# Friend Wants to Convert to RC



## JM (Apr 5, 2012)

Saturday I'm attending Mass with a Presbyterian friend of mine who wants to convert to Roman Catholicism. After Mass we are heading out for coffee. Any suggestions on what points I should hit on during our conversation? Any particular aspects of the Mass, besides the blatant blasphemy of re-sacrificing Christ, that I should bring up? 

Thanks.


----------



## JML (Apr 5, 2012)

I agree with Josh. Can you not have that discussion with him without attending mass? Also, if he is Presbyterian, is his session aware of his desires?


----------



## Zach (Apr 5, 2012)

I will certainly pray for this situation, Jason. It certainly is a difficult situation for you. I don't have much to say regarding what to touch on in conversation, but I think it would be helpful for others to know the reason why your friend wants to convert to Roman Catholicism so that they can specifically address those topics.


----------



## Somerset (Apr 5, 2012)

Praying that God will give you wisdom and guidance.


----------



## Edward (Apr 5, 2012)

Joshua said:


> I humbly suggest you refuse to be part of such idolatry, albeit winsomely and with gentleness?



I'm not so sure about the 'winsomely and with gentleness' part. Sometimes you need to hit the mule with a 2x4 to get its attention before you start a friendly discussion about pulling the wagon.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Apr 5, 2012)

Joshua said:


> As for attending the mass, may I humbly suggest you refuse to be part of such idolatry, albeit winsomely and with gentleness?



I also echo this recommendation. I encourage you to make a refusal to be present at the mass a part of your witness. In the least, consider the arguments of English martyr John Bradford in his work, "The Hurt of Hearing Mass"(see p. 297), before you attend.


Reformed Baptist apologist James White has done a couple of good debates with Roman Catholics which might be helpful to review. Sometimes it is helpful to listen through some of the cross examination to try and wrap your mind around the Romanist way of thinking.

Topic: Predestination and Free Will
Participants: James White vs. Robert Sungenis (Roman Catholic)
Link: Audio, Video (only cross-exam is available in video)

Topic: The Bodily Assumption of Mary
Participants: James White vs. Robert Sungenis (Roman Catholic)
Link: Audio

Topic: The Mass
Participants: James White vs. Robert Sungenis (Roman Catholic)
Link: Video (only cross-exam is available in video)


----------



## John Bunyan (Apr 5, 2012)

Why is he willing to become a roman catholic, in the first place? Is it because he believes it is the one true holy apostolic church? Is he convinced of saintly intercessory prayer, or the assumption of Mary, or of the immaculate conception? Is he simply willing to go to a epicospal system? It would be really helpful to know why he wants to become a RC.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 5, 2012)

JM, prayed.

I would offer this distinction to what has been said above. Go, but don't participate.

Not going to the mass would be seen as rejecting your friend. That will only confirm stereotypes in his mind and serve to limit your ability to speak into his life. Since you are a friend, and not his spiritual leader (pastor or elder) your presence is primarily about him, and not the ritual.

Don't participate. Just politely sit and listen. By not participating (while present) you are clearly stating that you disagree, but care about him.

At this point he needs to hear (again) the truth. But he needs to hear it with love.

For what it's worth


----------



## A5pointer (Apr 6, 2012)

Respectfully to those who advise not going to mass, I think that Paul would not have a problem with attending in the effort to "win" a convert. See 1 Corinthians. As to what to discuss. It seems most RCs are not aware of the churches official position on justification. I would discuss that given it is central to correct understanding of the gospel.


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 6, 2012)

A5pointer said:


> Respectfully to those who advise not going to mass, I think that Paul would not have a problem with attending in the effort to "win" a convert. See 1 Corinthians. As to what to discuss. It seems most RCs are not aware of the churches official position on justification. I would discuss that given it is central to correct understanding of the gospel.


Bruce, I appreciate your desire to advise patience and charity, but I have a hard time picturing Paul sitting in a temple of Diana watching the ritual perversion that was their worship. Diana worshippers were idolators who abused their own bodies in their worship. RC's are idolators who abuse Christ in their worship. Which is worse?


