Back to the blog series

The Creeds, an examination of Early Christian Beliefs

Well, on a slightly more ecumenical note. Let us examine the creeds of the early church(which most of our churches agree on), specifically the Apostles Creed, The Nicene creed, and partially the Athanasian Creed.

The Apostles Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

I find the Apostles Creed to be a wonderful statement of the very basis of Christianity. If you cannot affirm this creed as part of your beliefs, then I would be concerned about your salvation. This creed is commonly professed by most every Christian denomination, although there are those out there who do not (some because they do not believe in using creeds, others because they are blatantly against it). This is just an observation of mine, and I do not say it in a mean spirit, but why does this early creed talk about the Church, and not about Scripture? That is just a thought.



The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.


The Nicene Creed is probably one of the most important statements of faith ever issued by Christians. In the face of heresy, the bishops of the Church came together out the Council of Nicea, and issued the creed. This creed is also foundational to real authentic Christianity, I think very few people would disagree with me on that. I love this creed. Though there are many different ways that people get out of the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" I like to take it very literally myself. I do notice also, that this creed mentions Scripture(unlike the Apostles Creed), but once again, there is also a special place for the Church in the Creed.

The Athanasian Creed

The Athanasian Creed is a very long, yet well written creed. It is a beautiful statement of the truths of the early Church, and I would advise all to give it a read if you have the time.

Motu on the 7th?

http://www.kath.net/detail.php?id=17154

I found this on another blog, its a quote by the pope

The cultic dances of the different religions have different purposes—incantation, imitative magic, mystical ecstasy— none of which is compatible with the essential purpose of the liturgy of the "reasonable sacrifice". It is totally absurd to try to make the liturgy "attractive" by introducing dancing pantomimes (wherever possible performed by professional dance troupes), which frequently (and rightly, from the professionals' point of view) end with applause. Wherever applause breaks out in-the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. Such attractiveness fades quickly—it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation. I myself have experienced the replacing of the penitential rite by a dance performance, which, needless to say, received a round of applause. Could there be anything farther removed from true penitence? Liturgy can only attract people -when it looks, not at itself, but at God, when it allows him to enter and act. Then something truly unique happens, beyond competition, and people have a sense that more has taken place than a recreational activity. None of the Christian rites includes dancing.
-Pope Benedict XVI

Church part 5

Tradition- Let us examine the Church Fathers

"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about" -GK Chesterton

"The Fathers are primarily to be considered as witnesses, not as authorities. They are witnesses of an existing state of things, and their treatises are, as it were, histories, - teaching us, in the first instance, matters of fact, not of opinion. Whatever they themselves might be, whether deeply or poorly taught in Christian faith and love, they speak, not their own thoughts, but the received views of their respective ages." -John Henry Cardinal Newman

One of the things that most influenced my conversion to the Catholic Church was the reading of the writers of the early church. I came into them without very many presuppositions. I wanted to read what they honestly said. The only writer of the early church I had even read partially was Augustine(who is often portrayed as an early Calvinist by the Calvinists). When I finally started reading I was very confused. Things sounded nothing like what the Reformers claimed was authentic Christianity, and it certainly was not like the churches in our time that claim to be restoring apostolic Christianity. Instead I found a Church with a strong hierarchy, that included bishops who were succesors of the Apostles. This Church firmly believed in the Eucharist being the real body and blood of Christ, as well as the saving power of Baptism. I saw a high veneration of Mary(and other saints), a strong view of the Bishop of Rome, and many other things. It was thoroughly Catholic. I read early Liturgies, and they seemed nothing like the way worship is done in most protestant Churches. It was all very confusing. It was what led me to really consider the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. Slowly I saw that Roman Catholicism was consistent with the early church, and could in fact trace its lineage back to then. I was impressed.

Yet when I showed some statements to my fellow reformed friends, they were flabergasted. One person even told me that the Church had already lost its way by the time of Ignatius(who had contact with the Apostles). To me, this doesn’t make any sense, and instead points to the truth of what the Catholic Church claims. More recently I have reread some Augustine, and realized that he is not the Calvinist that he is often said to be(by protestants). Instead, he was thorougly Catholic. The Following are quotes from various Church Fathers about anything from tradition, to the authority of Peter and his successors, to the Scriptures. Some are long, but good, if you prefer, read the short ones. Enjoy.

