From March ’08.
Because I’ve been wrestling with Protestant/Catholic issues throughout this past year, I receive a lot of email from those who have moved outside of their lifelong evangelicalism and somewhere within sight of the catholic tradition, if not the Roman Catholic church.
Some of that mail takes me to blogs and the writing of people who are in a tortured state of mind and heart. Some are ministers strongly drawn to Roman Catholicism. They have read Hahn and Howard. They are listening to The Coming Home Network on EWTN. They are tired of evangelicalism’s circus atmosphere, its deficits and its many problems.
The unity, antiquity and beauty of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy stand in stark contrast to the divisions, innovations and shallowness of evangelicalism. I have no problem understanding this attraction. It seems that Luther made a terrible mistake, and every person who “goes home†can take satisfaction in healing that historically disastrous and unnecessary rift.
When you are reading those books and thinking about the many strong suits of Catholicism, it’s hard to feel good about being a Protestant. A recent “Coming Home to the Roman Catholic†church television ad recited so many wonderful things about Roman Catholicism- without a hint of the other side of the coin- that it was difficult to see why anyone would want to remain a Protestant.
But there is a different way to approach this situation than the back and forth of pleading apologetic arguments, collections of verses or authority claims. Without insult to any Roman Catholic or criticism of anyone who has converted or will convert in the future, I want to say some things to the rest of us.
The rest of us? Yes, those of us who are Protestant and will remain Protestant for the rest of our lives. Not because we are angry, but because we are “happy enough†to be Protestant.
We have varying feelings about Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and the various divisions in Christianity, but we are not going to change our place as Protestants and evangelicals. We have deep respect and appreciation for the antiquity of these Christian traditions, and we have abandoned the idea that we are able to understand evangelicalism without them. But we are not changing churches because we believe we are part of the church.
We believe that the churches we have grown up in, the churches that we have served and that have served and nurtured us, are the churches God himself sovereignly brought us into. The debate about “what is the true church?†is not a compelling one for us, because we believe that all of us who belong to Christ are joined with him in his church.
Phrases about ecclesial bodies or less than fully communing churches are not heard by us in the same way they are heard by those who have a Roman Catholic view of the church. These are our churches and we love them. They have given Christ to us and many of us have given our lives in service and devotion to them. Unlike some of our brothers and sisters, we do not want to leave our Protestant churches behind, but we want to see the presence of Christ among his people in them more deeply manifested and demonstrated. We are “happy enough†to be embraced by imperfect Protestant churches and people as we make our pilgrim journey.
We love our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters, and respect the godly spiritual leaders and Biblical voices within those traditions. We are embarrassed by much of the anti-Catholicism that exists in evangelicalism, though we understand it as we understand the anti-Protestantism that exists within some of the Roman Catholic community.
We are “Happy Enough†Protestants. A strange title, I know, but an important one. We are happy enough as Protestants to remain Protestants, and we are happy to be protestant. We seek to practice a kind of Protestantism that is not characterized by unrest, anxiety and anger in relations with Catholicism. Our goal, in simple terms, is to be happy to be Protestant because we are happy in Christ and the Gospel that we find in Protestantism, even with all its flaws.
We are not seeking to evangelize Roman Catholics or to sell our churches as superior. We regret the rhetoric that commodifies church and Christian experience to “mine is better than yours.†We seek, instead, to embody what Paul so often talked about in his letters: Joy in Christ in the midst of a historically imperfect church.
We regret that for many of our Protestant brothers and sisters, it has not been possible to be Protestant and be faithful to Christ or happy in the church. We may have found this difficult and discouraging at times, but we have not found it impossible. We believe our Protestant experience can be filled with Christ, the legacy of the whole church and the distinctives of both evangelicalism and catholicism.
We are “Happy Enough Protestants†because we believe that God, in his providence, called us to this part of his one, holy, catholic and apostolic body/church. We accept, even celebrate, his providence in allowing us to hear the Gospel clearly and simply in Protestantism, to be taught in its churches and schools, allowed to serve in its ministries, sit at the feel of its scholars and pastors, be inspired by its mission’s legacy, learn from its saints, be challenged by its openness to the Spirit and renewed by its ability to return, again and again, to the Bible for authority, nurture and truth.
