An Open Letter to George Butterfield (Part 3)

Feelings

The third reason you gave, George, for your conversion to Catholicism seems to be based upon your feelings. Following are a few relevant comments of yours. You were invited to attend "a midnight mass" on Christmas, and the choir began at 11:30. Now, George, you know that there is no such term as mass in the Bible and that no New Testament churches used choirs; so why would you even consent to visit such an event? You say that, when it came time to enter in, you could not move your feet and that this was the only time in your life it ever happened to you.

So, when you were baptized as a youth, it did not occur; when you were married, it did not occur—only when you were about to observe a Catholic mass. Hmm. You mention wondering, "God, do I think it's wrong to be here?" But you concluded it was not. So, you literally picked up your left foot to get it to move. Some might attribute the stubbornness of your foot as psychological resistance spawned by your conscience. But you overcame it and decided that it was all the anti-Catholic stuff inside of you that literally froze you to the floor. I'm not going to venture an explanation, but were you anti-Catholic? Or had you simply been taught that various Catholic teachings were false?

Then you come to your experiences with Catholic Church buildings. According to your own words, you would enter a Catholic church building to read the Bible, "and, honestly, I would start to have this sense—many times this is a dark church in the middle of the day in a downtown area of a city—and I'd start having this sense that someone was in there." One wonders how you read your Bible in a dark church building—but you continue by saying that you had the feeling that someone was watching you. Ha! You and Rockwell. You say that you would even walk around the building to see if anyone was there. "For years I had this sense. There was a presence." You never had this "experience" in denominational buildings or your own church building. So, again, your feelings persuaded you that Catholicism was right.

You also spoke about how impressed you were when the pope beatified "Mother Teresa" in the fall of 2003. He held hundreds of thousands of people in the palm of his hand. So did Mussolini. Muhammad still inspires millions of people worldwide. Does this fact constitute valid evidence? How many people does Darwin yet influence? How about Mao Tse Tung (as the dictator was formerly known)?

Yet you say, "I am in that grand vision that John had in Revelation—all people, all tribes, all tongues. There they were—all because of this little woman who served Jesus Christ." The gathering in Revelation 7:9 was to honor God and the Lamb—not a human being in the Vatican. I'm sure the sight you saw was phenomenal, but beatification is not a Biblical doctrine, as you know. And only God is worthy of such adoration.

What About…?

The one thing conspicuously missing in your reasons for converting to Catholicism, George, is truth. With so much emphasis upon it in the Bible, how is it that it does not figure in your "conversion"? Solomon wrote that we should buy the truth and never sell it (Pr. 23:23). Jesus said that if we continue in His Word, we would know the truth (John 8:31-32). How is it that you, who grew up in a religious group that emphasized truth, never say, "I learned truths that I was never taught, and they led me to become a Catholic"? Instead we are treated to a foot that refused to move, a feeling of someone watching you, and a ceremony honoring a human being.

You insinuate occasionally that the Scriptures support Catholic doctrine, but you don't cite a verse to substantiate it. As already mentioned, you say you read a book about Mary and realized that all Catholic doctrines could be tied to teachings in the New Testament. Really? Please cite the verse about her alleged perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, and her ascension into heaven.

On one other occasion you discuss the Lord's Supper, which you refer to by the non-Biblical term, the eucharist. That word does appear in the Greek—but it does not refer to the Lord's Supper itself; rather it is the giving of thanks for the Lord's Supper (as well as for many other things). Concerning the Supper and the idea that it is the literal body and blood of Jesus, you say that it was "Scripture study" that got you to that point. George, you need to study that some more.

The Real Presence

This terminology refers to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which states that the bread becomes the literal body of Jesus and the fruit of the vine becomes the literal blood of Jesus. This doctrine overlooks the fact that the Bible uses metaphors; it also ignores one of the most fundamental of commandments, the drinking of blood, which was forbidden under all three covenants.

At the very time God authorized eating the flesh of animals, He prohibited eating the blood with it (Gen. 9:4). When Moses gave Israel the Law, he made it clear: "No one among you shall eat blood" (Lev. 17:12). Under the New Covenant, Christians likewise must abstain "from blood" (Acts 15:20, 29). Now how can they do that and at the same time drink the literal blood of Jesus? One cannot keep both commandments. The fruit of the vine only represents the blood of Christ.