"But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept." Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).
'So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.' Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther." John Chrysostom, Homily on 2nd Thessalonians, 4:2 (A.D. 404).

"But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to show that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error." Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, I:37 (A.D. 362).

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 44:1-2 (c. A.D. 96).

"It is an easier thing for the sun to be quenched, than for the church to be made invisible." John Chrysostom, In illud: vidi Dom. (ante A.D. 407).

"'...thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church' ... It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness...If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).

"I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul...My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross." Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 377).
"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).
"The chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today." Augustine, Against the Letters of Petillian, 2:51 (A.D. 402).
But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view, if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practiced negligently should thenceforward be practiced with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils, this, and nothing else, has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name." Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory of the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 23:59 (A.D. 434).

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [the Tome of Pope Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo [regn. A.D. 440-461]. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away." Council of Chalcedon, Session II (A.D. 451).
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties." Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

Churches? Part 4, by Paleocrat

ON THE PROTESTANT REVOLT
By Jeremiah Bannister aka Paleocrat (http://www.xanga.com/Paleocrat_etc)

Let us get one thing clear: It is a grave injustice to holy Mother Church to refer to Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, or any other Protestant fountainhead as a reformer. What Luther initiated and what others after him carried on was not a reformation, it was a revolution. If their goal was to purify the Church, which was their claim, then the means by which to do so was destruction. The structure, the officers, the orders, the sacraments, the sacramentals, a number of books considered from time immemorial to be canonical, and a myriad of other characteristics of the Church were to be eradicated. Nothing short of this would do.

Contrary to public opinion, reform through destruction (revolution) was Luther’s ambition from the very beginning. In May of 1518, in response to a letter written to him by a former professor of his, Luther stated:

“To speak plainly, my firm belief is that the reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, papal regulation, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as they presently exist are thoroughly uprooted…[this uprooting is] a resolution which neither your authority, though it is certainly very great for me, much less that of any others can turn me aside.”

It was Luther’s firm conviction that the only way to “reform” the Church was to uproot many of those very things that made the Church the Church. This is the hallmark of revolution: reform by destruction.

What Luther did not anticipate was what would happen were the walls to actually come crashing down. It did not take long before the world saw the fruits of his cause. Within a matter of months, the disastrous effects resulting from his beliefs pertaining to the individual’s right of private interpretation and primacy of conscience began to take form, and it was frightening. Doctrinal and moral relativity was rampant. Ecclesiastical pluralism was spreading like wildfire. The seed which he planted at Worms had quickly taken root, and he was not sure how to handle the situation.

Luther, seeing the revolutionary nature his protest, decided it best to at least attempt to put an end to the outbreak. He, in a very popish manner, began decreeing what could and could not be believed by those wishing to be saved. Masses were outlawed and both convents and monasteries were burned to the ground. When Catholics cried out in protest against these actions, Luther said:

The stipulation made that monks and nuns still dwelling in their cloisters should not be expelled and that the Mass should not be abolished could not be accepted... The monastic life and the Mass cover with infinite ignominy the merit and suffering of Christ.”

Still, it is one thing to destroy, it is quite another to replace. Luther had to begin the work of an architect, someone building from the ground up. He decided that his newly formed confession, penned my Melancthon, would be the new standard by which all Christians must adhere. Hear Luther:

“The Augsburg Confession must endure as the true and unadulterated word of God until the great judgment day. The Council could be accepted only on condition that the confession be acknowledged as true apart from any counciliar authority. Not even an angel of heaven could alter a single syllable of it, and any angel that dared to do so must be cursed and damned. Still less might emperors, popes or bishops sit in judgment on it.”

He went on elsewhere to insist that:

“I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, not even the angels. Anyone who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved.”

It is here that we see, beyond any shadow of doubt, that Luther was a revolutionary in fear of other revolutionaries. To make matters worse, he was terrified that they would revolt on the very same ground he did at Worms! And, were he to be consistent, they would have every right to. But revolutionaries hate power only in so much as they envy that power, and once they have the power they will use the very same tactics they once reviled in order to secure it.