----------



## moral necessity (Apr 6, 2012)

I agree with Bruce above. I would stay away from the external Catholic issues and deal with this alone: "Why would you trade the righteousness of Christ for a righteousness of your own that attempts to add itself to his? Is his rightousness alone not enough for you? And, when you begin to pursue your own righteousness, you are leaving your trust in his alone to be your covering, and are exhibiting unbelief." Hebrews 6 is pertinent.

Blessings and many prayers!


----------



## A5pointer (Apr 6, 2012)

Brad said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> > Respectfully to those who advise not going to mass, I think that Paul would not have a problem with attending in the effort to "win" a convert. See 1 Corinthians. As to what to discuss. It seems most RCs are not aware of the churches official position on justification. I would discuss that given it is central to correct understanding of the gospel.
> ...



Brad I can see how you would see this as disturbing. However, Paul seems to go to great lengths showing that he was willing to eat and drink with all peoples regardless of there superstitions in order to evangelize. He points out that we all know there are no other gods/idols. The only thing he forbids is eating meat in the presence of idols. In my humble opinion I do not see attending mass in an effort to evangelize a specific person as a wrong activity. In fact I appreciate Jason's creativity and willingness to do so. I do though understand where you and others are coming from on this and respect that view. Not sure though that the Diana/mutilation comparison is relevant to RC's confused theology.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 6, 2012)

Presence is not necessarily participation, but it could be misconstrued, particularly if one of the goals is to note the very blasphemy and idolatry you would be witnessing. Given one had a choice here, there were surely better venues to witness the truth to this fellow? However, if you go, I would make it very clear just how blasphemous the Mass is. If you were not in that venue, one might ignore the "externals" and focus on the true gospel; but if you go, not noting it would sort of be like witnessing to a friend, while going with him to an adult film; you couldn't easily not mention the offensive content. In both cases it seems to undercut the witness; i.e. "how bad could it be?" since you went. Both also presume one can withstand any of the respective temptations that would be parcel to each.


----------



## KSon (Apr 6, 2012)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Presence is not necessarily participation, but it could be misconstrued, particularly if one of the goals is to note the very blasphemy and idolatry you would be witnessing. Given one had a choice here, there were surely better venues to witness the truth to this fellow? However, if you go, I would make it very clear just how blasphemous the Mass is. If you were not in that venue, one might ignore the "externals" and focus on the true gospel; but if you go, not noting it would sort of be like witnessing to a friend, while going with him to an adult film; you couldn't easily not mention the offensive content. In both cases it seems to undercut the witness; i.e. "how bad could it be?" since you went. Both also presume one can withstand any of the respective temptations that would be parcel to each.



I would second Chris's qualifier regarding pointing out the blasphemy of the ceremony if you so choose to attend. If your friend is regenerate, the Third Person of the Trinity who has taken up residence within him will be at work as he witneses and thinks on these blasphemies. If witnessing such things seems not to elicit such a work, the concern for your friend must run much deeper.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Apr 6, 2012)

A5pointer said:


> However, Paul seems to go to great lengths showing that he was willing to eat and drink with all peoples regardless of there superstitions in order to evangelize. He points out that we all know there are no other gods/idols. The only thing he forbids is eating meat in the presence of idols.



Perhaps we are at odds concerning the nature of the Mass. I would heartily affirm the Heidelberg Catechism's understanding:



> The Heidelberg Catechism, Question 80: What difference is there between the Lord's Supper and the Popish mass?
> 
> Answer: The Lord's supper testifies to us, that we have a full pardon of all sin by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross; and, that we by the Holy Ghost are ingrafted into Christ, who, according to his human nature is now not on earth, but in heaven, at the right hand of God his Father, and will there be worshipped by us. But the mass teaches, that the living and dead have not the pardon of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is also daily offered for them by the priests; and further, that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and therefore is to be worshipped in them; so that the mass, at bottom, is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and *an accursed idolatry*.



