Journeys Home (47 page)

Monsignor Stuart W. Swetland, S.T.D., currently serves as the
Most Reverend Harry J. Flynn Endowed Chair for Christian Ethics
and Chair of the President's Committee on Catholic Identity and Mission
at Mount St. Mary's University in Emmitsburg, Maryland.

former Evangelical Protestant

THE SCANDAL OF DISUNITY

INVESTIGATING THE REFORMERS

THE CHURCH FATHERS BRING ME HOME

DISCOVERING THE CHURCH OF TODAY

For the first two years of my college education, I had a girlfriend.
Faced with the obvious long-term implications, I began wrestling
with the question, "What in God's eyes defines two people as married?"

Looking for answers, I sat down with the leader of an "interdenominational"
Protestant organization on campus and asked, "Why must we be married
in a church? Why can't a couple just declare that they are married
in their dorm room? Where in Scripture does one find the vows?
Where in Scripture does it say that we need to exchange rings?"

His response shocked me: "Nowhere in Scripture does it require
vows or say that one has to be married in a church." He suggested
I might consult with another pastor but, in his opinion, a couple
need only be married by the Justice of the Peace to be married
in the eyes of God.

A bit taken away, I asked, "Then why do most Christians get married
in a church with vows? Why do they exchange rings?"

But even before he answered, I had answered my own question: "Because
it's tradition." Later, I argued the point with my family.

Tradition!
I couldn't believe it. The ring on the finger of the
Protestant pastor I so admired was not the product of "Bible alone"
theology but of tradition, and a Catholic one at that!

Though none that I knew would ever acknowledge it, I had discovered
that Protestants held to a tradition not found in the Bible. Starting
here, I began to see the inconsistencies of Protestant faith and
practice. My "Bible alone" theology had broken down. (Later I
would realize that I was arguing for marriage to be recognized
as more than a couple's mutual agreement -- as a Sacrament.) So
here my investigation began: at the Sacrament of Marriage.

The next point in my move toward the Catholic faith was the disunity
of Christendom. During my junior year, my best friend and mentor
stepped into my life, Biff Rocha. Biff was and is a great man
to whom I owe so much of my life. He really put me back together,
for I had hit rock bottom emotionally and spiritually. He was
Catholic and was there to answer many of my questions.

For spring break we decided to go to Washington, D.C. During our
long drive there, I noticed a very interesting thing. On every
intersection there were four different churches, one on every
corner. The denominations ranged in name, and most of the major
ones were represented. Some were breakaways from the same denomination
to become, for example, the second or third Baptists.

In the midst of all this disunity, I sometimes noticed that the
Muslims had a mosque or the Buddhists a temple. Eventually I became
so disturbed that I turned to Biff who was driving and said, "I
don't think Christ wanted this." How had it gotten this way? But
I filed these thoughts away and moved on with the trip.

Once I was back at Miami University, sitting in a Bible study,
one of the members made the comment how we are totally, one-hundred-percent
evil -- that we can do no good. My knee-jerk response was this:
"Well, then, why are we having a Bible study? If I am totally,
one-hundred-percent evil, than any interpretation I derive from
Scripture will be evil, too. Wouldn't it be better for me not
to study the Bible than to make it evil?"

I was so upset. I later learned that this concept is called "total
depravity."

I remember returning to my room and, seeing my roommates, exclaiming,
"That's it. I am throwing everything and anything I have learned
about Christianity out and starting over. I'm going to find the
truth no matter where it takes me."

Since I was going to stay in Oxford, Ohio, for summer session,
as was Biff, I asked him if he wanted to read and research together
all summer. And so we did. I read dozens of books. He would point
me in a direction and I would read, but he would not give me the
answers. He wanted me to find it for myself.

So I started with the Reformation.
Why had we broken away?
I read
Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other reformers. I narrowed the
Reformation down to five crucial issues: faith alone, Bible alone,
grace alone, Christ alone, and indulgences. I knew through my
reading that the Catholic Church of today agrees that the way
indulgences had been sold during Luther's time was wrong. The
Council of Trent corrected this abuse and confirmed that to a
certain extent Luther was justified in his anger about that particular
matter. I then learned that the Catholic Church agrees with grace
alone and Christ alone. So the last two remaining issues were
faith alone and Bible alone.

I discovered that Mary, the communion of saints, the Eucharist,
and Confession were not the critical issues of the Reformation!
Martin Luther believed in the veneration of Mary, held to the
Real Presence in the Eucharist, and retained the Sacraments of
Baptism and Confession. So I ignored these issues, even though
I did have some strong objections to them at the time, because
I knew that these weren't the reasons the Reformers broke away.

Faith alone and the Bible alone became the focus of my research.
These issues are crucial in any investigation into the Church.
After reading the Epistle of James and reading Martin Luther,
I knew that faith alone could not be correct.

It was not an either/or between faith and works, but a both/ and.
Faith and works are two sides of the same coin. The Catholic Church
rejects works alone just as much as she rejects faith alone. Nowhere
in Scripture does it argue for faith alone but for an "obedient
faith," a faith that works itself out through love. You cannot
have one without the other.

Even though "alone" is not present in the original Greek text
of Romans 3:28, Luther added it in his German translation because
he said it was implied. On the other hand, the only place in Scripture
where "faith alone" is mentioned is James 2:24: "See how a man
is justified by works and
not by faith alone"
(emphasis added).

Don't panic, this isn't to advocate a works-alone position, but
a faith-and-works position. I realized that to "accept" Christ
we have to do a work. It may be minimal, it may be small, but
we have to "do" something. We have to say a prayer, ask Him into
our lives. Our faith leads us to action, and our action increases
our faith.

