the apostles of The Apostles

When I say something like, "Catholicism is the oldest Christian faith and the only Christian church who claims to have been started by Jesus himself," it seems to ruffle feathers. The comment that I often hear in response is, "That's such an arrogant statement." 

Well, I guess it would be an arrogant statement if it were merely my opinion.

It's true that the Bible does not say, "Then Jesus started the Catholic Church." But it does say in Matthew 16:16-18 that Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter (which means "Rock") and said he would build his church upon this rock. Pretty plain as day to me that Jesus appointed Peter as the leader of his church, unless you do a mental one-handed backwards somersault to explain this passage to mean something else.

Peter handed down his authority to Linus, who handed down his authority to Cletus, who handed his authority down to Clement...and it happened this way until we get to Francis. 

Peter was our first Pope. They didn't call him "Pope" at the time. "Pope" is a title that was coined later to indicate the head of the bishops. 

But can we know this is true? I mean, it's not in the Bible!

Catholics have a different understanding of what a bishop is compared to the average independent non-denominational local church in America (I say "America" because only in America do we have small churches who do what they want with no authority to submit to. Could be the product of the "me" mentality of America drifting into our churches, I dunno. We can chase that rabbit later...) How can we know whose interpretation of the role of a bishop is correct?

We can look back at what the early church writers had to say about bishops. These writers were the apostles of the apostles. And then the apostles of the apostles of the apostles. In most cases these were the men who either knew the apostles personally or knew someone who knew the apostles (as in the apostles were a sort of a spiritual great-grandfather to them). 

What did they write about bishops in the early church back then?

Ignatius of Antioch

Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [A. D. 110]). 

Irenaeus

The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there should arise a dispute relative to some important question among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches? (ibid. 3:4).

Tertullian

Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled (On the Prescription Against Heretics 22,30 [A.D.200])

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,--a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. (On the Prescription Against Heretics 22,30 [A.D.200])

Cyprian

The spouse of Christ cannot be defiled; she is uncorrupted and chaste. She knows one home . . . Does anyone believe that this unity which comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the Church and be separated by the divisions of colliding wills? He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation (On the Unity of the Catholic Church 6 [A.D. 251]).

Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear or obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another (Letters 66 [A.D. 253]).

I love reading this stuff. History is fascinating to me, and I can get lost to the world when I read this stuff. You can read more for yourself at Early Christian Writings. The writings are listed by the approximate date they were written, and there is a rating for each as to the reliability of the dating of each. Some writings are "more sturdy" than others. Some of the important writings in church history are from Polycarp, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Ignatius of Antioch. The entire collection of writings are at this website, not just bits and pieces and quotes. 

These writings cover a multitude of topics, not just about bishops. And please do not misunderstand me - I do not equate these writings with the Bible. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. These writings are merely historical information.

Peace and love to you,
kristy

on unity

Seeing that unity was the will of Jesus is one of the main reasons that I came home to the Catholic Church. 

One thing that always bothered me once I got serious about Christianity and started attending a Southern Baptist was the denominations within Christianity. The wonderful people I met in my new church were very helpful in teaching me the importance of the Bible. We had a wonderful youth group, and I learned more about the Bible than I had ever known before. It became part of my life. A part that I couldn't live without.

There was one Holy Bible - the inspired Word of God. Yet there are an estimated 8,000...or 30,000 denominations. I get dizzy at some of the figures I see, but the latest Wikipedia reports 41,000 denominations, so I'll go with 41,000. To be correct - it's actually 41,000 and counting. Churches aren't finished splitting. I could not reconcile how one Holy Word of God could translate into 41,000 denominations. Every single one of those 41,000 use the same Bible, and every single one of them would say they were the most accurate in their interpretation of Scripture. 

Does anyone else think that maybe someone might be wrong here? How on earth could 41,000 people be right using one Bible?! The Bible is THE WORD OF GOD!! And God isn't schizophrenic. There is only one Truth. And 41,000 denominations. It just doesn't add up.

One day I read some passages in John 17. I am sure I had read them before, but for the first time I really saw them for what they were (emphasis mine). 

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." ~John 17:20-23 (NKJ)

This is Jesus' prayer after the last supper, right before He was betrayed by Judas. Luke's account of this time of prayer says that Jesus' sweat was like drops of blood. This was a very difficult time for Him as He prepared for His sacrifice. And he prayed for us. For us to be one. He cared that much about the unity of His believers - Christians. Not only that, but He also prayed in the following passage of John 17 for the Apostles - the leaders of His church - to be one.