I'd like to add some further comments regarding the idea of being present at the Mass but not participating. In each commandment of God's Law, "where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded" (cf. WLC 99). The First, Second, and Third Commandments require you to disapprove, detest, and oppose all idolatry, false worship, and blasphemy, lest you partake of these horrible sins in others by your silence (cf. WLC 108, HC 99). Hence, one may not be physically present at the Mass as a mere neutral observer. You should be ready to publicly oppose the idolatry of the Mass if you physically attend. Generally, I would just urge you to find another way of meeting with your friend and discussing his struggles.


----------



## Moireach (Apr 6, 2012)

A5pointer said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > A5pointer said:
> ...



Eat and drink, by all means! Join in with their communal blasphemy, absolutely not! Please Jason, do NOT attend mass. It is a completely unnecessary compromise that no Christian should make. Christian don't compromise to evangelise. And when they try to, the compromise negates the evangelism. He's obviously a nominal Presbyterian. I think you can only research Roman Catholicism and come very prepared to your coffee (I hope!) with him.

Can I suggest that the Berean Beacon website is a brilliant resource for Reformed material on Roman Catholicism. Read up on some of these articles and bring before him how absolutely different Roman Catholicism is from Christianity. It is not just confused theology, it is the absolute opposite of Christianity, with the anti-Christ at its head. And if that sounds extreme then it certainly didn't to those men who drew up our respective Confessions, so don't write me off on that.

http://www.bereanbeacon.org/

Just to clarify, I know you wouldn't "join in", but being there at all isn't right because of the nature of the blasphemy.


----------



## J. Dean (Apr 6, 2012)

Could he go to the mass while giving his friend the understanding that he does not agree with and therefore will not participate in the particularly Catholic elements of the mass?

And I agree: the reason why this friend wants to convert is something to establish for a basis of conversation.

I've found that people usually convert from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism for one of the following reasons:
1.) The Protestants they know give a false analysis of Catholicism. A woman I know (a former Presbyterian incidentally) told my wife that she was lied to about Catholicism, that people in her church told her that Catholics do not believe in grace. Well, obviously anybody who gives Catholicism half a serious look knows that this is not true, and while it doesn't justify jumping ship for Semi-pelagianism, it sure doesn't help one's case to mischaracterize another religion, even if that religion is false.

2.) The tradition and elegance of the Catholic rituals and artistry. This gives people a sense of stability, and I find this to be a reason among many who come to Catholicism from mainline evangelicalism, particularly from churches that use the charismatic/pentecostal styles of contemporary worship and "let the Spirit run the service." That change from a lack of stability in worship to a carefully ordered service containing centuries old rites and symbolism can be a source of refreshing grounding, as the traditions in Catholicism give the congregants a real sense of the magisterial and the concrete, and do so in an elegant and attractive way. Read about the construction of the ancient cathedrals, and read about the reasoning behind their designs; it's a fascinating insight into the minds of the architects who wanted the church to truly have a sense of the otherworldly within its walls. You look at the beautiful carvings of the stations of the cross (Yes, I realize some here believe it violates their interpretation of the second commandment, but putting that aside..) and you have a visual aide that puts faces to Biblical names and events. As somebody who has been inside numerous churches, including traditional Catholic and Orthodox ones, I can completely see why people are drawn to it and then look upon their modern evangelical churches with contempt. Unlike the modern church building which functions more like a convention center auditorium, the old churches were fashioned out of sincere worshipful attitudes (even if at times that worship was misguided) and was intended to put a worshipful attitude into those who come through its doors.

You can accuse Rome of having a false gospel, and you can accuse them of having erroneous doctrines on several fronts, and I agree completely. But I will tip my hat to them for bringing beauty to worship and giving a sense of majesty and transcendence to Christianity.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 6, 2012)

*[Moderator]This thread is getting sidetracked. Jason asked for advice about the conversation, and any information about that is tending to get drowned out in the related controversy. If the controversy continues, the thread will be split.[/Moderator]*


----------



## dudley (Apr 6, 2012)

*I write extensively on the Internet of my conversion to Protestantism use my material*



KSon said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Presence is not necessarily participation, but it could be misconstrued, particularly if one of the goals is to note the very blasphemy and idolatry you would be witnessing. Given one had a choice here, there were surely better venues to witness the truth to this fellow? However, if you go, I would make it very clear just how blasphemous the Mass is. If you were not in that venue, one might ignore the "externals" and focus on the true gospel; but if you go, not noting it would sort of be like witnessing to a friend, while going with him to an adult film; you couldn't easily not mention the offensive content. In both cases it seems to undercut the witness; i.e. "how bad could it be?" since you went. Both also presume one can withstand any of the respective temptations that would be parcel to each.
> ...




