Writing A Letter

[BG45]

So I'd like to have my letter of resignation done by Sunday, so if you all don't mind. I'll be posting it here in bits and pieces as I go for advice/editing.

My intro, although I can't really take credit for the first three paragraphs, they just flowed from...elsewhere. heh.


[quote]My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

I have often asked myself when, or even if the day would come that I would humbly petition you to be released from the membership rolls of the*church name*. I feel that today must be that day, as I found an old quotation from a former Episcopalian turned Roman Catholic Cardinal, John Henry Newman has rung true, "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." I find that I can no longer raise my voice in protest of the See of Rome.

I imagine that given my somewhat liberal tendencies in the past, this comes as a great surprise. Perhaps the greater surprise in this is that I have come to this conclusion not through some flight of fancy or affair of the heart gone awry, but through the study of the very Scripture that we hold to be the infallible Word of God.

I think that I should state, for the record as it were, what exactly I believe. I believe in God the Father, the Creator of Heaven and of Earth. I believe in His one Son, Jesus Christ, through whom our sins have been forgiven at the cross on Calvary; I believe in His literal Resurrection on the third day. I believe in the Holy Spirit, through whom our personal relationship with God is completed, which was given unto those who believe on Pentecost. That said, it is apparent that I believe in and worship the Holy Trinity, and have not fallen prey to the so-called Oneness Doctrine.

I believe that Jesus Christ now sits at the right hand of His Father in Heaven. I believe that He will judge us all, both the living and the dead. I believe in the forgiveness of our sins, the resurrection of the body, the communion of Saints, and in the promise we were given by the Lord that He is preparing a place for us in His Father’s house for eternity.

I have just summarized, more or less, the prayer known as the Apostle’s Creed, because it indeed does provide a glimpse into what I do believe. I have not taken this step lightly, and therefore, to show a microcosm of why I am indeed making this change in churches, I intend to primarily use Scripture for the bare bones explanation. I will endeavor not to go into the Greek unless I have to, nor will I begin to quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nor the works of Martin Luther that I have read without regard to Scripture.[/quote]

Edited September 25, 2008 by BG45

[Archaeology cat]

I think it sounds good.

[IcePrincessKRS]

It sounds good.... but, I'm confused. Do you work for the church you're addressing this letter to.... or are you resigning as a parishioner? Maybe I'm just naive, but I have never heard of writing a letter of resignation for leaving a parish.

[BG45]

Thanks Archeology Cat and IcePrincessKRS.

To the question at hand, if I don't resign they keep me on their membership rolls for a period of roughly one year. At which point the Baptist equivalent of excommunication takes place; an equivalent none of us in my family knew we had (and I doubt is common at all) until dissenters against the new pastor who left the church began to receive letters stating they were no longer on the membership rolls, and no longer welcome back. My first attempt at drafting this, some months ago, was very bitter and explained this in detail.

I would rather leave in peace, and with an explanation of my actions than to fuel some sort of vicious gossip, which the letters of excommunication effectively do. On the positive side, one of those letters found its way to another Baptist pastor at a church where some of the people from my former church went to, and he held it up in a meeting saying, "We will never do this to anyone. We are called to love one another, not to shun."

Next little bit, one that rarely sees the light of day. I think Missy is the only one who has seen it before. I'm writing most of this letter seat of my pants with references in other windows, but most of this section is a bit pre-written and kept on my computer for my personal use; my testimony.

[quote]That said, when I have thought of Roman Catholicism in the past, before trying and failing to disprove it, I have always had several issues which I intend to address in my resignation letter. I wish for my actions here to be fully transparent, open to criticism, to skepticism, and to any who wish to know what would drive someone into the arms of an organization that many blame for the woes of everything from the Crusades to inquisitions to the sexual abuse scandals –not limited to just Roman Catholic priests, sin has no favorite clergy to abuse someone– of the modern age.

Therefore, in no particular order, I wish to list all of those things which have been a detriment to me in regards to Catholicism. First of all are the two key rallying cries of the Reformation, Sola Scriptura, or Scripture Alone and Sola Fide, or Faith Alone. Then moving on are a variety of other issues such as: apostolic authority, Purgatory, Mary, and of course, the Eucharist.

Before I go into these explanations however, allow me a brief ramble. It strikes me that only once have I told my testimony to anyone in our church family, and that was in Sunday School my senior year of high school. Therefore, please, suffer the brief diversion into my testimony.

I accepted Jesus as my Savior at quite a young age. Upon reflection, I don't think I really understood what I was doing at the time. You see I loved the story of this man who died for my sins, and all my friends were doing it.

For some reason I never went forward for Baptism, too afraid that I had waited so long and would be made fun of. I would be embarrassed...yes I wasn't much for the spotlight back as a little kid either it seems.

I found myself going to Camp Cowen, a tradition in our family and in our church. Since its founding, we've had three generations attend. So I went against my will, and what is one of the first things I see? A man with a grey ponytail ride by on his Harley in leather. My first glimpse of our Bible Study pastor, the bounty hunter/private investigator/ex-cop that we all know and love as Paul Morton.