Jesus' will is for us to be one. Disunity is against His will. I believe it grieves Him to see the state of disunity within His bride, the church. I don't want to be out of Jesus' will. I don't want to grieve Jesus.

3,000,000 Catholics participate in Mass in Brazil.
What a statement of hope to the world!

I've heard the response that we all somehow share in an invisible unity by being believers in Christ. Yet Protestants can't join worship services for a month before they start arguing about interpretations or who our leader will be. And then they split over disagreements. I think this "invisible unity" is a way to justify the status quo. I wonder what the world thinks about the unity of Christians? As the author of the blog Carpe Veritatem writes, "[divisions] causes people to look at us and say, 'How can Christianity be true, they can't even agree amongst themselves!'"

Human pride has caused the body of Christ to divide. I don't blame one side or the other - the pride and resulting problems started before 1517. Please read on at Carpe Veritatem posts about unity between denominations. There are 7 parts to the topic, and the author describes in more detail the unity that Christ desires and why we have the divisions that we currently have.

This is a huge topic to my heart, and I wonder if there are people "out there" who have given division within the body of Christ any thought? How do you think we can achieve unity within the body of believers?

kristy

we all need baptism, including infants

Infant baptism was not one of the big doctrines that lead me to the Catholic Church. I focused on studying theology on things like apostolic succession, visible unity of the church, sacred Tradition, the papacy, and the Eucharist. Once I had these things settled in my mind and my heart - once I saw that Catholicism lined up with Scripture more than any Protestant denomination I had ever been a part of, I looked into things like baptism, prayer of the saints, and contraception (just to name a few). But no Protestant ever asks me about apostolic succession or visible unity of the church or even the Eucharist. I can understand why - as a Protestant I never even heard of these things much less considered them very important. When I'd be in a group talking about the anti-Bibleness of the Catholic Church, people always brought up infant baptism and prayers to the saints. Oh, and Mary worship (which is feels odd to even write this because Catholics don't worship Mary). Now as a convert, infant baptism is often the thing I get questioned about the most.

Baptism was not a big deal to me before. I believed that the Catholic Church relied on this man-made tradition of baptizing infants because they were backwards and never thought it fully out - that Catholics were just mindless sheep doing what they were told to do and never reading the Bible to find out what it actually said about needing to be of an accountable age before you can be baptized. (What I didn't realize is that there was no verse about being at an accountable age before deciding to be baptized.)

When I was learning to evangelize, one of the arguments we prepared for non-believers went something like this, "If I'm wrong about my belief in God, what's the worst that will happen to me? I will have lived a life of love and charity the best I could and then I die and get buried and that's the end of that. But what if you're wrong?" The implication was that if the non-believer was wrong about the good news of the Gospel not being true, well then he was going to have hell to pay for being wrong. This argument was not used to scare people into believing in Jesus, but rather as a way to spur them to some deep thinking on the solidity of their beliefs about truth. The same question rang through my mind when I didn't believe in baptizing infants. What if I'm wrong? As any other parent, my children are precious, priceless gifts to me. The answer to "What if I'm wrong about not baptizing infants?" scared me enough that I wanted to know the other side of the argument to see if truth was there.

This isn't my baby, but it looks just like my Zoë

Catholics aren't the only ones who believe infants should be baptized. There are many Protestant faith traditions that believe in infant baptism - Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopal/Anglican, Eastern Orthodox and Reformed Christian churches all believe in infant baptism. Of the 800 million Protestant Christians in the world, at least 540 million believe in infant baptism, or 68% of Protestants. Take the entire world of Christianity into consideration - Catholic and non-Catholic - at least 87% of Christians believe in infants baptism. (I came up with these calculations using Wikipedia's number of Christians by faith tradition.) This of course doesn't mean that majority rules. But it is at least worth mentioning. If you are in the 13% minority who do not believe infants should be baptized, do you feel you have some sound evidence to take this position?

Baptism is not optional for salvation. The Bible stresses in verse after verse the necessity of baptism for salvation. In John 3:5 Jesus says, "Verily verily I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit." Mark 16:16 says "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved, but he that does not believe will be condemned." 1 Peter 3:21 says baptism saves a person "this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also - not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus." Peter insists baptism is integral in salvation in Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." Acts 22:16 "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." In fact, in every instance in the Bible where people learn about Jesus, they are immediately baptized. It wasn't optional.