Unfortunately, this revolutionary nature inherent within the Protestantism is just as real today as it was in the 1518. Protestants split from one another faster than one could keep up with. They revolt, one from another, over issues of great and small importance alike. But one would be wrong to fault them, for in revolting they are only staying true to their heritage of revolution. They are merely bucking ecclesiastical authority, tossing aside Church traditions, and replacing the newly created vacuum with their own self-assumed authority, their own self-assumed ecclesiastical jurisdiction, all based on what is in harmony with their conscience and private interpretation of Scripture. They are being consistently Protestant. They are being revolutionaries par excellence.

part 3

So, having discussed both some basic controversy about the church, and basic ideas about the Bible, let us now turn to see what the Bible says about both the Church, Peter, itself, and tradition.

Matthew 16:18
18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hadeswill not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Christ changes Simons name to Peter, to reflect his new status a key figure, the head of the church(on earth, not to be confused with Christ who is the ultimate head of the church). We see that Peter is usually named first among the apostles in a consistent manner throughout Scripture. There are places in the Bible where it said that someone went to see Peter and the Apostles. Paul goes to Jerusalem to see Peter, not James who was the leader of the Jerusalem church. It is obvious that Peter holds a special place. He is perhaps the most mentioned disciple in the Gospels, and played a crucial role of leadership in the early days of the Church. What happened to this leadership? Did it end with Peter? We will examine this when we get to our discussion of the Church Fathers.

Matthew 18:15-17
15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

In this passage we see Jesus prescribe a way to overcome disagreements and problems between ourselves. What is the ultimate court of appeals? The Church. So when we have disagreements over interpretation of the Scriptures(some of which are heretical, and heresy is a sin), we should bring them to the church. And if those who are heretical refuse to submit to the church, we must treat them as being outside of it.

John 17:21
20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

We see that Christ prayers for the unity of the body of believers. Do the modern protestant denominations reflect this desire?

John 20:30
30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.

The Book of John claims to not have all of the recorded information about Christ.

Acts 15- The Jerusalem Council

The Church does not start out with a golden era of perfect unity, almost right away (in fact before most of the New Testament was even written) the Church was battling the Heresy of the Judaizers. The Church comes together, all of the apostles meet and discuss and come to a conclusion by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Church had the authority to make definitive decisions. It was not up to each believe to decide what they wanted to about the controversy, but rather to simply follow the true teachings of the apostles. It is also important to note that

2 Thessalonians 2:13-15
13But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 14He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Paul tells the Thessalonians to stand firm both in teaching received by letter, and also that which is passed on orally. Tradition and Scripture perfectly complement eachother because the form the deposit of faith.

1 Timothy 3:15
14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth

First of all it must be noted that the Church is called the pillar and foundation of the truth. Second of all, it can be noted that Paul only wrote this letter because he could not come to see Timothy. Does that mean that Paul much preferred teaching people orally, since writings can often be misunderstood?

2 Timothy 3:16
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

This is one of the places in the Bible where it claims itself to be God inspired. Though Paul was actually refering to the Old Testament (Since the New was being written), this covers all works that the Church views as inspired. Simply having this claim does not make it automatically the word of God, or else many other "holy books" would also be inspired. We can trust that the scripture is inspired through the witness of the Church. And thanks to Paul we know we can trust the scripture to help guide us, though it is not our sole source of knowledge.


These are just a few select passages that relate to the discussion at hand. They help to solidify our understanding of Peter, The Church, Scripture, and Tradition.

Next Blogs:
1) The Protestant "Reformation"
2) Church Fathers
3) The Nicene Creed: One Holy catholic and Apostolic, what is the church
4) The Catholic Church. Including scriptural basis for some contested beliefs
5) The Recent invention of other denominations, and the repackaging of heresies

the church, part 2

The Bible, inspired by God, is something that has caused much controversy in our time. Many different denominations claim to have the correct understanding of Scripture, yet many of these denominations contradict eachother. Is there a correct way of interpreting the Scriptures? Should each individual be his own decider of doctrine? Or did Christ leave a Church that would properly interpret the Scriptures? Let us consider a few questions.