We recognize the checkered, broken past of Protestantism, but we are happy in much of what we find in that past. We believe that though they were sinners, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Wesley, Whitefield, Cramner, the Puritans, Spurgeon, Asbury, Ryle, The Baptists, Edwards and many other Protestant lights were called and gifted of God for the building up of his church and the equipping of his saints. We believe that within the Protestant tradition, God continues to call, equip, build, empower and demonstrate the presence of the Kingdom through his people.
We are “happy enough†to not despise ourselves or torture ourselves over what is missing in our tradition. We will, in a joyous spirit, work for restoration and the strengthening of the church. We pray that the work of the Spirit will unite all churches with the riches of Christ, but we believe those riches are accessible to us all by grace through faith and in the humble reception of the word of God.
We are “happy enough†to rejoice in the many statements of gracious inclusion and respect that have been offered in the ecumenical spirit, most particularly by the Roman Catholic church in Vatican II. But we are also “happy enough†to say we view the reformation as those who have benefited from it, and feel the responsibility to treasure and protect what was good and continually necessary in it. We believe that a tragic necessity need not remove all joy and mutual affection, nor abrogate the presence of all that is of value. We are determined in generosity and charity, to not allow all that the Reformation recovered to vanish in debates about authority and antiquity. God has sovereignly and graciously been at work in Protestantism, as well as in all Christian traditions.
In a spirit of mutual respect, we intend to be “happy enough†to tell the truth. As we repent of much in our tradition and as we see what is valuable in other traditions, we are unapologetic that much in our tradition exists more robustly and helpfully in Protestantism than elsewhere. It serves no good purpose to ignore the participation of laity, the starting of new churches, the extent of theological education, the use of congregational music, the depth of rigorous scholarship, the faithfulness in persecution, the emphasis on reform, the use of innovation in ministry or the healthy focus on personal evangelism. We will be “happy enough†to say these Protestant legacies are not to be abandoned or minimized, but should be gifts to the whole church.
At the points of our greatest disagreements, over authority, sacraments and justification, it is our prayer that we will all be “happy†in our convictions, and that should we find ourselves speaking over the greatest points of our separation, we will now have no agenda beyond living in the fruit of a joyful, “happy†experience of the truth. That someone should disagree with us should not send us into a tailspin of uncertainty or an attack-mode of anxiety. We are determined to be “happy enough†to speak of our convictions positively, winsomely and certainly without embarrassment before other Christians
I believe there are likely thousands of us who are “happy enough†Protestants and will remain so throughout our lives. We are not preparing to go to Rome, nor are we asking Rome to become Protestant. Our conversations should not be dominated by such an agenda and we repent of those occasions when such has been the case. We seek the day we can recognize Christ in one another, stand in the church of Jesus on both sides of the Tiber (and elsewhere) and be grateful to God for what he has done and what we all appreciate in our varying and various traditions. May all of us grow in the grace and goodness of Jesus and the mission of his people.
The Internet Monk Archives 
“Bill: Thanks for the laugh. How true that the pacifists do not have blood on their hands.”
This is not entirely self-evident. A case could be made that extreme pacifism encourages aggression, resulting in increased bloodshed.
I don’t want to start picking on the Anabaptists now because I agree with Michael’s concept of a larger unity. But I think that the question of whether one is responsible for the shedding of blood is not identical to the question of whether one has personally taken up arms.
Besides that, I’m sure there have been some pacifist Christians who have violated their beliefs, who ought not be disowned by their pacifist brethren.
LikeLike
“We do allow for God working without using the sacraments. (and consider a baby baptized by a lay woman while in the arms of a rabbi to be valid.)”
Anna,
Your example doesn’t work. Baptism is a sacrament requiring both proper form and proper intent. It just doesn’t require a priest to take effect. How is that an example of God working without the sacraments?
Not that I don’t agree with your main point – God is not at all limited to the sacraments. However the sacraments are revealed as beneficial graces, while other graces beyond the “visible boundaries” of the Church are extraordinary, novel and complete mysteries.