We are all born with original sin. We can't help it. We inherited our sinful nature from our parents, Adam and Eve. Psalm 51:5 says, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." Ephesians 2:3 says that we're "by nature all children of wrath". Jesus says in John 3:6 that "Flesh gives birth to flesh." We were stained with sin from the beginning. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 says "death came through a man (Adam)...For as in Adam all die..." Without salvation, our sinful nature inherited from our first parents is a death sentence. It's a death sentence as soon as we enter the earth. Babies need forgiveness. They need it at birth.

The Bible does not exclude infants from the promise of baptism. The objection that is often brought up against infant baptism is that there is no reference to an infant being baptized in the Bible. However, there is no objection to infant baptism in the Bible, either. So if we are to discuss infant baptism, we have to agree that the Bible does not spell out the words "thou shalt not baptize thy infants". Actually the Bible has several verses that show that baptism was not restricted to adults. In Acts 2:38 Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Then in 39 he says (emphasis mine) "This promise is for you and your children..." Jesus himself did not turn away infants when they were brought to Him. In Luke 18:15-16 people brought their infants to Jesus and when the disciples saw this they rebuked the people for bringing their infants (after all, the infants cannot themselves make the decision for Jesus). Jesus corrects them instead welcomes the infants of believers into the kingdom of God, "Let the little children come to me, and do not forbid them, for of such in the kingdom of God." In 1 Corinthians 1:16 Paul says that he baptized the household of Stephanas. 

Jesus instructs the disciples in Matthew 28:19, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The term "all nations" has always been understood by Church fathers to exclude infants mean everyone. The promise does not leave infants out.

Baptism is to the New Covenant what circumcision was in the Old Covenant. In Colossians 2:11-12 Paul equates baptism with the old circumcision, saying, "you yourself were circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands, by putting of the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism..." Christians have no need for physical circumcision.  They have already received that inward circumcision, that spiritual cleansing of the heart, that is effected by the Holy Spirit, given to us in baptism.

Circumcision under the Abrahamic covenant was applied to infants on the basis of parental faith. Galatians 3:29 says "if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." We've already seen how Paul explains that baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision. 

Now, imagine a father who was Jewish and newly converted to Christianity in 70 A.D. He brings his baby to be included in the kingdom of Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of the covenant of his father Abraham. Do you think the Apostles would have turned away his baby because his baby could not choose Christ for himself? Of course not! If it were so, then the man would have been turned off by the new covenant, which was preached as a fulfillment of - as better than - the old. Infants were included in the old covenant. They are not to be turned away in the new covenant, which is a better covenant than the old.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not claiming that baptism alone will save someone. But it is necessary.

Baptism is a sacrament, which means it is  given to us by Jesus to give us a powerful grace in our lives. Remember, it is only by God's grace that any of us have faith, adult or child or infant. And for an adult or an infant, faith should grow after baptism. The faith required for baptism is not a perfect and mature faith. 

I hope I've at least spurred an interest in some to investigate further into the theology behind infant baptism. If I'm wrong that infant baptism is right and true (I don't believe I'm wrong, but let's just ask for argument's sake), what's the worst that would happen? But if you believe it's wrong to baptize infants, what if you're wrong?

And here's a little completely interesting fact. Do you know how Catholics dip their finger in holy water when they enter and leave church? There's meaning behind it! It's to remind us of our baptism! I get sooooo excited about this. I love the opportunity to relive, in a way, my baptism each and every time I go to church and to remind myself that I am His.

Some additional resources: 

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

And, of course the CCC (with Bible references) - start in the section called "The Sacraments of Christian Initiation."

Kyrie, eleison
Christe, eleison
Kyrie, eleison

7 Quick Takes Friday (#1)

Thanks to Jen for hosting 7 Quick Takes. I'm excited to join in the fun today!

Protestants struggling to keep Millennials in church. son lays prostate with his priest father. Awesomely funny blog: Momma Knows, Honeychild. New school starts for the older two boys. Jim Gaffigan quote. Thoughts on "sending positive thoughts your way". Pat Robertson devalues the lives of poor children (who are also blessings from God in my Bible!)