1) What is the Bible?
The Sacred Scriptures are a collected group of writings that are inspired by God.

2) How did we get it?
The Old Testament is a group of writings from throughout the history of the nation of Israel. When the Church started on Pentecost she already had these writings. As the Apostles went out and preached, the also wrote many letters. These letters were viewed in very high regard. The Apostles also taught the people orally also, and when the Apostles died they appointed succesors(Bishops) who passed on the Holy Tradition of the Apostles(not to be confused with traditions of men, because these ideas were given to them by Christ, and passed to the apostles and then to the bishops). Eventually the Church realized that there should be a canon of Scripture. This was due to many false writings that were claiming to be of the apostles. Many of the writers of the early church discussed which books were to be accepted, based on the traditions that had been passed onto them. There was much controversy, but in the end the canon was finally decided. There are many local councils and documents that attest to what the canon looked like. These will be discussed under question 4.

3)Who has the right to interpret it? And how should Tradition play a part in our interpretation?

Seeing as how tradition played a part in how we received the Bible, the traditions passed on from the apostles should play a role in our interpretation. How do we know what traditions are authentic? We should look and see how the early Church practiced things and in how they interpreted the Bible. We can do this through studying the various writings of the church fathers. It will give us an idea of the way they thought, which is helpful in interpretation of the Scriptures.

The Church has the right to interpret Scriptures. God has promised to guide the Church to all truth. If the Church can err in interpretation, than there is no sure guide in giving us the truth.

4)Why are protestant Bibles missing books?

When Martin Luther started the "reformation" he decided to remove certain books from the Bible that had long been accepted by the Church. This is why at the Council of Trent(which occurred in response to the "reformation"), confirmed the books that are commonly refered to as the apocrypha. If one looks in the writings of the Church fathers, and in Councils(both ecumenical and local), they will see that the apocrypha was commonly accepted as part of the Old Testament. Also, one thing that is interesting to note, is that St. Benedict(the one who influenced Western Monasticism) often quoted from the apocrypha as "Scripture".

Let us examine the list of the books of the Old Testament at the Council of Carthage which was a crucial Council in deciding the Canon of the New Testament:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kings, 2 books of Paralipomenon, Job, Psalter of David, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Esdras, 2 books of Machabees

There are definetly many of the books that Luther rejected in that list. Luther also viewed James as a lower ranking book because of what James says about Faith and Works contradicting Luther's interpretation.

5) Why are Catholics so different about the Bible?
I have heard various things about Catholics and the Bible. Some of them can be understandable misunderstandings, yet others are ridiculous. I will discuss a few now.
1) the Catholic Church does not want people reading the Bible- The fact is, the Catholic Church does not encourage personal interpretation of the Bible(which is a protestant problem)
2)The Catholic Church chained Bibles down, to prevent people from reading it- Wrong, the Catholic Church kept the Bible chained in Churches and Monasterys because it was worth so much money. Before the printing press, copying a book would take ages
3) The Catholic Church kept the Bible out of the peoples common languages so they could not read it- The Church kept it out of the common languages because it was easier to simply keep copying it in latin, as well as the fact that Latin was a dead language, so there was no need for constant retranslation(as we see today where we get a new translation about…every year). Also, there were some translations in other languages before Luther.

Most of the misperceptions revolve around the fact that we are used to having a printing press and things that enable us to copy text incredibly fast, before the printing press, the way things were done was incredibly different.


Next Blogs:
1) What does the Bible say about the Church?
2) The Protestant "Reformation"
3) Church Fathers
4) The Nicene Creed: One Holy catholic and Apostolic, what is the church
5) The Catholic Church.
6) The Recent invention of other denominations

the church, part 1

Many People often wonder why there are so many Christian denominations today. This is a legitimate question. As you take a drive through any American city you see Catholic Churches, Southern Baptist Churches, Baptist Churches, Lutheran Churches, Evangelical Lutheran Churches, Episcopalian, Reformed, Presbyterian, Greek Orthodox, Pentecostal and that is only to name a few. Where did all these churches come from when Christ promised that "the gates of hell will not overcome"(Matthew 16:18) the church? Is it not going against what Christ prayed for when he prays " that all of them may be one "(John 17:21) Christ also promised the Apostles that the Holy Spirit "will guide you into all truth."(John 16:13), yet today we have 100s or 1000s of different Christian groups saying that the Holy Spirit has shown them the "truth", yet that "truth" contradicts the "truth" of other groups. Has the Holy Spirit gone schizophrenic? Is each person their own decider in what is God's truth(that sounds awfully relativistic to me)?