Jason I agree with Chris and Kipp above. May I also suggest to you ,why not share my posts and my 8 blogs here on the PB with your RC friend…..he will see that I was a RC once also and maybe will begin to question his beliefs on why he has decided to become a Roman catholic.……just a thought…Dudley

I also decided to give public testimony and the decided testimony of the truth I have found in the Reformed Protestant fold. I write extensively on the Internet of my conversion to Protestantism and the Reformed faith. Go to "Google" type in conversion stories from Roman catholic to Protestant and the stories that pop up are just the opposite, Protestant to Roman catholic! However type in Dudley Davis, Reformed Presbyterian Protestant and my testimonies are all over the Internet. 

I the opposite of Scott Hahn,( a Presbyterian minister who converted to Roman Catholicism) I was a Roman catholic until a few years ago and now a Presbyterian and staunch defender of the Reformed Faith. I am now a Calvinist Presbyterian Protestant. A series of circumstances led me to become one of the elect by adoption and the grace of God. I thus am now a Protestant and a Presbyterian. 

Please share with him the following and some of my other writings that you think may help. I write extensively on the internet not just the PB of my renunciation of Roman Catholicism and her pope and my embracing the Reformed faith as a Presbyterian. Please share the following and my other writings that you think may help.

Having been a Roman Catholic all my life I can now see many of the errors of Rome. I am well versed in the Roman Catholic theology. When I began my study of Protestantism I studied Luther first and Lutheran theology and attended Lutheran as well as Episcopalian services. They are both similar in many ways to the Roman church. I became very interested when I discovered Calvin and Knox and the Presbyterian Church and the Protestant Reformed Theology. My interest, study and then joining in worship led me to decide to convert to the Presbyterian Protestant Church. I now believe the Reformed Faith and doctrines of the Presbyterian Protestant fold to be the most solidly Biblical. They also in my mind explain salvation history and covenants better than any other method of theology. 

As a Roman Catholic I always thought it was the Protestant fold that strayed, I now see that the Roman church strayed. I believe I am born again in the Gospel of Christ. I believe I am a better Christian. I now stand for the truth of salvation by faith alone, through free and sovereign grace alone, by the finished work of Christ alone. I Believe Rome is wrong in not accepting the doctrine. 
Justification is seen by Protestants as being the theological fault line that divided Roman Catholic from Protestant during the Reformation. Authority however is still a major dividing line. 
I initially left Roman Catholicism in 2006 because of my disillusionment with the current pope, Joseph Ratzinger, who I believed then and also now was returning the Roman catholic church to a pre Vatican II mentality. I became an Episcopalian at first at the invitation of friends who were Episcopalian. To me being Episcopalian was still Roman Catholicism without the pope. I knew I technically became a Protestant when I became an Episcopalian however I did not really know what being Protestant meant. 

As I studied Protestantism further I began to understand the Protestant doctrine of Justification and began to see the fallacy of Roman catholic teaching on Justification. It was at that time I truly became a Protestant and understood what it meant to be Protestant. I could relate with John Calvin when he said I had a "true Protestant conversion." 

Justification by faith alone is the essential difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant church. R.C. Sproul explains this well: "The Roman Catholic view of justification [is that] God declares a person to be just when justice (or righteousness) inheres in the person. The person, under divine analysis or scrutiny, is found to be just. God justifies the just...By stark and radical contrast the Reformation view of justification is that God declares a person just based upon something [external to them], something not inherent in the person: the imputed righteousness of Christ." 