1. A message I keep seeing recurring in the evangelical Christian world is that the flashy mega churches aren't working. Sure, they might be bringing people in the doors with their concert-style "sanctuaries" and night club-style worship services and casual lobbies, but what they are teaching people isn't sticking. The youth are falling away at higher and higher numbers. Once they leave their homes and go out on their own, they leave God, too. The Washington Post ran an interesting article about this frightening trend. The author points out that the effort to make Christianity "cool" is not making disciples.

The part that struck me most from the article was the summary in the last paragraph (my emphasis in bold):

As a Millennial, if I’m truly honest with myself, what I really need from the church is not another yes-man entity enabling my hubris and giving me what I want. Rather, what I need is something bigger than me, older than me, bound by a truth that transcends me and a story that will outlast me; basically, something that doesn’t change to fit me and my whims, but changes me to be the Christ-like person I was created to be.

Folks, this is the Catholic Church that people are longing for, and this is why 18 to 30-years olds are converting to Catholicism more now than ever before. They crave the Truth of Jesus that was given to us by Jesus 2,000 years ago and that will not change - cannot change - to fit the world's fleeting whims and trends.

2. I saw this article about Father Patrick Allen, who is the second Episcopal priest in South Carolina to join the Catholic Church through the Anglican ordinariate. The picture of him laying prostate with his son beside him really really blessed me.

I think I need to lay prostate before the Lord. And not because I have five kids who exhaust me most days. Can laity just go and lay prostate before the Lord? Someone who is Catholic - please tell me! I need this!

3. So one of my favorite bloggers, Jennifer Fulwiler, let her readers in on a little gem-of-a-blog called "Mama Knows, Honeychild" Now I have added Heather to my list of favorite bloggers! I read through some of her posts yesterday and I was laughing so hard that I was crying. I even lost my breath and worried for a couple of seconds that my lungs weren't going to be able to inhale. I worried I would die from laughing. Literally. "Warm It Up" especially hit me hard. I cannot tell you how many times we've sat our hineys on the couch and ate fattening snacks while "getting inspired" by watching the "The Biggest Loser". So I knew by the first picture of the blog it was going to be something I could relate to.

4. My sons' Catholic school shut down last year (don't want to talk about it - makes me too sad), so they have started their new school and have been there for a week. It's the closest public elementary school to our house, and we had heard great things about it. So far I've been thrilled about it. And my sons are adjusting pretty well considering. My oldest son says that everyone there is really nice (big sigh of relief for a momma!) I have mixed feelings - super happy about the school, super sad that they don't pray or learn about Jesus during their school day.

5. My new favorite comedian is Jim Gaffigan. Our pediatrician told me about him because he has five kids. I looked him up on the internet, and really liked his acts. He's come out with a new book, My Dad is Fat, and I love that he is bringing attention to the crazy wonderful that comes with a big family. After all, what is the point if you can't laugh (hysterically) at yourself? Here's quote from Jim Gaffigan that I love (emphasis mine): 

“I watch the faces of single people in their twenties after I bring up that I ‘have children.’ I imagine them taking a small step backward as if to avoid contagion, with a look of ‘Sorry to hear that’ on their face. Like I naively volunteered to contract leprosy, forever quarantining myself from the world of having fun by having children.  Well, why not? I guess the reasons against having more children always seem uninspiring and superficial. What exactly am I missing out on? Money? A few more hours of sleep? A more peaceful meal? More hair? These are nothing compared to what I get from these five monsters who rule my life. I believe each of my five children has made me a better man. So I figure I only need another thirty-four kids to be a pretty decent guy. Each one of them has been a pump of light into my shriveled black heart. I would trade money, sleep, or hair for a smile from one of my children in a heartbeat. Well, it depends on how much hair.”

He gets it.

6. One comment I see over and over on Facebook from my non-Christian friends is something like "sending positive thoughts your way!" This is mostly used to try to comfort others who may have posted that they are having a difficult time with this or that in life. I asked the question, what does this phrase mean? How does one send positive thoughts to another person in such a way that it would benefit the other person? I got all kinds of answers. One person even equated it to telepathy. Someone said I was over thinking the phrase (which is probably true, and as a real nerd I have to over think everything). It seems to me it is just a phrase that people say to say something nice, but it doesn't have any power behind it. I think it is interesting the lengths the world will take to sound like Christianity, but with all fluff and no power. As for me, if I am having a hard time in life, please pray for me. I would appreciate to know that you're thinking about me, but that doesn't really help me with my problem, does it?

