Reformed resources for former Roman Catholics

[Antipas_14]

Hi everyone,

In the past 2 years I converted from Roman Catholicism to reformed Christianity and have joined an OPC church about a year ago. Following my conversion, I had the joy of watching my wife and her family convert as they learned the truth of the gospel as well.

One thing I had noticed as I continue on in the faith, is current Catholic friends and family members seem to attack or put pressure on us since converting. What I mean is once they understand why we have left, they get hostile or easily offended when we explain our beliefs. Others, even Protestants, seem to downplay the deceptiveness of Roman Catholicism, which is actually discouraging. What I mean by that is we can really see God opening our eyes to the deception and pulling us out of it, and to make it seem like there is truth in their doctrine or that one can adhere to Roman Catholicism teachings and still be saved makes our conversion seem like it was over a matter of minor details. When in reality, it was a matter of gospel being distorted and unrecognizable, and God opening our eyes in spite of all of that.

With that said, I was wondering if anyone was aware of any sort of ministry that might exist for former Catholics and staying strong in their faith, or if there are any helpful books that come from a former Catholic now reformed mindset. I did find Ligonier ministries (which actually helped shed light on the true gospel early on in my conversion), but am looking for something that kind of specifically addresses helping those who come from Roman Catholicism.

Any resources you could suggest would be greatly appreciated!


Luke G

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Remember that the issues are at bottom, spiritual; and not intellectual, institutional, moral, or anything else (though these aspects can and do play parts, and may be raised up by one side or the other as relevant in discussions).

Your love for your RC relatives and friends, flowing from your love of Christ, combined with the fruits of the gospel in your lives (as they come to be seen), will be the best "book" they read; even if you find other helpful resources. Its the kind of material that may take the longest time to digest, but it has deep effect.

There are lots of different RC-isms out there. That's probably not news to you, coming from that pool; but many people inside and out RCC believe the rhetoric of semper eadem, "always the same," that RCism is the faith that never changes, and never has changed.

Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Except... that Rome has changed over and over again. The fact is that within the past week or so, it has morphed a little more with publication of señor Bergoglio’s Amoris Laetitia. That roaring sound in the background is competing RC voices explaining that or how this latest pronouncement has-or-hasn't changed the unchangeable; and what it all means for the "faithful."

Who are the modern RC "faithful," and can anyone tell the difference apart from some overriding commitment to the theory (rather than the current instantiation) of the papacy? Which previous set of dogmas, from which era, are the "gold standard" of RCism? I have encountered a few "Old Catholics" (perhaps represented institutionally best by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church ) whose rupture with the Vatican dates to the 1870s; and others from SSPX ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_St._Pius_X ) another breach from the 1970s. The Jansenists (strict predestinarian Augustinans, opposed to Rome's semi-Pelagianism) were suppressed even further back, in the 1600s and 1700s.

Anyone who appeals to "the way things were in the beginning"--as the Protestants did in the 1500s--faces a choice: reformation or accommodation. One today in RCC, though he dissents from his leadership's direction as a matter of conscience, he will most likely be let alone. Provided that he remains "loyal to the Church," which in Roman parlance means only the communion acknowledged by the bishop of Rome.

A RCer who thinks his bishop or pope is teaching anything improperly on any grounds whatsoever, he explicitly or implicitly challenges the submission that is required of him. Someone of lower "rank" is not entitled to decide what is or is not within his superior's scope of moral or doctrinal purview. For example laymen who declare the pope is beyond his authority when teaching of morals impinging the realm of economics, they presume to fix a limit upon the man who (in RCism) gets to determine the limits for himself. Allowing or getting strict with dissenters: these are simply prudential choices of the powerful hierarchy which (though often bickering within the ranks) has shown itself capable of uniting for self-defense, or being united by a charismatic leader (an ecclesiastical potentate) with a strong will.


A key piece of Roman dogma is that "nothing is fundamentally wrong here, because nothing can be fundamentally wrong here." This is the one, immovable certainty of Romes self-understanding.

"Trust us (you have no choice)" is Rome's essential creed. No bishop = no sacrament = no salvation.

Rome imagines herself as an "ongoing Incarnation," with the Pope as the Head of his body. With this understanding, there can be no "schism" that continues to live; there's no lesser part capable of carrying on with the true life-of-the-church not flowing down from the top. This is what happens when Christ is removed as the true and ONLY Head. Corruption that gets to any earthly head cannot be recognized, dealt with and separated.