LikeLike
Sue,
Your observation about the college professor should be in the irony thread as well. He’s a Baptist and they tend to not need the physical for salvation and his idea is harsher than even us Catholics. We do allow for God working without using the sacraments. (and consider a baby baptized by a lay woman while in the arms of a rabbi to be valid.)
BIG GRIN
Isn’t God marvelous.
LikeLike
Bryan,
Happy Easter to you as well. You are correct in saying I agree with some what you are saying but not all. I am involved with indenominational ministries and believe me I have heard allot of much more outraggious claims than what you have put froth by members of other churches.
I am sure you don’t like it when some Protestants say Roman Catholics aren’t really Christians. They have been taught that by their church. They will explain to me why it is true. I don’t argue I just say, “hum, I know many Roman Catholics who are very profound Christians”.
When I was in college, I had a Baptist Prof who explained to our class that if you weren’t totally submerged when you were Baptized you would go to Hell when you died. After other Baptists asked him to stop saying that because that wasn’t everyones tradition and he wouldn’t, six Baptists got up and walked out of the class. There was a grade punishment for doing that so it cost them something.
Whenever I am in a situation where it’s easy just to let it go and not defend fellow Christians I think of them.
I will let God straighten it out. His ways are to wonderful for me to understand.
LikeLike
Sue,
Happy Easter!
The RC Church makes this claim but can not PROVE it. It is what you BELIEVE to be true. But what if it isn’t?
I agree that the Catholic Church cannot “prove” that she is the Church that Christ founded, if we are using the term ‘prove’ to mean demonstrate indubitably. But with that sense of the word ‘prove’, I don’t think anyone can prove that Jesus rose from the dead, or ascended into heaven. Of course, we would agree that the evidence fits with it. (cf. Strobel’s book) But, if one is coming from a Humean or naturalistic worldview, the data can be explained in other ways. (Just go to the main atheistic websites to see that.) This is why we (Christians) believe that faith is a gift from God. Faith is not reducible to reason; that would be rationalism. The irreducibility of faith to reason does not mean that faith is irrational, or that faith amounts to fideism, i.e. a complete separation of faith from reason. Faith does not reduce either to rationalism or fideism. (Here I’m thinking of JPII’s Fides et Ratio.) Everything I’ve said so far, you probably agree with. But here’s where we might disagree. Catholics believe that faith is act of trust in Christ by trusting those whom Christ authorized and sent. So we believe in the resurrection and ascension of Christ not because those doctrines can be proven true, but because those whom Christ authorized and sent taught it, and demonstrated their authority. Likewise, Catholics believe that the visible hierarchical nature of the Church is also something that Christ’s representatives taught. So, for Catholics, this doctrine (of the visible hierarchical nature of the Church) is a matter of faith, like the doctrines of the resurrection and ascension of Christ. When we recite the Creed, we specifically speak about the Church and its four marks. So the nature of the Church is, for Catholics, itself part of the gospel. Obviously that doesn’t resolve the disagreements between Protestants and Catholics. But, maybe it might help clarify how Catholics understand the question that you are raising.
At least we can rejoice together that our Lord is risen, and that death is conquered!
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
As a Roman Catholic convert — and as one who has inhabited several other church communities on the way — I have become fond of pointing out something that evangelical churches do RIGHT more often than anyone else in my experience. It is this:
*Everyone* in the Evangelical church I attended goes to Sunday School. Adults and children. Every week. Becoming educated is as much a part of the community’s practice as worship.
Catholics seem to get most of their religious education as children: once you’re an adult it stops, unless you make some efforts to seek it out.
Would that it were otherwise.
LikeLike
Sue, I would submit that the RC Church HAS proven it, but that’s my fallible, but FAITHFUL RC, praying to Mary and the Saints (for their prayers to God THRU Jesus of course) opinion based on “sola scriptura.” But I won’t continue the argument, because it is fruitless, and would be more ME than Him. I must decrease, He must increase.