Or did Christ found a Church that will be guided in deciding the truth, and in interpreting Scripture(After all, how did we get the Canon of Scripture)? Or did he leave us alone to our own devices?

In my next few Blogs, I will be looking at scripture, and the early church fathers, to see which Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth"(1 Timothy 3:15). As well as examining the origins of different denominations,and how many of them are following the traditions of man, instead of the authentic teaching of the church.

Converstion 3

Part 3: Coming Home
-------------------------------

Slowly I decided that I agreed with the Catholic position on the Eucharist. I did not think that I could become Catholic because there were too many things that I still did not agree with, but I decided that I could be involved in the CRC's ecumenical relations with the Catholic Church. I still stayed reading though. I posted on my xanga at one point "Is the Catholic Church the true church?" I was genuinely interested. My mom found out that I was interested and was not too fond of the idea. This stopped me from delving in further. Had I delved in further at that point, I think i would have surely become a Catholic sooner. I was so close to converting, yet I had never attended a single Mass.

I decided that if I was not going to be Catholic, I should thus become a member in the Christian Reformed Church. The membership idea became even more important when I gained the opportunity to participate in "Facing Your Future". It was a program for CRC High School Juniors/Seniors who were leaders in Church or considering Ministry. You had to have membership in a Church though, so this also made me decide to become a member. Also, David Loew, my great mentor and friend, thought that for as reformed as i considered myself, I should probably be a member of a Reformed church. My mom had been opposed to church membership, but I think the Catholic scare convinced her that it was okay. I was accepted into the FYF program in the later half of my senior year, and I became a member of Kenosha Christian Reformed Church that May.

By this time I was dating again. Actually I was dating my 3rd Girlfriend, Katie. She was a Pentecostal, which was strange that we ended up dating, because i pretty much had no love in my heart for the local Assembly of God church. She had many good friends who were all really active in the local Assembly of God, and I got to know them all. I definitely disagreed with them on many points(some big, some really big, and some miniscule). I started to wonder, "How can we all read the Bible and come to such different conclusions when we are all lead supposedly by the same Holy Spirit". It really confused me. (Also, around this time my parents split up for a little while but got back together shortly before I left for FYF)

Graduation, and thus summer, finally came. I was so excited to be out of High School, and plus I was going to Kuyper College(used to be Reformed Bible College), and I figured that would help me straighten out any doubts in my mind about theology. I also figured that FYF could help. FYF took place in July, and it was the high point of my life up until then. I loved it. I loved the people, the environment, the learning, the discussions, and the passion each and everyone of us had there. Of course, while we were there we discussed a myriad of issues. We discussed the idea of election(and its bad side...reprobation) and infant baptism, and eschatology(just to name a few things). It was good discussion, I came away with a clearer idea of the reality of God and his care for me, but perhaps not as convinced about reformed ideas as I had expected.

I remember one night me and my suite mates were having a discussion about theology stuff, and I told them that I believed the Catholic idea about communion. They all found that interesting and we had some good conversation. I enjoy discussing theology with people, I had an interesting conversation with my mom around those times about infant baptism, and i remember appealing to tradition. Little did I know that I was already on my way to thinking like a Catholic.

So FYF ended, I was on a Spiritual High, which lead to a crash. After FYF I also broke up with my girlfriend, so I was really set for some unstable times. It was a rough month or so, but finally I made it off to college, happy that I was finally on my own. I loved the feeling, and became pretty well adjusted to my different type of life.