It was at that point I knew things would get interesting. Sure enough, meeting the guys in my cabin was interesting. One of my counselors was an ex-Hindu man who was really debating whether God was calling him the missionary field, and the other was a young guy who was a major athlete. I only had one guy from my church out of the other 11 boys in the cabin, so I got to meet a nice group of new people.

So I got drug around quite a bit, hanging around others, only talking when spoken to. I made God a promise that first night, show me the stars without any lights, and I'd rededicate myself to him, that I would go forward for baptism. It never happened. I did go home though; more spiritually fulfilled than I came...at times I actually enjoyed myself.

So the next year rolled around and reached its halfway point, time for another year of camp. Mostly the same people, and some new counselors too. Drew invited me to go on his morning mile run and Bible Study at five in the morning, but I politely declined because I wanted that sleep when we all often went to bed exhausted.

The highlight of that summer was what I could probably say was one of the greatest showings of the Holy Spirit's power I have ever seen. We were awaiting the Consecration Service in the dark. My cabin heard some singing from our rivals in the next cabin. Slowly we shuffled over and joined them, bringing a drum to add to their guitar. Over the next few minutes the entire boys side of camp was singing praises to God at our neighbors cabin in the form of our morning worship songs, all without promptings. Then from the other side of camp, you could hear the girls joining in. Truly a beautiful experience that moved many of us to tears.

Upon returning home I start chatting with an ex-Christian Wiccan named Katherine on MSN Instant Messenger. Much to my chagrin, she has, to date, referred more Christian authors to me for my perusal than all of my fellow Christians combined; from C.S. Lewis to Max Lucado to G.K. Chesterton. Through many of these authors, I found myself with an ever increasing respect for Scripture.

Another year came and went into summer and I found myself once more in Camp Cowen. For once I went in with an open mind and heart, wanting to learn. After the first night my counselors threatened to duct tape my mouth shut due to my snoring/undiagnosed sleep apnea. Miraculously I didn't snore again the rest of the week. We also practiced Lectio Divina, a form of Catholic prayer, which I found to be enjoyable reading (and meditating on) the Bible out in nature amongst God's creation

Consecration Service came. It was...to be frank...amazing. We were taken to the main hall, where we nailed our name tags to a cross and were split into our small groups. Then we had to go, as groups, to the beach of our river through smoke machine smoke, strobe lights, ground obstacles, and zombie like counselors representing the distractions we face each day. Once there, we sat on the sand to watch a re-enactment of Jesus's baptism; quite moving in the torchlight.

After that it was up the beach to the baseball outfield, where we were told the significance of washing one's feet in biblical times. Then, with a bowl of water and a towel, our small group leaders washed our feet of the sand by candlelight. (They in turn got their feet washed by the camp director, who had to wash his own.) In the context of all that was happening, this moved me to tears.

We went on next to receive Communion at Vespers, a sort of outdoor theatre made mainly out of the landscape. On 'stage' were the disciples eating and bantering until Jesus came, lugging a very familiar cross nailed with name tags. I still dunno how he did it...think of this, a man in his fifties carrying a full sized cross covered in nails and sharp edged tags up a steep path alone.

After the service I found myself ambling at a slow pace, reflecting upon the night's events, having found that this year's camp had taught me something I hadn't expected...humility. It was at that moment the generators just failed or at least the lights near the ball field did, for about thirty seconds. A demand from two years past was fulfilled July 4, 2002. During those thirty seconds I saw the stars without any man-made light obstructing my view.

As the lights came back on I sank between two cars, crying softly. My one demand had been fulfilled, and I rededicated myself right there. The next Sunday I went forward for Baptism, something I should have done so long ago, but had avoided.

Now that you have granted me the chance to share my testimony, which has only seen the light of day once before, I ask that you continue to allow me to share my testimony. This one being a continuation of the first, nothing more, an analysis of personal experiences and of Scripture which has taken me on this path to Catholicism.[/quote]

Edited September 25, 2008 by BG45

[BG45]

[quote]First is, as I mentioned before, the topic of Sola Scriptura. It was this doctrine that Scripture Alone is our guide that first led me into my quest to disprove Catholicism, and for a while that was good in my view. I could never find a single compelling argument by a Roman Catholic as to why they had this thing they called “Sacred Tradition”, they could never answer my question of, “Where is that in the Bible”.

It was more than a year before I met my match while reading about the conversion of a staunch Calvinist, a Presbyterian minister by the name of the Scott Hahn. Dr. Hahn too had take a certain joy in being right about Sola Scriptura and other similar views, that is, until it was proven wrong to him by a student who asked where it was in the Bible.

Intrigued I kept reading, and the book about Dr. Hahn’s conversion began to list Scripture passages! I read them, and then snorted to myself that it was coming from a biased version of the Bible. I resolved to pull out my New International Version right there in the library at Fairmont State and see what the Bible really had to say.