Rome IS a departure from the Faith. They are the schismatics, because they are irreformable, by their own admission: There's nothing fundamentally wrong with us, even if you find bad characters inhabiting the church.

If a genuinely faithful layman or churchman cannot appeal to the present body, to a dogmatic confession, to church history, or to the Bible (ultimately)--if he cannot LIVE a faithful church existence along with those who share with him conviction of the true gospel--this is death. One cannot live a lie without dying. Rome is a mostly dead place, and so to live one must get free.

Look at our Confessions. They tell us that it is possible to find an expression of the true church--ruled by Christ, his Word and Spirit dominant. The sacraments rightly understood and administered for the benefit of the people. And discipline faithfully, ministerially, and impartially practiced. These are what a true Christian wants, besides that essential need for peace with God who is otherwise estranged from us.

We believe that we have no access unto God but alone through the only Mediator and Advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous; who therefore became man, having united in one person the divine and human natures, that we men might have access to the divine Majesty, which access would otherwise be barred against us. But this Mediator, whom the Father has appointed between Him and us, ought in no wise to affright us by His majesty, or cause us to seek another according to our fancy. For there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ; who, though "existing in the form of God," yet "emptied himself, being made in the likeness of men and of a servant" for us, and "in all things was made like unto his brethren." If, then, we should seek for another mediator who would be favorably inclined towards us, whom could we find who loved us more that He who laid down His life for us, even "while we were His enemies?" And if we seek for one who has power and majesty, who is there that has so much of both as He "who sits at the right hand of God" and "to whom hath been given all authority in heaven and on earth?" And who will sooner be heard than the own well beloved Son of God?

Belgic Confession, Art.26, Christ's Intercession, first para.


Luke, your departure makes the people you love fearful. What if you have made the right choice? Then they may be in trouble themselves. A painful choice may be part of their future, too. Better (?!) not to dwell on that... Much easier to mock and rebuke you, for now.

But you hopefully have time to bear with these friends of yours. Time to show them the grace of God at work in your life and the life of your family. I personally think that sticking with the Bible in your interactions with your loved ones, and occasionally showing them some relevant portion of your Confessional commitments (as in the Westminster Standards or the Three Forms of Unity) will be more in line with your purpose than a book or a pamphlet.

Apologetic websites often have resources for answering RC questions and objections. Their articles and posts are almost always helpful for strengthening your own hope, no matter how "effective" they seem in the application. Remember, it isn't a matter of the intellect. "What do you have, that you did not receive?"

Hope these thoughts are helpful.

 

[earl40]

As usual Pastor Bruce has given us an excellent post here.

One thing I would like to add is that even though you have been delivered out of that morass be mindful you probably were justified while still knee deep in that swamp. I say this from experience in that I have found that there are Christians in the RC church and I give the laity (not a bad word BTW) a lot of leeway, which I give little or no quarter towards the teachers in that "church". Do not distress if your loved ones do not follow you in the path the Lord gave you because from experience I have seen many true Christians stay in horrible churches all their life because of bad teaching and an unwillingness to be taught.

 

[2ndViolinist]

Luke, praise God for showing you and your wife the truth (John 8:32)!

When I first left Roman Catholicism, I became a freewill Independent Baptist. I perused gotquestions.org frequently. It is not a Reformed service, but there are some helpful Q&As in there with respect to Roman Catholicism.

I know it seems like common sense, but pray for your family often. We hope that God would use the foolishness of preaching to save loved ones but in reality, it is His effectual call. Like Pastor Bruce said so eloquently, your life can be a very powerful witness in how you make your home with a good church, fellowship with other believers, observe the Lord's Day, and how you behave in general. Do you act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God? Do you dwell upon that which is pure, noble, lovely, and admirable? Do you hide the Word in your heart so that you might not sin against Him? I live with my Roman Catholic family; these are difficult things to do sometimes.

The great Reformer Martin Luther and his wife, Katharina von Bora, were Roman Catholics. A monk and a nun got married--what irony! Admittedly I have only read Martin Luther's 95 theses, but his other works are probably worth exploring.

 

[Antipas_14]

Remember that the issues are at bottom, spiritual; and not intellectual, institutional, moral, or anything else (though these aspects can and do play parts, and may be raised up by one side or the other as relevant in discussions).

