Only thing I would say is going to be regarding this Bible passage:
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”
— Matthew 16:18
I have not viewed this passage as Christ appointing Peter as a leader in / for His church.
The hinge here is the statement “on this rock I will build my church”.
One would have to ask what is “this rock” ?
If you go with the view of “this rock” meaning Cephas (Peter), then yes, he will be the foundation that the church would be built upon, BUT there is another view to be considered as well.
On “this rock” could be this rock: an Understanding that Jesus is the Christ, sent from God above to save the world, which was the context in Matthew 16, where He asked them “Who do men say that I am?”.
When you see it in that context, it changes the entire view of “this rock”, because it would then mean “I will build my Church upon this understanding, that I am not Elias or Moses, but the Messiah sent from God and the gates of hell will not prevail against a church that understands this”.
It would also be in line with Jesus’s prior teachings about claims of His Identity and the vision for his body (Church body / Body of Christ) as well.
So much so to be said about this, but I think I’ll stop here.
Thank you for this article, it was very illuminating.
Interesting idea, and I like it. However, I would say it's not an "or" but an "and" concept.
Simply because Jesus would have no need to mention Peter if he wasn't referring to him. Replace Peter with Rock:
You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church...
What is the point of speaking directly to Peter, calling him out by name, and then using the double entendre of his name, if he wasn't referring directly to Peter?
He could simply state, "I will build my church upon a rock..."
I belong to a Reformed Presbyterian congregation. I think this article is very helpful to understand Catholic viewpoints, but I do think we tend to make generalizations about each other. Jesus said “he who loves me will keep my commandments” (John 14:15).
The Reformed understanding is this: man is fallen, and cannot he saved without God’s Grace. Man is justified through faith, and true justification will lead to a life of sanctification. This means that those who have TRUE faith in Jesus Christ will strive to obey Him, keep God’s commandments, and pursue a closer relationship with the Holy Spirit, who gives discernment and comfort. Naturally, we also believe in a strong church as defined in the Bible, but we acknowledge that ALL have sinned, and fallen short of the Glory of God (Romans 3:23).
This is a basic understanding, but I definitely think some Catholics and Protestants have a lot of common beliefs, and haven’t been properly exposed to the theology of each side.
When I feel more educated and articulate on the matter, I might write an article about the Reformed Protestant faith. Helpful post, thank you!
Absolutely, I think a lot of the division stems from a prideful temptation to feel superior to other denominations. It's definitely tricky because of course, every denomination believes it's correct. Which is why maintaining a spirit of unity throughout it all is so important.
And I agree that even if it's just to strengthen your own viewpoint, it's important to understand the theology of each side.
Excited to read your article, make sure to send it over when you publish it!
Well said. Romans 11 names this directly—Gentiles were grafted in, not replanted, and Paul warns against arrogance. Remembering the root helps keep unity honest instead of forced.
Very thoughtful piece. I strongly encourage you to attend a Traditional Latin Mass if you have not yet. Specifically if there is a Society of Saint Pius X chapel near you. Getting an opportunity to speak to a traditional priest will bear fruit. Deo gratias!
Thanks Felix. I've attended a TLM and I definitely liked how reverent and beautiful it was. While I don't think TLM is the only way mass should be celebrated, I do like the traditionalist approach, for the most part.
Yes, would love a part 2! And I agree about desiring unity between the two churches. I was raised United Methodist and converted to Catholicism at age 23 but took 17 long years to fully (and honestly, it's not even fully) accept and love the Catholic Church. However, I do now fully love and appreciate the Catholic Church.
Thanks Becky! This article is being well received so far so I think it's likely that I'll do a part 2.
One of the biggest challenges of Catholic life is definitely loving and trusting the Catholic Church, even with all its flaws, crises, and scandals., and remembering that it's individual human sin what leads there.
That’s true—human sin is always the issue, and it’s not just Catholic or Protestant.
I’m not trying to go sideways here, but with all the information we have today, I do find myself asking why we wouldn’t at least reconsider the original calendar God put in place, rather than simply inheriting later decisions made by church authorities.
Early leaders made real choices about power and practice, including moving away from Passover, Unleavened Bread, and Firstfruits in favor of Good Friday and Easter. Those choices shaped everyone who came after.