Romans 4:5 very clearly teaches that we are at the same time justified and sinners: "Now to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness." Notice that it says "God justifies the ungodly." That is, justification respects the ungodly. Therefore, justification cannot be based upon anything inherent in us--because we are ungodly when we are first justified. Also notice that justification is given to the one who does not work for it, but to the one who believes. Therefore, you do not earn justification through good works. Instead, it is given to you simply through faith.

There are also many verses which speak of this righteousness as being given to us, indicating that it is imputed. Romans 4:6 says that God "reckons [or imputes] righteousness apart from works." Romans 5:17 says that believers receive the "gift of righteousness" from Christ. 
There is one more thing we need to keep very clear about faith: it is not something worthy of merit that earns us justification. It is connects us with Christ's righteousness, but does not earn us Christ's righteousness. Faith is an act, but it is not a work. In other words, God doesn't give justification because of any value in your faith--because your faith is a such a great thing that it deserves reward--but because it is how you are united to Christ. 

As a Roman catholic I needed to belong to the Roman Church to be saved. I had to do good works and work with much effort and much guilt to save myself. I know now as a Protestant that none of this could save my soul. Salvation was bestowed because of God’s mercy. Salvation by Faith alone...the Protestant doctrine of Justification. I now understand the scripture when it says: 

In Titus Ch. 2 v. 11, I read: “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.” 
These words make it very clear that Salvation is by Grace. It is God reaching down to the helpless sinner, revealing to him that He loves him so much that He sent His Son to the cross. There, He took the sinner’s place by becoming his substitute. He paid the penalty for sin that the sinner should have paid. 

The following also attests to the Protestant doctrine of Justification. It also attests to me why the Church of Rome is wrong in condemning the Protestant doctrine and distorting the truth. It is why I am now a Protestant, a Presbyterian and why I renounced the Roman Catholic church. 

In Titus Ch. 3 v. 4 - 5, I read: “But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us...”. 

The words of Romans Ch. 3 v. 24, summed it all up. They read: “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” I could now see that God gave Salvation FREELY to sinful man. The sinner was not required to work for it. 

I decided to become a Presbyterian because I asked myself "Either the Roman Catholic Church is very right, OR if it’s not, it’s very wrong?" I discovered after serious contemplation, prayer and study that I came to believe it was wrong and a false teacher of the true Gospel of Christ. There can no in-between on this issue. I could see and now understand that the Roman catholic doctrine Transubstantiation denied the sovereignty of God. The Reformed theology is the only Protestant theology that praises the sovereignty of God and the governmental structure is biblically sound. When I commune as Presbyterian I believe Christ is present to us spiritually because we ascend to “the Giver” of the Lords Supper and not try to bring Him down to our finite condition and place him in a piece of bread wafer to be worshipped in a gold monstrance. Which is in my mind now a violation of the 2nd commandment ’thou salt not make any graven images“. Of course I do not have to explain to you that even here the Roman catholic church has distorted the 10 commandments in order to justify their distorted and corrupted papist teachings. I believe the Presbyterian Fold is the pure and true Christian church. We are as you said in your opening statement to me “both truly catholic and apostolic”. I agree completely with you. 
I am a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian today because I surrender to the objective truth I found in Protestantism and the Reformed faith. I am an ex Roman Catholic. I renounced Roman Catholicism after I found this truth. "If you also see the glory of this truth of justification by faith alone in Christ alone, then raise up the white flag of surrender and stop fighting ..." 

Was the Protestant Reformation necessary? I believe so. The communication and purity of the Gospel was at stake. Amidst all the conciliation's going on today, we need to keep this in mind: things have not changed that much." 

It is why I left the Roman catholic church and why I am now a Reformed Protestant. It is why I am now a Communing member of the Presbyterian church. 

In faith,
Dudley Davis


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 6, 2012)

Jason:

Whose idea was this? That is, did you or your friend suggest that the both of you attend a mass of the RCC and discuss it afterward? I am assuming that you didn't suggest such (if you did: why?). Assuming that your friend suggested it: why? What's he trying to do? Convert you? Get you to go with him so that his conscience could be salved? He is a Presbyterian, after all. Does his session approve? Do they even know what he's thinking? You should, above all, be pointing him to talk with his pastor and elders. It is much more their business than yours. 