Your love for your RC relatives and friends, flowing from your love of Christ, combined with the fruits of the gospel in your lives (as they come to be seen), will be the best "book" they read; even if you find other helpful resources. Its the kind of material that may take the longest time to digest, but it has deep effect.

There are lots of different RC-isms out there. That's probably not news to you, coming from that pool; but many people inside and out RCC believe the rhetoric of semper eadem, "always the same," that RCism is the faith that never changes, and never has changed.

Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Except... that Rome has changed over and over again. The fact is that within the past week or so, it has morphed a little more with publication of señor Bergoglio’s Amoris Laetitia. That roaring sound in the background is competing RC voices explaining that or how this latest pronouncement has-or-hasn't changed the unchangeable; and what it all means for the "faithful."

Who are the modern RC "faithful," and can anyone tell the difference apart from some overriding commitment to the theory (rather than the current instantiation) of the papacy? Which previous set of dogmas, from which era, are the "gold standard" of RCism? I have encountered a few "Old Catholics" (perhaps represented institutionally best by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church ) whose rupture with the Vatican dates to the 1870s; and others from SSPX ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_St._Pius_X ) another breach from the 1970s. The Jansenists (strict predestinarian Augustinans, opposed to Rome's semi-Pelagianism) were suppressed even further back, in the 1600s and 1700s.

Anyone who appeals to "the way things were in the beginning"--as the Protestants did in the 1500s--faces a choice: reformation or accommodation. One today in RCC, though he dissents from his leadership's direction as a matter of conscience, he will most likely be let alone. Provided that he remains "loyal to the Church," which in Roman parlance means only the communion acknowledged by the bishop of Rome.

A RCer who thinks his bishop or pope is teaching anything improperly on any grounds whatsoever, he explicitly or implicitly challenges the submission that is required of him. Someone of lower "rank" is not entitled to decide what is or is not within his superior's scope of moral or doctrinal purview. For example laymen who declare the pope is beyond his authority when teaching of morals impinging the realm of economics, they presume to fix a limit upon the man who (in RCism) gets to determine the limits for himself. Allowing or getting strict with dissenters: these are simply prudential choices of the powerful hierarchy which (though often bickering within the ranks) has shown itself capable of uniting for self-defense, or being united by a charismatic leader (an ecclesiastical potentate) with a strong will.


A key piece of Roman dogma is that "nothing is fundamentally wrong here, because nothing can be fundamentally wrong here." This is the one, immovable certainty of Romes self-understanding.

"Trust us (you have no choice)" is Rome's essential creed. No bishop = no sacrament = no salvation.

Rome imagines herself as an "ongoing Incarnation," with the Pope as the Head of his body. With this understanding, there can be no "schism" that continues to live; there's no lesser part capable of carrying on with the true life-of-the-church not flowing down from the top. This is what happens when Christ is removed as the true and ONLY Head. Corruption that gets to any earthly head cannot be recognized, dealt with and separated.

Rome IS a departure from the Faith. They are the schismatics, because they are irreformable, by their own admission: There's nothing fundamentally wrong with us, even if you find bad characters inhabiting the church.

If a genuinely faithful layman or churchman cannot appeal to the present body, to a dogmatic confession, to church history, or to the Bible (ultimately)--if he cannot LIVE a faithful church existence along with those who share with him conviction of the true gospel--this is death. One cannot live a lie without dying. Rome is a mostly dead place, and so to live one must get free.

Look at our Confessions. They tell us that it is possible to find an expression of the true church--ruled by Christ, his Word and Spirit dominant. The sacraments rightly understood and administered for the benefit of the people. And discipline faithfully, ministerially, and impartially practiced. These are what a true Christian wants, besides that essential need for peace with God who is otherwise estranged from us.

We believe that we have no access unto God but alone through the only Mediator and Advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous; who therefore became man, having united in one person the divine and human natures, that we men might have access to the divine Majesty, which access would otherwise be barred against us. But this Mediator, whom the Father has appointed between Him and us, ought in no wise to affright us by His majesty, or cause us to seek another according to our fancy. For there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ; who, though "existing in the form of God," yet "emptied himself, being made in the likeness of men and of a servant" for us, and "in all things was made like unto his brethren." If, then, we should seek for another mediator who would be favorably inclined towards us, whom could we find who loved us more that He who laid down His life for us, even "while we were His enemies?" And if we seek for one who has power and majesty, who is there that has so much of both as He "who sits at the right hand of God" and "to whom hath been given all authority in heaven and on earth?" And who will sooner be heard than the own well beloved Son of God?

