The below letter was written in December of 1996. I had started to ask some hard questions that every Protestant must sooner or later ask. Questions like : Who decided which of the hundreds of contending books were accepted as Scripture? I began researching the more ancient traditions of Christendom, focusing primarily on both Roman-Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. As an aid to my research I wrote this letter in two versions, the Roman-Catholic version being addressed to Scott Hahn. The letter was sent to a number of individuals both Protestant and Catholic. Two of those who answered provided some thought-provoking dialogue. Links to these are below.

Let me begin honestly by letting you know up front that I am a Protestant, and should be viewed throughout this letter as a "curious evangelical." Actually, "searching" may be a better term than "curious." Due to Peter Gillquist's book Becoming Orthodox, I have started to research the Church Fathers and early Church history, as well as looking into modern Eastern Orthodoxy, Coptic Christianity, Roman-Catholicism, and Anglicanism. My research has thus far caused me to make many changes in both mind and heart; "concessions," if you will, to the collective witness of early Christianity. In the course of my research I have read numerous Catholic articles accessed on the Internet, including your wife's My Conversion Story. I have also read Mark P. Shea's By What Authority?, and I am currently carefully reading Kelly's classic Early Christian Doctrines.

My principal reason for writing is that there are many issues left to resolve for myself. In
honestly researching the Fathers and related materials, I see the following:

1. There is definitely a concept of Apostolic succession being promoted
which includes the authority of the Bishop.

2. There is most definitely a heavy reliance on Tradition as an authority, being
referred to in various ways ("canon," "rule of faith," etc.).

3. Mary is highly venerated (much more so than in modern Protestant circles!),
with her perpetual virginity being defended by some.

4. Ancient worship was liturgical, with the eucharist being the central activity.

5. Baptism was clearly viewed as much more than a "symbol."

6. So far, it seems that the Fathers unanimously affirm the Real Presence in
communion.

7. There is a definite concept of a "New Testament priesthood."

Now, discovering and admitting the above is not an easy task for a Protestant, as I am sure you know! Yet, having made these doctrinal concessions, there remain several problems. In this letter I will limit myself to problems with modern Roman-Catholicism(a similar letter to Gillquist specifies my questions regarding modern Orthodoxy, which are different in nature).

First of all, while many of the above concepts are present in the Fathers, the concepts of Apostolic succession and Tradition are hard to define in their writings; as yet, I cannot clearly see the modern concepts being held by them. And while worship was liturgical, nearly all modern worship, even Southern Baptist, is. Must our worship today, while perhaps following the same basic pattern, follow the exact same ritual as they?

Concerning Mary, clearly Protestants have reacted in the extreme. However, while some of the Fathers held to her perpetual virginity, this view did not enjoy the priority or the uninamity of some of the other concessions. Furthermore, there is no sign of the Immaculate Conception, her bodily assumption, or her "co-mediatrix" status. Terms like "mother of God" were Christocentric, touching the person of Mary only incidentally.

While the "real presence" idea is unanimous (a view that I, upon reexamination of the scriptural evidence in light of my research, now hold to), the modern concept of "transubstination" is not. In fact, the Orthodox seem much safer here regarding the Presence mystically as a "mystery." Also, I am just beginning to see hints of a "sacrifice of the mass" idea, but nothing conclusively verifying modern Catholic doctrine.

In addition, there are several later concepts that are virtually absent from early Christian witness (to my knowledge). I could make a better case from the Apostolic Fathers for the primacy of Jerusalem than I could for the primacy of Rome. When did the Roman Bishop (an office maintained in all the ancient churches, regardless of geography) become "the Pope"? When did the "Pope" become the "Infallible Vicar of Christ"? The Fathers do not seem to have regarded the Roman Bishop in this light. I have surveyed papal history, and the succession seems somewhat contrived in the early years, with little or nothing being known about the early "popes." Later, such "succession" seems to breakdown at several points with the existence of "anti-popes," "illegally elected popes," and even vacancies in the office!

I could also mention the celibacy of the Catholic Priesthood (seems to be in clear violation of scripture), the doctrine of Purgatory, the acceptance of the Apocrypha (some Fathers actually denied its inspiration), prayer and devotion to Mary, saints and angels, and the veneration of icons and relics.

Also, the "Invisible Church" and "justification by faith" do not seem easily dispensed with. For example, how is one to understand Romans 7 in any other context than that of justification by faith and imputed righteousness? How can the modern Catholic dispute such distinctly Pauline and Augustinian ideas?

The state of modern Catholicism also has me greatly concerned. Liberalism, evolution (i.e., the local statement by the Pope), new age ideas, pluralistic tolerance, etc. all enjoy great influence. All ideas of "separation" seem reserved for the monastically minded.

This pretty much defines where I am at this moment in my search; but I am still researching. These are not so much criticisms, as honest mind and heart struggles. My questions to you are: How did you face these issues as a Protestant and reconcile them with both scripture and the Early Church? Are there any excellent sources that you would recommend to me?

I greatly appreciate your time in reading this letter, and would appreciate a response as your schedule allows.

In Christ Jesus,

William S. Kilgore

MY CORRESPONDANCE WITH JAMES WHITE (PROTESTANT)