Now that I was on my own I was free to start making my own decisions. The first few weeks I went to church after church, but none of the reformed churches were as good as my kenosha Christian Reformed Church. Some of the things that many of the Churches taught, I did not agree with. One was an Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and they were talking about having any images in worship as being bad. I was first of all shocked that they spent an entire sermon talking about this, and second of all, that they were advocating something that had been condemned by an early church council.

For my birthday(September 27 for those of you who do not know), I had the privilege of getting a 32 volume set of the Early Church Fathers. I instantly began reading it. To my shock, they were all very....Catholic. I instantly began thinking about the idea that had swirled in my head a few months before...were Catholics right? Slowly I studied more, I bought more books, and prayed a lot about it. I think I even threw out a Hail Mary for good measure(and to see if i would be smited). Eventually, for one of the chapels at Kuyper, we had a priest come in to talk about singleness. It was revolutionary compared to the "get married asap" attitude often prevalent at small Bible schools. I loved it. I decided I would go to his church at least once. I convinced a friend to go with me a few weeks later. I started going there every once in awhile. Which was good, because it was more Church I was going to than before.

I slowly grew to really like that church, and started thinking about becoming Catholic seriously again. More prayer, and more thinking, and more reading developed. I started looking into the Devotional side of catholic things, which is incredibly rich. I managed to have a friend get me a rosary, i started out not doing it correctly, but i finally got my hands on the right way to do it. I also discovered the divine mercy chapelt, done in song, and really grew to love that. Around that time(january or so) i made a list of things i liked about the catholic church, and things that i saw as objections. Slowly all the objections fell away(I wrote a blog about this awhile back when i first announced my conversion), and I came to the point where I just felt wrong not being Catholic. Everyone at school began to think of me as Catholic. I found myself defending Catholic things. I made the sign of the cross when i prayed in private. I had truly become Catholic in both thought, and heart. Something that had never quite happened when I was reformed. As a reformed person, I could defend everything, but sometimes i just did not believe it deep down in my heart. Yet this Catholic stuff became part of me. It was a wonderful feeling.

I started going to Mass with a friend, Benjamin, who attended Mass even though he was not Catholic. It was really cool going every weekend. It really started to bother me that I was not yet Catholic.

Our spring break was in February, and near the end of it my mother and I went up to Barnes and Noble. She mentioned a Catholic bible there, and I mentioned that I had been attending a Catholic church, and was considering converting. Thus began the debate between me and my mom over Catholicism. She eventually met with a priest, and became okay with things, but for awhile it was rough. I remember feeling unsure of what to do because of her disapproval. One day, while I was browsing xanga, I came across a blogring of Catholic converts. Amongst them, I found a guy(Jeremiah this part is for you..haha) whose blog I had read occasionally when I was reformed. I saw that he had also decided to become Catholic. I was greatly encouraged, and we started talking online and on the phone. He was able to help me through my doubts.

Around March I finally emailed the right people at St Thomas(where Father Jim is priest), and got to meet with the education director. She was expecting a normal inquisitive person who was possibly considering becoming Catholic. But I shared with her my life story, and talked about my research, and honestly, i think she was a little surprised(in a good way of course). She said that I would need to set up a meeting with Father Jim, and they would decide what to do. I schedule my first meeting with Father Jim, shared everything with him, and we decided that I would not need to go through RCIA, and that I could come in at Easter, though I told him i felt like that would be stealing the other people's thunder.

So we decided April 15th, I started to figure things out as far as my sponsor, and who would be coming. Eventually things changed to the 22nd though, which worked out far better.

I attended the Chrism Mass(the Mass where the oils and waters are blessed by the bishop) at St. Andrews Cathedral the week before easter, and my word it was amazing. I loved it. It was so cool to see the faith represented like that. Easter was a good weekend, because I attend a variety of services (including a Stations of the Cross which was really cool). I was getting really excited for my eminent confirmation.

Finally, the 22nd came. In perhaps one of the best moments of my life, I was confirmed into the Catholic Church. Over 30 people came, including my family. That day I received Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and I was the happiest man in the world! It was a great day, and I have not looked back since.