I had to gasp in a mix of shock and horror that it seemed Paul of all people, Paul the Apostle, had not advocated that Scripture be used alone. In 1 Corinthians 11:2 the Apostle Paul states, “I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them to you”, implying that he had taught there before, but it was not recorded in the Bible.

Then in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul states, “So then brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter”. Paul again is advocating some sort of oral tradition in addition to his letters.

This continues twice more in Second Timothy. In 2 Timothy 1:13-14 he states, “What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you – guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.” At first this appears to be nothing but a passing reference to his first letter, but then in 2 Timothy 2:1-2 Paul states, “You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others”. Once again, Paul states that he is part of building a tradition, that oral tradition is just as important as his letters.

However it is not just the Apostle Paul who states such things, much to my dismay I also found that Peter and John would advocate them as well. In 2 John 1:12 the disciple of Christ known to us as John writes, “I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.” We have no record he ever did visit them face to face in Scripture, however, we can not say that it never did occur.

Indeed it was difficult to avoid some sort of schism in the newborn church unless one did in fact go in person, or some sort of rule of order were established; which I’ll expound on in Apostolic Succession. However, for now, remember that Peter wrote in 2 Peter 1:20-21 that, “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

One interpretation, bound by a tradition. The Barna Group, a leading Christian research firm states in its recent book UnChristian that there are more than thirty thousand denominations in the world today. Thirty thousand is a far cry from the unity that we are called to, and most have their own interpretation of the Scriptures. We can not all be right, as Peter points out.

Then of course, in this Protestant’s mind, there is but one more final nail in the coffin of Sola Scriptura. That is the fact that it is none other than the early believers that comprised what has become known as the Roman Catholic Church that assembled the Scripture that we use today. Well, more or less, as during the Reformation books of the Bible were actually removed from the original form; a violation of the sanctity of Scripture. Indeed, even the book of James was nearly cast out, as Martin Luther viewed it as an “epistle of straw”.[/quote]

[Archaeology cat]

Sounds really good, BG. And thanks for sharing your testimony with us.

I can honestly say that I can't recall ever hearing of a Baptist church having a form of excommunication, but I also don't remember all the by-laws at my old church, so maybe they did/do something similar.

[MissyP89]

That's my boy, turning even his resignation letter into a [url="http://www.nanowrimo.org"]NaNo[/url] novel.

Just kidding, hon. I think you're doing great, even if it is a bit...prolific. I know the person who it matters to most will read it, and that's what's important.

[BG45]

Thanks AC. And yep Missy...heh. Anyhow last chunk before work: (Also known as "dear goodness I've got another two issues left, a conclusion, and I'm already near 6,000 words")

[quote]The second is the rest of the Disciples of Jesus Christ. Not all of them wrote books that we find in the Bible today, but does that mean that they did not go on and teach and preach throughout the known world at that time? Of course it does not! However if we are to live by Scripture Alone, then so to would the early church, and that would be to discount the words of these Disciples of Christ to those with whom they spoke rather than wrote.

Second amongst the issues I wish to address is that of Sola Fide, or Faith Alone. While we are saved through the Grace of Jesus Christ, which we do not, and never will be able to deserve or somehow pay for, we are not to live by faith alone, nor are we to be justified by it alone. The most common example of this is in the book of James, in James 2:14-24, “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action is dead.

“But someone will say, ‘you have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder.

“You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abramaham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,’ and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”

It was this section of text that prompted Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment. Yet, if James is just a straw man, then the infallibility of the Word of God comes into question. Do we believe in the words that were handed down or do we not? Perhaps then, if we continue to look, we can find some sort of evidence to back up this claim of James.

None other than the Apostle Paul would back James’s remarks in his famous letter to the Romans. In Romans 2:6-13 we are told, “God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done’. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism. All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.”

In a number of translations, those who obey the law is translated as the “doers”, or those who do. Yet that is semantics compared to the message presented by the Apostle here; he hearkens back to the Sixty-Second Psalm’s twelfth verse and the twenty-fourth chapter of Proverb’s twelfth verse in his opening statement that we will be given in accordance with what we have done. Paul invokes the Old Testament which was well known to his Jewish readers in order to show us that we should have works to go with our faith that we should not sit contently and go “I am saved, let the Rapture and party begin; sorry about the rest of you”.

Yet it is not only the Apostle Paul who backs James’s statement, but also the words of our Lord Himself. Imagine my horror when I put together the context of Luke 6:46-49 when Christ says, “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.”

We are called to put his words into practice, to have works as well as faith. This is not the only time our Lord says as much, for He also says in his warning of false prophets in Matthew 7:19-22, “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in Heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Thus from the words of James to Paul to the very mouth of our Lord, Christ Jesus, I can not bear to think that Sola Fide is justifiable. The two pillars of the Reformation are washed away, like our sins, by the blood of He who died for us.

