On Purgatory

Someone asked me about how Purgatory relates to Christ's sacrifice, and since I really don't have anything about Purgatory listed on here I thought would post my reply:

In short, there are two separate issues that are involved in an understanding of purgatory, especially as it relates to Christ's sacrifice. The issue of forgiveness, and of consequences. I may forgive someone for stealing my car, but they still need to return my car or make some type of amends. Although it may be difficult to separate these two things, it is necessary in order to understand the doctrine of purgatory.

Sin then, has two types of consequences. Eternal consequences, which is eternal death or hell; and temporal consequences, such as lung cancer from smoking or the example I gave above. Christ offers us forgiveness for all of our sins, and His death pays for the eternal consequences, giving us the grace needed to spend eternity with Him in Heaven.

Our relationship with him is not merely a one way street though. He wants more from us than just an acknowledgment that He exists, and that we're ok with Him sacrificing His life for us. (Even the demons believe...) He wants us to play an active part, to "work out" our salvation. The bible speaks of salvation being a thing of the past, present, and future.

Christ has given us several ways in which we are able to play an active part in our relationship with him, and in his work of grace. Since we still have temporal consequences for sin, one of these ways is purgatory. It is the way that Christ enables us to enter heaven even though we die with sin consequences that have not been amended for yet. (Of course, Christ provides other avenues which we can make amendments while we are still alive, but I will not go into that now.)

Purgatory then, is God's "refining fire." It is God's way of completing the purification process that was made possible through Christ, so that we may come to see God in complete purity; without spot or blemish. Christ has given us clean clothes so that we can attend the wedding feast... purgatory is like the changing room where we put them on before entering.

When we pray for people in purgatory, it is the same as if we were praying for friend who was going through a rough time in their life: We are asking for God to give them grace and allow their time to pass quickly.

Purgatory then, was never meant for those who have rejected Christ, it is an avenue of grace, a "refining fire" only for those who have accepted Christ and are on their way to heaven.

If you're looking for more depth, then you may find these two links helpful:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=999
http://scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

A Discussion (Long)

So, I'm investigating the Catholic church... Have been for a couple months, and think there's an 85% chance that I will join the Church this Easter. [My boyfriend] is concerned because the information I've been gathering has been almost exclusively Catholic (with the exception of some conspiracy "the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon" literature that just makes the dissent look ridiculous), and suggested I talk to you.

I have tried to look at both sides of the issue, but it's been difficult to find valid critiques of the Catholic positions that hold up to their Catholic rebuttals. I have not been able to prove any of the Catholic doctrines to be contrary to scripture, even if at first it may seem that they are not completely in line with it. I have looked briefly at quotations by Luther, Calvin and Westley, but from my brief investigation (it's a stretch to call it that) it almost seems like they agree with the Catholic church more than not. (At least on the subject of Mary's immaculate conception and perpetual virginity, covered on my blog http://randomtopicsofinterest.blogspot.com/2008/10/email-to-my-mother.html) In reading the 95 Thesis, it seems that Luther's main contention w/ the Catholic Church was regarding the sale of indulgences, and the ability of one priest to over-ride what another had said.

The two foundations of Protestant theology, Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, have crumbled in front of me, and I do not believe them (though truth be told, I'm not sure I ever believed in Sola Fide since "faith without works is dead"). All the other issues are less substantial, but I haven't been able to disregard any as being conclusively wrong or inaccurate... and more than that, some of the ones that I never though[t] I could rationally consider are seeming acceptable (until I better understand them), while others are making more sense than my protestant doctrines!

For example, Mary as the "Ark of the New Covenant" and the "Queen of Heaven." The communion of all saints, those on earth and in heaven. The successive authority that Christ gave Peter and the apostles, which has been passed down. The leadership role of Peter among the apostles. The necessity of having an authoritative interpretation of scripture.... just to name a few of the top of my head.

I currently have in my possession a 3 volume set of "The Faith of the Early Fathers." I plan to read the writings which were from the first 300-400 years to see if they coincide with the current Catholic doctrines, and if they seem to do so then I will most likely be joining the Church at Easter.

