“Ask a Catholic” #1: “I’m happily Evangelical, I’m not sure I see the relevance of learning about Catholics at this point in my walk of faith.”

June 3, 2021June 3, 2021 ~ Lorelei Savaryn ~ Leave a comment

Hello and welcome to our new series, “Ask a Catholic!” This is a spot where you can ask us anything about Catholicism, and we are happy to answer. I’ve been looking forward to this so much, especially since so many of my friends are Protestant/Evangelical. Firstly, as a way to reduce the misunderstandings between us. And second, as a place to invite dialogue in a world that sorely needs it.

And so, to our first question we shall go!

Question #1: “I’m happily Evangelical. I’m not sure I see the relevence of learning about Catholics at this point in my walk of faith.”

This is a great question, and a wonderful place to start.

I was thinking about it this morning, and I found an analogy that might be helpful. In many ways, I think declining to learn about the Catholic Church, or avoiding it, or even just assuming we understand it enough to know it isn’t for us, is sort of like a child refusing to get to know its mother. The idea of that seems so silly. Of course a child will want to know its mother- as much as he or she can know about her, probably! Because, for one, she is where that child came from. And second, who she is will greatly shape and impact that child for the rest of his or her life.

I think the same is true about the story of our Christian faith and how it grew since its beginning.

As someone brought up in various branches of Evangelicism, my idea of a church was often a relatively plain building or sanctuary that also functioned as an auditorium, or a performance hall, or even a basketball court in some occasions. My idea of church was an opening prayer, a series of songs, an offering…all of which led up to a sermon that was the sort-of pinnacle or focus of the service. Then another prayer and possibly another song at the end.

As I came into adulthood I started to wonder what the early Church looked like…what were there services like? Did we hold the same beliefs? Retain any of their traditions? And if we didn’t, when and why did we give them up? Did our American Evangelical Christianity look anything like Christianity looked like for the generations that immediately followed the life of Christ on earth? And if it didn’t, should it? I began to suspect that whatever it looked like, early Church couldn’t possibly have been an auditiorium-style sanctuary with projectors, and stage lights, concert-style emotion-driven music, and a pastor-centered service.

Then I realized that the people in these places-these auditioriums with the performance heavy services were the same people I had been listening to and believing for years, mostly passively, when it came to what Catholics believed and taught. And the thing was, for a group of people so certain that Catholics were wrong on so many issues, none of them could tell me what the early Church looked like once I started to ask.

So, on one hand, I had pastors and fellow church and small group members telling me what Catholics believed and how wrong they were compared to Evangelicals on a number of things:

“Catholics believe you can earn your salvation, Catholics worship Saints, Catholics have an unhealthy devotion to Mary, Catholics believe you can’t just go to God with your sins, Catholics are so devoted to tradition that they go through the motions and don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus, Catholics added books to the Bible, Catholics don’t believe in Bible Alone and obviously Bible Alone is the truth, they don’t believe in Once Saved Always Saved and obviously Once Saved Always Saved is the truth, Catholics think you can earn your salvation by works.” Just to name a few.

Then, on the other hand, I also had this vague understanding that the early Christian Church-from Jesus until the Reformation…was Catholic.

I started to wonder if somehow not all of the things I had been taught or had come to believe about Catholics were true, or even if they were, if they were maybe incomplete in some way.

And it all comes back to this. The child knowing its mother. If we don’t understand Catholicism, then we don’t truly understand the history of our Christian faith.

We don’t understand where we came from.

The Missing Years

Christianity didn’t appear in a vaccum, with hipster pastors and rock music and stage lights, even though that was my experience of Christiany- it was what I had known my whole entire life. Some of the churches I went to were very humble, just a couple of singers adding their voices to a cassette tape through the speakers. Others were much more highly produced, and some even recorded songs and sold CD’s of original music. But I had fallen into the mistake of thinking that because it was all I had known, that that was all it ever was. Pre-Reformation Christianity had been explained to me in vague terms like ‘indulgences’ and ‘Luther’ and ’99 thesis nailed to a door,’ even though our faith had existed for 1500 years prior to that. It was like we had the Bible, and then we skipped right ahead to the Reformation.