7. Boy, Pat Robertson made a lot of people mad this week by insulting the dignity of poor children and taking a dump on the value of their lives (not to mention fanning the flame that is the division between Catholicism and Protestantism). If you didn't catch what he said on his program about birth control and ragamuffin kids, you can catch it here. It is hugely offensive what he said about God-given life, and many people have pointed that out. I'd like to point out something else he did that is anti-Protestantism in a big way. When I was an evangelical Protestant, what your pastor preached was a big deal. He's your pastor, he's your shepherd charged with guiding you through this earthly life. So this woman who wrote to Pat Robinson says her pastor taught that contraception is a sin against God (which it is). And Pat Robertson trumped her pastor and said he was wrong and he didn't even give any Bible verses to back it up. Didn't Pat Robertson just make himself the pope of the Protestants? I mean, who gave him the authority to trump a pastor? Furthermore, what version of the Bible he is getting his answer from? I think Pat Robertson thinks too highly of himself and needs to get his brain back in the Word of God. Division within Christianity makes me ill (and was one of the things that lead me to the Catholic Church), and he is promoting division, he is promoting the killing of children for the idol of self. Maybe he should read Jim Gaffigan's book.

dreams waking up (a.k.a. my conversion story)

My journey back to the Catholic Church started in mid-2008, although I had no idea at the time that the Catholic Church is where my journey would lead me. That isn't to say there weren't seeds planted before then, but the seeds began to take root when a popular flamboyant preacher named Todd Bentley gained popularity within the Pentecostal faith traditions. This tattooed preacher was seen as a fresh breath of air, with his unconventional and theatrical style. He was asked to lead the Lakeland, Florida Revival for one week. The revival became a phenomenon that lasted much longer than one week, and Pentecostal Christians all over the country were buzzing about the rock-star style revival meetings. The meetings aired on GOD TV, and there were numerous healings claimed by the evangelist.

Some Pentecostals we knew were head over heels excited about what God was doing through Todd Bentley. Others were cautiously optimistic and dove into their Bibles to verify what was happening on the TV screens wasn't in conflict with the Word of God. Generally, my experience was that those who dove into their Bibles to check the revival came to the same conclusion - this guy doesn't jive with Scripture.

Still others that we frequently talked to and greatly respected couldn't stop talking about how everything that was happening at the Lakeland Revival was amazing. So we were sort of left scratching our heads. My husband watched several of the revival meetings on TV to see for himself. He prayed and watched. His report to me, his feelings toward what he had witnessed - this cannot be of God. It's a fraud.

We waited and watched. In August 2008 it came out that Todd Bentley had an affair on his wife, his marriage was ended in divorce. The Lakeland Revival meetings ended and when the truth came out, guess what? It was all about money the whole. The whole thing was a sham.

My husband and I were greatly bothered by the stark disagreements of the two camps of people we talked to - those who were "all in" on the goings on at the Lakeland Revival - even after the thing came to a screetching halt - and those who saw the Lakeland Revivals and Todd Bentley for what is was - a wolf in sheep's clothing. Or in this case a rock-star's clothing.

God, this can't be what you have for your church. There must be truth out there somewhere that doesn't contradict itself from one day to another.

We prayed together, "Lord show us your will for your church. We are open to anything outside of our current experiences. We just want something real."

We asked ourselves - why do we believe what we believe? Because of what we were taught growing up? What if those over us while we were growing up were wrong? There are many different denominations that we've never looked into; what if one of those denominations were more accurately teaching truth and we never knew it just because we were taught that our denomination - or lack of denomination as sometimes had been the case in our lives - was the correct one? What if the people teaching us that our denomination was correct...were wrong? What if Methodists interpreted the Bible more accurately and we just never knew it because we were never taught what the Methodist faith taught? Or Baptist? Or Church of Christ? Or something else?

We were attending a wonderful small Assemblies of God church with wonderful people. I mean wonderful in the kind of authentic Christ-like mercy-giving loving kind of people that we never wanted to think about leaving. But what if the Assemblies of God church wasn't what God wanted His church to be? Which church should we look at first? I mean, as we would soon find out in one History Channel program, there are 8,000 Protestant denominations. I don't have the ability to research 8,000 different sets of beliefs. My mind was spinning.