Conversion 2

Part 2: Growing up brings so many changes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Junior High was an interesting time. I got more awkward looking, and more apathetic about...everything. I remember my first chapel of junior high, my attitude towards it was quite different. One thing that did develop during Jr High was a love for history, perhaps it was because I had some enjoyable history classes and good teachers. I decided that I would some day like to be a historian, and my idea of becoming a pastor slowly faded, as did my interest in anything to do with church. I think that I attended a Catholic Church for the first time in Jr. High, and it was also the first time I ever had met a Catholic. I had been raised to believe that Catholic people were really deceived and doing everything wrong. Even the materials we used in classes and the things we were taught reflected this attitude. The only thing religious I remember doing was reading the Left Behind books, I thought they were pretty interesting, and was scared of the rapture coming soon(I had the occasional dream about being left behind). As I got older I switched to the adult books and read them all(until they started doing the prequels and stuff).

Anyways, Things were awkward in those years, so I think i have repressed my memories of most things. Once freshman year rolled around things got even more weird. I listened to Eminem and thought myself to be very cool. Little did I know how lame I probably was. Sophomore year proved to be better. I made some good friends that year, and many of those friends helped me remember why I was a Christian and why I was attending a Christian school. That was also the year The Passion came out. I went and saw it with my friend, and was quite moved. That was also the year that I started dating. I met my first girlfriend, Karolyn. Oh boy, those were the days.

Karolyn was a Calvinist. I initially reacted badly to this fact, and questioned her to why she believed it. The thing that surprised me though, was that she knew what she believed. I had never studied theology before, I had simply just listened to what my pastor said. I slowly grew to like her Church, and their theology. I liked the idea that their beliefs were linked back in history, unlike the non-denominational churches i had always been a part of. I started attending Church with Karolyn. My Mom was not really fond of this idea, because she liked me being at Kenosha Christian Fellowship. I enjoyed Kenosha Christian Reformed Church. The pastor was an older fellow, John Bylsma, who was incredibly smart, and passionate, and a great speaker. Slowly I began to consider myself Reformed, and I began to study Reformed theology. Soon I knew and could defend the basics of reformed theology. Though looking back I am not sure how much I believed it in my heart.

I think that dating Karolyn was really good for my faith, because I grew a lot. We eventually broke up after junior year when she moved to Pennsylvania, but I am getting ahead of myself. During the time we dated I started considering becoming a pastor again. I told the pastor at kenosha CRC and at Kenosha Christian Fellowship this. I began meeting with my pastor at Kenosha Christian Fellowship, and he had me do the call to worship occasionally, he also had me teach a sunday school lesson once. I became more open about my faith at school, though people thought some of my reformed beliefs were wrong, I thought I was "better" than them because I actually knew what I believed. This is also when I was first introduced to St. Augustine, who was portrayed to me as an early Calvinist.

So, after Junior year I had my first break up. I stayed going to the CRC church since Karolyn had moved. I liked it there, the people were like family. They had a new pastor come in, David Loew, who soon became my mentor, and a great friend. We had(and still have) a lot of good theological conversations.

Senior year was a good year. I remember that i went out of my way to put in my testimony(that i wrote for senior bible) that I was reformed, i think i also put something about not believing in the rapture, but then crossed it out. When I read it in class I ended up having to defend Reformed Theology to both the teacher and my fellow classmates. It was interesting. I was still talking a lot to Karolyn at that time, and she told me to be careful and that I shouldn't brag. I probably should have listened.

I was in Journalism class during senior year, and I was seeking to write a really good column, so i decided that I would write an article about theology. I figured it was not something that everyone thought about, so it could be helpful to some. Many of the articles were just me talking about why this belief was true or that belief was false, but one article idea was bound to change me.

Now you see, I was working at the Library during my Junior and Senior year. It was a really good job. I like books. I like reading books. I like thinking about books. So, as i became more interested in theology, i started randomly reading and borrowing theology books from the Library. One day, I was shelving new books, and I came across the book "Swear to God" by Scott Hahn. I flipped through the book and discovered that he was a former Presbyterian who had become Catholic. I was shocked, here was a man who had left the very thing I was becoming. The idea intrigued me, and I read a little bit of the book while I was reading. It was a solid book, and made me rethink things a little. I decided that I should look into Catholic beliefs, seeing as how it would better help me understand what the Reformed people were reforming against. I decided that I could also write an article about Catholics for my school paper. I loved the books, the more I read the more interested I became.