After reading Luther, I concluded that many Protestants today
would disagree with him. He thought that all we need to do was
"believe." He also said, "We are a dunghill covered with snow" -- a statement of total depravity even before John Calvin taught
it. Faith alone, therefore, was for me no longer an issue. Luther
was wrong.

The next issue was "Bible alone." I found that Protestants actually
do not practice it. The marriage issue showed me that. Even though
there were many non-biblical traditions in the Protestant world,
they still claim that the Bible is the final authority.

My mind began to overflow with other pertinent questions: How
did we get the Bible? Where did the canon come from? Where in
the Bible does it say the Bible is the final authority?

Where in the Bible does it define the specific list or canon of
books to be included? What did the early Church do before the
canon was defined? Did they pass things on orally? Was it the
Church who gave us the Bible or the Bible that gave us the Church?

Why do Protestants accept such doctrines as the Trinity, for example,
which are not spelled out in Scripture? There were many heresies
in the early Church regarding the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity,
all based on different interpretations of Scripture. It wasn't
until the Church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries that
the orthodox doctrines we now hold were defined.

If Scripture is so easily interpreted, then why was there such
a catastrophic division amongst Christians in a.d. 1054 over,
among other things, the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the
Father and the Son?

Where in the Bible does it say one needs to "accept" Jesus Christ
as "personal Savior"? It doesn't. According to the New Testament,
the early Church brought people into relationship with Jesus through
Baptism. Baptism was the means to salvation (see 1 Pt 3:21).

Where does the Bible say we must go to church on Sundays? It doesn't.
It was the bishops of the early Church that changed the primary
day of Christian worship from Saturday to Sunday.

The celebrations and holidays that most Christians observe today
are not in Scripture; they were established by the Church. This
is the reason the Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate such holidays
and, along with the Seventh-day Adventists, go to church on Saturdays.

I also began to see the ramifications of "Bible only" thinking.
Luther believed that every person was his own priest, "the priesthood
of all believers," and as such could interpret Scripture for himself.
He believed that the Holy Spirit would lead all men to the same
truth.

Later, however, he was upset when this didn't happen. Among other
things, disputes arose among his followers and the other Reformers
over whether infants could be baptized. I began to see how this
emphasis on private interpretation has led to the widespread disunity
that now exists among Christians. Without a trustworthy, Spirit-led
authority structure, there is chaos.

Even though I was coming to accept Catholic conclusions, I found
myself in, what we call in the Coming Home Network International,
"no man's land." After concluding that I no longer agreed with
Luther's reasons for breaking away, I realized that I could not
remain a Protestant. But I was certainly not ready to become a
Catholic!

So I thought I'd go back to the writings of the Apostles and early
Church Fathers in the hope of finding a simpler church unencumbered
with traditions and rituals. I went back expecting to find a Protestant
Church. But, boy, was Blessed John Henry Newman right when he
wrote: "To become deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

When I read the Fathers of the Church, I realized that they were
celebrating the Mass; they believed in the Eucharist; they had
Confession; and they were anointing the sick. I discovered that
they believed in the primacy of Peter and they were appointing
priests. They weren't part of a Protestant church, but a Catholic
one.

Uh, oh!
I had concluded that I would never be a part of any denomination
or church. Yet here I was confronted with the fact that I might
have to become Catholic.

The icing on the cake for me was John chapter 6. Now as I read
it, I was reading with different eyes. I asked myself, "What did
the people present think Jesus was saying? Did they think He was
speaking with symbolic language?"

No, they didn't. His Jewish audience and most of His disciples
left him as He repeatedly said, "You must eat my flesh and drink
my blood to have eternal life." If He were only speaking figuratively,
then why did most of those present consider His words a very hard
teaching akin to cannibalism?

I realized that the Catholic Church was being more faithful to
Scripture. They were not reading into it. They were being systematic
and consistent in their theology. And it was here I concluded
that to remain Protestant was not being true to myself. In mind
and spirit I had become Catholic.

I can remember the reaction of my friends when they returned to
school for our senior year. Many were not pleased; one in particular
rebuked me. For me, however, ridicule and taking a stand for what
I thought to be true was nothing new.

Later on, all my friends came to support my decision, even though
personally none of them agreed with my conclusions. As a Catholic
leader within an interdenominational campus Christian organization,
I began to see things in a different light. The usual jokes about
Catholics no longer went unnoticed.

I wanted to be confirmed in my senior year, but my schedule would
not allow it. After graduation, I lived with my parents for a
year and started attending RCIA at the local Catholic parish.
Every Sunday at Mass, I would watch the people take the Eucharist
and yearn for the day when I too could partake. I also ached to
be reconciled with God and His Church.

I especially couldn't wait to experience the great release of
Confession. My first confession was an amazing experience! The
priest was awesome.

It is enough for you to know that for some time I had felt much
guilt, sadness, and pain for the many sins of my life. In the
confessional, as the priest absolved me of my sins, I felt the
hug of God. I was forgiven.

I walked out and sat in a pew crying for joy. From the moment
I left the confessional that day, my pain was over. I was reconciled!

And so on Easter, 1999, I was confirmed in the Catholic Church.
I received the Eucharist for the first time and cried at that
event as well.

That next summer, I went down to visit Biff in Houston, Texas.
We decided to go to Confession. I had either never listened, had
forgotten, or was never taught how to do it properly. My initial
Confession experience was more informal and laid back. It had
been like having an accountability partner. But this priest wanted
it to be formal, and I didn't know what I was doing.