What on earth had gone on in between? What did the earliest generations after Jesus do and believe? How did they structure their life and practice of faith?

No one at the Baptist/Calvinist church we were attending at the time could tell me. I wondered if it could even be known? If it could, I felt very strongly that I needed to know it. There had to be something incredibly precious and sacred about those early Christians and the way they lived their faith. I felt like they had something to teach me, and the fact that I had grown up in an modern, Americanized bubble of Christianity no longer served as an excuse.

Our History Matters

There’s a joke among Catholics that to study Church history is to cease to be Protestant. I harbor no illusions that my little posts here and there will send people running to the Catholic Church. But I do hope for this: For anyone with whom I’ve garnered any bit of trust, I hope you’ll read this series. If for nothing else than to better understand a part of our shared Christian faith that was there since the start.

I think we all only have something to gain from a better, clearer understanding.

And that, my friends, is how we begin the “Ask a Catholic” series. Feel free to email us a question for the series, or drop it on our Facebook page or at the bottom of this post. We’ll answer as soon as we can!

-Lorelei

Purchase Lorelei’s Books Here:

Is Anyone Sola Scriptura? (Catholic Stand)

November 13, 2017November 15, 2020 ~ Lorelei Savaryn ~ 1 Comment

Note: This article originally appeared on Catholic Stand.

Coffee Shop Calvinism

I recently came across a group of men from the Reformed Church we left to become Catholic who were gathered at our local Starbucks. They were discussing theology, and didn’t notice I was sitting next to them for several minutes while they talked about things like “once saved, always saved,” TULIP, and other Calvinist doctrine. It was interesting to listen in on this discussion on some of the very issues that led me from that church and into a life as a passionate Catholic.

This is a group of men who are adamantly Sola Scriptura. But they left the coffee shop that day, not with Bibles in hand, but with thick-as-the-Catechism sized copies of Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem clutched to their chests.

Is Anyone Sola Scriptura?

The belief in the sufficiency of Scripture, wherein one believes Scripture is sufficient to tell us all we need concerning the theological truths God desired to reveal to mankind, can only be believed to be true in light of accurate interpretation. Even to a non-Catholic it has to be, at the very least, Scripture + accurate interpretation.

The longer I look into these issues, the more I am convinced of the impossibility of truly being Sola Scriptura. Even the men from that Reformed Church, implicitly, are living out their faith through the interpretive lens of Grudem and his Calvinist interpretation of Scripture.

Now, this practical reality does not stretch as far as to encompass a Protestant substitute for the Catholic belief in Tradition and the Magisterium – and of course a Calvinist, for example, would say that even Grudem’s words are not infallible. But it does indicate heavily an implicit acknowledgement that Scripture requires an interpretive authority. We need to look at Scripture through some sort of lens. The importance of the accuracy of that lens cannot be understated because if we have a Bible, but can’t interpret it correctly, then we are in big trouble. And we can’t interpret it correctly on our own.

Who Do We Trust?

Even the strongest adherents to Sola Scriptura caution against a “Me, God and the Bible” approach to scriptural interpretation, though for many Protestant Christians, this is essentially what Sola Scriptura has become as denomination after denomination has diverged since the origins of the Reformation. What necessarily results is thousands upon thousands of Christians who are divorced entirely from any authoritative source, and they themselves become their own interpretive authority.

Others realize that we can’t divorce Scripture from its historical and cultural context, nor can we divorce it from the intent of the original authors, or the meaning of words in the original written language.

For those Christians, the question becomes: Who do we trust? How do we sift through the myriad of opinions on this section of Scripture or that? If the Bible is sufficient, how do we know what it is actually saying to the world? We are left on our own, or on the recommendation of our pastors, or the books of Christian authors and theologians like Grudem, Tim Keller, and others to help guide us in, what we hope, is the truth.