But, George, you showed even further ignorance of what the Scriptures teach. You confess to having read The Anchor Bible Commentary, whose contributors include "Jewish, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Muslim, secular, and other traditions," according to Wikipedia. You read "Father Raymond Brown's" comments on the gospel of John, claiming he had thoroughly prepared you for the teaching in John 6, referring to "eat My flesh" and "drink My blood" (John 6:53-56).

I would be willing to bet that you were taught better than that, George, but if not, it's time you understood that Jesus is not speaking of the Lord's Supper in that passage. He is speaking of the fact that we need to accept Him totally in order to live. But even if He did mean the Lord's Supper, these words remain a metaphor and are not to be understood literally. They would still violate the teaching of eating or consuming literal blood—if Jesus' blood is literal here or in passages actually dealing with the Lord's Supper. As it turns out, George, it is the misunderstanding of the Scriptures that got you to accept Catholic doctrine.

You say that, before your conversion, you were "in a church with almost no theology of the eucharist whatsoever." Is that so? Well, at least we refer to it in a Scriptural manner. It was the Supper that the Lord gave (separate and apart from the Passover meal). You should have explained what you meant by us having no theology, George. Of course, we have a theology; it's just not as elaborate or as false as Catholicism's.

I can't speak for everyone, but most members of the church you left have the Lord's Supper as an important part of our worship every Lord's day. When Luke describes the brethren meeting together on the first day of the week in Troas, he writes that they came together "to break bread" (Acts 20:7). This reference to the partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine is a synecdoche standing for their entire worship, which also included, teaching, praying, giving, and singing. But the remembrance of Jesus' death on the cross for our sins is a prominent part of our worship.

Our theology is that the bread represents His body which was broken on the cross, and the cup represents His blood which was shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. Thus we are reminded every week of the sacrifice Jesus made for our sins. Apparently, others need more theology, such as that His real presence is in the bread and the fruit of the vine. This is not better theology; it is just plain wrong.

You say your wife did not convert to Catholicism for at least five years after you did. She came home once in disbelief, saying, "I didn't see it for years. He said, 'This is My body. This is My blood.'" Yes, He did. Listen closely. This is a metaphor. Jesus said, "I am the door." Was that literal? "I am the good shepherd." "I am the light of the world." Was He saying that He is the literal sun?

Our theology of the Lord's Supper is Biblical. Catholic teaching regarding "the eucharist" does differ, but that does not make it better theology.

George's Advice

At the program's close, the host asked you, "George, what would you say to members of the churches of Christ?" You said a few good things such as, "Keep believing in Jesus." We never thought of doing anything else. "Keep praying." Ditto. "Keep loving the Lord." To stop would be fatal. "And I would encourage you, get a copy of the catechism of the Catholic Church. Read it." Whoa! Wait a minute. Where does this come from?

Does the New Testament tell us to read a Catholic catechism? What if we read Luther's catechism? Would that be just as good? How about the Baptist Manual or the Methodist Discipline? Why not the Book of Mormon or a book on Scientology? The point is: Why do we need anything in addition to the Bible?

You add, "I've known Christian brothers who read the catechism of the Catholic Church, and preached and taught out of it for years." You must be kidding. Could you furnish a few names? Many of us who have been preaching for half a century have never heard of such a critter. I have heard of one or two who got their sermons off the Internet—false doctrine and all—but never from a Catholic catechism.

Much in the lengthy Catholic catechism reflects Bible teaching, but some of it cannot be found anywhere within the pages of Holy Writ, such as: "An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin. Indulgences may be applied to the living or the dead." Where in the Scriptures can these ideas be found? They cannot.

You next say, "Learn more about your faith." How about if we grow in the faith through a study of the Word? "And there are resources in the Catholic Church that can help you—even if you never could imagine becoming a Catholic. We have resources to help you. The Catechism is one of them…." Thanks for the admission, George. The Bible will make someone a Christian, but you need extra resources to become a Catholic.

"…but, then, the Bible. Hang in there with the Bible. You're not gonna go wrong." I'm glad you closed with a true statement—even though you do try to get people to go astray with a Catholic catechism first. I would just add that people will not go wrong if they study the Bible—and only the Bible. You admit that reading other materials contributed to the change you made—a commentary, a book on Mary, etc.

Probably, more could be said, but I have written sufficiently to question your actions. That you have ended up where you are greatly saddens me, George, because you have departed from the truth. I can still picture the George I knew in his twenties, when you were faithful. Is it too late for you to return?