Confusion, on one level.

Salvation, on another.

I guess it's about time I got it all down here. :)


There's been a lot on my mind over the last four months or so, regarding church. First was advice given to me the night I broke up with Ryan -- "Have you prayed about it?" And I hadn't even thought of that, but a couple of days later I did it. Basically I invited God back into my life after at least three years of ignoring him. That was a neat experience.

A couple of weeks later, actually it might have been almost a month, I decided I wanted to go back to church. Somewhere in that time was when Joe and I started talking about our faiths, him being Roman Catholic and me being United Methodist. I don't remember all the details anymore, it was kind of a sporadic thing at first, but I started getting unsettled because he seemed to just KNOW a whole lot more about his church than I did. At that point I think I was too busy with other stuff to really go and find out, but I started questioning things. Why do we only have Communion once a month? Why is worship so different from one UMC to the next? At the same time, I was starting to face Catholicism with an open mind, something I had never bothered to do before, just dismissing it as "ritualistic" and "weird", which is something I think a lot of Protestants (well, non-Catholics in general) do. They criticize without trying to understand. My own mother does it. Somewhere along the way I started defending Catholicism from my friends and relatives when they'd come out with unnecessary comments. It's my boyfriend's faith, after all, future husband's faith even, which makes it all the more important because in that sense it becomes something that will be a part of the rest of my life. He really BELIEVES in his Church, and he stands by it, even when sometimes he's not quite sure what they're doing. That's something that really struck me about Joe, and part of why I started trying to figure out my own church. I've never felt that attached to my denomination. I tend towards it, when I first came to Fredonia for example I started going to the UMC first... but I ended up at the Baptist church for most of that semester, liking the atmosphere better there for whatever reason. It was all the same to me... still kinda is. That makes me sound ignorant, because I really don't know exactly what makes one Protestant denomination different from another. It sorta pains me to admit that I don't particularly care... but I don't. In elementary school when we had Religious Ed, there was Catholic and Protestant. Didn't matter what Protestant denomination, they all got grouped together. I guess I still see it that way.

Going to Mass with Joe the first time was pretty cool. It was the second time I'd ever been, the first time I was in ninth grade and I didn't understand what was going on -- more accurately, I didn't take the time to TRY to understand what was going on. I remember not being able to follow along with whatever readings they were doing because the person I went with didn't share his book with me. I also remember feeling very out-of-place when they were all talking and I didn't know what they were saying, and having to sit out while they took the Eucharist. Going with Joe was different -- I still felt a little out-of-place, but I paid more attention to the things they were saying and broke down, in my mind, the order of worship. In the most basic sense, it's the same as ours. That was comforting to me. I was also surprised (although I don't know why) that when they got to the Communion part of the Mass, the words they use are the same ones we do. That was big for me, because something I used to like about my church years ago was always using those same words when we had Communion... we had a few pastors in the meantime who didn't do it that traditional way, and I missed that. It was cool that the Catholic Church uses those same words in their Mass that I loved hearing as a child, and I liked finding the similarities between Joe's Church and mine, since when it gets down to it we all worship the same God, just in different ways. The other thing that hit me that day, and it may seem really obvious to you but I just never THOUGHT about it until then, is that the reason MY church uses those words is because we got them from HIS church. The reason the order of worship is so similar is because we got it from them. I don't know why I never realized that, but it got me thinking even more. I think that day Joe ended up giving me some info on the Catholic Church (the same pamphlets they give to people who are joining the Church, which I knew because I'd seen them in Locke's room) and I read through them. At that point I was just trying to get a handle on exactly what "Catholicism" means (in contrast to "United Methodism"). I saw the similarities for myself, now I had to figure out the differences. Sometime in there I remember trying to look up the UMC and find our "creed" of beliefs but I couldn't find anything specific then. Plus my new job was starting so it all got moved to a back burner for a while.

This past weekend, I brought Joe to Caz for fourth of July, and on Sunday he came to church with me. I remember the first time I brought him to my church, way back in March, I was really excited about him coming and meeting everyone, and about seeing what he thought of the whole thing -- basically, finding out what he thought about my religion. And that day he admitted that it was a little strange but it was all right, we had a little talk and I was satisfied. This time the feeling was a lot different -- I was more apprehensive, although I'm not sure if anyone knew that. The reason is because it was Communion Sunday, and this was going to be the first time he saw how we do Communion at my home church. It all went pretty well. We used the traditional "Great Thanksgiving" stuff and we did our thing. I was pretty satisfied with the service, it was afterward that the problem came, and I knew it was going to. In our church on Communion Sunday we've always got bread left over, and generally whoever's around just eats it. It's just what we do, and it never bothered me until this spring, and that stemmed from one of our many talks. Basically the reason that Catholics don't take Communion in our churches (and vice versa) is because they don't think we treat it with the proper respect (in the most basic sense... more detail on this later). I remember writing something in this blog on Holy Thursday about Communion and how I never really thought about it the way I should. And it's true -- we DON'T treat it with the proper respect. At least, my church doesn't, I can't speak for others. It was bothering me Sunday and we ended up having a long talk about things in the car on the way back to Buffalo.

