I was born in 1965 in what one might term an average Catholic household. My parents went to church every Sunday, sent me to a Catholic grammar school, and taught me all the standard Catholic prayers. They weren't especially fervent or zealous, but Catholic morality was the expected household norm. However, even though my parents were average Catholics, I knew, even at that young age, that I was a little unusual. I had an unusually strong faith for someone of my age. While the rest of the students in my school didn't take their religion classes very seriously, I found the whole subject of God quite important. Even at a young age I had a strong desire to be right with God, and I obeyed with vigor all that I was taught.
By the time I was in sixth grade, my family began to evolve into a more "unconventional" Catholic family. My mother's second cousin, Joe, who was a nominal Catholic at best, gave his life to the Lord, and became a very zealous and enthusiastic charismatic Catholic. Within a year my mother, grandmother, and many of my cousins had recommitted themselves to Christ and received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. I myself accepted Jesus as my personal savior and received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit when I was in seventh grade.
Being a charismatic Catholic meant two major changes began to occur in my spiritual life. First, I began to read the Bible on a daily basis. In fact, when I later became a Fundamentalist, I used to joke that my mother used to nag me more about reading the Bible than my preacher. Secondly, I began to see Jesus not just as God to obey, but a friend that was there to help me in times of trouble and walk with me in my spiritual journey.
However, with all of the good things going on in the charismatic Movement, there was one thing that was working to bring about its eventual demise in my diocese. (My diocese went from having charismatic prayer groups in almost every parish in the seventies to just a hand full today.) It seems that many of these newly enthusiastic charismatics would find themselves encountering Pentecostal Fundamentalists that told them that the Catholic Church is "unbiblical". Unable to defend their faith from these attacks, many of them left the Catholic Church for other churches.
I first came upon this one day when my family visited Joe's house one Christmas. One of his house guests was a woman who had left the Catholic Church because she thought its teachings were unbiblical. As she was expounding on how the church disobeyed the Bible, she questioned why my cousin had still not left the church. As we drove home I asked my mother why we were still Catholic. She explained to me that all churches had been corrupted by sinful men and that I should just bloom where I was planted. Being a Bible reading Catholic this made sense to me. It seemed obvious to me even then that the Catholic Church was biblical in its understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the Fundamentalist were unbiblical in their belief in "once saved, always saved." So my mother's argument seemed to satisfy me for the moment. However, in my heart, I made a decision that if I found a church that completely followed the Bible, I would leave the Catholic Church.
So indeed I did grow where I was planted, and except for a short time of rebelliousness in college, remained a faithful, committed Catholic. My only problem as a Catholic was that it was difficult to find other Catholics that were as committed as I was. Even after getting involved in retreat and other ministries, I was often disappointed by those I fellowshipped with, who were often disobedient to Catholic teachings in some areas of their personal life (usually regarding sexual morality). However, I didn't let this bother me and, by 23 I was in fact quite content with my faith life. It was at this time that God's permissive will allowed me to take a detour on my journey of faith.
In 1989, an acquaintance invited me to what she called a "Bible Talk". Being an ecumenical person, and not wanting to offend, I accepted the invitation. Little did I know that I was being introduced to the campus ministry of the Boston Church of Christ. Although I had no intention of leaving the Catholic Church, I was impressed by their strong commitment to Jesus Christ. I soon found myself meeting with them multiple times a week and attending their services every Sunday morning (while still going to Mass with my roommates on Sunday evenings). However, as impressed as I was with their commitment I was also a little concerned that the people I met lacked the personal discernment to make the simplest spiritual decisions without consulting their leaders. Therefore, I proceeded with caution.
After about five months, my friends in the Boston Church invited me to a retreat. I had missed the first night of the retreat due being stuck at La Guardia coming home from a work-related trip. I arrived early on the Saturday morning to hear the first talk of the day. The speaker explained that he was not saved when he accepted Christ as Savior but rather when he was baptized. Being that I had both accepted Jesus as my personal Savior and had been baptized I felt I had my bases covered and was ready to go to the next talk of my choosing. Then one of the people that had invited me (who unbeknownst to me was "discipling" me) suggested that I go to a different talk than the one I intended. Once again, not wanting to offend, I followed my friend's suggestion. The person giving this talk explained that one had to believe in Christ first before one's baptism could be valid and that the Catholic Church had changed from baptizing adults to baptizing infants some time in the third to fifth century. For the first time in my life I doubted my salvation.
