You wrote:
“Where we differ is on how these redemptive realities are applied to humanity. Does it come through the sacraments of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, as Rome asserts? Or is it supremely revealed in Scripture and accessed by faith alone, as Protestants believe?”

You have articulated the fundamental difference between the Catholic and the Evangelical, namely, why the Church? Your statement above, without intending I suspect, does an end run around the necessity of the Church, which begs the question, why then the Church? Our Lord spoke of establishing a Church, He gave to that Church authority to bind and loose (whatever that means precisely, it at least means juridical authority), He said, in reference to His Apostles, “He who hears you, hears Me”, indicating that to hear the voice of the Church is to hear the voice of the Lord, on the night of His Resurrection He gave to His Apostles the authority He had to forgive and retain sins and added the words as the Father has sent Me, so I send you to this mission, the implication being that the Church is an extension, across space and time, of the Incarnation, meaning the Church is endowed with Christ’s authority while on earth. So much more could be said but given all that, the question remains for the Evangelical (at least as articulated by you) why then the Church?

Thanks for the interaction. Your quote from the catachism, “The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authories is meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minumum in the sprit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor.”

Your quoting of the chatechism here is what, uniquely Catholic? I’d say not so. Have you as a pastor, spoken, with an authority by virtue of the leading of the Holy Spirit “led someone to Christ” through the sinners prayer? Did you explain to them that realizing that one is a sinner and repenting, and asking Jesus into one’s heart is a necessary minimum in order to grow in love of God and neighbor? It’s the same thing… which goes to Trevin’s question about authority. Is there extra-biblical authority, and if so, where does it reside? In your heart as you read the Scriptures as prompted by the Holy Spirit? Certainly. Is that the only place? Alas, you are correct, we’re singing from a different sheet of music.

Starting with paragraph 2041 in the Catechsim are the so called “precepts” of the church about which it says, “The precepts of the Church are set in the context of a moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life. The *obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authories* is meant to guarentee to the faithful the very *necessary minumum* in the sprit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor.” Subsequent paragraphs proceed to lay out the particular stipulations of which the precepts consist: 1. attend Mass each week, 2. confess your sins to a priest at least once a year, 3. receive Eucharist during the Easter season, 4. observe dietary laws (like abstaining from meat on Fridays during Lent), and 5. give financially to the church.

I have talked with my friends who are Catholic priests asking whether violation of a precept constitutes a *mortal* sin, that is, a transgression that forfeits one’s justification. All of them responded in the affirmative (one quoted the language of the catechism itself, saying it’s the “necessary minimum”). In other words, by eating beef on a Lenten Friday or failing to observe a holy day of obligation (pause for a moment and think about the wording “holy day of obligation”) one is removed from God’s favor.

After two years of interviewing former Catholics across the United States I have found that this precise problem, the guilt impulse, more than anything, drives Catholics away from their parish, often in an evangelical direction.

These demonstrate a mischaracterization of RCC teaching. RCC teaching is NOT about adhering to rules, sprinkled with a liberal dose of guilt. That’s the caricature that’s unfairly and inaccurately perpetuated. Let me give an example… Paragraph 2384 of the Catechism on divorce says, “Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery”

In many, if not most, Evangelical churches, where divorce and remarriage are accepted, some would point to this as putting a guilt trip on those who have been unfortunate enough to go through divorce. Likewise, it’s been said that true jailhouse conversions move toward Evangelicalism because an inward sorrow for one’s sin is all that’s necessary, and that’s it; no restitution, no reaching out for forgiveness. Would it be a legalistic guilt trip to insist on restitution and asking for forgiveness?

The Catholic Church doesn’t push legalism, nor is it manipulative through guilt. That said, what is guilt if not an impulse of one’s conscience? That can be a good thing. I think what Chris doesn’t say is that the RCC is VERY serious about sin and it’s consequences in our lives.

To look at the reasons of those who went from Evangelical to Catholic I would suggest two books:
1) “Return To Rome” by Francis J. Beckworth who was the President of the Evangelical Theological Society at the time of his converting to Catholicism

2) “Rome Sweet Rome: Our Journey to Catholicism” by Scott Hahn who was a Presbyterian minister at the time.

If you and your readers are serious, as Mr. Castaldo indicates of learning things from our Catholic friends then these two books will show the other side of the coin.