Prayers and Peace,
tony
Holy, Holy, Holy,
Lord, God Sabaoth,
Heaven and Earth are filled with Your Glory,
Hosannah in the Highest!
Blessed + is He who comes in the Name of the Lord,
Hosannah in the Highest!
LikeLike
Bryan,
I do understand what you are saying. And I agree I see it from not the Roman Church’s point of view. Saying Christ founded a church and it is my Church and is the one and only one Christ founded does not make it true. Only some Roman Catholics believe this. The RC Church makes this claim but can not PROVE it. It is what you BELIEVE to be true. But what if it isn’t?
Would you love Jesus just as much?
LikeLike
this is in responce to JoAnna;s statement that Jesus established ONE church and that staying in the Lutheren church would be wrong. JoAnna …are you saying then that ALL churchs other then RC are not the church?..Do you see Monks point. Jesus said “I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH” and as I see it there is One Church with many rooms..Your in teh Catholic room others are in the Lutheren room or the Baptist room or the pentecostal room or teh orthodox room. Now of course if your in a particular room you feel your in THE room….Understand this Jesus is the head of those other churchs…try hard to understand this and you will be blessed with a much bigger family.
LikeLike
Sue,
Saying my church is the only true church is an arrogant remark no matter who’s church it is.
This gets at, I believe, one of the most (if not the most) fundamental differences between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics and Protestants have a very different conception of what Christ founded. Protestants generally believe that Christ did not found a visible, hierarchically organized Body. But Catholics believe that Christ founded precisely that, and gave its keys to Peter. That paradigm difference makes Protestants perceive the claim by Catholics that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded, not just as false, but as arrogant. Protestants are not saying, “No, it is not the Catholic Church that Christ founded, it is this *other* Body over here that He founded.” The very idea doesn’t fit the paradigm, and so they construe the Catholic claim as arrogant, because obviously (in their mind) no ‘denomination’ has any more claim to being “the true Church” than any other denomination. And that rejoinder would surely be true if all visible hierarchically organized bodies were founded by mere men. But it wouldn’t be true if one visible hierarchically organized Body was founded by the God-man. So the claim that Catholics are being *arrogant* in claiming that theirs is the Church that Christ founded, begs the question. It assumes the truth of the Protestant paradigm. It does so just as a person might respond to Jesus’ claim to be God by saying that any man who claims to be God is arrogant. Such a response presumes the impossibility of the Incarnation, and so begs the question. In order for Protestants and Catholics to understand each other, we have to be able to see each other’s paradigms, and not just see the other from our own paradigm.
Blessed Good Friday to you. (And to you Michael.)
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Joe
I don’t think we can because it’s not just Papal infallibility it’s also the sacraments. Sure I believe in The Holy Spirit and I also believe in the Real actual miraculous presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine. The difference between that belief and the belief in a symbolic remembrance is not at all small to me, why do you think it’s small? I don’t expect you to share my belief, certainly, but I do expect you to at least recognize the significance of the differences between us.
LikeLike
Meant to say ‘in water and the Spirit’…
LikeLike
Can I just say, don’t we all believe in the same Jesus and Holy Spirit? Aren’t we all baptized in water? I think focusing on what we don’t agree on rather than the much more important doctrines which we DO agree on is much more productive.
Isn’t this kind of like arguing over how many angels will fit on the head of a pin?
As long as we are all imperfect human beings, there will always be aspects of faith on which we will disagree because we are, after all, subject to fallible human interpretation (even the Pope).
LikeLike
I’d like to add to something very true Wolf Paul said:
” … even if we all became Roman Catholics, the church would still be visibly divided.”
The regular battle over liturgy and practice means that superficially Catholics are divided within the Church. In fact every human failing found in every Church can probably be found somewhere in the expansive Catholic Church because it composed of people and human nature has not changed.
What defines the limits of the Catholic Church and binds us to her is the Eucharist and faith in the Real Presence and our faith in the tenet that the Bread of Life is surely found within Her. Of course there are folks sitting in pews who may not share this view, but I have news for you, your or my opinion is not what matters. Nothing could be less relevant than what I want. In fact what I want is the entire problem. It’s what God wants that matters. I believe, like I believe in the resurrection, that the Catholic Church, yes our very human sprawling and confusing Church, provides, through grace, the Bread of Life. Are there graces available elsewhere? Probably, certainly the Church itself says that graces extend “beyond the visible boundaries of the Church” but these graces are unclear, less understood and I’m not taking chances with something so important.