At first we must look into history and note that the Reformation was not even the intended action of Martin Luther when he nailed his ninety-five theses to the door of the church in Wittenburg. In this era the church door was as a bulletin board in modern times; and these theses were written in Latin, to be discussed by the intellectuals of the day. They were later translated by another person into the vernacular and widely distributed, in no small part thanks to the printing press; spreading the theses throughout what would one day be Germany, and within months all of Europe.

Luther wanted reform, and he got it. With the Reformation came the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation in which Luther’s 95 Theses were used as a basis to help end such practices as corruption in the sale of indulgences and a greater explanation was given on how we must have a personal relationship with Christ Jesus. Even to this day, when one listens to Pope Benedict XVI talk, one can hear such things. Recently in his trip to Lourdes, France, the Pope gave an entire homily reminding Catholics everywhere that you must engage in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ for salvation; to know of Him is not enough.

Mentioning Pope Benedict XVI brings me to the next issue in the list I first posted at the beginning of this resignation letter; the issue of so-called Apostolic Succession. Truly this is yet another item I vehemently would cry out, “Show me this in the Bible!”

In Matthew chapter ten we have the calling of the Disciples by Christ, which we are all well versed in. That He would choose simple men for the most part, of a simple faith and that He would temper them, transform them, and forge them as a blacksmith forges simple ores into stronger and more useful metals.

In the Gospel of John, specifically in John 1:42 we are told, “And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas’ (which, when translated, is Peter).” Interestingly, both Cephas in Aramaic and Petros in Greek mean rock, not a pebble or any other such thing.

Then we look to other passages for Christ’s relationship with Peter. Further in the Gospel of John is John 21:15-17 in which states, “When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?’ ‘Yes, Lord,’ he said, ‘you know that I love you.’ Jesus said, ‘Feed my lambs.’

“Again Jesus said, ‘Simon son of John, do you truly love me?’ He answered, ‘Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.’ Jesus said, ‘Take care of my sheep.’

“The third time he said to him, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, ‘Do you love me?’ He said, ‘Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said, ‘Feed my sheep.’”

It is interesting that Jesus chooses to word this as He does. Three times, just as the liturgical style of Jewish worship can often be found to be. Three times, just as in the book of Revelation do certain styles of worship occur, for “holy holy holy” is something every Christian knows by heart, and is a style of both worship and language to show honor unto someone.

Christ seemingly honors Peter by His line of questioning. He seemingly elevates Peter bit by bit in it as well, from feeding lambs to taking care of sheep, to being entrusted to feed the sheep. Yet Christ was not a shepherd, except in the form of the human race. Humanity is the sheep of which Christ speaks, and more specifically the believers whom He is entrusting to Peter’s care.

Delving further into the Gospels is the quotation of our Lord, the Christ about Peter in Luke 22:31-32, “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” Christ knew that Peter would deny Him, yet, He prayed for him to become a rock upon which the other Disciples could lean.

Then we come to the most commonly used verse in regards to Apostolic Succession, that of the Gospel of Matthew 16:18-19, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.”

Now I don’t know about you, but my New International Version has a footnote on this topic that Peter means rock. What my Bible does not know however, but study of the Scripture does, is the relationship that this verse has with the Old Testament. In particular it hearkens back to the book of Isaiah and the twenty-second chapter with the symbol of the keys being for the Prime Minister of Israel, One whom has authority to rule in the stead of the King. In this case it is not the Prime Ministerial position of Israel, but another symbol of Peter’s authority not only over the other Apostles but the Church as a whole.

After Christ died and was resurrected for our sins, the Gospel of John says in John 20:20-23 that, “When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord (Jesus) said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.’”

For all these verses, there seems to be a slight disconnect. If Peter was the so-called Pope as it would later be known, how would the rest continue on? How would people be chosen to continue the work? Surely Judas had to be replaced?

The replacement of Judas with Matthias comes in the book of Acts 1:18-26 in what became known as the Council of Jerusalem, setting precedence for future church councils to be held. In it the book of Acts states, “(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he is fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

“’For,’ said Peter, ‘it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and ‘may another take his place of leadership’. Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.’

“So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barasabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, ‘Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs. Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.”

I was shocked when I read this passage; not only did it support the Roman Catholic practice of church councils, but also it used the actual word “apostolic” in the New International Version and not some version I would accuse of being biased towards Rome. Not only that, but the book of

Acts contains other terms still in use today by the Roman Catholic Church, such as the word Presbyter, which is used in conjunction to describe a group of priests and a Bishop. This occurs in Acts 15:6, which in the New International Version, as well as some others, replace the word Presbyter with “elders”. The verse in the New International Version reads, “The apostles and elders met to consider this question”.

Looking back to the writings of those referred to as the Early Church Fathers, I realized that the titles such as Bishop were already in use by the second century after our Lord’s death! The second century! Not only that, but such figures of Ignatius of Antioch, Origen, Irenaeus, and Cyprian of Carthage would use the titles, and speak of authority given unto such Bishops. Not only that, but they also referenced a verse in Timothy to support the idea of the church as the pillar of truth.

