Please dont take anything I say personally. When I heard you two fell away from the Church I was sad and disappointed, but at the same time I was also glad you were taking the lifes journey so seriously. I respect a bold decision, even if I feel its the wrong one. The worst thing a person could do is treat the question of God\heaven\hell with indifference (God spits out the lukewarm). Furthermore, I dont know the crosses you bare, so what right do I have to approach you with a condescending tone? St. Francis once said if anyone else was given the same graces he received they would be a greater man; I feel the same way about myself and so I am more worried about my own failures then looking for yours. I also remind myself that Paul murdered Christians and St. Augustine was committing sexual sins IN Churches late in their 20s and in the end they both became saints. So who really knows the path God has for you? I sure as heck dont know! But I do want to express my thoughts on all that has been said so far. Take what good you can find in it.
I chose not to engage in this dialog on the Biblical lines because I dont believe your objections are Biblical. Its more a spiritual block (like a mental block). I have come to this conclusion not just with listening to you, but also from talking to other Christians throughout the years. One example, I have constantly heard how literally Protestants take the Bible (as opposed to Catholics), but then John 6 comes around and all of a sudden Jesus is speaking figuratively. It seems awfully convenient the passages that are most explicitly Catholic suddenly become some sort of figure of speech. If Jesus was ever absolutely clear anywhere in the Bible it was in John 6 (constantly repeating himself); and when people walked away (supposedly misunderstanding the message) He doesnt stop them to clear up any misconceptions (He can read minds so he knows what they are thinking). It just doesnt make sense to me to not take him literally about the Eucharist. A second example, I have also heard Protestants cite the passage Peter you are rock and on this rock I build my Church and say since the word rock is two different words (little rock vs. big rock) Jesus was not talking about the creation of a literal Church built upon Peter but rather a spiritual Church built upon some vague sort of faith he had in Christ. But in the original translation (Greek) no distinction is made (same word twice). Therefore the message could not have been clearer and the Protestant teaching falls apart. Naively, I brought it up with Protestants and figured that would be the end of that line of argument, but without fail they ignored my point. That specific teaching of Protestantism is built on a TRANSLATION of the Bible and not the original text and that doesnt seem to matter. I have many more examples, but those two stood out. Overtime I just realized it was not the text of the Bible that is the stumbling block for many fallen away Catholics, but a mental or spiritual block on certain teachings of the Church and therefore there was a tendency to twist passages meanings and selectively ignoring others in order to come to a predetermined conclusion. Therefore, I dont see how to overcome that obstacle without addressing some of the bigger issues first.
There is a misconception with the Mike Kelly kids that we are cradle Catholics. It might appear we took the faith of our parents blindly and just ran with it. That isnt exactly the case. Some of you might not remember but my grandpa (on our Moms side) was a pastor to a Protestant church. To a kid, when two religions are possible (mom Protestant\dad Catholic) then ALL religions are possible. I vividly remember being younger and tossing aside the Catholic faith and starting from scratch, but I could never get too far from the Church. Something always pulled me back. I would always try to examine humanity through Gods perspective (who HE is and who we are in relation to Him) and it just made sense within the context of the Catholic Church. Too many things happened in my life not to believe in Christianity (Jesus), so I used this one fact as a starting point in my quest to understand my faith: Jesus is God and He came to earth as a human man to rescue us and then died for our sins. Using reason, I built up from that singular fact and these were some of my realizations:
1) Everything Jesus did was physical: He was conceived. He was born. He was baptized in water. He ate. He drank. He laid hands on the sick. He died a physical death. He physically rose from the dead and ate again. Jesus was joining himself to the physical world and transformed it; He didnt distance Himself from it, so it only makes sense that He would create a physical Church on earth and not just a vague notion that the Holy Spirit would guide all Christians. The physical nature of the Sacraments reinforces this reality (water, bread, wine, rings, oil, etc.). The apex of this humble physical union with man is the Eucharist. It is not just the way He administers to man (baptism, marriage, anointing of the sick, etc.) but His very presence. Removing it doesnt seem consistent with everything else He has done on earth and it would seem to me a story without a climax.
2) A loving, all powerful God would always need some presence in the world and he would insure it. A loving God would not disappear for hundreds or thousands of years, and so I discard religions that appeared out of nowhere (Mormonism, Scientology, etc.). I also hesitate when faced with the sudden change in fundamental Catholic doctrine, that resulted in many new Protestant churches almost 500 years ago; and in which changes in beliefs and teachings continue to result in new churches at the slightest whim. Many believe God was so rejected by man or sin was so powerful that the Church was beyond repair and a spit was necessary. We give ourselves too much power to think our sin could thwart Gods will, especially when He made it clear that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Sure, many people will be lost because of sin (sin has consequences), but Gods ultimate victory cannot be stopped by our little sins. Its important to remember that the line of Judah contained sinful acts. God didnt need sin to accomplish His will, but he does use it to prove a point. You have to remember sins master plan was to kill Christ once He came to earth, but rather than thwart Gods plan it brought about our redemption. Sin played right into Gods plan for our salvation.