Belgic Confession, Art.26, Christ's Intercession, first para.


Luke, your departure makes the people you love fearful. What if you have made the right choice? Then they may be in trouble themselves. A painful choice may be part of their future, too. Better (?!) not to dwell on that... Much easier to mock and rebuke you, for now.

But you hopefully have time to bear with these friends of yours. Time to show them the grace of God at work in your life and the life of your family. I personally think that sticking with the Bible in your interactions with your loved ones, and occasionally showing them some relevant portion of your Confessional commitments (as in the Westminster Standards or the Three Forms of Unity) will be more in line with your purpose than a book or a pamphlet.

Apologetic websites often have resources for answering RC questions and objections. Their articles and posts are almost always helpful for strengthening your own hope, no matter how "effective" they seem in the application. Remember, it isn't a matter of the intellect. "What do you have, that you did not receive?"

Hope these thoughts are helpful.

Thank you very much for the thoughtful response! There's a lot to think about here, but all very helpful, especially your point regarding my love toward my RC friends and family, combined with the fruits of the gospel, will be the best book they read. That is comforting and challenging at the same time. Comforting because I know it is God that opens eyes and hearts, challenging because there are times that I wish I could just snap them out of it and help them see the hope we have in Christ.

Your comments regarding the Roman Catholic church today is very alarming, especially all that they are doing today that is ultimately universalism. Even my friends and family disagree with his actions and what he is doing, but they somehow separate themselves from him and hierarchy of the RCC. Meaning, they seem to act is if he were the CEO of the company they worked for. The CEO may make decisions that they disagree with, or are controversial, but ultimately they think that he is so high up that the changes he is making won't impact anyone, or all they have to do is wait a few years and a new pope will be in place, and he will restore things. Hope that analogy makes sense.

Thanks again for the the very well thought out and helpful response, I really appreciate it!

 

[Antipas_14]

As usual Pastor Bruce has given us an excellent post here.

One thing I would like to add is that even though you have been delivered out of that morass be mindful you probably were justified while still knee deep in that swamp. I say this from experience in that I have found that there are Christians in the RC church and I give the laity (not a bad word BTW) a lot of leeway, which I give little or no quarter towards the teachers in that "church". Do not distress if your loved ones do not follow you in the path the Lord gave you because from experience I have seen many true Christians stay in horrible churches all their life because of bad teaching and an unwillingness to be taught.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I do have a hard time with that, because of things that I have seen happened to those that stay within the RCC. For example, when I converted, I began explaining things to my parents. My mom and dad were both receptive at first. My dad began reading the Holiness of God by RC Sproul, and was really coming around. I was very excited. But then, midway through the book, he stopped reading. I don't know what happened, he was reading the book faster than any book before. He was listening to Catholic radio daily, then began buying Roman Catholic theology books by Scott Hahn. After the course of about 6 months, he had gone from somewhat of nominal Catholic to a devout Catholic, all seemingly prompted by my conversion to Reformed Christianity. He now emphasizes the importance of the intercession of Mary and the saints, which he had virtually never said to us all growing up. Both my parents always emphasized Jesus as Savior for our salvation. They didn't really know or understand how Mary or the saints fit into the big picture. But now that has all changed for the worse.

Prior to my conversion, I wanted to get to know other men in the church, and was recommended to the Knights of Columbus. My first meeting I went to was a cult-like ceremony, in which I walked into a candlelit room, filled with about 30 'Knights' and was questioned/sworn to secrecy about the ceremony. On the front table was several symbolic items, one of them a rosary, another a replica of a skull, and the final item is slipping my mind. I remember leaving that evening almost in tears, I just wanted to meet other Christian men with the same beliefs as me, instead, I got a cult. If you're interested, this ceremony was not just a one-off, but it is done worldwide. Many share the same experience called the "1st degree Knight" induction ceremony.