I admit I was both intrigued and horrified at the prospect. In the New International Version of the Bible, 1 Timothy 3:15, “if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” My whole Protestant radar lit up like a Christmas tree, the Bible said that it and faith both was not necessarily the only pillar of truth? That the church was? Well if the Bible said it that basically settled it.

Next I feel, in sticking with my initial listing, I should touch upon the contentious issue of Purgatory. When I was reading through Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians something struck me, 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, “his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.”

All our wretched works cast into flames, all of our sins as well one might imagine. Hebrews describes our Lord as an all consuming fire, and the highest of angels, the Seraphim are fire themselves. Quite possibly Heaven can be hotter than Hell.

For if we die in taking sinful actions, will we go to Heaven, or shall we cry Lord, Lord, and be told that we were never known? In the book of Revelation, John, the last surviving Disciple and the only one to not by martyred for his faith states, “nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”

We are saved by His blood. We must work to repent of our impurities, of our sins both great and small. If we do not then we are unworthy, and that is what Purgatory is for; purging and repentance. Now my last bit on Purgatory comes in the form of the tale of The Rich Man and Lazarus. In Luke 16:19-31 we are told, “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

“He answered, ‘Then I beg of you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

“He said to him, ‘if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Now we get into technicalities, in the Greek here, Hell is not the lake of eternal torment, it is instead Hades, or if we transliterate some into Aramaic it is Sheol, a place of awaiting Christ’s resurrection. A place where he is being purged from his sins so that he might one day be saved by the Messiah.

The noted Christian author C.S. Lewis based the entire book called “The Great Divorce” on Purgatory, and the redemption that is possible if one is willing to endure there. For we have all fallen short of God’s glory, no one is perfect in this mortal coil.

Next up is the foam at the mouth knee-jerk reaction when most of us think of Catholicism, and that is the topic of Mary.[/quote]

Edited September 25, 2008 by BG45

[alicemary]

I really am lost here....you are resigning from a Catholic Church??? Switching parishes? Or you are a Baptist. I do not mean to be dense, but I do not understand this at all.
In general, I believe brief is always the best way to go. But may be out in left field with this because I am not sure what you are resigning from. Sorry

[CoffeeCatholic]

Alice Mary- I believe he's resigning from a Baptist church where the protocol is for members to resign from the parish in order not to cause scandal.

[Winchester]

Dear Episcopalians,

Catholic is easier to spell, pronounce and cheaper to print.

Adios muchahos,

BG45

[MissyP89]

[quote name='alicemary' post='1663725' date='Sep 25 2008, 06:08 PM']I really am lost here....you are resigning from a Catholic Church??? Switching parishes? Or you are a Baptist. I do not mean to be dense, but I do not understand this at all.[/quote]

CoffeeCatholic has it right.

[quote]In general, I believe brief is always the best way to go. But may be out in left field with this because I am not sure what you are resigning from. Sorry[/quote]

IAWTC, but I look at it this way: the way BG has told me they gossip at his church, there may be a chance others may be exposed to the Faith in its entirety, which would be great.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1663734' date='Sep 25 2008, 05:20 PM']Dear Episcopalians,

Catholic is easier to spell, pronounce and cheaper to print.

Adios muchahos,

BG45[/quote]

Or

Dear Episcopalians,

Welcome to dumpsville population you.

PahEECE!

BG45

[philothea]

[quote name='BG45' post='1663625' date='Sep 25 2008, 03:59 PM']...we should have works to go with our faith that we should not sit contently and go “I am saved, let the Rapture and party begin; sorry about the rest of you”.[/quote]


Very nice so far. I hope someone takes the time to read it all!

[Brother Adam]

BG, you are among many, many former baptists here as you know. Welcome home brother! You know your church better than we do, most of the former baptists I know write a one page letter of resignation since it is the pastor who will receive it, and most have an idea of why some protestants become Catholic. However, your letter is very well written.

[BG45]

Alicymary, CoffeeCatholic is indeed right. You're not being dense at all, heh, even Father the first time I met him assumed I was a fallen-away Catholic at first.

When did I become Episcopalian?

philothea, thanks! I hope they take time to read it as well, and if not, I tried. But yeah, it's funny you quoted what you did; I took a break after I started getting snarky there.

Brother Adam, yes I've heard hehe. I can think of at least three off the top of my head, including one from my own state, which is kinda cool. Thank you though for the welcome home and all it entails; thank you also for the compliment. As for who receives this, if it's the secretary it may be destroyed or gossiped into circulation; if it is the pastor it will never again see the light of day from his office, if it is someone else snooping through the office (not unheard of) then again it will probably be gossiped about. At least though, the gossip will be closer to the truth if I take the time to explain this all; and I promised my mother that since I'm far better at expressing myself in words than speaking, I would explain to her on paper. This is also going to be used for my father, to try to explain this decision to him was not one I made lightly; especially in the light of his hatred of Catholicism. (He's quite the Templar nut...I played Assassin's Creed once and he told me not to while he was home, because he didn't want me killing Templars, that I was a traitor.)