Monday morning I didn't have any work to do, which is a blessing because I had things on my mind that needed attending to. I had questions that needed answering, and it basically came back to, What makes United Methodists, "United Methodists"? And what makes United Methodism the "right" denomination? What do we believe in and why, and why do we do things the way we do? In essence, why should I remain faithful to this denomination, and more generally, to Protestantism? Because sometime before that I had already decided that if I ever WERE to make a switch, it would have to be to Catholicism, because switching from one Protestant denomination to another, in some ways, means you can tailor your religion to your beliefs. But I don't see religion that way, it's not something you're supposed to "tailor" to fit what you think, it's the exact opposite -- God says things are a certain way and you've got to tailor your LIFE to fit that -- and your religion is what reminds you of those ground rules and helps you along your way. I appealed to a former pastor's wife for some answers, besides going after information on my own. Over the course of about three days I read a LOT of stuff. On BOTH sides. I say "I" here, but I should be saying "we", because Joe was right there with me, looking things up and helping me find answers to my questions. In some ways I think I'd already come to a conclusion, but we both wanted to give my roots every chance to defend themselves. We had some really good conversations and BOTH of us learned a lot through it.

Here are some of the things I came up with. Basically, it's just a list of the fundamental differences between Roman Catholicism and United Methodism (since I'd already seen the similarities, obviously the choice of one over the other rested on the things that are different). In the most basic sense:

1. UMC does not believe in transubstantiation
2. UMC has only two sacraments (baptism and Communion), versus RCC's seven
3. UMC does not believe in the Immaculate Conception (this term refers to Mary, not to Jesus, which I didn't realize before)
4. UMC believes in sola scriptura, the scriptures alone are what teach about faith and lead you toward salvation, wheras Catholics look to Scripture AND tradition
5. UMC (Protestantism in general) doesn't follow the Pope (not saying we think he's a bad guy, he's just not the head of our church... we're more democratic, I guess you'd say)

There are more of course, but these are really the big ones.

Here are my conclusions, based on what I've read:

1. Transubstantiation: this means that for Catholics, when the elements of the Eucharist are consecrated, in substance they literally become the body and blood of Christ. First of all, you can't prove whether this does or doesn't happen, so that's not the issue here. The issue is whether the Eucharist is just symbolic of Christ's sacrifice to the people, or whether it is a real sacrifice. Basically, whether Catholics believing that eating our God every week is really a good thing. The UMC says transubstantiation "cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions". No, it cannot be proved. Yes, it is a pretty repulsive idea, but I don't think it goes against the Scripture. Read John, chapter 6. In particular, verses 55-58 or so. I tried refuting it, based only on the "plain words of Scripture", and couldn't. I'm not saying I'm overly fond of the idea, but that's not the point, ya know? All I know is, based on what I read, I can't say they are wrong. As for "overthroweth the nature of a sacrament", well, I'll talk about that in my next point. And I think there are probably a lot of things about religion that "hath given occasion to many superstitions" so I'm not sure that point is really relevant. Also, to expand on what I said earlier about Communion, THIS is the reason non-Catholics can't share in Communion at a Catholic Church -- because the Catholics believe they are actually eating God, the bread becomes the flesh of Christ. As Protestants we don't really understand that, we think it's still just bread -- so it makes sense that we wouldn't be allowed to share in it. On the same token, Catholics don't take Communion in Protestant churchs because in the Protestant church it IS just bread, and that violates the Catholic meaning of the sacrament.

2. Sacraments: the dictionary definition of sacrament is "A rite believed to be a means of or visible form of grace." Based on this definition, I don't see how transubstantiation overthrows the nature of a sacrament. I don't really have much to say as to who's "right" and who's "wrong" on this one. UMC (most Protestants) only hold with two sacraments because they say that those are the only two Jesus actually instituted, according to the Scripture. RCC disagrees. I say that by the definition of a sacrament I have here, all the RCC sacraments are valid; however, I'm pretty sure that the RCC uses a slightly more rigorous definition. That's all well and good. The only thing I really have to say about sacraments is that it somehow surprised me to find that in the UMC matrimony is NOT a sacrament. It seems like a pretty holy thing to me. But then again I never really considered sacraments before. *shrug*

3. Immaculate Conception: this one I'm really not sure about. I just don't know. Things I will say are that Mary was (is?) very important, and very cool. Also (related but not exactly the same thing), I never realized until recently that Catholics believe Mary was ALWAYS a virgin, even after Jesus was born, which seemed preposterous to me when I first heard it, but there is evidence there. It can't be proven either way by scripture. That Mary was free from sin, like I said, I don't know.

