Thank you for your tactful response.

I found a number of churches that met these criteria,

These criteria were ones of your own devising. How do you know that they are the right ones?

I never felt the need to find the “one true Church” because Scripture describes the Church as made of many members, many branches from the true vine, Jesus Christ. Reading the church fathers confirmed my observations of the diversity within the Body of Christ on just about every subject other than commitment to God’s Word and to the essential truths summarized in the creeds. Diversity was not a barrier to communion in the early church – why should it be so today?

Legitimate diversity can only exist within unity. I have coworkers with rainbow bumper stickers that say DIVERSITY. What is the criteria for determining whether something is a legitimate _branch_ versus a heretical _schism_? Read this post for a deeper explanation of this dilemma: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/branches-or-schisms/

Which of the men deemed “heretics” by the Church were actually just new, diverse branches on the tree versus schisms (Sabellius, Arius, the Monophysites, the Monothelites, the Cathars, etc.)? Who decides, and by what authority?

Irenaeus gives a much stronger description of the unity of the Church than you claim existed: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

On the other hand, the role of the papacy, the Marian dogmas, and other things closely identified with Rome today cannot be traced to the teaching of the Apostles, the founding fathers of the Church.

Says you. Read Carroll’s History of Christendom series to see how the papacy existed and was understood throughout the centuries. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all believed in most of the Marian dogmas; they believed that these dogmas all traced back to the Apostles. Why should I believe you on them over the magisterial Reformers?

In light of these things, how did you decide that Rome has unique authority over not only the canon but also of every area of faith and practice for the universal church?

We both have made assents of faith, and both of those assents have reasons supporting them, but I found that the reasons behind my assent as a Protestant were inconsistent whereas the reasons behind the assent of faith to the Catholic Church were consistent.

Why? One example: a Protestant assents by faith that God inspired books to be written such that they are inerrant but don’t believe that he infallibly guided the men leading the Church to know which books those were (hence Protestant pastor R.C. Sproul’s unsettling but eminently logical “fallible collection” of inspired books). So as a Protestant, it is impossible to have certainty in the canon of Scripture. Or you can claim to have certainty but it will not be consistent with your beliefs.

The Catholic assent is consistent: God infallibly inspired the books to be written and infallibly guided the Church to know exactly which books those were. Why? Because God wants us to know the truth and be set free by it, so he made sure we would know it. These two beliefs are not ad hoc the way Protestants’ are because they are only two examples of the belief that God protects his Church from error in _all_ her teachings on faith and morals.

In Christ,
Devin

Thank you for sharing your story. I grew up in the Episcopal Church and promised at confirmation to follow Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. That promise led to my departure from the Episcopal Church in the early seventies following a series of encounters with apostate priests. I visited many different churches and solidified my commitment to the Bible as the Word of God and to the essential truths of Trinitarian faith as summarized in the creeds. I found a number of churches that met these criteria, and having come from a liturgical background, I also discovered the joy of spontaneous prayer and variety in worship that other traditions offered. I never felt the need to find the “one true Church” because Scripture describes the Church as made of many members, many branches from the true vine, Jesus Christ. Reading the church fathers confirmed my observations of the diversity within the Body of Christ on just about every subject other than commitment to God’s Word and to the essential truths summarized in the creeds. Diversity was not a barrier to communion in the early church – why should it be so today?

Your description of your path to Rome puzzles me. There are three major streams of Christianity that all hold the Bible to be God’s Word and all share the same core beliefs. There are several variations on the canon (including more than one within Orthodoxy), but the different canons have no impact on the essential truths of the faith (cf. CCC 188-193). On the other hand, the role of the papacy, the Marian dogmas, and other things closely identified with Rome today cannot be traced to the teaching of the Apostles, the founding fathers of the Church. In light of these things, how did you decide that Rome has unique authority over not only the canon but also of every area of faith and practice for the universal church?

Blessings,
Lojahw

Thank you for your comment. At the time of my conversion from Evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism, I did not deeply study the differences between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I visited one Orthodox convert site that explained why they decided to become Orthodox instead of Roman Catholic, but their reasons did not seem compelling to me.

Similarly, I did not seriously consider Anglicanism, which is often a stop along the way to Rome for Evangelicals and Reformed Protestants. It seemed like Catholic-lite to me and historically did not seem to have a credible claim to the historic Church.

Since this time, I have learned much more about Reformed Protestantism, Anglicanism, and the Orthodox Churches. My questions for an Orthodox person would be about the issues of papal supremacy and the lack of (Eastern Orthodox-recognized or -held) Ecumenical Councils for the past 1,000 years.

Unfortunately, I have no Orthodox friends, nor have I ever had any; there don’t seem to be many around here. Because of that, I have never had to delve deeply into Orthodox claims and theology, though I have read a history of the schism between Rome and Constantinople, which from my reading had little do with differences of doctrine and much more with power and pride.

One question, why Roman Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox?

Someday I’d love to catch up and hear more about all of this. If you’d like, you’re welcome to get my contact info from Nathan. Otherwise, I wish you and your wife much peace and happiness!