(Sorry for the long reply, but love the discussion and your approach to it. Also, I am not a scholar or a "professional Christian" just a guy, so this is not meant to be authoritative, but just trying clear up common misconceptions about these beliefs as I see them). I appreciate the spirit in which you write this and think you hit on some very important themes. I would fall into the Protestant camp here, but share a desire for more unity of followers of Christ and think this is possible.
In your first two points, I completely agree with your observations. What is required to be "saved" is a big point of contention between Protestants and Catholics. It is also a point of contention between traditional Protestants and modern evangelicals. Your descriptions are accurate of one approach being popularized of late, but it is really a shift away from Protestant beliefs as it does not stand up to scripture (more on that later!).
It would be more precise to say we believe we are saved "through" faith than "by" faith. We would say that one is saved by grace through faith. Faith here is not intellectual assent but a personal trust in Christ as Lord and Savior. We would also say that through this trust, the grace of God is received as a free gift. That doesn't mean grace is free though. In fact, grace is very costly, just ask Jesus. Further, it can be said that grace is based on merit in the Protestant view. Yes, I'll say it again - grace is based on merit. The difference from Catholicism is whose merit. It is not through any merit of my own; it is the merit of Christ Jesus that the price is paid.
So we would then agree that works do matter in salvation, the difference is one of when - as in our works cannot produce salvation, our salvation produces works. If you have a genuine trust and faith in Christ and His work then obedience and good fruit will naturally follow. This stands up against scripture as Jesus and other use the tree/fruit analogy several times.
So what about Sola Scriptura then? It is often pointed out that it is not "Solo" scriptura as in only scripture. The traditional view would say that other sources can have great value in teaching and spreading the gospel, but one should always "test" these things to guard against false teachings. We do in fact believe things that are not expressly stated in scripture, such as the Trinity, which is never explicitly mentioned. It is not so much "does scripture explicitly affirm" as "does this contradict scripture" that matters.
At the end of the day, I think we see things more similarly than it would at first appear. God bless!
Thanks for the comment brother, and it definitely clarifies a lot of my concerns. Regarding the whole faith and works debate, I think it ends up falling into a semantics discussion more often than not, which ends up being extremely confusing.
For me, the most difficult things to come to terms with is the variety of different protestant denominations and how differently each of them interpret scripture and questions of faith. As you said, even between protestant denominations there's a lot of different viewpoints, and that just harms the credibility of every single one of them, imo.
I appreciate this and agree with most of it. I’m not pushing back on grace, faith, or works.
My focus has been on how God actually shaped people over time and how much of that context we’ve forgotten. Romans 11 keeps reminding me that Gentiles were grafted into an existing story, not dropped into a blank slate.
Historically, both Protestants and Catholics ended up forming their own roots rather than staying grafted in. Power and politics were part of that, but what’s missing now is any real effort to recover what was set aside.
I’m not arguing for requiring the feasts or re-binding consciences. I’m talking about recognition and intentional learning—especially around the original calendar God established—so the story makes more sense and Christ’s fulfillment is clearer.
Finally, a thoughtful essay on Catholic and Protestant differences. All too often, all I hear is bashing. The differences are real and as humans, we pick sides and dislike the other side. But in my journey back to God, I've learned that God can speak to us using any denomination. I see both faults and strengths in both beliefs, and you have identified a couple of them here.
The subject of correctly understanding scripture is a big one, and I see Protestants relying on their own understanding all of the time and making all sorts of mistakes, often just simple mistakes of reasoning. Looking at scholarly research is necessary, but even scholars make mistakes and have large differences of opinions. The idea of the infallibility of papal statements of doctrine still contains the problem of different popes having differences of belief and interpretation. On the other hand, it's better than the fractiousness of a thousand Protestant denominations.
But I do believe that God allows for the differences of character and personality in each of us. I believe that He can use both Catholic and Protestant, and even Orthodox, to do His will on earth. Further, I believe that remaining divisive and denigrating the "other side" is helping evil do its work.
Thanks Kenneth. Yes, that's why I wanted to write this article, as most of the discussions I've seen are just Catholics calling protestants heretics and Protestants calling Catholics idolaters lol.
The subject of interpretation of scripture was probably why I converted to Catholicism fully, it's just very clear that we cannot understand it on our own and that each person will have different interpretations. I like your point about the problem of different popes and I hadn't really put much thought into that, so definitely something that I'll think about.