Edit: The letter should be finished tomorrow; I don't think I have the proper energy to devote to it tonight.

Edited September 26, 2008 by BG45

[princessgianna]

'BG45'

let me just first to say you have guts!!!! It is so cool that you are willing to risk all for the pearl in the field! i can't even imagine how hard this is for you and family and church members! May God bless you for your efforts!
You are in my prayers!
Pax~
princessgianna

[BG45]

Thanks PG.

Now I believe I owe you all the rest of the letter, just completed.

[quote]Next up is the foam at the mouth knee-jerk reaction when most of us think of Catholicism, and that is the topic of Mary. How one young Jewish woman can cause so much dissension is unfathomable at times, until one accuses the Roman Catholic Church of worshipping Mary as a goddess unto herself; which is far from the truth.

Mary herself would say what is to be said of her in later years in the set of Scripture known as the Magnificat. In the Gospel of Luke, in Luke 1:46-55 it says, “And Mary said: ‘My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me – holy is his name. His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation. He has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. He has helped his servant Israel, remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants forever, even as he said to our fathers.”

Martin Luther would back Mary’s own words in his Explanation of the Magnificat, which he penned in 1521. In that work he stated, “One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Mangificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace…Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ. Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.”

Then in the Gospel of John, John tells of how our Lord passed His mother into the care of the beloved Disciple. John 19:26 states that, “When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ‘Dear woman, here is you son,’ and to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’ From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

Christ gave His earthly mother into the care of his Disciples, and He gave His Disciples into the care of His mother; in a sense He made her into the mother of all believers. This view can also be supported through Scripture.

Mary’s role in this sense can be seen in both the beginning of the infallible Word of God and in the end of those same sacred texts. In Genesis 3:15 we are told by the author, widely believed to have been Moses, that, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head and you will strike his heel.” Interestingly there are only two women in the Bible who are referred to by the title “woman”, Eve being the first, and Mary being the second.

In the New International Version this seems to clearly point to Eve, however in other versions where we are closer to the original text in translations the word “he” in crushing the serpent’s head is replaced by a “she”. Enmity between her children and the serpent, between the believers and the forces of the devil; enmity which has been shown in the beginning, and enmity that is shown in the end in Revelation 12:1-5, “A great and wonderous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.”

We can not deny that the only man whom God the Father will allow to rule this entire world is none other than Christ Jesus. Just as we can not deny that, we can not deny that He was born of a virgin named Mary; that she is theotokos, the Mother of God by simple virtue of bearing Christ. Yet what does Mary do that we Protestants all shake with anger at demand of us? She demands of us the same thing she told the servants at the wedding in Cana when she interceded on behalf of the hosts of the wedding; the same thing she said in John 2:5 right before Christ’s first miracle, “Do whatever he tells you.”

With this letter of resignation I come to the final object of what I feared amongst the Roman Catholic Church, the ultimate test of whether or not it is a true Christian faith, or the greatest lie ever told by the devil. I speak of course of the “Blessed Sacrament” that many accuse of being idolatrous, the Eucharist. Which of course I found myself going, “Where is that in the Bible.”

Our first stop then will be the Gospel of John, in John 6:47-79, “’I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.’

“Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.’ He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

“On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.’ For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.’

“From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. ‘You do not want to leave too, do you,’ Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.’

“Then Jesus replied, ‘Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!’ (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)”

It struck me when I was reading John 6 once more how so many left Him over something symbolic. If it were a mere symbol, then why would one leave? After all, as we know from Pslam 27:2’s statement of, “When evil men advance against me to devour my flesh, when my enemies and my foes attack me, they will stumble and fall,” that the symbolic meaning of devouring flesh in the Old Testament is to slander someone. Do we slander the Christ by proclaiming his flesh and blood to be a mere symbol?

In 1 Corinthians 10:16 I found to my chagrin that Paul makes a similar rhetorical question, “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?” An interesting choice of words in his rhetorical statement as well, given that the root word of the Lord’s Supper is a synonym for Thanksgiving, and that word is “Eucharistia” in the Greek and Latin, or in its modernized vernacular form, Eucharist.

Paul goes on to give an answer to his own rhetorical question later in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32, “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.”

To quote one of the Early Church Fathers, Saint Ignatius in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, section seven stated, “From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness. It would be better for them to have love, so as to share in the resurrection.” He goes on to state, “Shun division as the beginning of evil.”

One might think that this idea of a Eucharist took centuries to develop, but that is not the case as witnessed in Paul’s own writings, and this brief excerpt from the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans from 110 A.D. Indeed, by reading through some of Dr. Hahn’s works and my own occasional notes, it is laid out clearly in the Old Testament and the New in the form of Passover.