Anyways, most of the protestants I've talked to have either made blanket accusations against the Catholic Church that were unsubstantiated ("they put man in the place of God," "they worship Mary," etc.), or their arguments have not overcome the Catholic counter (Mary was not a perpetual virgin because Jesus had brothers, etc), or they didn't really see anything wrong with the Catholic Church as long as you had a personal relationship with Jesus.

The problem is that, at least from my point of view, the Catholic Church is either of Christ or Satan. I do not see a middle ground here. The Catholic Church believes in transubstantiation... and they worship the presence of Christ in the host which means that they are either worshiping Christ or they are committing idolatry. The Catholic Church believes that it IS the body of Christ, and that you cannot accept Christ and reject his body. (See Catechism 795, and 846)

If the teachings (dogmas) of the Church are indeed infallible as they are supposed to be than I should be able to reject the whole Church if it is in error in any one part. However, the dogmas that I feel are the most important to their credibility are the Pope and hierarchy, and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

If you want more detail on what I've covered already, you're more than welcome to look at my blog as I've put a lot of the highlights on there. It's http://randomtopicsofinterest.blogspot.com ..

If there's any way you can help please let me know as I'm sure I will be eternally grateful. Literally. I just have not been able to find protestant rebuttals of Catholic doctrine with enough depth to satisfy me. I'm not opposed to reading, so if you just want to send me a bunch of links that would be totally awesome.

[She]



... I'm glad you're investigating and finding out all you can. I would differ with you that there is no middle ground. I think there is plenty of middle ground to be had. I think that God understands that we are limited, fallible human beings, and that if we go wrong (in communion for example) that God is gracious enough to take how we are trying to worship Him at least somewhat at face value. There are obviously problems with being incorrect, but I think that God is gracious in how He handles our errors. Otherwise we're all screwed :)

There are two types of issues to discuss - doctrinal issues and practical issues.

Let's start with doctrinal issues. The two fundamental doctrinal problems I have with the Catholic Church are (a) the elevation of tradition, sometimes over against scripture, and (b) the view of the Church as an organization rather than as a community. In the elevation of tradition, for instance, you have one of the primary breakaway points for the protestants. The Church established a tradition (which thankfully I believe has been repealed) that only priests could drink the wine at communion. The clear command of scripture was that we are all to partake, and yet the tradition of the Church mandated that only priests should drink the wine because of its sacredness. Now, protestant churches have problems where their traditions are contrary to scripture, too. The difference, though, is that in Protestant churches scripture is held as the highest standard. Therefore, our traditions are judged by scripture, and not the reverse. Even if it is sometimes incorrectly applied, I think that the prioritization in Protestant churches is a better doctrinal standard.

As for sola scriptura, I think the problem is not the doctrine, but rather its modern incarnation. Sola scriptura was never meant to mean that we interpret scripture apart from tradition. This is impossible to do. Instead, the point is that scripture is the highest authority, and tradition is important but secondary. There are certainly times when scripture requires a tradition of interpretation to make sense, and that's fine. But the point is that scripture is the best representation we have of the teachings of the apostles and Jesus.

The second doctrinal issue is their view of the Church. This has changed somewhat with Vatican II, though I am not familiar enough with it to know all of the nuances. Basically, the Catholic Church believes the organization itself is the Church, and Protestants believe that the Church is ephemeral - it is the believers in Christ. I think this is better theologically and practically. We are a priesthood, a holy nation. This is by virtue of believing in Christ, not by the decree of an organization. The split-ups within Protestantism are often petty and divisive, but I think on another level it helps us remember that it isn't our own organizations that save us, it is God who saves us. My faith is not in the Methodists, the Baptists, or the independents. Those are all useful organizations for proclaiming the faith. My faith is instead in God, and in the community of people who are under the Lordship of Christ and believe in the His resurrection.