Great article! I love your spirit of humility and also your take on all the issues. I was raised atheist and became Episcopalian. My episcopal church was full of liberal academics and LGBTs. It was a closed club with little or no fellowship and a very lukewarm spirit. There were sermons about global warming and racism but never about sin. Eventually I converted to Catholicism. The rigor of the Catechism classes and the sense of certainty provided by Catholic dogma feel to me like a mother’s sheltering arms in a world gone mad. Please do write more on this topic. Looking forward to it.
Very well put, I felt a similar sense of comfort when coming back to The Church: I was lost trying to make sense of it all on my own, and when I came back I found clear, defined answers to all the dilemmas I had.
Excited to write more about this as well as I become more knowledgeable on this subject!
It's always interesting to see why people believe what they do. I appreciate your defense of the catholic system and thank you for writing it up.
That said, I'm curious to what form your "more 'protestant' approach" took. Your characterization of 'Protestantism' is vague and very vibesy. The dividing line between catholics, protestants, and other protestants are all bound up in our respective views of Scripture. This is nowhere so clear as in your section on that subject.
This piece made me more protestant than I already was, but I appreciate learning from you (in this piece and your other work). Philippians 3:16
Thanks brother. My "more protestant" approach was basically a rejection of the Catholic Church and an attempt to interpret Scripture on my own. So I'd say I was non-denominational. I definitely don't have a solid understanding of what all the different protestant denominations believe. But that's also my point. It's impossible to pinpoint which one of the many different denominations interprets scripture correctly, so it always ends up coming back to personal preference. And Truth cannot depend on personal preference.
"It's impossible to pinpoint which one of the many different denominations interprets scripture correctly, so it always ends up coming back to personal preference."
I don't see how you avoid this problem with being a catholic. Ultimately, *you* decided to outsource your interpretation to the pope. That's certainly a reasonable option and many protestants do the same thing with their pastor or somebody on the internet. But as long as you're doing it with that in mind, I don't necessarily have objections to that. Romans 14:1-12. If we're both willing to give an account of ourselves before the Lord, then I will not try to take His place.
Great article. I have one scheduled for April on “Faith and Good Works” that touches on all you’ve said here.
I’m technically still a Protestant, baptized as a Baptist, but have been doing a lot of research and soul-searching the past two years or so on Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I don’t agree with most of Protestantism and I feel like God is guiding me in finding a new “home”.
Don't get me wrong-I love my Protestant brothers and sisters-but let me count the reasons...😐 There are many reasons why I started looking for a new home, too many to list here, really, and warrant their own article, which I may do in the future. But I just don't feel like Protestantism is what Christ intended by any stretch. The worship is the biggest thing for me, I think, because in Protestant churches, it doesn't feel like worship. I read someone say once that it's more like a "concert with a TED talk", and that's exactly how it feels. The list is so long.
Welcome back and congratulations! I enjoy reading your writings and perspective.
We must learn as Catholic parents that to raise truly Catholic children, we must teach them the faith with a better understanding of the catechism. In retrospect, at 60 and a grandmother, I can see where I’ve failed my children. It’s good to see that 2 of them landed on their feet- flawed but still standing in the faith. However, one was easily misguided by the outside world. I blame myself for not seeing his doubts and misunderstandings of the faith.
Yes, I definitely agree. I think there's nowadays a very intentional effort put in place by the Church to catechize Catholics. At least, that's what the priest from my local parish has been saying, how they are being told to try and teach a little bit more of Catholic doctrine in the sermons. I think they are recognizing how weak most Catholic's understanding of Church doctrine is.
Very cool, interesting, mind opening and good to read article! That was very nice! Thanks for the open up, the contribution. Made me think a lot about a lot of things. May God keep blessing you and guiding you.
This is a great article. One thing to add from the Catholic view on the section of Protestant interpretation of scripture. In my experience, it’s isn’t necessarily they are wrong in their interpretation, but wrong in their scoping. Many (in regard to evangelicals and new Protestants) simply select a verse or two and interpret it alone.
Doing this without consideration of context (the rest of the book, history of the time, literary devices used, and most importantly the audience) is the issue. Cherry-picking or verse throwing wins no awards for the proclamation of truth today, especially with the unlimited access to so much information. There is a reason many Protestants around Luther wanted the book of James out of the Bible.
I too am a simple man and I believe that the most logical interpretation of scripture is the original manner in which the writer wrote the scripture in question, including the original language in which the scripture was written. Matthew 16:18 is a perfect example. In this verse Jesus calls Peter “Petros” which in the original Greek means rock. So indeed, Peter is the literal rock on which Jesus builds his church, which church will stand the test of time, and will be the source of salvation until Jesus returns.