It was Passover at the time of the "institution of the Eucharist" as the Catholics put it, or just Communion/The Lord's Supper as we put it.

In Exodus Chapter 12 we see the beginning of this, as it is the story of Passover. That the Lord spoke unto the Israelites, through Moses and Aaron, that to be spared the wrath of the Plague of the Firstborn, they must sacrifice a lamb and use the blood to paint the doorways. Just about every Christian knows this story somehow, however an oft overlooked section is where God tells them that for this sacrifice, they must also eat of the lamb that has been slain, in Exodus 12:7-23 we read, “Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over the fire—head, legs and inner parts. Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must burn it. This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the LORD's Passover.

’On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn—both men and animals—and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD. The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt.

’This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD -a lasting ordinance. For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off from Israel. On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat—that is all you may do.

’Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day. For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And whoever eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel, whether he is an alien or native-born. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread.’

Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, ‘Go at once and select the animals for your families and slaughter the Passover lamb. Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it into the blood in the basin and put some of the blood on the top and on both sides of the doorframe. Not one of you shall go out the door of his house until morning. When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down.’


Note how demanding the Lord is in this sacrifice to stay His wrath. He tells the Israelites not only to spread the blood, but with what it is to be spread. He tells them how to eat the sacrifice, how to prepare the sacrifice, how the sacrifice must be honored through the generations to come. Jesus was an observant Jew of course, and we know due to the Gospels that Christ was celebrating the Passover during his last week on this earth.

But is God always so demanding in terms of sacrifice? Well, since sacrifice is the way that the Jewish people were atoning for their sins, yes it could be quite demanding. We see such sacrifices throughout the book of Genesis; Noah, Cain and Abel, Abraham…and the list goes on. Unless God spoke differently, the sacrifices were always carried out in roughly the same ritualistic manner, the building of a stone altar on which to present the slain animal as a repentance of sorts for sins; in Passover the Lord established a set time of sorts for the most important of the sacrifices until the coming of the Christ which would in due time be carried out in His temple.

The temple, interestingly enough was not chosen at random on some spot through a whim of a single man. It was, as Second Chronicles Chapter Three, verse thirty-one says that it was built on Mount Moriah, where the Lord had first appeared to David. Mount Moriah might also sound familiar from the story of Abraham, where in Genesis 22:1 1-15 we’re told that, “Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, ‘Abraham!’
’Here I am,’ he replied. Then God said, ‘Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.’

“Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. He said to his servants, ‘Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.’

Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, ‘Father?’ ‘Yes, my son?’ Abraham replied.

‘The fire and wood are here,’ Isaac said, ‘but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?’
Abraham answered, ‘God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.’ And the two of them went on together.

”When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, ‘Abraham! Abraham!’
’Here I am,’ he replied.
’Do not lay a hand on the boy,’ he said. ‘Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.’

”Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, ‘On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided.’

”The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, ‘I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.’

The Lord calls upon Abraham to sacrifice his only son in order to appease the will of God, a sacrifice so great that only he could do so because it was directly commanded of him. Isaac, we see, is even forced to carry his own wood, whilst remaining unaware that he is the sacrifice that is to be given. Because Abraham was faithful, he is given a ram to be sacrificed in the stead of his one and only son. The Lord provided the sacrifice, as He would again later for all mankind; yet in this case, the Lord lays out very different requirements from the standard sacrifice rituals, a portent of the True Sacrifice to come.

Another interesting case of sacrifice being different from the “normal” as it were is that of Melchizedek. Hebrews Chapter Seven makes a few interesting parallels between Melchizedek and Christ, including sacrifice and titles; in Hebrews 7:1-3 it states, “This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means ‘king of righteousness’; then also, ‘king of Salem’ means ‘king of peace.’ Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.”


The King of Salem is an interesting title in that it means King of Salem and sounds self explanatory until one thinks about the fact that Salem is later known by the name of Jerusalem. The Scripture also points out that King of Salem is also exchangeable with the title King of Peace. It goes on to compare Melchizedek to Christ, saying that the High Priest to come would be the Son, whom would not need to sacrifice animals, and that like Melchizedek, He would not be of the tribe of Levi; which of course was well known for its priests! This is well demonstrated in the parable of the Good Samaritan when the Leviite walks by without aid and the scandal such a part of the story would cause amongst the audiences of the day.

Yet when the time comes for Passover, Jesus is still sacrificing an animal. Why? Because He is an observant Jew at the time, and is not pushing Himself in the faces of people as it were that He alone is the ultimate and final sacrifice. Nor does He reveal this at first to His disciples, especially not when they, as observant Jews are renewing their Covenant with God.

In John 19:14 it states that when Christ was handed over to Pilate, it was the sixth hour of the day of preparation of the Passover. This time would better be known to Jewish readers of the era as the time that the lambs were beginning to be slaughtered by the Priests in the thousands. Christ is the lamb of God. Christ is the sacrifice that has been brought forth to be slaughtered.