So faith in Christ and Faith in the Church are intermingled. I have no faith in man and every expectation that, to the degree that any Church is left in the hands of men, it will fail in some way.
LikeLike
I am not calling anyone arrogant. Saying my church is the only true church is an arrogant remark no matter who’s church it is.
On the other matter, people can respectfully disagree. There are many interupatation of Scripture. I don’t agree with everything you say Protestants believe!!!
Not all Roman Catholic agree on lots and lots of stuff.
Such is life in the real world! We need to find a way to disagee respectfully. Our love for God is what ties us together. Learn what others find important to them in their walk with the Lord without thinking about what I think or agree or disagree. Just give a child of God space to be open.
Let’s face it none of us have it all right. We only see dimly. It’s the struggle to see that counts.
LikeLike
Sue, the problem is we really AREN’T ONE. We differ not just on some disciplinary issues, but on some bedrock ones, especially the “solas.” Of those, I would have to say “Sola Scriptura” is the biggest, and perhaps only true obstacle, and one that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches find to be without the absolute biblical support that Protestants claim.
True, nothing can contradict Scripture, but we can’t even agree on what is canonical scripture, or the meaning of what we do agree on being scripture.
Disclaimer: this is not an attack on anyone’s faith, ESPECIALLY you, Sue. I have no doubt of either your sincerity or your love for our Lord. My beloved fraternal Grandmother was a faithful follower of His in the Methodist Church.
Scripture says not to make graven images to worship, and Protestants generally take this to mean you can’t even HAVE imagery or sculpture in a church. Yet, the bible says the temple was adorned with two seraphim on the ark, bulls, etc. Nobody worships the seraphim, bulls, the ark itself, etc.
Scripture says not to talk to the dead, and Protestants generally espouse the view that we can’t ask the Saints in Heaven (especially Mary the Mother of God) who are very much ALIVE to pray to God THRU JESUS for us. Does not the bible tell us that the prayer of a righteous man is worth much more than the prayers of those not righteous (us folks down here on earth)? You (many if not most Protestants) say that the Saints in Heaven can’t hear us? Where’s that in the bible?
And you call us arrogant.
LikeLike
The Marion devotions in the Catholic Church in some Latin countries are very popular. So are pirating radio stations and setting up your own “radio evangelico†that bleed over and take up licensed stations because “God told me toâ€. — Anne G
Bit of surrealism suggested by that last line…
Everybody drives badly and aggressively and “Viva Yo!†is the rallying cry. — Anne G
Surface-street traffic in Greater Los Angeles. With thump-trucks blasting Mexican pop music at 150+db. (At least it drowns out the car alarms at night…)
LikeLike
Louisiana Catholic,
I am very happy for you that you are happy with your religious institution. I mean no disrespect. There is much to learn from the Roman Church. After all it is where my tradition came from and I am a Protestant member of the Lay Cistercians.
I do much interdenominational work and have several RCs in my formation groups and prayer classes. My LCG coordinator (RC) teaches a prayer class at a local Lutheran Church.
We all have respect for each other, don’t proslitize and learn from one another. I also facilatate a Bridges to Comtemplative Living course put out by the Merton Society.
So you see I am not anti Roman Church. I just don’t like the propagada about the one true church. It keeps people apart and many Christ loving RCs I know find it arrogant.
The word Catholic mean universal. As in the Universal Church of Jesus Christ. Some are able to see a bigger picture with all believes and lovers of our Lord unitied by this “catholic” Church.
Protestant has at the beginning PRO meaning for something.We are for the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ.
I think you and I could be friends if you put down your Church documents and join me in the Love and Peace of the Trinity.
LikeLike
Boethius, where’d you get this piece of trivia from:
“Protestant actually means “Good Testament or News. It has nothing to do with protesting”
Is that really true? How?