Let's go brother! Hope you like them. Rivers of Fire is a very different book, very dark at times, because I wanted it to be raw and real. However, it starts getting lighter and lighter as you read. Let me know how you like them, thanks for the support. God bless you!
Organizational plurality, Understanding of Salvation through 'Works', and Understanding of Scripture.
Across the myriad different bodies of Christians proclaiming knowledge of Truth, there's obviously a spectrum on which some are closer towards one end, and others are farther away on the other. If appointment to positions of religious clergy is to be remain open to all men or women who endeavor to pursue that vocation of proclaiming Truth for example, then an acknowledgement of all individuals as capable of at least trying must be made.
If Scripture Alone doesn't work for following Christ, then why have a written New Testament? Jews continue existing to this day through the Tanakh and everything built on top of it. I don't think it wrong to acknowledge the reality that no one lives in the same world now as was early first century Rome. For provincial people in undeveloped areas of the world today who've no regular access to religious ministry of the Apostolic tradition, the Bible ought to be sufficient.
And if my mere faith in Jesus' endeavor to save me from death isn't good enough for my soul, then why believe in Jesus at all? I can simply be content with living an ordered life here and now through my own efforts. Indeed, I do that already, to the best of my ability. For all that I'm not capable of doing, however, I have to be grateful and receptive of others who act for my benefit, regardless of the reason. In other words, I have to trust that Jesus acts to bring me beyond this world to fulfill a relationship with Him for all eternity. Nothing here on Earth, no charitable contributions, no paid-for goods and services, no relations with people, can possibly compare with that.
Good morning,
Only thing I would say is going to be regarding this Bible passage:
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”
— Matthew 16:18
I have not viewed this passage as Christ appointing Peter as a leader in / for His church.
The hinge here is the statement “on this rock I will build my church”.
One would have to ask what is “this rock” ?
If you go with the view of “this rock” meaning Cephas (Peter), then yes, he will be the foundation that the church would be built upon, BUT there is another view to be considered as well.
On “this rock” could be this rock: an Understanding that Jesus is the Christ, sent from God above to save the world, which was the context in Matthew 16, where He asked them “Who do men say that I am?”.
When you see it in that context, it changes the entire view of “this rock”, because it would then mean “I will build my Church upon this understanding, that I am not Elias or Moses, but the Messiah sent from God and the gates of hell will not prevail against a church that understands this”.
It would also be in line with Jesus’s prior teachings about claims of His Identity and the vision for his body (Church body / Body of Christ) as well.
So much so to be said about this, but I think I’ll stop here.
Thank you for this article, it was very illuminating.
Very respectfully,
Victor.
Interesting idea, and I like it. However, I would say it's not an "or" but an "and" concept.
Simply because Jesus would have no need to mention Peter if he wasn't referring to him. Replace Peter with Rock:
You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church...
What is the point of speaking directly to Peter, calling him out by name, and then using the double entendre of his name, if he wasn't referring directly to Peter?
He could simply state, "I will build my church upon a rock..."
Would love for you to read our article we wrote on this subject: https://open.substack.com/pub/seekingheaven/p/catholics-were-right-about-peter?r=574dvn&utm_medium=ios
Love that, thank you for linking!
I belong to a Reformed Presbyterian congregation. I think this article is very helpful to understand Catholic viewpoints, but I do think we tend to make generalizations about each other. Jesus said “he who loves me will keep my commandments” (John 14:15).
The Reformed understanding is this: man is fallen, and cannot he saved without God’s Grace. Man is justified through faith, and true justification will lead to a life of sanctification. This means that those who have TRUE faith in Jesus Christ will strive to obey Him, keep God’s commandments, and pursue a closer relationship with the Holy Spirit, who gives discernment and comfort. Naturally, we also believe in a strong church as defined in the Bible, but we acknowledge that ALL have sinned, and fallen short of the Glory of God (Romans 3:23).
This is a basic understanding, but I definitely think some Catholics and Protestants have a lot of common beliefs, and haven’t been properly exposed to the theology of each side.
When I feel more educated and articulate on the matter, I might write an article about the Reformed Protestant faith. Helpful post, thank you!
Absolutely, I think a lot of the division stems from a prideful temptation to feel superior to other denominations. It's definitely tricky because of course, every denomination believes it's correct. Which is why maintaining a spirit of unity throughout it all is so important.