I'll try to write another note later on practical issues (with the exception of the Kolbe Center, the Catholic Church has had strong, intense evolutionary leanings over recent years, just to name one). In any case, my overall opinion is that the Catholic Church has done some great good, and has many wonderfully thoughtful thinkers. However, the issues of tradition and the church are what make me most uncomfortable about it as a denomination. The Catholic Church is huge, and there are plenty of pockets of strongly faithful and strongly unfaithful believers. I would have no qualms about someone joining the Church provided they have taken the time to understand the Church's position (which it looks like you have).

As for Mary, you might be interested in a great book by Scot McKnight - "The Real Mary". He writes from a Protestant perspective and does a good job (I think) of showing the value and problems in both the Protestant and Catholic viewpoints.

[JB]

Thank you SO much for writing back. There was one thing you brought up that I had not heard of before that that is the tradition that only priests could drink the wine at communion. I'm not familiar with this, but did want to confirm that it's not currently the case.

I looked up the book you recommended, and was able to find an article online by the same author regarding Mary, and will try to find more. It looks like it would be a very interesting book and I put it on my wish list in case it becomes available. (bookmooch.com... Free books are awesome.) Thank you much for recommending it.

I would really like to discuss sola scripture and the claims of the Catholic Church on authority if that's ok. Simply because I think this is THE most important doctrinal difference between Catholics and Protestants in general because all the other doctrines hinge on this. A question of doctrine would be settled quite differently depending on who has the final authority.

From what I understand, the Catholic Church holds that position that it does (that the Church holds the final authority in defining and interpreting scripture and tradition) because,
1) Christ established His church with Peter as the cornerstone, or head among the disciples.
2) Christ gave his church (apostles) the authority to bind and loose, to forgive sins, etc... to Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.
3) That apostolic authority was successive, as per the tradition in the old testament (ex. The "seat of Moses").
4) We see this authority evidenced in a) the councils at Jerusalem (ex: Acts 15), b) the actions of the apostles to deliver the decisions to the people (v.28), instruction to listen to the church leaders (1 John 4:6), the church ability to discipline, or ex-communicate, members (Matt 18:17).
5) The Church is declared to be the "pillar and foundation" of truth in 1 Tim 3:15.
6) The Church later took the initiative to declare certain letters written in apostolic times as the "Word of God" and canonized them as scripture. From my understanding of authority, you cannot delegate authority that you don't already have.
7) The Church holds the view that canonizing the scripture did not abolish the authority which Christ gave it, and just as the Holy Spirit guided it to the proper canonization of scripture it will also guide it in the proper interpretation of that scripture and, as promised, "into all truth."

My understanding of the main conflict is that the protestant viewpoint denies the authority of the Church. I know that ALL scripture is "God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, correction" etc, but I don't know of anywhere in scripture, whether stated directly or implied, that teaches that only Scripture is inspired of God. To the contrary, as implied above. The apostles were not commanded primarily to write books and keep records, although it would certainly be a good idea to do so... they were commanded to go out and preach the Gospel. This is the verbal tradition that was mentioned earlier, and Paul commands the Church to "cling to the traditions" which they taught even if they weren't in writing (2 Thes 2:15).

I know we talked about interpreting scripture in the light of tradition, but who has the authority of final interpretation? Is it the Church, because if they define scripture and they interpret scripture, then it's my understanding that they hold the final authority. They can make it say whatever they want... Hopefully they're guided by the Holy Spirit in doing so. If the final interpretation rests with the individual, then that would explain why we have so many people and denominations, who are all very sincere and believe they're spirit led, with different interpretations of what scripture really says. Did Christ foresee a need to unify his Church under earthly guidance? From looking at the actions of the Apostles, and the councils in early Jerusalem it seems to me that this is very likely the case.

I don't know of any other real difference in this except that the protestant Church does not believe that 1) Christ endowed the apostles with successive authority, or 2) that this authority was abolished when the Church canonized the scriptures. I am seeing evidence contrary to the first, and no reason or evidence to support the second.

I'm sure there's more to this than I'm seeing, but I haven't found anything conclusive that's contrary to my present understanding.

