If, God forbid, I was ever to become Catholic, I would not be like any Catholic I've ever met. Knowing where I'm coming from now, I would know where "Protestants" were coming from then. I would understand every argument I'd ever put forth. I'd know why they say and believe these things. And obviously, if I was so confident as to risk my very soul, my whole relationship with Jesus, I would know what changed my mind. Thus, as I like to say, I wouldn't merely tell them "I used to think like you", but also "this is why you should think like me".
I find it strange, therefore, that Catholic converts differ so little, both in patience and argumentation, from "cradle Catholics". Of course, we can completely set aside trolls. Every religion has them. It's just human nature. You have a belief, you're passionate about that belief, you're likely to resort to childish attacks on those who disagree. So we can ignore the trolls. But what about the serious Catholics?
The truth is, being a Catholic requires a whole different mindset to being a "Protestant". Whether raised in the faith, or joining from elsewhere, the very structure of Catholicism requires a change not just in what you think, but how you think. Unless, that is, you always thought that way.
Personally, I have a multi-faith background. My mother, last I asked, identifies as a Baptist. My step father is an agnostic. I went to a Church of England primary school, and a secular high school. All of this means I have always had a high respect for Christianity, but never for dogmatism. I was always taught to think critically, testing even that which I genuinely do believe. Thus, when I finally concluded Christianity was the truth, I began diligently studying its most Holy book, which internally testifies that it is the word of God, as it is affirmed by all genuinely Christian groups, along with many counterfeits.
Catholicism has a different attitude entirely. In their worldview, you cannot study Scripture yourself. You require the Magisterium to interpret it for you, and woe betide you if you attempt to test their claims. You're "foolish" if you attempt to do so. In fact, you "make yourself Pope". And they fail to see the circular reasoning in this. They don't understand that unless you start with Catholicism in the first place, there is no such thing as a Pope! There is no Pope in Scripture, though First Vatican Council insisted there is, and claimed that the Church has always believed Matthew 16:18, specifically, proves it.
Uno problemo: According to a survey done by Jean de Launoi, a Roman Catholic scholar in the 17th century (i.e. before First Vatican Council made Peter's reception of the Papacy the official Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16), around 80% of Church "Fathers" agreed with the more "Protestant" belief that Peter's confession, not Peter himself, was the rock. Augustine, for example, wrote "In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable."
Even that very phrase "but let the reader decide" is very out of step with Catholicism. The readers of Scripture, unless they are part of the Magisterium, do not, according to the Council of Trent, have any right to decide which interpretation of Scripture is more probable. You believe what they tell you to believe, or the chances are you're "anathema".
Of course, "let the reader decide" is also out of step with what I would believe, too. Contrary to the assertions of every Catholic I have ever debated, I do not now, nor have I ever, nor will I ever subscribe to Reader Response Theory of interpretation. I do, however, believe the Bible was given to us for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. Why? Because 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Because of this, I go to Scripture for these things. I get my doctrines, such as the Trinity, from Scripture. I reprove false teachers using Scripture. I correct my own errors using Scripture. I obtain my moral beliefs from Scripture. And in doing so, I believe I will become wise, and I will lack nothing in my walk with God.
In other words, I rely neither on Catholic eisegesis, nor on my own eisegesis. Rather, as I say, God doesn't want us to draw our own conclusions, but His conclusions. What Catholics need to understand, what I really wish they would all understand, is that this means I actually do submit to authority; the very same authorities we have in common. I submit to the authority of God, based on the book He gave us through the pens, and blood, of His messengers.
I believe the Bible was written, in part, by Peter. Is Peter an authority in the Catholic Church? Yes, though contrary to their assertions, not as Pope. I believe the Bible was written, in part, by Matthew. Is Matthew an authority in Catholicism? Yes, he is a hand-chosen Apostle of Christ, who walked with Him during His ministry and bore witness to His resurrection. I believe the Bible was written, in part, by Paul. Is Paul an authority in the Catholic faith? Certainly.
Indeed, according to Dei Verbum, "...both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence". This, it admits, is because "...Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit..." In other words, this book is the word of God, as authoritative as if the Lord Himself stood before you and spoke it aloud.
Who has more authority than God? Not even His Apostles. Who has more authority than the Apostles? God alone. Who has more authority than the Catholic Church? God, and His chosen messengers, the prophets and Apostles. So authoritative are they that they could rebuke even the early Church, as we see a lot of the New Testament was written to do. By that same token, can we not use their divinely inspired book to rebuke the modern Catholic Church?
"But the early Church did this and said that". Ok? Would you trust the Galatians as readily as Paul's letter rebuking them? They were definitely part of the early Church, being able to prove their origins far sooner than the Catholic Church, yet Paul's rebuke of them was so severe, it borders on implying their apostasy. Observe the bluntness of his introduction. He does not, as in other epistles, greet them as churches of God, nor does he seem to praise them in any way, as he does even with the oh so chaotic Corinthians.