And I agree that even if it's just to strengthen your own viewpoint, it's important to understand the theology of each side.
Excited to read your article, make sure to send it over when you publish it!
Well said. Romans 11 names this directly—Gentiles were grafted in, not replanted, and Paul warns against arrogance. Remembering the root helps keep unity honest instead of forced.
True
Very thoughtful piece. I strongly encourage you to attend a Traditional Latin Mass if you have not yet. Specifically if there is a Society of Saint Pius X chapel near you. Getting an opportunity to speak to a traditional priest will bear fruit. Deo gratias!
Thanks Felix. I've attended a TLM and I definitely liked how reverent and beautiful it was. While I don't think TLM is the only way mass should be celebrated, I do like the traditionalist approach, for the most part.
TLM is my preference as well. Juan, I recommend you read the book “Why We’re Catholic” by Trent Horn.
It will support you tremendously as you continue building on this series.
Yes, would love a part 2! And I agree about desiring unity between the two churches. I was raised United Methodist and converted to Catholicism at age 23 but took 17 long years to fully (and honestly, it's not even fully) accept and love the Catholic Church. However, I do now fully love and appreciate the Catholic Church.
Thanks Becky! This article is being well received so far so I think it's likely that I'll do a part 2.
One of the biggest challenges of Catholic life is definitely loving and trusting the Catholic Church, even with all its flaws, crises, and scandals., and remembering that it's individual human sin what leads there.
That’s true—human sin is always the issue, and it’s not just Catholic or Protestant.
I’m not trying to go sideways here, but with all the information we have today, I do find myself asking why we wouldn’t at least reconsider the original calendar God put in place, rather than simply inheriting later decisions made by church authorities.
Early leaders made real choices about power and practice, including moving away from Passover, Unleavened Bread, and Firstfruits in favor of Good Friday and Easter. Those choices shaped everyone who came after.
So true that it’s human sin. Great point. Looking forward to part 2!
(Sorry for the long reply, but love the discussion and your approach to it. Also, I am not a scholar or a "professional Christian" just a guy, so this is not meant to be authoritative, but just trying clear up common misconceptions about these beliefs as I see them). I appreciate the spirit in which you write this and think you hit on some very important themes. I would fall into the Protestant camp here, but share a desire for more unity of followers of Christ and think this is possible.
In your first two points, I completely agree with your observations. What is required to be "saved" is a big point of contention between Protestants and Catholics. It is also a point of contention between traditional Protestants and modern evangelicals. Your descriptions are accurate of one approach being popularized of late, but it is really a shift away from Protestant beliefs as it does not stand up to scripture (more on that later!).
It would be more precise to say we believe we are saved "through" faith than "by" faith. We would say that one is saved by grace through faith. Faith here is not intellectual assent but a personal trust in Christ as Lord and Savior. We would also say that through this trust, the grace of God is received as a free gift. That doesn't mean grace is free though. In fact, grace is very costly, just ask Jesus. Further, it can be said that grace is based on merit in the Protestant view. Yes, I'll say it again - grace is based on merit. The difference from Catholicism is whose merit. It is not through any merit of my own; it is the merit of Christ Jesus that the price is paid.
So we would then agree that works do matter in salvation, the difference is one of when - as in our works cannot produce salvation, our salvation produces works. If you have a genuine trust and faith in Christ and His work then obedience and good fruit will naturally follow. This stands up against scripture as Jesus and other use the tree/fruit analogy several times.
So what about Sola Scriptura then? It is often pointed out that it is not "Solo" scriptura as in only scripture. The traditional view would say that other sources can have great value in teaching and spreading the gospel, but one should always "test" these things to guard against false teachings. We do in fact believe things that are not expressly stated in scripture, such as the Trinity, which is never explicitly mentioned. It is not so much "does scripture explicitly affirm" as "does this contradict scripture" that matters.
At the end of the day, I think we see things more similarly than it would at first appear. God bless!
Thanks for the comment brother, and it definitely clarifies a lot of my concerns. Regarding the whole faith and works debate, I think it ends up falling into a semantics discussion more often than not, which ends up being extremely confusing.
For me, the most difficult things to come to terms with is the variety of different protestant denominations and how differently each of them interpret scripture and questions of faith. As you said, even between protestant denominations there's a lot of different viewpoints, and that just harms the credibility of every single one of them, imo.