I'm sorry for the lengthiness of this. Please know also that I don't intend to come across as argumentative at all, I just want to make sure I have a clear understanding of this, and I haven't yet learned how to accurately summarize things. I really appreciate your patience and any input you are able to contribute....

[She]

I think the argument about Peter is fairly weak, because, at least to my knowledge, the successive nature of the office is not established in scripture. In fact, the "seat of Moses" was occupied, in Jesus' time, by the Pharisees, and Jesus did not speak too kindly to those who occupied it, so I don't see that this is a very good analogy.

Also, I would disagree about the statement about the canonization process of scripture. You wrote "The Church later took the initiative to declare certain letters written in apostolic times as the "Word of God" and canonized them as scripture. From my understanding of authority, you cannot delegate authority that you don't already have."

I would disagree that the process was one of delegation of authority, but rather recognition of authority, though I don't disagree too strongly with the "delegation" option. The question I would have is why is this process identified with the Roman Catholic Church? If the goal is to return to the "original" Church, I would say that the Greek Orthodox has a better claim to that role, as many of the original churches set up by the apostles still remain today. Viewing the RCC as the "original" Church rests on the successiveness of Peter's position. I am not very familiar with the literature on this, but I'm not sure this idea was formalized in the first few hundred years of the Church, but instead picked up afterwards.

I know that the RCC likes to identify itself as the only, or perhaps the primary, or at least the original Church, but I think there's plenty of reason to deny that role, and instead follow the Protestant doctrine that the Church is the community of all believers, not an organizational institution. If the Church is understood in this light, points 5, 6, and 7 apply no matter what denomination you are a part of. Point 4 is also largely hinging on that as well (none of these recognize Peter as the sole arbiter of the disciples - even though I agree that he was the cornerstone of the early Church).

I think you are right that most Protestants today deny the authority of the Church, but there are many that do not, and the Roman Catholic Church is not the only church to emphasize it. I agree that there is more truth than only scripture. I also agree that there was a verbal tradition, though in every case I would qualify that by saying that scripture is the arbiter of oral teachings. Also, in the Roman Catholic Church, at least from an outsider's perspective, much in the "tradition" of the Church is explicitly not from the early apostles. If I remember my Church history right, for instance, purgatory is mostly from the philosophical speculations of Augustine than from a tradition handed down. That doesn't mean that Augustine was wrong - he actually made some good arguments for it - but mixing it in with "tradition" unfortunately elevates it to the level of the teaching of the apostles. Augustine was a great thinker, but he was not one of the 12 :)

The issue of whether the interpretation of scripture rests with the individual or with the Church deals more with epistemology (the study of knowledge) and power rather than theology. Truly, the interpretation of scripture lies with God. The problem which Luther discovered was that the Roman Catholic Church in his day was using its position of authority in teaching as a means of manipulation rather than instruction. It is because I believe that God was using "the Church" to keep scripture true that I agree with what Luther did (at least in general) - Luther was operating to remove the self-centered teachings and replace them with those which are more faithful to the tradition of the apostles. Thankfully, the Catholic Church has revised their stance on most of the issues which Luther raised.

There will always be people in any denomination (including Catholicism) who do the following:
a) interpret scripture wrongly because of a lack of knowledge
b) interpret scripture wrongly because of an unwilling heart

The tradition in Jesus' day was carried by the Pharisees, who failed in both of the above points, and Jesus broke with their tradition, and reinterpreted scripture away from how the tradition was being carried. My point is that tradition can be corrupted, and God often uses individuals as the means of correcting corrupted traditions. While the individualist interpretation of scripture takes things to far, what it does allow for is for God to work in individuals to correct a corrupted tradition. If an individual is always subordinate to an organization, there is rarely room for God to move to correct it when it goes astray. If an individual never submits to an organization, they do not get the benefit of other people of faith sharing together how God is working. God, throughout history, has worked through both of these modes, and I think cutting either one off will give negative effects.

I think the reason for the early uniting was simply the size of the Church - it was so small that a uniting was actually possible. Interestingly, the East/West split occurred largely (I think) because of geographic isolation.