3) On the issue of the Bible I agree with (redacted); its all about Authority. When I first attended Franciscan University I attended a basics of philosophy class. One of the things we learned was that the most important aspect of Divine Revelation was authority (regardless of the religion). That idea confused me so much that I got the question wrong on the finals. I just couldnt get my head around the concept. Then one day it hit me. How do we really know the Bible is any more divine than the Koran? If an alien came to earth how would he distinguish one divine book over another or one Bible over another? It all comes down to authority. There would need to be a chain of custody from God to the Divine book. I figured the all-knowing God would understand our confusion so He would provide a concrete, visible institution to act as that bridge, to point to the correct book, and provide the necessary interpretation. I have heard many times that the Holy Spirit is that bridge; but millions of people guided by the Holy Spirit has led to dozens of versions of the Bible, hundreds of interpretations of each passage and at least a thousand different Christian Churches (many in stark contrast to each other). I should note my pastor grandfather, guided by the Holy Spirit, believed abortion was ok.
That experience also led me to realize that a Protestant needed to be a theologian, making their own determination on teachings, to even know what church they belonged to. If one changed his understanding on infant baptism, his beliefs would put him out of line with his current church but perhaps in line with a new one. To be Protestant, one first has to shop around to find which type of Protestant church matches his current beliefs and is free to again shop around should he decide his beliefs have changed (i.e. beliefs on gay marriage, contraception, abortion, cohabitation, premarital sex). In contrast, the Authority of the Catholic Church gives us a concrete belief system which, if rejected, would render us no longer Catholic. This same Authority calls Catholics to be faithful to the Churchs teachings without always understanding every aspect of them. This leaves the faithful much room for deepening their faith and understanding within their spiritual lives. Christ would not demand all people be theologians. His Church would accommodate all intellectual levels. St. John Vianney, for example, was very holy but not very smart. So he probably had to take more of the teachings on faith without understanding them fully; but St.Thomas Aquinas immersed himself intellectually into the teachings of the Church with a far greater understanding than most will ever have. The Catholic Church can accommodate both types of people; regardless of the level of understanding, the teachings will be the same.
4) I will be honest, given what all Christians have in common, I never understood the hang-up on the True Presence. First, to clarify the teaching of the True Presence for you; at the Consecration the REALITY of the bread and wine is replaced with Christ. It still has all the accidental properties of bread and wine but the REALITY is that the host IS Christ. I understand that is hard to embrace and it sounds crazy, but it is no more crazy than believing God became man. If God were a magician it would be like His first trick making the Statue of Liberty disappear and you totally believe it, but when we say he pulled a rabbit out of an empty hat you are suddenly a skeptic. The MUCH bigger leap of faith is that belief that Christ became man and not that Christ comes to us in the form of bread. The same logic you use to say we are bowing to a piece of bread also applies to Jesus to man; by worshiping the human Christ are we worshiping humanity? Obviously not. We are worshiping the Divinity behind it.
(I should note I do recognize the distinction between the Eucharist Christ replacing the reality of the bread and wine, and the Incarnation Christ joins himself to humanity fully so the reality of man has been enhanced and not replaced. So the analogy is not perfect, but the faith required to believe both is the same).
5) Lastly, I want to mention devotion to Mary and the Saints. I dont remember it being addressed directly but I believe its related to the current discussion. Protestants are obsessed with the idea that Catholics give devotion to people other than Christ and, therefore, are idol worshipping and not giving our full attention to Christ. The truth is that God loves to share his glory with others. If God was obsessed with getting all the attention the Bible would be written differently. It would not mention the Marys and Veronicas and Simons, etc. Often times, in the Bible, when people listen to Christ and follow him God makes a point to mention them by name. Veronica, for example, with one small act of kindness was forever remembered by name in the Gospel. God didnt need to mention her but He wanted too! They also serve another purpose. They show the different aspects of God. St. Theresa shows us how to love God through simplicity, Paul and John the Baptist show how to love God with grand gestures. Each saint shows us something about God (His power, or His mercy, the depth of His love, and sometimes even His sense of humor!). God is like an onion; layers and layers till infinity. Saints help us unpack those layers, and in turn Gods love for them allows them to share in His glory. If you gathered all the saints together in a room I believe we would be surprised by the diversity. No two saints are alike. The thing they all have in common is their humility and devotion to God. They would give all credit to God! If the community of saints were a tree, each saint would be a branch but all branches ultimately lead to the trunk which is Christ. Therefore, any devotion shown to the Saints, is ultimately another way of glorifying God. The analogy I once heard was to compare two kings sitting side by side. One in a blank white room, and one in a room full of diamonds, gold and art. In the second example, those treasures take your eye off the king but which king seems more magnificent? Rather than take away from the kings glory they add to it.