After the talk I sat down with the person who brought me into that room and tried to reason with him that I was indeed saved. However, it was to no avail. I couldn't convince him or myself that I was saved. Still possessing my childhood desire to be right with God, I began to study diligently with the Boston Church. Actually, I was introduced to members of the Providence Church of Christ since they fellowshipped closer to where I lived. Seven days a week I studied with them until it was time to get baptized. During this time I was both impressed and dismayed. I was impressed by their commitment and by the fact that they proved everything from the Bible. I was especially impressed that they didn't buy into the "once saved, always saved" doctrine. Perhaps this was the church that went "just by the Bible" that I had vowed that I would find. However, I was shocked to find that they didn't believe in the charismatic gifts of the Spirit. Being a charismatic Catholic, I mistakenly thought all Fundamentalists were charismatic. I was also concerned by the odd requirements they made of their members, (e.g., Bible studies at 3 AM), and the fact that they wanted me to move from the nice suburban house I was renting with friends to a run down apartment in Providence, (which was an extra 15 minutes from work). Also for the first time in my life, I became concerned as to how many people in the world were actually saved. One of the elders in the Providence church and I were studying the Bible at a McDonald's near where I work (one of the studies in which I "counted the cost" prior to being baptized) and I ask him who he thought were saved. He told me that those in his particular movement in the Church of Christ as well as perhaps some in the mainline Churches of Christ from which his group had separated. At this point I knew that if the church I was joining did turn out to be a cult, I would go to the mainline Church of Christ.
Then finally the night before my baptism arrived. That night the acquaintance that invited me to the Bible Talk confessed to me the abusive nature of the Boston Church. My suspicions being confirmed, I disassociated myself with the Boston Church and was not baptized by them. However, since the Boston Church of Christ convinced me of their position regarding baptism, I could not continue to be a Catholic. I knew there was only one thing I could do: join the mainline Church of Christ.
The next Sunday I arrived on the doorstep of the local Church of Christ, which was in Fall River, Massachusetts (the closest major city to my home in Westport, MA). I explained my story to the members and studied with the preacher. In about a week I was baptized by immersion and became "just a Christian", and was among the few that called themselves Christian that actually followed everything in the Bible correctly (or so I thought).
Like most Church of Christ congregations in New England, this one was rather small (about 25 families). The people in the congregation, while lacking the youthful vigor and enthusiasm of those I met in the Boston church, nevertheless were sincere and steadfast in their commitment to the Lord. The only thing that made me feel a little bit of an outsider was that the congregation was made up almost entirely of married families and I was a single person. So, in order to have fellowship with spiritually minded singles, I continued my involvement with Catholic retreat ministries and even attended Mass with my Catholic friends (although I didn't receive communion, at least most of the time. There were many times however, when I felt quite drawn to it.) I had even met my wife while on team on a Catholic retreat and baptized her into the Church of Christ before we were married. We were even married in the Catholic Church, with my preacher and some of the families in the Church of Christ attended the wedding Mass.
I was actually in the Church of Christ about four years (1989-1993) before making a complete break from the Catholic Church. This break came about for three reasons. First, I found it difficult to win souls when I myself was attending two churches. Secondly, it was difficult to attend two churches as a married person. Thirdly, I had gone on a Catholic retreat that had a liberal feminist for a retreat leader. Her liberal agenda gave me the impression that the Catholic Church was heading down the same road to liberalism as many mainline Protestant churches. At this point I wanted nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
In my eight years in the Church of Christ, I learned four very important things. First, I learned the importance of discipleship and living a life of personal self-sacrifice for the cause of Christ. Second, I learned to study the Bible from a doctrinal/apologetical, rather than just a devotional point of view. Thirdly, I learned about the importance of personal evangelization. Fourthly, for the first time in my Christian life, I had learned about the writings of the early church fathers, (albeit through the distorted filter of F. W. Mattox). In fact I had believed that when Alexander Campbell founded the Church of Christ he was able to interpret the Bible correctly by interpreting Scripture like the early church fathers did. (How I got this impression is beyond me since this is not something taught in the Church of Christ.)