In John 19:36, we are told that ‘These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken,"’. The most common citation of this Scripture is to match the prophecies made of the Messiah, and in my own opinion this is rightly so. However, if taken in the context of the Passover Sacrifice, we can look to Exodus 12:46, which demands that none of the Passover lamb’s bones be broken as part of the sacrifice.

This seems to be reaching a bit until we read that Christ is given his last drink on a sponge attached to a Hyssop branch. In Exodus, 12:22, previously quoted, we read that Hyssop branches are what is prescribed by the Law for the sprinkling of the lamb’s blood.

If Christ is the new lamb to be sacrificed for the sins of mankind, and one of His titles is The Lamb of God, then why would we not partake of His flesh and of His blood? The entire Passion and Crucifixion ties into the Passover sacrifice, and part of that sacrifice, is to eat the body of the lamb that has been slain for the sins of those who offer it; in this case God gave His one and only Son as Abraham had been willing to offer Isaac, and allowed for His Son to be sacrificed…for no lamb could take away sins the way the Lamb of God can eternally.

To switch gears some, allow me to share my first encounter with this “piece of bread”. To do so I must first tell the tale of a French Archbishop; he was presiding over a Mass at the famed Notre Dame Cathedral and told a story of how three young men entered into the church. It was apparent that they did not believe in the Lord, and two made the third a wager to go confess a list of false sins, to show just how old, doddering, and stupid the priest was on duty; to show that it was all bunk.

So the third young man took this bet. He confessed his false sins. Then he was given a penance by the old priest, he was to go to the crucifix and look upon the body of our Lord, to look upon the suffering He went through for us, and the young man was to say three times, “all this you did for me, and I don’t give a beaver dam”.

The young man went to his friends to collect his money, but they told him he had to do the penance first. He approached the crucifix, suddenly unsure about what he was doing, and the words began to form, “All this you did for me and…” the young man stopped. He just broke down into tears, unable to say the rest. The Archbishop then smiled spryly at the gathered parishioners and softly spoke, “I was that young man.”

So to was I in going to encounter the Eucharist. I went to disprove it, to show that a simple piece of bread could hold no sway over me, that it was nothing more than idolatrous filth. I went in to the only Perpetual Adoration Chapel in our state, Blessed Margaret of Castello in Shinnston, and sat down. I prayed, I read the Bible. I thought to myself, “this is nothing, nothing at all. I win, the Catholics lose.”

Then as I prepared to declare my victory and leave I looked up, a small statue of Mary to the side, pointing as they all do if you study Catholic architecture, to her Son -- in this case to the Eucharist that was on display. I looked at that wafer of bread, and I felt the Holy Spirit as strongly as I had when I was saved when I was little, as when I decided to go forward for baptism when I was sixteen; and with the presence of the Holy Spirit came the half memories of Scripture, the weight of a long and rich history.

In that instance, I lost to Christ once more. I am fond of saying that God loves irony: The film TheDaVinci Code and its accompanying book brought a friend to Christ, Socialist nations deriding capitalism lost almost all their money recently when Lehman Brothers failed, Congressmen get forced into an emergency landing by a mechanical failure on their flight to go vote on an aviation safety bill, the Crusades caused many deaths but opened Europe up to the idea there was a whole world outside their borders. These examples are but a handful I can think of; and one I find to be most amusing in a way, the idea to disprove Catholicism on my part stemmed from a Catholic form of prayer at a Baptist summer camp, and eventually led me to decide to convert to Catholicism.

Thus I suppose, my letter of resignation comes to an end. If you have continued to read this far you have my thanks, as it means I did not just explain everything in a bare bones manner for nothing; but if you did not, then it does not matter.

I wanted to explain myself and my decision, not as a flight of fancy, but as a grounded decision that was decided upon by looking deep in Scripture and in prayer. Thank you for helping to raise me in the Christian faith, for helping to give me a great appreciation for Scripture and the marvelous truths it unveils to us about this world and the next.

Thank you for being there in trying times and good times alike. Thank you for providing me with a spiritual home all of these years, a place I can always feel safe in. Thank you for providing me the teaching and friendship to first come into my personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Thank you for allowing me to question the Scriptures along with my peers.

Thank you for reminding time and time again worship is not a static experience. Worship of the Lord our God can be anywhere, anytime, doing anything. We have all been blessed to have this opportunity before us to know Christ Jesus as our Lord and as our Savior; while I have thanked you time and time again, I thank Him most of all. For we are nothing but His children, and we can not come to salvation except through Him.

May God continue to bless you,
*name omitted*[/quote]


10,690 words, 14.25 pages in Word. Easier to read full version found at:
[url="http://mindmirage.blogspot.com/2008/09/letter-of-resignation-to-my-church.html"]http://mindmirage.blogspot.com/2008/09/let...-my-church.html[/url]

Edited September 26, 2008 by BG45

[MissyP89]

You're gonna set the world on fire someday.

[BG45]

Thanks heh...right now I'm glad to have what amounts to a written statement of faith.