In summary, I would say that your case relies too much on apostolic succession, which I don't see as being supported, or at least am unaware of the arguments for it.

I've enjoyed taking the time to think about these things and respond. Feel free to ask any other questions you have, or talk more about the details of these. Just understand if it takes a few weeks for me to get to them :)

Let me know what you decide, too.

[JB]

I will look into the Apostolic Succession area some more, and try to get some more info on why the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church split ways... I think it has something to do with the pope. I really appreciate all your input and will keep you up to date w/ which direction I am going. Right now it's about 85% chance that I will join the Catholic Church, but that could always change if I find a concrete reason not to.

[She]

.......... I just talked to the pastors of two different Greek Orthodox Churches, and will be meeting one of them Wed, and the other on Saturday. :-) I am looking forward to it. Thank you for the suggestion. Talk soon.

[She]

Let me know what you find out! I've always wanted to do the same, but have never found the time.

[JB]

Ok, long time no chat... sorry 'bout that. You certainly gave me a lot to think about. I really appreciate that.

Basically, what I found is that the Eastern Orthodox (EO) Church and the Catholic Church see almost eye to eye on most of their doctrine... Ex, they both believe in the communion of saints, prayers to the saints, the use of icons, the sinlessness of Mary, the assumption of Mary, etc. This really surprised me at first, because they are the two oldest, and two of the largest (EO is number 3 only if you count "Protestantism" as a denomination) Christian denomination... but they split from the Catholic Church before any other denomination did, and would have had more time for the doctrines to evolve separately.

The split was pretty messy as well. It wasn't anywhere near as clean of a break as with protestantism. Depending on who you ask, it seems as if they had about 7 or 8 schisms, or periods in history where they would separate for 30-200 years at a time and then get back together. This last one has lasted about 600 (according to Catholics) to 1000 (according to EO) years.

Most of the disagreements seem to be, at the heart, very cultural. Officially however, they stem from disagreements over papal authority. For example, they see the pope as "the first among equals" but don't think that he has jurisdiction outside of his own diocese.

Which interestingly enough, in regards to the infallibility issue, he seems to make an infallible declaration only after consulting the council and discovering that a certain doctrine is indeed true.... The EO priest would have no problem with accepting this if it was specifically worded this way. To specify, he didn't have an issue with the practice, but rather the explanation.

This also seems to hold true with the other main reason for the separation: the filioque. After the Council of Nicea (381 AD) authorized the Nicean Creed, the pope (apparently in an attempt to fight the Arian heresy?) unilaterally added the filioque (the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the son")to the Creed. The EO first viewed this addition as a heresy because of symantics. In Greek (Eastern Christiandom / EO) the word proceeds means "originates" where as in Latin (Western Christiandom / Catholic) it means "comes through." Apparently in the 15th century the EO, in attempt at possible reconciliation w/ the Catholics admitted that the filioque was not a heresy and should not stand in the way of a reunion. The general vibe I'm getting still seems to be that the Pope should not have added it w/o consulting the Eastern Church. There seemed to have been something of a power-struggle between Rome and Constantinople.

There are other minor differences such as the way by which Mary achieved a sinless status. The difference lies in the doctrine of original sin. Catholics believe that we inherit guilt for sin along w/ original sin, so we are born guilty. God, however, decided to grant Mary a singular gift of grace by which he saved her from the moment of her conception (rather than years later), and preserved her from the stain of original sin. The EO believe that we inherit a bent toward sin, but not the guilt of original sin. Therefore, Mary was naturally born sinless and was able to remain that way by merely choosing not to sin. Either way, they both arrive at the same conclusion.

The EO do not believe in Purgetory as a place, but still pray for the dead. The rationalization seems to be that it can't hurt. The Catholics do not specifically state whether Purgetory is a place, or a process. They pray for the dead that God would have mercy on them and grant them entrance to heaven. I don't see a contradiction here.

The EO accept the first 7 Eccumenical Councils, and the authority of Synods, but not the authority of the pope or any primacy of the Church at Rome. The revelation seems to stop w/ the first 7 Eccumenical Councils (although I'm not sure about this, or why it is.)