Even if this is idolatrous and to be avoided on that ground alone, with which I agree, what's the point otherwise? I can't think it anything but manipulative on his part: all the parts of the liturgy becomes a grand distraction from the insurmountable doctrinal problems. Why do you need to go there to discuss this with him? That's the question. He's not wanting you to go to have his mind changed, but yours. Neither of you are RCC. Why the field trip? Don't give in to the notion that without the field trip you can't critique the RCC biblically. 

I don't mean, dear brother, to come accross as so hard-edged here, but you are being manipulated and I counsel you to resist it. What's wrong with the RCC? They deny the sole-sufficiency of the person and work of Jesus Christ as applied in and by the power of the Holy Spirit to the Father's children burdened and heavy-laden with sin, incapable of saving themselves, reliant on God alone to do so. So much in the "celebration of the mass" will deny that. I don't think that your friend really wants you to go the mass with him and give a detailed critique of the service with respect to all these and associated errors. If you are not competent to do that (and most untrained folk are not), don't even go down that path. 

Pray with and for your friend. Encourage him to speak to his pastors and elders. Challenge him with respect to how Rome corrupts the gospel. Don't agree to accompany him on a part of a journey that he should not be taking.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Moireach (Apr 6, 2012)

*Moireach*



J. Dean said:


> Could he go to the mass while giving his friend the understanding that he does not agree with and therefore will not participate in the particularly Catholic elements of the mass?
> 
> And I agree: the reason why this friend wants to convert is something to establish for a basis of conversation.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure if I am allowed to respond to this, but I think it is related because Jason's understanding Catholicism and how it is perceived by Protestants is important, and I think Mr Dean is sorely mistaken here. That woman was not lying. She had been told Roman Catholic's don't believe in grace. Quite rightly so! What she hadn't done was research what "grace" they do claim to believe in. Of course they use the word grace, but their "grace" is not Biblical grace at all.


----------



## JM (Apr 6, 2012)

Thank you all for your comments and prayers. There is much here to read over, listen to and digest. Thank you.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 6, 2012)

It's unlikely we'll get better advice than has already been given:
1. Don't go to mass.
2. Find out what is attractive about Rome to him and respond to that with the Gospel. The Reformers can provide fruitful assistance on almost all conceivable polemical points.

Thread closed.

*Update: Reopened at user request so update could be given.*


----------



## JM (Apr 7, 2012)

Thank you Ruben for reopening this thread. 

I just wanted to give everyone a quick update. We did not attend Mass even though I had every intention of going. I had forgotten this was "holy" week and the service times would be different so decided to go for coffee and ended up talking for almost 4 hours. We had a good back and forth. The problem my buddy is having is with authority. He made a "catholic answers" kind of argument for apostolic succession and the keys given to Peter being passed down to successive popes. We discussed the early church fathers, the claims of other bodies of traditional churches (Coptic, Eastern Orthodoxy), Eastern "fathers' vs. Western, etc. We have agreed to continue the discussion at another time with a focus on justification. I hope to have notes comparing RC teaching with scripture and the confessions at our next visit. 

I really wish we had gone to Mass. The actual performance of Mass to a regenerated believe, one who understands the biblical teaching of justification, finds it repugnant. Like most Prots who have issues with authority and look to Rome, they often idealize the Mass and only when they view it does their idealism come crashing down. He voiced this very sentiment. He has avoided attending Mass because he knows the fruit of false religious practice having experienced it in very liberal Anglican churches. I had given a few examples from my own attendance at Mass when I had first become a Christian and struggled to find a church to attend. 

Anyways, I wanted to say thank you folks for the help. 


jm
PS: His Pastor does know that I am talking with him and I have his blessings and encouragement to continue doing so.


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 7, 2012)

You go, Jason. I am confident your counsel to him will be edifying. Say hello to Cyg for me.


----------