4. sola scriptura: fundamental problem is that the Scriptures weren't compiled into one book until I think the fourth or fifth century AD. They existed before then, but just as groups of writings that were dispersed among the different churches. I think I never considered this simply because the UMC history doesn't go back that far... Methodism is only 300 years old, and the United Methodist Church was only born in 1968 (it irks me that I didn't know that). At any rate, all the way back that far we were still part of the Catholic Church. RCC goes by Scripture and tradition because it had to in the beginning. The teachings are what has been around since the beginning, and they actually had to go by "tradition" in order to put together all the Scriptures. At least, that's how I understand it. Also, when Protestants push Scripture, Scripture, Scripture, in some sense it almost seems like they are implying that Catholics don't follow the Scripture, they just blindly do what they're told. In contrast, from a lot of the arguments I've seen, the RCC seems to do a better job of interpreting the Scriptures than we sometimes do. The Catholic arguments I've come across have done a better job of putting certain verses in context, rather than just quoting verses at you. Not to say we don't or can't do that (put things in context), or that some Catholics don't just quote verses. I'm just saying what I've seen. Plus, I tend to think that it's possible that Catholics might have a better understanding of the Scriptures than we do, solely on the basis of the fact that they've been interpreting them for a couple thousand years. But this is just my opinion.

5. The Pope: great guy. ;) No seriously, this wasn't really a point that jumped out at me from my UMC searchings; they don't seem to care much one way or the other. He's the head of the Catholic Church, and we definitely respect him as a holy guy. I guess I never questioned as to whether or not there should be a pope as the head of the church; it just didn't come up. The UMC doesn't have a main head guy, but we do have some kind of hierarchy. Anyway, in looking for some other stuff we ran across an argument as to why there is a pope. It's based in Matthew 16:18. I think it makes sense, in any case, I mean that Jesus put Peter in charge of the Church, and Catholics call Peter the first pope, and all the rest are his successors. I mean, Jesus was in charge right? But when he Ascended, somebody had to be in charge of his Church, otherwise it would have just turned into probably twelve slightly different churches, and stuff would have been lost and it would have fizzled out. Part of Peter's job was to coordinate and keep things together, as well as teach. Ya know? At least that's how I see it.


Other than this stuff, from what I can tell, the actual BELIEFS of the UMC and RCC are the same: we believe in the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's all in the Apostle's Creed, and we both follow that. A lot of things are the same. And after looking for and learning about the major differences (at least, these are the ones I found, maybe I have missed some) I can't conclude that the RCC is WRONG. They have had better arguments than the Protestants, in my opinion, on the big things; the little things don't matter; and the fundamental belief, the actual God that we worship, is one and the same. Plus there is undeniably the history of the Catholic Church. I mean, the UMC at one point in time was a part of it. The RCC actually dates all the way back to the Bible times; they have an actual list of popes that goes all the way back to Peter. In the UMC, many times I have felt like we are just believing in something that happened a long time ago, and the only proof we have that it happened is the Bible. We have to place our faith in the Bible being true. And there's nothing wrong with that, faith is essential to religion. But the Catholic Church actually dates back that far... they actually are connected to those people and that time, they actually existed then. They have records that date back that far, records OTHER than the Bible. This, more than anything else, really somehow made my faith more real to me. It's not just a story that happened sometime way back when.

So from that, I guess what I was looking for was a reason NOT to convert... and I couldn't find one. And I'm sure you could already see where this whole huge thing was leading, but I will say it anyway: I have decided to convert to the Catholic Church. In some ways I'm not sure "convert" is exactly the right word, since I am already Christian and my belief is that I'm really just returning to my roots. But in the literal sense, I intend to convert from a United Methodist into a Catholic. :)

I'm happy in my decision and I'm not going to go and say everyone should do this because I'm right and everything else is wrong. I may be wrong, but I believe that I am right, based on the things I have seen. What I ask is that if you don't know much about the Catholic faith, at least read a little about it (especially if you think I'm doing the wrong thing). Maybe you won't come to the same conclusion I did and that's fine. It's a very personal choice. Just don't pretend you know about something if you don't, and don't put things down just because you don't understand them. If nothing else, reading up on the RCC might arm you better for your own arguments. Just remember to take both sides into consideration. I really feel I've done that, and that's why I'm satisfied with what I'm doing. A little nervous about how people might react to it, yes. But for now, I'm confident that I'm doing the right thing.