Consider This (Part I)

by Chris Findley, Editor, H2R

Not long ago I was in the waiting room at my dentist’s office.  As I was thumbing through the only magazine available, which unfortunately was “Ladies Home Journal”, I noticed that the man sitting across from me was watching me.  He looked vaguely familiar and I think I looked familiar to him.  We sat there for an awkward moment until we simultaneously realized that we did indeed know each other.  He had come to a Bible study I had led when I was an Episcopal priest.  I hadn’t seen him in a few years, certainly not since my family’s conversion to Catholicism.  As we caught up, he noted the obvious lack of my black clerical shirt I had worn as minister and he asked if it were my day off.  This opened the door to tell him a little of my journey to Catholicism.

He seemed to enjoy the conversation and yet he seemed a bit mystified as to why someone would join the Catholic Church.  As I talked I could see the “look”.  It’s a look that I’ve grown used to seeing when I talk about the Catholic Church with non-Catholics.  It’s a look that says, “I’ll listen because it’s polite, but I really think you are crazy.”  I realized too, that sometimes my explanation rambles, moves from event to event without the benefit of filling in crucial gaps in thinking that were bridged by my study of the Church.  In the end, he was very kind and we parted company on good terms.  But I couldn’t shake the feeling that I wish I had answered better than I did.  I began to ask myself, “What were the things that really motivated me to move deeper into the life of the Church?”  So I offer the following ideas as an answer to that question.  I also offer them to you, for your own investigation of Catholicism.

Scripture
As an Evangelically trained Anglican, Scripture was of utmost importance to me.  I had (and still have) a deep and profound love of the Bible and readily ascribe to its authority in the life of a Christian.  I had always assumed that the Catholic Church was full of unbiblical (contrary to the Bible) or at least extra-Biblical (added to the Bible) practices and beliefs.  I know I was not alone in that conviction.  But that conviction was rooted in caricatures and stereotypes, not in actual knowledge of what the Catholic Church teaches.

I began to see that the church’s doctrine on many things that seemed strange to me actually had a Biblical basis.  Everything from the Papacy to marriage to baptism to the saints finds its roots in scripture.  And perhaps the most important thing for me was the realization that the Reformation doctrine of “sola scriptura” (by Scripture alone) is false.  I had grown to realize that even those churches that really strive to hold to the notion of “Scripture Alone” have had a hard time doing so.  Luther had his catechism which held authority for the Lutherans. Calvin had his Institutes which held a particular traditional authority as well.  If all these reformers needed was Scripture alone, why then bother with writing such works?  Additionally I became increasingly bothered by the idea of private interpretation.  Of course everyone can and should be encouraged to engage in reading the Bible.  However, there has to be some sort of authority in its final interpretation.  Do we not see evidence of fragmentation and fracturing in the various denominations because they each believe they have the authority to interpret scripture on their own?   With each split we see Scripture used as justification for that split, “But we’re being faithful to the Bible.”

In my own teaching as a pastor, I noticed that I was using the phrase, “The Church has always taught that…”  One priest friend (who had become Catholic) gently asked me, “Chris, what church are you talking about when you say that?”

I realized I was talking about the Catholic Church.
The Papacy

My friend at the dental office was an Orthodox Christian.  He is one of the most sincere Christians I have had the opportunity to know.  As we talked he asked, “Did you ever consider the Orthodox Church?”

I’d not been asked that before.  I had considered Orthodoxy, but just didn’t sense it was the place for me.  After seeing my friend, I had to ponder this question some more until I realized why I had chosen Catholicism over Orthodoxy.

In my studies I had become convinced of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.  I believe that he is “The Rock” on which the Church has been founded.   The evidence is practical, for we see that 2000 years later the gates of hell have literally not prevailed against it.  It still stands as a bold and unswerving witness to Jesus Christ.  My conviction about the correctness of the papacy does not mean I am oblivious to the fact we have not always had great Popes.  Regardless of the particular pope, the office of Peter is valid and ordained by God.  In Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus calls Peter (not just his faith) the rock on which the Church will be built.

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)

I had always been taught that what Jesus is saying is that Peter’s confession of Jesus’ identity was the “rock”.  That is, I had been told that Peter’s faith was the rock.  But the greek is much clearer and demonstrates what the Church has always taught –that Peter is the “rock”.    It is well known that in this verse Jesus is calling Peter, “kephas” (Greek “Petras”).  The question is what is “this” referring to in the verse?  It seems rather clear that the “this” to which Jesus is referring is “kephas”, Peter.  Not only that, but in the very next verse, Peter is given the keys to kingdom.  This is a clear sign and symbol of unique authority.  If Peter was not to have this special and unique authority then there would have been no reason to have bestowed upon him the keys of the kingdom.  This is confirmed throughout the history of the Church, as the Fathers, and the early doctors all subscribed to Peter (and later Peter’s successors) being “The Rock”.

So for me, the role of the Pope became crucial.  I began to realize that even today, among all the world’s religious leaders, there is something very powerful, I would say supernatural, about the Papacy.  When the leader of the Southern Baptist Convention speaks, is it really noted by anyone but Southern Baptists?  What about the leader of the Evangelical Lutherans?  The Archbishop of Canterbury?  None of these leaders seemed to exercise any spiritual leadership in the larger world or speak to that world with authority.

But the Pope, even after 2000 years, remains an authoritative voice, perhaps THE authoritative voice of Christianity in the modern world.  I could not overlook the world’s response to the death of Pope John Paul II or the world’s fascination with his successor Pope Benedict XVI.  Not everyone likes or agrees with them, but there is a sense that they represent something, Someone much larger than themselves and they take His message constantly to the world.

The Scripture and Papacy.  These two things began my journey.  In later columns I’ll look at how the consistency of the Catholic witness and its sacramental theology effectively brought me home to Rome.