So what does this tell us? Put simply, it tells us we don't need to worry too much about what the early Church may or may not have believed. A large portion of the New Testament was written specifically to rebuke poor doctrines and behaviors by early Christians. What, then, are we to judge our own doctrines by? The aforementioned word of God, of course!
But Catholics will insist that tradition matters, too. Not only is tradition, in their mind, equal to Scripture, but it is also essential to understand Scripture. But not according to Irenaeus. In the beginning of Against Heresies, book 3, Irenaeus writes "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." This is already bad for Catholics. To call the Scriptures the ground and pillar of our faith sounds remarkably heretical to them. But he doesn't stop there. He concludes chapter 1 by saying "If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics."
Regarding these "all heretics", he then continues to say in chapter 2 "When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world."
The man could not get any clearer! Irenaeus is so well respected in the Catholic faith as to be a canonised Saint. Yet, here we have him telling us that the attitude of the Catholic Church is flat out heretical! Christians don't say you need tradition to understand Scripture, heretics say you need tradition to understand Scripture!
And this fits in quite nicely with by far my favorite Psalm; the self same Psalm upon which this ministry's slogan is based. Psalm 119, the longest Psalm in the Bible, champions the practice of independent Bible study. Recently, I have begun field testing what I call the Psalm 119 challenge, in which I encourage Catholics to read through Psalm 119 twice; once as a Catholic, once as a "Protestant". Which reading makes more sense?
The answer will invariably be the "Protestant" reading. Only a "Protestant" can affirm the verses talking about how studying God's word gives even the simple man greater understanding than his teachers. A Catholic, by contrast, would have to deny this, since it is his teachers who interpret the Bible for him.
But does this mean tradition is bad? Certainly not. Indeed, Scripture itself is tradition. Tradition is simply that which is handed down. You may even have a tradition unique to your family. Tradition, in and of itself, is neutral. It can be good, it can be bad, it depends on whether it furthers or hinders faith.
One thing Catholics tend to forget is that they are not the first organisation to rely heavily on tradition. The Pharisees, likewise, were quite fond of theirs. But when it came down to it, Jesus rebuked them. In Matthew 15:1-14 and Mark 7:1-16, we see two parallel accounts in which the Pharisees confront Jesus on the basis of tradition. Rather than affirm tradition, Jesus tells the Pharisees their traditions are getting in the way of their obedience to God. When His disciples point out that the Pharisees were offended, He doubled down, calling them the blind leading the blind.
What's interesting is that Jesus actually affirms the Pharisees later on. In Matthew 23:1-3, we read "Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do." Whatever they tell you to observe. That sounds an awful lot like Jesus wants His disciples to observe what the Pharisees tell them to observe.
So here, we have Jesus rebuking a legitimate authority for their approach to tradition. What was His issue? Not simply having tradition, but transgressing the commandment of God to hold to their tradition.
On the flip side, the Bible does speak quite highly of other traditions. Indeed, Catholics are quick to point to verses like 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." What's the problem here? Quite a few, actually, starting with the fact that the word "Catholic" is conspicuously absent. In its arrogance, the Catholic Church considers itself the default denomination, but the traditions being spoken of in this verse are clearly not Catholic.
First, note that phrase "whether by word or our epistle". This tells us, first of all, that these traditions are found in the epistles, which would include those which God inspired as Scripture. As for by word, it's simple: Go back to verse 5. "Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?" This is one of many examples of when Scripture affirms the Apostles taught the same traditions found in Scripture by mouth. They didn't write Scripture one day, then go out and preach something entirely different the next. If you find something in the Bible, that is what the Apostles preached by mouth. And because this is a thing which is passed down, it is, by definition, tradition.
But this is where Catholics get really sneaky. One argument that never fails to be raised is the Catholic claim to have produced the canon of Scripture. This, allegedly, is a tradition solely belonging to them. When we oppose Catholicism based on the Bible, we allegedly oppose the religion that gave us the Bible.
There are a myriad of reasons to reject this argument. It's devoid of historicity, for starters. Do Catholics seriously expect us to believe, given that the Apostles were all dead by the close of the first century, that the books they wrote under inspiration of God did not exist until 397 A.D.? Of course not, that would be asinine. Furthermore, evidence of the New Testament canon can be found long before this. Origen, in 250 A.D., clearly recognised the canon of Scripture in his book "Homilies on Joshua". It can be assumed the aforementioned Irenaeus, who called Scripture the pillar and ground of our faith, obviously wasn't clueless about what they were in 180 A.D. Even the Muratorian Fragment, as early as 170 A.D., shows us the New Testament canon was quite well known long before 397 A.D.
But what about the Old Testament? Can the Catholic Church claim to have given us that? Not at all. First, for obvious reasons, the Jews get that honor. Paul even affirms this in Romans 3:1-2. But second, "Protestants" don't even accept the one time in history the Catholic Church actually did make an "authoritative" claim on Scripture. In 1548, the Catholic Church officially added the Deuterocanon to Scripture. The "Protestant" canon, however, is more akin to that of men like Athanasias, who, in his 39th Festal Letter, said the books of the Deuterocanon "...have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and which to be instructed in the doctrine of piety...".
