secular influence and more time looking in the mirror, in my opinion. If people aren't finding the spiritual nourishment they need they will look elsewhere.
What’s so interesting to me about every analysis of why people fall away from faith is that it always boils down to “Christians doing Christianity badly.” Too many Christians don’t seem to consider that some people might examine Christianity and just find it untrue. It never occurs to them that no matter how hard they try to do Christianity better, it won’t make it any more true to those who find it wanting.
I understand that sentiment. But as I told another commentor my faith journey is more complicated than I explain in this article.
It was my philosophy courses in college that led me to Christianity. I saw the connection between Athens and Jerusalem through Aristotle's unmoved mover or unactualized actualizer. Plato also makes arguments for a single creator through the forms.
Essentially, I saw the philosophical proofs for God in the Greeks and since Aquinas was the one who more or less married Aristotelian and Christian metaphysics, he was my next step. I looked at other religions and I found Christianity true, for many reasons such as public miracles, the martyrdom of the apostles etc.
I’m glad to hear it! Thanks for sharing.
I click on every piece (here and elsewhere) about why people are leaving Christianity or fall away from faith. Almost none of them address the reasons why I left the faith, which is that I no longer found it reasonable to believe, quite apart of Christians doing Christianity badly.
I grew up Southern Baptist but for me it was getting serious with the faith a claimed belief in,then realizing that many of my fellow Protestants were getting things wrong. To me Calvinism or so called Reformed Theology made crystal clear sense in understanding the world and why people behave as they do.
I grew up Southern Baptist as well, most of my family still is, and I love them but theologically, its rough.
Idk, see my issue with Catholicism is probably how your’s is with the SBC. I must clarify, I probably have more in common with 16th century Protestants in thought than modern ones but where I was going is that the Church of Rome hasn’t answered my questions nor do I see them or a resemblance to them in it. I have a lot of Catholic friends though, and while I’ll push my points hard I try to walk a line.
I have made this same journey. I could no longer intellectually or theologically justify Dispensationalism, so I had to leave my otherwise fantastic (but in my mind terribly misguided) church and Reformed theology is where I felt comfortable.
Did not mean to take this long in my reply. Max, when I actually realized I needed to rep what I claimed with my faith it immediately became clear to me that Biblical illiteracy was rampant and people were placing their faith it what the mainstream said about Christianity vis a vis “Left Behind” etc.
Many Protestants, particularly Evangelicals (or Ex-vangelicals), are gradually becoming aware of the superficiality of what remains of the Western Christendom paradigm. As they reach this conculsion, many are looking back to former paradigms of Christianity for guidance. Some holding tight to last gasps of Liberal Theology (Enlightenment contributions) or Fundamentalist traditions shaped out of the Reformation, while others go further back to Catholic or Orthodox Traditions and the earnest, somber liturgies they provide, which seem a good solution when juxtabposed against the shallow individualist practices that have defined contemporary Western Christianity, but still miss Christ's grand strategy (Eph 3:8-10). I would contend that none of these go back far enough, as they are all products of the apostolic tradition altered by cultural priorities, and although they were sincere attempts to solve real problems from their time and context, they ended up creating static institutions that could not dynamically respond as new problems arose in succeeding generations or non-Western contexts. We need to significantly recover and return to the Deposit (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14) that was implemented in the early churches for the first three centuries of Christianity (based on the idea of household or extended family), which Jesus intended to shape His global family movement perpetually until He returns. This is part of His eternal plan. The social structure of Jesus church is household, which is present in every culture, but which He has reshaped into a new type of extended family that both addresses and challenges the values of any culture or time, out of a sincere, authentic, and loving community life.