LikeLike
I grew up in the Catholic church and learned a lot about its history and it’s doctrine. I left in college and became a protestant. First Presbyterian, then non-denominational. We should agree on a few things as Christians.
1) what gets in the way of worship of God is bad. whether that’s routine, ceremony, ignorance, arrogance or replacement of the pure God with other things; images, filters, etc.
2) we are charged by our Savior to “make disciples of all men” and to hold each other accountable in love. We need to do that out of love. If we start down a path of argument, we need to be careful that it’s not more about us being right than loving our brothers and sisters. Yet, not challenging things that conflict with #1 is a problem.
I have an extended Catholic family with several siblings and live in a very Catholic town. I can tell you through 30 years of experience, and now 15 of prayer that many “practicing” Catholics know very little about their doctrine and have no personal relationship with Christ. I pray daily for these people and try to get them personally involved in their faith. Their church is no help.
I find it hardest to reconcile the Priesthood of all believers with the Catholic Church’s hierarchical model. After serious study over my 15 years since conversion, this gap in doctrine the hardest to overcome and the one that, for me personally, creates the most resentment and my contribution to this rift. The scandal in the Catholic church recently only made this more emotional for me.
I can’t live with getting along by going along. It’s not what Christ did. I choose to truly follow Him, both in terms of challenging people as well as doing it in obvious love. Love for Christ is pure. All the other stuff we humans add to it is very questionable.
LikeLike
Patrick Kyle (RE your 07 Apr 2009 at 12:11 pm post)
RE Neither I nor my friends are responsible for the present state of ‘disunity’ among the churches…
You are correct, and the Church does not hold you responsible: “… one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ…” (CCC 818)
RE There is more than enough to do or worry about without taking on the burden of a problem that for most of us is really theoretical.
It is not, however, a theoretical problem. “May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” This is Jesus’ prayer in John 17. Why should we be “brought to complete unity?” Our unity is a powerful witness of the gospel. It is a witness to everyone (“to let the world know”). It is a witness that Jesus is God’s Son (“that you sent me”). It is a witness that God loves people (“and have loved them”). It is a witness that the Father’s love for us is equal to His love for His Son (“even as you have loved me”).
RE Barring a major retooling of Catholic Dogma, the RC has got nothing for me.
The Church recognizes that there may be “anxiety aroused” for some because certain aspects of the faith are rather obscure, and that because of this there may be some “hesitation in believing” in God as He is revealed in His Church, and that there may be some “difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith.” (CCC 2088)
RE I am constitutionally incapable of living the life of ‘faith and love’…
All is not lost. Don’t lose hope. Every day the Lord is working to draw you to His Body, which is the Church. As the saying goes: God is not finished with you yet.
RE I don’t say this to start a fight,just wanted to give voice to another perspective.
Me too.
LikeLike
Sue Kephart:
I agree with you that Catholics and Protestants have different understanding of the Church. I think your post was well written and there is much in which I agree with. However, I think there are some misunderstanding with respect to the Catholic Church’s understanding of the CHurch. I hope, in my post below, I have explained the Catholic position, in a non-polemical manner.
The Catholic Church’s understanding of the Church (i.e. its ecclesiology) is linked to its Theology about God. The Holy Trinity reveals the nature of God, which is God is a God of perfect communion and love and relationship. The Father eternally generates the Son and the Son returns of the love of the Father and the bond of love is the Holy Spirit. The second person of the Trinity, Christ, became incarnate (i.e. Christ has a fully human and divine nature) and founded a Church (Mt 16) which St. Paul describes as the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3: 15). The Church is described by St. Paul as the body of Christ (1 Cor 12: 12-14), the Bride of Christ (Eph 5: 26-27) and by St. Peter as the People of God (1 Pet 2: 9-10). Since Christ has one Body, and One Bride, and one people, and since God is a God of perfect communion (Holy Trinity), the Church then is ontologically also one.