Once I had cut my ties with the Catholic Church, I began to become bolder in sharing my faith with my "unsaved" Catholic families and friends. I even began to read anti-Catholic literature and watch anti-Catholic videos. I renewed my attempts to evangelize my family, especially my mother and grandmother. (I had witnessed to them when I first joined, but the lack of charismatic gifts and my mother's dislike of the preacher's style made such attempts unsuccessful.) However, something interesting had happened to my mother and grandmother since the seventies. Thanks to Mother Angelica, they had changed from the "bloom where you are planted" philosophy to be staunch defenders of the belief that the Catholic Church is the true church. For months I argued back and forth with my mother and grandmother, who could not see the Biblical points I was making. Likewise, I was not impressed with my mother's tape of Scott Hahn's conversion since it didn't address my issues related to baptism. (Dr. Hahn was an Evangelical Presbyterian, who had always accepted infant baptism.) We were getting nowhere, with neither side convincing the other. Finally, we agreed to disagree. As a last resort, my mother gave me a copy of Surprised by Truth. I took it with me on an airplane trip and didn't go to bed until I read it all the way through. Although it to didn't really address my issues on baptism, it did bring up a lot of points that made sense to me, and reading it brought about a sense of inner peace that I hadn't felt since before I left the Catholic Church.
When I got back home, I gave it to my preacher and asked him to give me his opinion of it. (I do not believe that he ever read it.) I also wrote to one of the contributors who, like me, was at one time part of the Boston Church of Christ. However, rather than answer my letter personally he replied with a form letter and a number to call his staff of apologists. Since I thought my questions were too complex to be discussed in a phone call, I decided not to pursue it. Little did I know, however, the subtle influence that book was having in my considering the claims of the Catholic Church.
Having been unsuccessful with my mother, I decided that next I would evangelize a man named Jim, who left our church after his wife had been disfellowshipped, and had started going to the United Pentecostal Church. Since I thought we had been too harsh in our disfellowshipping his wife, I felt that if I showed him some compassion, he and his wife would return to the Church of Christ rather than compromising his convictions by attending the United Pentecostal Church. However, once I talked to him I realized that not only was he happy there but he started to evangelize me, telling me that my baptism was invalid because it wasn't in Jesus' name and I believed in the false doctrine of the Trinity. He invited me to study these things out with his preacher, which I accepted. Before I met with him, I reviewed with my own preacher the Biblical reasons for Trinitarian baptism and the Trinity in general.
Ironically, I met with Jim and the preacher at the same McDonald's where, many years earlier, I had asked the elder in the Providence church who was saved. Jim's preacher had a Biblical answer for every objection that I had. He also provided me with tracts and a book on the early church fathers.
After I had met with him I was in a quandary. How could I know for sure which church had interpreted the Bible correctly regarding one of the basic beliefs of Christianity. I couldn't tell by the Bible alone since, to me, both churches seemed so Biblical in their interpretations. I decided that I had to read the writings of the early church fathers myself to determine which church was right and which church was teaching a false gospel. However, I decided in the mean time to continue to let God use me in the Church of Christ. Little did I know that this was all part of God's plan.
Then by the fall of 1996, the tables slowly started to turn. Since 1994, I had been pursuing a Master of Science degree in Information Systems at Salve Regina University. During the fall of 1996, however, I became a full-time student, so that I could finish off my course work within a year. No longer having to go to work, I could not only have more time for my class work, but for my study of early church history as well. It was also at this time that I started to use the Internet. However, these things were by no means accidents, but all part of God's plan to bring me home.
Before I go any further, I need to explain some of the false beliefs that I held about the Catholic Church at that time. I believed that the Church only regarded some parts of the scripture as inspired and the rest as fairy tales. I also believed that the Catholic Church felt it had the right to change doctrines as it saw fit. I also believed that while the Catholic Church would perhaps try to deceive converts as to what it really taught, the documents that a priest would study would have to reflect the true teachings of the Catholic Church, since a priest would have to know what the Catholic Church really taught, (so if he became Pope he could change doctrines as he saw fit). Therefore, I felt I could trust the documents in Salve's theology department as accurately reflecting the teachings of the Catholic Church.