I hope some of my insight helps in your search for Truth. God Bless!
Everyone has confirmation bias. Of course we can't be wrong, so whenever evidence contrary to our beliefs pops up, there is a tendency to explain it away. This is what happens with John 6.
Nothing in the immediate context of John 6 mentions the Eucharist directly, and it's not even during the Last Supper. This is a counterargument some might use. It's not a very good one, though. Here's why. First: John is a drama, not a history. All four gospels fall along a spectrum between those genres, and John is very heavily on the drama side of it. John is a play. And as a play, the significance of events actually orbits around the words spoken, NOT the other way around.
Usually, you interpret what someone says by the context of what they're doing. But in John, it's deeper than that. Many times (Nicodemus in ch 3, woman at the well in ch 4, Pilate later on) Jesus ends up saying something that is not just true, but true in a far deeper sense than the immediate context. In the immediate context, Jesus is saying in John 6 that they cannot have life unless they ... crucify him? Hand him over to the Romans? Betray him? Something like that. But the truth of His words in John 6 reach far beyond just that immediate context and simultaneously declare the validity and necessity of the blessed Eucharist.
This will not make immediate sense to Protestants, however, because it requires reading a gospel as something other than *only* straightforward history. But the gospels are often not straightforward, and Jesus is especially frustrating to figure out at times. For instance: Jesus has every reason to believe that he meant the Temple of Herod in John 2:18-22. He gave no indication that He was speaking cryptically of His own body. Jesus often was downright cryptic, speaking in parables, and we just have to deal with the fact that He often wasn't as clear and straightforward as we might assume.
But because we interpret Scripture in harmony with the Church, we correctly intuit that this passage is about the Eucharist, even though the immediate context doesn't explicitly mention it.
About Peter & the rock in Matthew 16: in Greek, Peter is πετρος and rock is πετρα. πετρα is a feminine noun, but Simon Peter is a male. To call him πετρα would be inappropriate. This is as close as you can get. Jesus is equating Peter with the rock. Now, *if* Jesus originally said this in Aramaic, then kepha is the word you're looking for. Kepha is both Peter's name and is the word for rock, and if Jesus originally said this in Aramaic, it's clear as day that Peter = the rock.
It's also clear as day to people who are competent enough to read the Bible in Greek, but honestly, not many people are. People with a Strong's Concordance who can't count backwards from ten and don't know, for instance, the fingers of the hand, or the colors, or shapes, or basic second-grade things like that, don't deserve a voice in interpreting the grammar of the New Testament in Greek. That sounds snobbish and mean, but it's the truth. People don't teach the languages well, and incompetent people with training wheels are given the illusion that they know what they're doing when they actually don't.
On another note: yes, people pick and choose which things to ignore and which things to accept. We all are guilty of this without the help of God's grace through the teaching of the Magisterium. I'm no better. That's why I'm Catholic!
1) The physicality of Catholicism very loudly proclaims its historical authenticity. In a world where only 5% of people were literate, how could you make it so more than 5% of people could participate? Well, either God could make King James versions fall out of the sky, OR He could set up a Church that did things hands-on so that everyone in every time period would be on equal footing when it comes to the ability to participate in the Church. Us highly literate Westerners are no better than Catholics in other countries who cannot read. They can recite the Creed just as well as us. They can say the Amen. They can pray the Rosary. They can receive the sacraments just as well as you and I. That is God's grace to us. Protestantism is a historical anomaly because it relies on the existence of the printing press.
2) To be fair, Catholics can agree with more of Luther's 95 theses than Protestants today can. To say "it is false to claim that 'when a coin in the coffer clings, a soul from purgatory springs' " implies that Luther still believed in purgatory upon writing that. Which very few Protestants today do believe, although I've seen a Baptist make a case for it (Francis Beckwith shared it months ago on Facebook). The Reformation's goal was to reform, not split from, the Church. It failed, and both sides should admit it was a failure.
3) Aha! Here you fall into a trap! You make tradition ABOVE Scripture and the Magisterium ABOVE both!
...is a very bad response you might receive to that. The thing is: the Magisterium is here today and can continue speaking new things today. The canon of Scripture is closed, however, and so when you say the Magisterium is the authoritative interpreter(s) of Scripture and Holy Tradition, it makes it seem from the outside that you are actually putting the Magisterium first and leaving yourself at the whims of today's hierarchy,
I must confess I once looked at this that simplistically myself. It's not the right way to look at it, though. The fact is, we need a Magisterium or else we're all our own authority and we do what is right in our own eyes. Kind of like Protestants sometimes do, and like the National Heretic Reporter does. And the LCWR, but let's not go there.
Theresa: overall, your brother did very well on this. Thank you for sharing.