The “Ordinary Believer”

Reformed theologian Robert Godfrey writes: “The Protestant position, and my position, is that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand it.”

But is this what we practically see in the Church? How does sufficiency come into play with issues that are clearly addressed in the Bible, but differences in interpretation lead people to different conclusions? Take baptism, for example. Are we meant to baptize infants, or should we only baptize those old enough to make an independent profession of faith? It’s clearly addressed in Scripture, but we cannot agree on a meaning. Or what about Holy Communion? Is the bread and wine truly the Body and Blood of Christ, or is it meant to be a symbolic representation of the same? It’s addressed in Scripture. But what does it mean? We cannot understand these things unless we have an interpretive source we can trust.

I do agree that the “ordinary believer” can find what he/she needs to know to understand the basics of the gospel and salvation in the Bible. My 5-year-old can understand that foundation. She knows we have sinned, and Jesus died for us and rose again so we can be with Him. She knows we need to live for God. All things we can find and understand at a basic level in Scripture. But, I don’t agree that all things necessary concerning faith and life are clear enough for the ordinary believer to find it and understand it. The “ordinary believer” does not have a thorough enough understanding of the historical and cultural context of Scripture, nor does he/she have an understanding of the original language of Scripture to understand all things necessary concerning faith and life.

A Protestant Christian living in America with an ESV translation of the Bible will come to some different interpretive conclusions than a Protestant theologian who has access to and understands the original languages of the text. This is why it isn’t a matter of whether or not we need an authoritative interpretive source. It’s a matter of in which interpretive source we place our trust.

The Ultimate Question

Even if a Protestant claims their interpretive source is fallible, they still need to rely on an interpretive source. And it will be the one they think holds most closely to the truth. A truth determined by their own best understanding of how to approach Scripture.

And, in my final months as a Protestant, the ultimate question for me wasn’t whether or not I believed Sola Scriptura. My ultimate question became which interpretive source has the greatest biblical, historical, and logical claim to truth.

When I acknowledged that the Bible requires a trustworthy interpretive source, I didn’t know it then but I was a few months away from receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Catholic Church. I have not found any authoritative person or source to even come close in terms of historical and cultural context, original intent, logical coherence and consistency, and theological and philosophical depth. It is my hope that we as Catholics can truly appreciate the gift we have in the authoritative interpretive teachings of the Church. I also hope that my Protestant brothers and sisters will begin an intentional search to begin to ask the question of who they trust to interpret Scripture accurately, and that they acknowledge the importance of the answer to that question. And when they make those inquiries, I hope they give the Catholic Church an equal chance among the other options out there.

I know it’s changed everything for me.

Purchase Lorelei’s Books Here:

A New Catholic Reflects on the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation

October 27, 2017November 15, 2020 ~ Lorelei Savaryn ~ 22 Comments

500 Years

500 years ago some crazy business went down in the world of Christianity. And this Halloween, the 500th anniversary of that business, which we refer to as the Protestant Reformation, will be celebrated by some and mourned by others.

As someone who, just a year and a half ago, crossed the Tiber to become Catholic from a pretty solid Protestant background, all this hubbub about the 500th anniversary of the Reformation brings a lot of thoughts and feelings to the forefront for me as well.

I want to preface this article by saying that I have many amazing Christian friends who are Protestant. I love you all, and there is so much I look up to and respect about your faith. But the Reformation anniversary is hard for me, and my writing here details the reasons why my stomach sinks when I see posts celebrating what happened 500 years ago.

It’s the other side of the coin.

The Good Stuff, In Context

In some ways, I’m glad for parts of what happened. The Church did need some reforming at the time, and I believe that reform indeed occurred within the context of the Catholic Church. Some things were brought to light. Changes were made. Good changes. God changes. There is an excellent series by the Coming Home Network on the Reformation, and it touches on the components of the Catholic Church at the time that were in need of reform, along with many other social and cultural components that led Christianity to the brink of what became this massive division. It’s well worth a read.