I appreciate this and agree with most of it. I’m not pushing back on grace, faith, or works.
My focus has been on how God actually shaped people over time and how much of that context we’ve forgotten. Romans 11 keeps reminding me that Gentiles were grafted into an existing story, not dropped into a blank slate.
Historically, both Protestants and Catholics ended up forming their own roots rather than staying grafted in. Power and politics were part of that, but what’s missing now is any real effort to recover what was set aside.
I’m not arguing for requiring the feasts or re-binding consciences. I’m talking about recognition and intentional learning—especially around the original calendar God established—so the story makes more sense and Christ’s fulfillment is clearer.
A great write up. Sharing this resource: https://www.magisterium.com/ AMDG.
Love the Magisterium chat haha. It's a great resource. God bless you brother
Finally, a thoughtful essay on Catholic and Protestant differences. All too often, all I hear is bashing. The differences are real and as humans, we pick sides and dislike the other side. But in my journey back to God, I've learned that God can speak to us using any denomination. I see both faults and strengths in both beliefs, and you have identified a couple of them here.
The subject of correctly understanding scripture is a big one, and I see Protestants relying on their own understanding all of the time and making all sorts of mistakes, often just simple mistakes of reasoning. Looking at scholarly research is necessary, but even scholars make mistakes and have large differences of opinions. The idea of the infallibility of papal statements of doctrine still contains the problem of different popes having differences of belief and interpretation. On the other hand, it's better than the fractiousness of a thousand Protestant denominations.
But I do believe that God allows for the differences of character and personality in each of us. I believe that He can use both Catholic and Protestant, and even Orthodox, to do His will on earth. Further, I believe that remaining divisive and denigrating the "other side" is helping evil do its work.
Thanks Kenneth. Yes, that's why I wanted to write this article, as most of the discussions I've seen are just Catholics calling protestants heretics and Protestants calling Catholics idolaters lol.
The subject of interpretation of scripture was probably why I converted to Catholicism fully, it's just very clear that we cannot understand it on our own and that each person will have different interpretations. I like your point about the problem of different popes and I hadn't really put much thought into that, so definitely something that I'll think about.
Great article! I love your spirit of humility and also your take on all the issues. I was raised atheist and became Episcopalian. My episcopal church was full of liberal academics and LGBTs. It was a closed club with little or no fellowship and a very lukewarm spirit. There were sermons about global warming and racism but never about sin. Eventually I converted to Catholicism. The rigor of the Catechism classes and the sense of certainty provided by Catholic dogma feel to me like a mother’s sheltering arms in a world gone mad. Please do write more on this topic. Looking forward to it.
Very well put, I felt a similar sense of comfort when coming back to The Church: I was lost trying to make sense of it all on my own, and when I came back I found clear, defined answers to all the dilemmas I had.
Excited to write more about this as well as I become more knowledgeable on this subject!
It's always interesting to see why people believe what they do. I appreciate your defense of the catholic system and thank you for writing it up.
That said, I'm curious to what form your "more 'protestant' approach" took. Your characterization of 'Protestantism' is vague and very vibesy. The dividing line between catholics, protestants, and other protestants are all bound up in our respective views of Scripture. This is nowhere so clear as in your section on that subject.
This piece made me more protestant than I already was, but I appreciate learning from you (in this piece and your other work). Philippians 3:16
Thanks brother. My "more protestant" approach was basically a rejection of the Catholic Church and an attempt to interpret Scripture on my own. So I'd say I was non-denominational. I definitely don't have a solid understanding of what all the different protestant denominations believe. But that's also my point. It's impossible to pinpoint which one of the many different denominations interprets scripture correctly, so it always ends up coming back to personal preference. And Truth cannot depend on personal preference.
"It's impossible to pinpoint which one of the many different denominations interprets scripture correctly, so it always ends up coming back to personal preference."
I don't see how you avoid this problem with being a catholic. Ultimately, *you* decided to outsource your interpretation to the pope. That's certainly a reasonable option and many protestants do the same thing with their pastor or somebody on the internet. But as long as you're doing it with that in mind, I don't necessarily have objections to that. Romans 14:1-12. If we're both willing to give an account of ourselves before the Lord, then I will not try to take His place.
Great article. I have one scheduled for April on “Faith and Good Works” that touches on all you’ve said here.