The EO Old Testament (OT) differs from the Catholic OT in that it has 4 additional books. Apparently these books were in (at least some versions of) the Septuagint, but were not included in the Latin Vulgate. The Catholic Church began to canonize scripture in the late 4th century, and from what I have read, have since then merely affirmed the same list of books that was suggested then. I am not sure how the EO achieved a different OT, however it is interesting that they never "officially" canonized the list of books in their OT, and that list is not always uniform from one EO Church to another. These four books seem to be recognized as "good to read" rather than divinely inspired. This is something I've not been able to find much information on.

The EO Church seems to be organized somewhat like the Catholic Church although it has no singular head (pope, or patriarch). They are organized into Metropolitan, and each under his own authority, so there is not as much adhesion as there is among Catholics but they have still remarkable doctrinal consistencies for their lack of singular leadership.

Since the doctrines are so similar, I am once again stuck with the "authority" argument. I read a couple debates, and a 50 page compilation (from a 500 page book) that was supposed to be a good rebuttal of the Catholic doctrine of infallibility. In short, the doctrine wasn't rebutted and I found evidence that the early church gave a certain primacy, leadership, "supreme court" type authority to the Pope and/or the "Church at Rome" at least. A "whatever the Church at Rome decrees we will follow" type of mentality at most.

Consequently, what I have found affirms the doctrines in question as true, and gives precedence to Pope even from the earliest.

There are several things I like about the EO Church. They're method of baptism (dunking as opposed to sprinkling), and they're doctrine of original sin (a bent toward sin, but not the guilt of sin). I don't consider these major issues and so I haven't researched them specifically. They are merely my preferences. On the other hand, if we inherit the bent toward sin and not the guilt, then it is logically possible to get to heaven without Christ (which the Bible teaches is not possible). If we had such a strong bent toward sin that we couldn't resist it, then it negates free will and we are, again, automatically sinners because we cannot resist. This kinda puts a kink into the idea.

Also, the doctrine of Purgatory has explained some things in scripture that didn't make sense to me before (such as the parable about the debtor, and the one about the man who was saved "only through fire").

Then there's papal authority, which we've talked about before. But I haven't been able to disprove it, and have found evidence in favor of it. (Or, more evidence in favor than against.)

So, I'm left where I think Peter was when many of the disciples left and Jesus asked him if he would also leave. Where else shall I go? I can't go back to being protestant after all that I've discovered, and as beautiful as the EO Church is, they don't have the evidence to back up their side of the dispute that the Catholic Church does.

I don't really know what else to say. Even though I have a strong tendency to set aside what I've learned because of the way I've been taught my whole life, I keep coming back to the evidence that I've found. I can't disregard it, even if it takes a while to settle in my heart.

So... yeah.

The only other thing I can think of is that the Catholic Church considers the EO to be in communion with them because of the shared doctrinal beliefs and there seems to be some circumstances where the two can share in the communion meal, though it gets confusing.

They seem really close doctrinally, especially when compared to protestantism.

Anyway.. I'm planning to join the Catholic Church this Easter weekend, and also to have Michael baptized. (As long as he's ok with the water... he kinda has a little bit of a phobia w/ it.)

I really, really appreciate all your help and input. You've given me awesome food for thought, and thank you immensely. :-)

[She]

I have been blogging most of my journey on my blog... Do you think it would be ok if I put our conversation on there also?

[She]

"I'm planning to join the Catholic Church this Easter weekend, and also to have Michael baptized."

Congratulations on both! I hope the Church recognizes the amount of deliberation that you have put into this decision. It is good to be open to a change of mind, and also good that it does not come lightly. I'm impressed by your research and determination to find the truth. That will always serve you well.

"I have been blogging most of my journey on my blog... Do you think it would be ok if I put our conversation on there also?"