Hence, the Catholic Church’s doctrine of the nature of the Church is tied to its theology of God (Trinity), and its theology about Christ (Christology). Christ, as A Divine Person, who through the incarnation has a full human nature along with his Divine Nature then, again, has implications for the Doctrine of the Church as Christ’s Body (c.f. 1 Cor 12:12-14) and thus from Catholic Theology, the Church is both a visible and spiritual community of faith, hope and charity which Christ communicates Truth and Grace to all men (CCC 771). Thus, the Church, in Christ, the Head of the Body [The Church], is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument of communion with God and thus is Christ’s instrument for salvation for all people.
In the early Church, the Church Fathers saw the Church as the means of salvation as it was often stated that outside of the Church, there was no salvation. For example, St. Irenaeus of Lyons [140 to 202 AD] writes:
“In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace” (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]; cited from Fr. Jurgen’s The Faith of the Early Fathers Vol. 1).
Origen [182 to 254AD] in his Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (ca 249-251 AD) writes [again cited from Fr. Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol..1]:
“If someone from this people wants to be saved, let him come into this house so that he may be able to attain his salvation. . . . Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death”
St. Cyprian of Carthage, writing in 250 AD would write “He cannot have God as is Father and not have the Church as his mother.†The Catholic Church still holds to this doctrine and re-formulates is in a positive fashion by stating “All salvation comes from Christ, the Head through the Church which is his body†(CCC 846).
So, from the Catholic perspective, it is Catholic Church, as Christ Body, that is endowed by Christ as the fullest means of Grace [i.e. 7 Sacraments] for the justification and sanctification of humanity. So, Christ is bound to the sacraments and thus the fullness of salvation is found in the Catholic Church. However, those who are baptized into the Holy Trinity, outside of visible communion with the Catholic Church are incorporated into the Holy Trinity and thus are in some communion with the Catholic Church, thus God does use the Protestant churches as instruments of salvation as well.
While the fullness of salvation is found in the Catholic Church given all 7 sacraments [Orthodox have the 7 Holy Mysteries as well], thus while Christ is bound to the sacraments, which are the normative means of Grace, Christ is not bound by them [CCC 1257] and thus in ways known to God alone, God’s Grace can still is available. Again, this idea is in line with the Apostolic Tradition of the early Church. It was Tertullian, writing as an orthodox Catholic around 200 AD [he later embraced the Montanist heresy] that there is a baptism of blood [martyrdom] which is like the sacrament of Baptism. St. Augustine writing in City of God would state that we have a second laver, which is a laver of blood. He goes on to state that whoever dies from confessing Christ without the laver of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of the persons sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of Baptism (City of God, Book 13, Chapter 7). St. Augustine also spoke of a “baptism of desireâ€.
So, in closing from the Catholic perspective, God has acted in History and through history through the revelation of God through Christ Jesus. Thus, the sacraments, nature of the Church, Liturgy and Worship are bound to the reality of the Incarnation of Christ, which took place in the context of the Roman-Greco world in the 1st century and thus how the Doctrines related to sacraments, the nature of the Church, etc were understood by the early Church Fathers is foundational for Catholics. Accordingly, from the Catholic perspective, the notion that an individual should seek to find a community that fits him are work with others to create a community to fit ones views is, in my humble opinion, a deconstructist/Marxist notion that history is to be rejected, because it is based on outdated values, philosophies, etc, and thus we can re-create a new community and world. I think this is going on in many Protestant communities, and was embraced in some Catholic circles as a political liberation theology [which was rejected outright by Pope John Paul II]. For example, Pope Benedict cites Psalm 104, which mentions bread, wine and oil. Of course, these elements are the matter used in Catholic sacraments and Pope Benedict responds to the criticism that these elements make sense in the Mediterranean and other elements should be used in other cultures and regions. As such, as Pope Benedict writes, “God has acted in history and through history and given the gifts of the earth [Bread, wine, oil] their significance. The elements become the sacraments through connection with the unique history of God in relation to Christ…..Incarnation does not mean doing as we please. On the contrary, it bounds us to the history of a particular time and while outwardly, that history might seem fortuitous, it is the form of history willed by God and for us it is the trustworthy trace he has imprinted on the earth, the guarantee that we are not thinking up things for ourselves but are truly touched by God and come into touch with him [Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 224]
Regards and God’s peace
LikeLike
billTuba
“Ky Boy but not nowâ€
Lessee…
You thumb through a lightweight book in A Catholics’ house and ….. this proves what?