So when I began to study the Catholic version of early church history, I expected to find when and why the Church changed different doctrines. What I found, however, was Church history actually illustrating that people in the early Church believed in doctrines that were distinctively Catholic. This was not in one or two areas, but in every major area of Catholic doctrine. I also began to learn what the Biblical basis was for many of the Catholic Church's "unbiblical" beliefs. This was confirmed when I read patristic writings myself from "neutral" colleges via the Internet. It soon became obvious that F. W. Mattox's account of early church history had in many cases either ignored or distorted the facts.
One of the most influential books that I read at this time was Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, by Joachim Jeremias. Although this book didn't make me stop going to the Church of Christ, I knew that if I had read this book back in 1989, I never would have joined the Church of Christ in the first place.
Another influence in my reversion back to Rome was the Internet itself. It was here that I stumbled on a multitude of Catholic apologetic and evangelistic web sites. I began to see even clearer, the Biblical and historical evidence of Catholic beliefs. This was not one sided, however. I also surfed onto some anti-Catholic web sites. I even joined a couple of Catholic apologetics mail lists and got in on some online debates with Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists, and others.
I soon realized that, although I was a devout Catholic from my youth up, and hung on to every word in religion class, there was so much I didn't know about the Catholic Church. In fact sometimes I feel not as if I reverted but have converted to a whole new Catholic Church.
So at this point, I had changed in the following ways. First, I thought that I could objectively interpret the Bible myself and come to the correct conclusions. However, I realized that after studying with the United Pentecostal Church that I couldn't discern which Church was correct regarding the Trinity. Secondly, I thought history would prove that infant baptism was a third century invention. However, my study of history showed that this was not the case. Through my study of history I discovered the following:
Although I had found the historical evidence overwhelming in its favoring infant baptism, I still had problems with it from a biblical perspective. So back to the Bible I went as I studied out both sides of the argument. The argument against infant baptism is that Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 place belief and repentance as prerequisites for baptism. Since infants can neither believe or repent, they cannot be baptized. Also, there is no specific mention of infants being baptized in the New Testament. On the other hand, the biblical argument for infant baptism is that Jesus commands in John 3:5 that all men must be baptized to enter the kingdom of God. The Greek word used is tis, which means all mankind or the whole human race. Secondly, Luke 18 Jesus states that infants and small children are welcome into the kingdom of God and should not be hindered. The kingdom of God in this context is referring to the kingdom of God on earth, namely the Church. Taken in the light of John 3:5, infants therefore should be baptized. Thirdly, Paul compares baptism to circumcision. This implies that just as infant Jews were allowed to enter into the Old Covenant as infants through circumcision, Christians are allowed to enter into the New Covenant through baptism as infants. Also, the baptizing of entire families provides at least implicit evidence that infants were baptized. Also, we see that in Acts 20, the Jewish Christians are still circumcising their infants. Circumcising without also baptizing them would make them non-Christian Jews, which is basically a rejection of the Messiah and tantamount to blaspheming Christ.
As far as the arguments against infant baptism, these arguments are weakened when Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 are taken in context. In Mark 16:16, Jesus is referring to those that hear the apostles preaching. Since infants could not understand the apostles preaching, they are not discussed in this verse. Likewise, Peter's command in Acts 2:38 is addressed to those that were cut to the heart by his message. Since infants were not moved by Peter's message, he was not referring to them in this verse. The only time in the Bible where all mankind is referred to regarding baptism is John 3:5 where baptism is required without exception.
As much as I knew, however, at this point, I still had a problem with the doctrine of original sin. While almost every Christian denomination accepts the Catholic doctrine of original sin, the Church of Christ rejects it. I had read the Church of Christ's argument against original sin, which was very well articulated in F. LaGard Smith's book Baptism: The Believer's Wedding Ceremony. So far I had read nothing to counteract it. So I decided to do an in depth study of the Catholic understanding of original sin and compare it to the Church of Christ's argument against. The first thing I had to deal with was whether original sin violated Ezekiel 18. In this verse, God is quoted as saying that he would not punish someone for his father's sins. However, this does not apply to original sin for several reasons. First, this refers to the sins of the previous generations and not the curse put on all mankind as a result of Adam's sin. (See Genesis 3). Even after Ezekiel 18 was written, man is still punished for Adam's sin since: a)men (even infants and small children) still die, b) women still have pain during childbirth, and c) all mankind has lost his state of original justification with God (which is what original sin is) as stated in Ephesians 2:3 et. al. Secondly, Catholics don't believe that unbaptized babies are in hell. However, just as unbaptized babies were not in heaven before the resurrection, unbaptized babies are not in heaven after the resurrection. This does not mean that they are in hell. They could be in some other place such as the Old Testament Shoel or Paradise. This does not also mean that they will not enter heaven as a result of the authority of Christ during the General Judgment at the end of time.