My husband had an idea. To find out what God wanted for His church, my husband would look back at the beginning...before Jesus was born, died and resurrected...he would study Judaism to find out what the earliest church would have been like. But it had to be Orthodox Judaism, as Reform and Conservative Judaism seemed to be evolutions of the Judaism that would have been on Earth 2,000 years ago. 

I wasn't quite convinced my husband's idea would work, but I didn't have any plan at all as to how I would look into 8,000 different Protestant faiths, so going back to the beginning - way before 8,000 Protestant denominations came about - sounded like an acceptable plan. I went through a kind of burned out period where - although I loved Jesus - I was feeling disillusioned by all of the divisions within Christianity. God, isn't your Truth out there somewhere?

So my husband turned started attending Orthodox Jewish services. It turns out an Orthodox Jewish service is about 3 hours long. I was pregnant with our third son, and a three-hour long service did not sound like the kind of research I was up for. So he went alone. He loved it. He soaked it in. He was excited about everything he learned. He started going to daily morning prayer services whenever he could find time in his schedule. People thought he was crazy, but we were OK with it. We knew the unsettled feeling we were dealing with, and we were OK with crazy for a while if it meant finding God's true desire for His church.

Now, my husband wasn't interested in denying Christ at all, so he took the knowledge he found to look for something similar in Christianity. Maybe it was the Messianic Judaism movement? We went to a couple of Messianic Judaism services. They were...long. And too many things just didn't add up to me. It just seemed like another Protestant division denomination to me. I couldn't see how something that started as a movement 30 years ago could be anything remotely similar to what God's church was like 2,000 years ago. Plus, in the Messianic Judaism services we went to, we never met anyone who had actually been to a Jewish synagogue. It was almost like they were making it up as they went and trying to base things on what someone told them happens in a Jewish synagogue service. 

All this time my husband would go and spend three hours every Saturday morning at the only Orthodox Jewish synagogue in our area. He begged me and begged me to go. In December 2008 I finally agreed to endure the three-hour long service with him one Saturday. I dragged my month-and-a-half-away-from-delivery butt over to the synagogue to please my husband. I didn't think anything would come out of it except maybe getting the best wife in the world medal for a day.

What I experienced made my palms sweaty and and heart race. What I saw was very...Catholic...except without Jesus. From the prayer book to the tabernacle to the chanting to the singing of the Psalms even to what the leader of the service was wearing and the way he kept bowing at the altar and the way the leader and the others read written prayers - it was more like what I remembered from my childhood days in a Catholic Church than any Protestant church I had ever been in.

No. Not the Catholic Church. I'm sure truth couldn't possibly be in the...but what if...

No. I was sure that's not what God is showing me. I started to look into what the Catholic Church taught. And it made sense. A lot of it was difficult for me to understand right away. I had to mentally chew on it. And I would get these moments of repulsion at the very thought of considering that the Catholic Church most accurately contained the truth that God wanted for His people. (I had, after all, very thorough and deep training in anti-Catholicism since becoming Protestant at age 15. And we were still fresh in the news of the priest sex scandals.) I even looked into the Lutheran church, since it was a direct shoot off of the Catholic Church and was very similar in liturgy and doctrine. So if it were a directly branch off of the Catholic Church, I thought, then it would be most like the original thing - sort of like a copy from an original is less contaminated than a copy from a copy from a copy from a copy...

I had a dream one night. I can't remember any of the dream except this - a Bible opened up in front of me, and there was such an amazing light and the most wonderful colors that you could ever imagine beaming out of the pages of the Bible. And there was such a joy and peace that only comes from knowing God and His holy Word. I knew during the dream that God was trying to tell me that there is more in His Word than we will ever be able to comprehend with our natural minds. That's what the incredible colors beaming out of the pages represented - all that God has for us in the Bible that we cannot fathom.

It's funny when you have a dream like that. There was such a joy and excitement in my heart and I tried to tell a few people about the dream only to get a nice smile from them and a, "that's nice, dear" response. But I knew the dream was a promise from God that He had more for me. More for us.

I kid you not - becoming Catholic has made that dream of Biblical awesomeness come alive to me. I never even knew the Catholic Church believed in the Bible. It's true! I thought the Catholic Church didn't want its laity reading the Bible. It was a lie told to me years ago and I believed it. The Bible brought me home to the Catholic Church. Apostolic succession, the papacy, their view of marriage (it's deeper than any Protestant has ever been able to explain to me) as a sacrament, confession (yes - confession!), visible unity of believers (a.k.a. the Jesus' church being ONE as opposed to 8,000 divisions), and the Eucharist (this is where I give a big shout out to John 6 - why had I never seen that whole chapter before?!), oh the Eucharist! It turns out 

(And have I mentioned - the Catholic Church doesn't teach that a person can go to Heaven by works!)