It's even more interesting to note that not even past Popes considered the Deuterocanon Scripture. Pope Gregory the Great, for example, did not see them as canonical. In its entry on the canon, even the New Catholic Encyclopedia admits "That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." So much for "Protestants removed the Deuterocanon to support their heresy".
This state of affairs is quite revealing. Not only does it refute the lie that "Protestants" are the ones who removed the Deuterocanon, but also refutes the lie that Catholic tradition remained consistent from the first century to the 16th. Do you think the Apostles were running around teaching that the Deuterocanon is Scripture, and it somehow took 1500 years for the Catholic Church to officially recognise it? Certainly not. Catholicism evolves. It is not, as it claims, continuing the historical traditions of Christianity. Instead, its many illegitimate councils have added things. Where, for example, is the perpetual virginity of Mary in the Bible? I can show you where it says Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage after Jesus was born (and that it would have been inappropriate for them not to), that this produced half siblings for Jesus, and even that a Messianic Psalm points to those siblings rejecting Him, but I can find nothing that presents the perpetual virginity of Mary. It's not a tradition of the Apostles. They knew Mary, they knew Jesus' siblings, they obviously wouldn't have preached something like that. Yet Catholicism binds it on all the faithful? And that's just Catholicism's smallest lie.
The biggest lie would be their unforgivable change of the Gospel itself. According to Paul, neither the Apostles, nor even angels, had the authority to preach a different gospel than the one he had preached, and if anyone did, they are to be considered accursed (Galatians 1:8). But the Catholic "gospel" is radically different. In Scripture, the answer to "what must I do to be saved" is simple: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." (Acts 16:30-31). But in Catholicism, the answer is a lot more convoluted.
According to the Catholic Church, if you've never heard of the Gospel, it's actually surprisingly simple: Seek God with a sincere heart, and try in your actions to do His will as your conscience dictates (Catechism of the Catholic Church 847). The irony of this, then, is that telling someone the Catholic gospel puts them in significantly more danger. Once you've heard it, you must unite with the Catholic Church, come under the authority of the Pope, and receive grace piecemeal by means of the 7 Sacraments. Even then, as Cardinal John O'Connor once said, "Church teaching is that I don't know, at any given moment, what my eternal future will be. I can hope, I can pray, do my very best, but I still don't know."
This is a very obviously fake gospel, incompatible with Scripture. Yet it's the teaching of the Catholic Church. Why, then, should we submit to the authority of a Church that can't even get the basics right?
Ah, but those basics are all that "Protestants" can agree on, isn't it? Aren't there 30-60,000 "Protestant" denominations? If Scripture is sufficient, why is this? Well, first of all, no. The ridiculously high numbers are inaccurate, as should be apparent from the fact Catholics can't seem to agree on it. The actual number is far lower, especially if you cut out blatantly heretical religions like Mormonism (which, it turns out, Catholics don't always like to do).
Nevertheless, there are a large number of denominations (and add one more for the simple fact not every Christian plays the denomination game). But why is this relevant? First, we do agree on the essentials. You can't get around that by pointing out that we disagree on less important things.
Second, once again, it is the height of arrogance to suggest your denomination is default. "You can't all be right, therefore we are" is a ridiculous argument. It's ridiculous when atheists make it, it's ridiculous when Catholics make it, it's ridiculous when anyone makes it. What's worse is that all it does is shift the problem. Catholics are quite divided within their religion, too.
But most of all, "Protestants" disagree on Scripture for the same reason Catholics disagree with Scripture. Do you imagine Christians outside the Catholic Church just stop relying on tradition? Of course not. Infant baptism is a great example. Is it in Scripture? No. But if you believe in it, you might well find it "implied", though it is not even implied. Tradition over Scripture will inevitably result in bad interpretations of Scripture. It's called eisegesis, it's tragically common, and it can lead to the creation of whole new denominations.
While this is obviously a long article, which Wix is currently predicting will take the average reader 14 minutes to read, the TL;DR of it is this: The Bible, being the word of God, carries the authority of God, and to claim authority over it is to claim authority over God. No sane Church will profess "I have more authority than God". Therefore, since the Catholic Church does claim authority over the word of God, it cannot be considered His one true Church.
So let's say I do become Catholic. How would I approach people who think as I once thought? The same way I approach Catholics right now. I would go to our common ground. Catholics, pay attention here, I am literally telling you how to convert me: Open the word of God, which we both agree is authoritative, and show me why your interpretations are superior. If you cannot do that, if your interpretations are so dependent upon your imaginary authority to maintain, then we must maintain that your authority really is imaginary. If, in order to prove your religion comes from God, you first have to assume the authority to change His Holy book, you have the wrong religion.