I know these are just personal stories, and can't be treated as the rule or same experience for everyone. But, to me, there are far to many stumbling blocks to stay in Roman Catholicism for too long. I do believe that there are born again individuals in there, but I would have to think that the offenses that they see that occur at the mass become repugnant to them, prayers during the mass for the saints intercession become wretched, and masses for the souls in purgatory become revolting. I think that the converted Christian longs for the good news to be preached and for fellowship with his brothers and sisters in Christ, and would eventually mature out of the deceptive church he finds himself in.

Really, I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way! My heart really just goes out to those in deceptive churches because somewhere there's a man or woman who just wants to worship Christ with his brothers and sisters.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Some useful items that are worth reviewing:

http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-1.pdf
http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-2.pdf
http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf
http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-4.pdf
http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-5.pdf

Do not buy into the Romanist's mythologies of its claimed history, e.g., that justification by faith alone was an invention of the Reformation.

See the following for very informative information about the views of the early church fathers:
http://www.christianbook.com/scriptu...4678?event=CFN

Rome's notions of initial and progressive justification place the Catholic on the sacramental treadmill: http://tinyurl.com/75glvdj (Src: http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Rome-James-McCarthy/dp/1565071077 )

See also:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/...formation.html

http://thecripplegate.com/reprise-th...hurch-fathers/

And when Augustine comes up in conversation, point others to this resource that distills many of Augustine's views:
http://www.puritanshop.com/shop/augu...tthew-mcmahon/

 

[earl40]

....He now emphasizes the importance of the intercession of Mary and the saints, which he had virtually never said to us all growing up. Both my parents always emphasized Jesus as Savior for our salvation. They didn't really know or understand how Mary or the saints fit into the big picture. But now that has all changed for the worse......Really, I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way! My heart really just goes out to those in deceptive churches because somewhere there's a man or woman who just wants to worship Christ with his brothers and sisters.

What I used to tell my mom, who prayed the rosary every day, is to only say every 5th prayer and skip the ones in between. We used to laugh about this and though it is sad we "laughed" I was able to witness to the idea that dead people do not see or hear us today because and also the only One that can hear more than one prayer at a time is God.

Also you came across just fine for we are to honor our parents even when they sin and they loved us in spite of our sin also. Yes they ought to leave that communion but the reality of the situation is that unless Our Lord grants them the eyes to see the corruption of the RC church they will probably stay there. My parents died not long ago and I have hope that I will see them in heaven because they appeared to me to have faith in Jesus. Of course I am willing to allow God to show me if my hope is real. For we should be willing to resign our will to His even with our most loved ones. My mom (the staunch RC) used to say about her 9 children "I am under no illusion to expect to see all my children in heaven" though she was a good witness to Our Lord and would say to all her loved ones "Be a sweet child of Jesus".

 

[MichaelNZ]

I am also an ex-Roman Catholic.

The Roman Catholic church today is filled with liberals who teach all sorts of heretical doctrines. For a time, I was a traditionalist Catholic, attending the old Latin Mass offered by priests from the Society of St Pius X, a group of traditionalists in an irregular situation with the Vatican. They preached the Catholic faith as it was before Vatican II and offer only the Tridentine Mass. The gulf between the traditionalists and modern Rome is huge, and there are all sorts of priests out there with weird ideas. I remember a priest telling me that a particular sin wasn't a mortal sin, when I knew full well that it was. I had another priest use an invalid formula for absolution, meaning that none of my sins were forgiven.

With regard to books, there are quite a few good ones out there. The best anti-Romanism book that I've ever come across is A Manual of Romish Controversy, by Anglican minister R.P. Blakeney. It is available for free at the Internet Archive. Since it was written before 1870, it discusses the various sides on the issue of papal infallibility. Another book that I am part way through at the moment is The Variations of Popery, published in 1838 and also available for free on the Interent Archive. The chapter on supremacy is very good as it lists the different views in different places on papal supremacy. The Italian side is the one that got declared dogmatically at Vatican I in 1870. There is also some good stuff in Lorraine Boettner's book Roman Catholicism, especially with regards to doctrine, but in many cases the church it's describing no longer exists after Vatican II.

Also interesting is Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, the autobiography of nineteenth century Canadian priest Charles Chiniquy, who left the Romish church and became a Presbyterian pastor. It is also available for free on the Internet Archive.

Another resource that I've found helpful is Dr James White's debates with Roman Catholic apologists. He is very good and apparently the leading apologists refuse to debate him anymore. You can watch them on YouTube or download them on SermonAudio.