Little did I know what I was getting into....

Conversion Part 1

Well, this idea seems daunting, but I am going to try and summarize for all of you my religious life story and conversion to Catholicism. I hope its an enjoyable read and helpful in better understanding how I ended up in the (One, Holy) Catholic (and Apostolic) Church.

-----
Part 1: The Early Years

I was raised in a good home. After I was born my parents decided that they should get back in a church. We attended some churches when I was younger, though obviously i was not really impacted by them, because I was 2 or 3 years old. I do have memories of my dad being baptized while we were living in Virginia, but that is my only real memory of anything church related in those years.

We moved to Hawaii when I was 4. While in Hawaii we attended a Church of the Nazarene. I remember some of my Sunday School sessions. I remember learning the motions to "Lord I lift Your Name of High". I thought I was cool stuff. I remember there was a prominent American flag in the Church. Only later would I realize how Americanized American Protestantism had become.

The next move was to Wisconsin as I was going into the 2nd grade. We looked around for churches. There was one that I did not enjoy at all, and this is the one that stands out in my memory. It was a big(though not quite mega) non denominational Church. I remember that the Sunday School kept me completely separated from the family. I also hated the Sunday School, they were singing some song about David and Goliath and it had really stupid motions. I did not enjoy it at all, and luckily we did not stay attending there. Instead my parents stumbled upon Kenosha Christian Fellowship. They randomly found it in the phone book, and we went.

Kenosha Christian Fellowship is a very very small(like 30-40 people) non denominational, we're not really a church we are a fellowship, church. This church I liked. The people were nice, and the Sunday School did not have stupid David and Goliath motions. I enjoyed this Church, and it was vital in my growth as a youngster. Our family officially decided it was our home church when we were added to the building cleaning rotation.

My faith gradually grew into its own while at this church. In 3rd grade I entered Christian Life School. CLS is a very conservative, very fundamentalist, pentecostalish school. Even though from my current perspective I do not agree with everything i was taught, my elementary teachers were good and helped with my religious development. My 6th grade teacher, Mrs. Taylor, had the biggest impact of all my Elementary teachers. During 6th grade I decided I wanted to be a Pastor when I was older. I remember that I wrote a "sermon" that was like a page and half or so. I showed it to the Pastor at Kenosha Christian Fellowship, and he invited me to read it as the "call to worship". I told him that I would. Though when the time came, I developed stage fright and chickened out. The feeling that I wanted to be a pastor gradually waned when I entered Jr. High. Jr High was a very apathetic time for me, and it would test my faith.

http://www.worldslastchance.com/?gclid=CITXu5zhz4wCFQlQWAodp2Gwtw


Guys(and Girls), apparently, according to this site... the bible predicts the next pope will be a demon impersonating Pope John Paul II

Coming Soon

Matt Kelley's Conversion Story.

ok...maybe not too soon. hopefully by monday

From St Francis de Sales "The Catholic Controversy"

"If then the Church can err, O Calvin, O Luther, to whom shall i have recourse in my difficulties? To the Scripture, say they. But what shall I, poor man, do, for it is precisely about the Scripture that my difficulty lies. I am not in doubt whether I must believe the Scripture or not; for who knows not that it is the Word of Truth? What keeps me in anxiety is the understanding of this Scripture, is the conclusions to be drawn from it, which are innumberable and diverse and opposite on the same subject; and everybody takes his view, one this, another that, though out of all there is but one which is sound:- Ah! who will give me to know that good among so many bad? who will tell me the real verity through so many specious and masked vanities. Everybody would emback on the ship of the Holy Spirit; there is but one, and only that one shall reach the port, all the rest are on their way to shipwreck. Ah! what danger am I in of erring! All shout out their claims with equal assurance and thus deceive the greater part, for all boast that theirs is the ship. Who ever says that our Master has not left us guides in so dangerous and difficulty a way, says that he wishes us to perish. Whoever says that he has put us aboard at the mercy of wind and tide, without giving us a skillful pilot able to use properly his compass and chart, says that the Saviour is wanting in foresight."