That would be awesome. Do you mind if I post your last email on Catholic/Orthodox on my blog? I thought it was a great discussion on the topic, and I know I learned a lot.

http://www.bartlettpublishing.com/site/bartpub/blog/2

[JB]

Why I'm Joining the Catholic Church

I recently had someone ask what prompted my conversion to Catholicism. For those of you who are interested, here's my answer.

Short version:

Basically, I wanted to find the most Biblically and historically accurate denomination. When I looked into the Catholic Church, I couldn't refute it... and what I discovered in my research eliminated any other options I would have considered.

Long version:

I grew up non-denominational in PA, and am adamantly against the "Eternal Security" doctrine, so prospective churches were slim when I moved to Clarksville. I went to 5 in one day.... wasn't a fan. Visited the Catholic Church here, liked the homily on unity, and felt at home. That was about 3 years ago. I've been attending irregularly for the last 3 years while keeping my eyes open for a "good" non-denominational Church. Never found one.

Somewhere along in there, pretty early I think, I figured that logically it would be closest to the early church since all the other churches branched off of it... and, the closer I got to the root, the closer I would get to what Christ originally intended, right? Made sense to me.

I was spending about 1/2 my weekends in Nashville at that time (Rick). So, even though I started the RCIA process a couple times, I wasn't really ready to commit to being here to attend them every Sunday. I did a little study here and there for a while.

When Rick moved to Chicago I figured this would be a great time to really buckle down, do some research and make a definite decision. (I was getting tired of messing around and not knowing.) My goal was to set aside any previous biases, and give the Catholic Church a purely logical trial (which I think I did pretty well at, though I got a little emotionally involved during the last month or so), and hopefully find reason that their doctrine wasn't true. I figured that since the church is supposed to have infallible teaching authority, then disproving one dogma would allow me to dismiss the whole faith. (And I KNEW Mary had other children. How hard could it be?)

So, lots of reading later (I LOVE John Salza and Scott Hahn, btw!), I think I've tested most (if not all) the major doctrines that differ from basic Protestantism, and have not been able to disprove any of them. (I was wrong about Mary's other children.) Further, my research has led to satisfactory proof (for me anyway) of several of the doctrines that I never thought I'd accept.... primarily transubstantiation, purgatory, papal authority, and lots about Mary. Beyond that it's undermined the two foundations of Sola Scriptura, and Sola Fide. Then, it's helped me understand how illogical it is to accept the Bible without accepting the Church that wrote, compiled, and defines it.

So it kinda left me with nowhere else to go. I mean, how could I go back to being protestant when the two foundations of protestantism crumbled before my eyes, and I found so much support for Catholic truth?

(When I say Catholic truth, I mean the Biblical dogmas as well as the history and the support of the early church fathers.)

Beyond that it was just beautiful. Everything I learned was just absolutely beautiful. The relationships, the covenants, the sacraments, the symbols, the practices, etc.. Like, I almost felt like a cultist because "beautiful" was the only word I could think of to describe it. I kept being reminded of the European Emperor who was petitioned to join several different religions and he sent his men out to investigate each of them. When they returned from investigating Christianity, they told him that it was so beautiful that they didn't know whether they were in heaven or on earth.

I had consulted several people or references (generally non-denominational) to help me combat the Catholic doctrinal proofs that I was finding. It didn't help much. There were either unsupported assertions, or arguments that I'd already dismissed. The best feed-back I got was from a gentleman that suggested I check into the Eastern Orthodox... So I did.

I was really surprised to find that they see eye to eye with the Catholic Church on almost all of the main doctrinal issues. They were so similar that I definitely considered it an option for a while. I visited w/ a couple Orthodox presbyters and took about a month looking into the Orthodox doctrines and history.

I finally decided to convert to Catholicism on March 19th after resolving two main questions about Orthodoxy. One was papal authority, which I found too much support in order to dismiss... and not any concrete refutation. I'm thinking the other was either the doctrine of original sin, or the canonization of scripture.... I can't quite remember.

At any rate, it was just after 9am, and it was the first time I remember feeling confident in my decision. Questions about Orthodoxy have come up since then, but I believe that there is enough evidence that I am making the right decision.

I hope that's what you were looking for.