I’m also thankful for the Catholic/Lutheran communications in recent years that are reopening the dialogue between us and paving the way for potential future reunification.

Sadness

But the rest of me feels sad about it all. About all the other repercussions. The unintended ones. The ones that are still sweeping through our world to this day.

I’m sad that so many of my Protestant brothers and sisters today are disconnected from the history of the Christian Church, with the exeption of some of the liturgical and high church denominations. There are many who can’t describe what worship looked like for the early Christians. The Protestant branch of the Christian church has, in some cases, moved so far from its roots that children being brought up in some Protestant denominations won’t even think that understanding those things is even a relevant question. We tread on dangerous ground when we forget our religion’s own Jewish beginnings, how those who lived in the time of Jesus practiced their faith, and those in the generations immediately following. When we forget the example set for us by those at our roots in the name of cultural relevance and keeping up with the times.

I’m sad that Luther is looked upon as a hero, but his very, very Catholic side is underplayed or ignored. On what authority can we say Luther had some things right, but not others? That his Protestant views were right, but his Catholic views were somehow errant leftovers from his Catholic days? The Reformation itself had absolutely nothing to do with some of his most Catholic views, including his beliefs about Mary and the True Presence (though his application of this belief became an area of division). Those things weren’t called into question until after Protestantism was born, until the church had continued to move far away from any authoritative source, eventually leaving thoughts on Mary to a few songs during advent and a statue in a nativity, and the foundational Christian belief in the Eucharist to Communion as merely a symbol.

Even John Calvin held some surprisingly, and often overlooked, Catholic views.

I’m also sad that Bible Alone Protestants don’t take issue with Luther’s interpretive addition of “alone” to the Bible when it speaks of being saved by faith. “Sola Fide” was not a thing until Luther himself made that interpretive decision and added that word. Was Christianity wrong on that until Luther came around? That’s a pretty big thing to have erroneous doctrine on for over 1,000 years if it’s true. And on what authority did Luther make the claim that all those years of Church history were wrong, but his own personal interpretation was right? I know there is a solid Biblical case for an authoritative source for interpretation, but I can’t find a strong Biblical argument that says each man is his own interpreter of scripture. God didn’t promise to preserve individual Christians in all truth- he promised to preserve the Church (John 16:13).

I’m sad that 30,000 plus denominations have split off since the Reformation and that this division was something Luther himself took issue with during his lifetime, writing:

“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet”(citation: De Wette III, 61. quoted in O’Hare, The Facts About Luther, 208.)

I’m sad that few of my Protestant brothers and sisters think it important to seek out the answer to whether Holy Communion is a symbol or the real presence of Christ (the sacrament Luther refers to above). That belief was held firmly by Christians from the time of Jesus until after the Reformation, and is still held by Catholics today. The Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 is, I believe, a challenge for anyone who views communion as a symbol. It’s an important question. A very important one. I know, growing up Protestant, that the True Presence is a completely foreign concept to many who live their entire lives only having been taught that it’s symbollic. It’s sad to me, and again affirms the problem of a Christian denomination being so entirely cut off from the historical roots of our faith.

I’m sad that misconceptions about Catholicism abound. By the end of this month, 10,000 people will have visited This Catholic Family’s blog in 2017. A small dent, joined with the work of many, many others, hopefully can help put honest yet loving faces to this faith that doesn’t need to be so much of a mystery.

So if you have questions. I’m Lorelei. I’m very Catholic. I love to talk about it. I know my faith, and read my Bible, and worship only God, and pray to God in Jesus name, and believe I am saved by God’s Amazing and beautiful Grace alone. I also love Confession, and have Holy Water in my home, and believe in the True Presence, and pray the rosary, and believe that my decisions in this life matter and speak to the state of my soul. Do you have questions about those things? Ask them. I’m so happy to answer.

And finally, I’m sad that this year, division is going to be celebrated.

Jesus said that they may be one (John 17:21).

Not 30,000+.

One.

-Lorelei