I'm not Catholic because of RELIGION!
I'm not Catholic because of old family ties.
I'm not Catholic because I went through a difficult time and "lost my faith" along the way.
I'm Catholic because God's grace touched my heart and opened the Bible up in a way that had never happened before.
I'm Catholic because of the Bible.
(Just in case anyone had to stand on their head backwards to not read that last statement I'll say it again.)
I'm Catholic because of the Bible!

I often imagine what people think of my conversion. I know the mindset I was in before. I would've thought someone who converted to Catholicism just didn't understand the love God had for them and the freedom from religion that His love provided. "Religion" had become a dirty word in our faith circles. It implied a faith void of any relationship with God, only rules and rituals. Mostly the word "religion" referred to Catholicism when I thought of it in a negative sense. But that's not at all what has happened to me. My relationship with Jesus has amplified since becoming Catholic. I know this is such an oxymoron to many.

I guess I can be thankful that Todd Bentley ignited a fire within me for my faith. I have been through a revival of my spirit through the washing of the Word. And I will never be the same again.

To God be the glory!

kristy

How the Eucharist brought me to the Catholic Church

I was very poorly catechized as a child.  I left the Catholic Church when I was 15 and started attending a Baptist church with my friend, and I didn't even know that the Catholic Church believed that communion they received every day was truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.  So when I started watching "The Journey Home" on EWTN over 15 years after leaving the CC and heard guests talking about the Eucharist and what it is and one guy even talking about longing for the Eucharist, I was shaken.  And come to find out, this truth they talked about is in the very Bible I wholeheartedly professed to believe in!  

In John 6 Jesus says, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.  For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." (John 6:53-55).  Obviously this was not a favorite verse of my Evangelical pastors over the years, because I never. heard. this. verse. before.  

Well, surely there was some misunderstanding.  Surely this couldn't be true.  I had to find out.  Then I heard guests on "The Journey Home" talk about the "early church fathers" and claimed that the writings of these early Christians was further evidence to back up the Catholic belief of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  I had never in my years of being in Evangelical churches heard anyone mention anything about writings from the early Christians.  I had been in churches who claimed to be as true to what the early church was like as any church could be, but they never mentioned any historical writings or evidence to back up their interpretation of what the early church was like.  

For the first time I heard people mentioned such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Eusebius, Iraneus, Tertullian, and Polycarp.  I had never heard these names before, and I had to use the DVR to pause and replay over and over and try to write these names down as best I could.  I did my best to decipher how their names must have been spelled so that I could look up this information.  Then I wanted to make sure to look these people up from non-Catholic websites, because I wasn't very convinced that I could trust what Catholics would say about these so-called "people", if they really did exist.  

Wikipedia became my new best friend.  I then came across what these early church fathers had to say about the Eucharist in the early years of the church, some during the age of the Apostles.

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

 St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:
I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

 Justin Martyr, Apology, I.66-67, 2nd century:Communion in the Body and Blood of ChristIt is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, ``Do this in memory of me, this is my body.'' Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ``This is my blood'', and he gave it to them alone.

Tertullian's The Resurrection of the Dead [8,2] A.D. 208-212:The flesh, then, is washed, so that the soul may be made clean. The flesh is anointed, so that the soul may be dedicated to holiness. The flesh is signed, so that the soul too may be fortified. The flesh is shaded with the imposition of hands, so that the soul too may be illuminated by the Spirit. The flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God. They cannot, then, be separated in their reward, when they are united in their works.

There are many other writings to back up the belief that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist.  Pay particular attention to the dates.  I always gave more credence to the earliest writings, because in my mind these had the highest probability of being true since they were the closest to the date of when Christ lived (and therefore had the lowest probability of being tainted by false doctrines).

And once I had settled it in my mind that the evidence proved what the Catholic Church taught about the Eucharist, I let my guard down and let my heart soak it in.  Then I, too, began to long for the Eucharist.  It became a longing that I couldn't escape.  I loved Jesus, and I wanted all that He had to offer. 

kristy