I’m technically still a Protestant, baptized as a Baptist, but have been doing a lot of research and soul-searching the past two years or so on Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I don’t agree with most of Protestantism and I feel like God is guiding me in finding a new “home”.
Looking forward to reading your article! Why did you start looking into Catholicism and Orthodoxy as opposed to staying a Baptist Protestant?
Don't get me wrong-I love my Protestant brothers and sisters-but let me count the reasons...😐 There are many reasons why I started looking for a new home, too many to list here, really, and warrant their own article, which I may do in the future. But I just don't feel like Protestantism is what Christ intended by any stretch. The worship is the biggest thing for me, I think, because in Protestant churches, it doesn't feel like worship. I read someone say once that it's more like a "concert with a TED talk", and that's exactly how it feels. The list is so long.
Welcome back and congratulations! I enjoy reading your writings and perspective.
We must learn as Catholic parents that to raise truly Catholic children, we must teach them the faith with a better understanding of the catechism. In retrospect, at 60 and a grandmother, I can see where I’ve failed my children. It’s good to see that 2 of them landed on their feet- flawed but still standing in the faith. However, one was easily misguided by the outside world. I blame myself for not seeing his doubts and misunderstandings of the faith.
Thank you for your writings & for your substack.
Thank you for the kind words Maria!
Yes, I definitely agree. I think there's nowadays a very intentional effort put in place by the Church to catechize Catholics. At least, that's what the priest from my local parish has been saying, how they are being told to try and teach a little bit more of Catholic doctrine in the sermons. I think they are recognizing how weak most Catholic's understanding of Church doctrine is.
Exactly! That’s where they failed those of us born in the 60s & 70s & we in turn failed those who followed. 💔💔💔
Very cool, interesting, mind opening and good to read article! That was very nice! Thanks for the open up, the contribution. Made me think a lot about a lot of things. May God keep blessing you and guiding you.
Thank you for reading! God bless you too
This is a great article. One thing to add from the Catholic view on the section of Protestant interpretation of scripture. In my experience, it’s isn’t necessarily they are wrong in their interpretation, but wrong in their scoping. Many (in regard to evangelicals and new Protestants) simply select a verse or two and interpret it alone.
Doing this without consideration of context (the rest of the book, history of the time, literary devices used, and most importantly the audience) is the issue. Cherry-picking or verse throwing wins no awards for the proclamation of truth today, especially with the unlimited access to so much information. There is a reason many Protestants around Luther wanted the book of James out of the Bible.
I too am a simple man and I believe that the most logical interpretation of scripture is the original manner in which the writer wrote the scripture in question, including the original language in which the scripture was written. Matthew 16:18 is a perfect example. In this verse Jesus calls Peter “Petros” which in the original Greek means rock. So indeed, Peter is the literal rock on which Jesus builds his church, which church will stand the test of time, and will be the source of salvation until Jesus returns.
Just grabbed rivers of fire and Christian vitality.
Let's go brother! Hope you like them. Rivers of Fire is a very different book, very dark at times, because I wanted it to be raw and real. However, it starts getting lighter and lighter as you read. Let me know how you like them, thanks for the support. God bless you!
Organizational plurality, Understanding of Salvation through 'Works', and Understanding of Scripture.
Across the myriad different bodies of Christians proclaiming knowledge of Truth, there's obviously a spectrum on which some are closer towards one end, and others are farther away on the other. If appointment to positions of religious clergy is to be remain open to all men or women who endeavor to pursue that vocation of proclaiming Truth for example, then an acknowledgement of all individuals as capable of at least trying must be made.
If Scripture Alone doesn't work for following Christ, then why have a written New Testament? Jews continue existing to this day through the Tanakh and everything built on top of it. I don't think it wrong to acknowledge the reality that no one lives in the same world now as was early first century Rome. For provincial people in undeveloped areas of the world today who've no regular access to religious ministry of the Apostolic tradition, the Bible ought to be sufficient.
And if my mere faith in Jesus' endeavor to save me from death isn't good enough for my soul, then why believe in Jesus at all? I can simply be content with living an ordered life here and now through my own efforts. Indeed, I do that already, to the best of my ability. For all that I'm not capable of doing, however, I have to be grateful and receptive of others who act for my benefit, regardless of the reason. In other words, I have to trust that Jesus acts to bring me beyond this world to fulfill a relationship with Him for all eternity. Nothing here on Earth, no charitable contributions, no paid-for goods and services, no relations with people, can possibly compare with that.