Next, I was at the point of contemplating Smith's statement that if we consider original sin to manifest itself as our sinful nature, then original sin is indeed Biblical, but that God won't hold us accountable for it, just as he won't hold a three year old accountable for lying. I was lying in bed wrestling with this issue until it came to me: "Nothing unclean can enter heaven." Revelation 20:17) I realized that although God doesn't hold the infant accountable for Adam's sin by condemning it to Hell, a soul with an innate desire to please Satan rather than God is unfit to be a joint heir with Christ in the heavenly kingdom. I went back to the Bible. I read how in Ephesians 2:3 we are by nature objects of God's wrath. I read how in John 8:44 our sinful nature (not sinful acts) make us children of the devil and in baptism we are adopted as children of God (Romans 8:17). Finally, I could see that the Church of Christ's understanding of baptism and original sin was unbiblical and I was starting to be ready to leave the Church of Christ. However, I was a lot more anti-Catholic than when I originally left the Catholic Church and was questioning other issues that were not a problem for me when I was originally a Catholic. In fact, I was questioning everything. This caused me to ride a theological roller coaster as I would read pro- and anti-Catholic arguments on other theological issues.
Interestingly, as I was studying early church history, I was also studying Church of Christ history. This was helping to demystify the unquestionable teachings of the Church of Christ. I could see how culture and personal biases had influenced the Church of Christ's interpretations. I also began to see three critical things. First, the early church could not and did not use Alexander Campbell's scientific and rational concordance approach to Biblical interpretation. Second, there was no positive evidence in Church history that those in the early Church held to distinctive Church of Christ beliefs (except those that agreed with the Catholic Church). (The only exception would be instrumental music which was indeed banned in the early church. However, the early Christians banned it as a discipline, not as an unchanging doctrine.) Third, since the apostles quoted oral tradition along with scripture, and the contents of the New Testament weren't defined until the fourth century, the early church could not have followed the "Speak where the Bible speaks, be silent where it is silent" slogan in the same way that the Church of Christ does. Fifth I also learned that even Alexander Campbell believed that non-Restoration church members could be saved, even those baptized as infants. Rather the Church of Christ's exclusive views on baptism were invented after Alexander Campbell has died. So although I wasn't entirely convinced that the Catholic Church was the true church, I was convinced that Church of Christ wasn't.
At this point, I felt that since Christ promised that his church would not fail, then the true church would be characterized by a church whose doctrines and existence could be traced throughout history. This meant that the true church was either the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, or some other third church that existed in small numbers prior to the Reformation. This made me open to the Baptist Successionist concept as detailed in the book The Trail of Blood. However, the many historical errors and assumptions the book makes, plus its condemnation by many Baptist scholars, caused me to reject the Baptist Church as a viable option in my search for the first century Church.
Likewise, the Orthodox Church was taken out of the running when I learned that during the Council of Florence, the Orthodox leaders were beginning to return to the Catholic fold, only to leave again due to political pressures. (i.e., the Islamic takeover of Constantinople in 1455)
Finally, after much study, and with much pain in my heart as I alienated myself from friends in the local Church of Christ, I made my break and came home to the Catholic Church.
As I mentioned earlier, the Church of Christ taught me the importance of personal evangelization, discipleship, personal self-sacrifice, doctrinal Bible study, and knowledge of early Church history. Of course now I realize that the Catholic Church has been teaching these same things for two thousand years, although I personally was not taught them as well I should have. I have been a Catholic for over two and a half years now and am benefiting from both the good teaching I had in the Church of Christ as well as my more correct understanding of the Catholic Church's teaching. I am living as best as I can as a disciple of my Lord, taking up my cross daily. However, this discipleship doesn't involve judging others. Rather, I approach Christ's call to holiness with humility, not wanting to pull the speck out of another's eye as I am aware of the beam in my own. This is the path of discipleship to which Christ calls all those that believe in Him, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. It is a call that I pray that you too, dear reader, will heed.