It was a comment on how little many RCC’s know about the history of the RCC. These folks are not stupid. And their kids all go to the local Jesuit school. But as my sister-in-law once said. “How come my niece and nephew attending public schools know more of the Bible and ALL church history than my kids going to Jesuit school all their lives?”
Basically they said that they were ignorant of way too much due to lack of teaching in their church and have been trying to fix it on their own.
LikeLike
“Ky Boy but not now”
Lessee…
You thumb through a lightweight book in A Catholics’ house and ….. this proves what?
LikeLike
To return to the Errors of Rome ;-), I’d like to quote Mark Shea (responding to a query about Papal Infallibility, but applicable here also, I think):
“It essentially means that the Catholic Church is populated by nothing but screwups and without the special action of the Holy Spirit, the revelation of Christ would have been lost a half an hour after Pentecost.”
Can’t argue with that 🙂
LikeLike
Kurt, I’ve calmed down now and I should apologise. I think I was reacting more to perceived criticisms of Christianity as “for wusses”, “feminized” and the remedy is to “toughen up” the image of Christ in a kind of muscle-bound, gun-toting, Ramboesque way. Which has a pedigree in the Victorian ‘Muscular Christianity’ movement, and 19th century Protestant representations of Roman Catholicism as a ‘feminine’ religion (appeals to emotion, sentimentality, the involvement of women) in contrast to ‘masculine’ Protestantism (reason, progress, male headship). Frankly, I think the lasting achievement of ‘Muscular Christianity’ was to exalt sport to the status of religion and water down Christianity to ‘behaving like a gentleman’.
But I have never perceived the image of the Cross as weakness, so I didn’t understand your point.
And regarding the images of Mary – we have a Pieta also in our town church, and it is not intended to show Mary triumphant over the defeated Christ, but rather “All ye that pass by, is there any sorrow like unto my sorrow”? Mary with the Child Jesus – all the attributes of Mary revolve around her Maternity and the fundamental importance of the Incarnation. She is important because she heard and believed, not through any separate power of her own.
I would close to say what is in every tabernacle in every Catholic church in the world? It’s not the body of Mary.
LikeLike
RWS2: Thanks so much for the laugh. I really needed that.
ProdigalSarah: Protestant actually means “Good Testament or News. It has nothing to do with protesting.
Bill: Thanks for the laugh. How true that the pacifists do not have blood on their hands.
As a former RC, let me just say I am so much happier now that I am outside the RC Church. With all of the imperfections within evangelicalism, I am so happy to be there. Anathema is such a good thing!
LikeLike
Greg F.
OK, I’ll let the cat out of the bag- IMonk doesn’t speak for us all. Some of us are ‘more than happy’ to be protestant, as opposed to ‘happy enough.’ We don’t have ‘denominational guilt’ or spend time worrying about the various splits in the church. We play the hand the Lord has dealt us and work for His Kingdom where he has planted us. Neither I nor my friends are responsible for the present state of ‘disunity’ among the churches nor are most of us in a position to effect real change in the situation. There is more than enough to do or worry about without taking on the burden of a problem that for most of us is really theoretical.
Given Catholic doctrine, if given the choice of an RC Church or no church, I would choose no church.Barring a major retooling of Catholic Dogma, the RC has got nothing for me. Without justification by faith alone, I don’t give a rip about a ‘continuous magisterium’ coming down from the Apostles, indulgences(even ‘rightly understood’) adoration of the saints,etc.etc.etc. I am constitutionally incapable of living the life of ‘faith and love’ in a manner that will get me anything other than a couple hundred thousand years in purgatory after a life of struggle and heartache. If thats all I have to look forward to, I’ll pass. If Jesus didn’t pay it all I’m sunk, and hearing anything other than that wars against my faith and causes despair. I don’t say this to start a fight,just wanted to give voice to another perspective.
LikeLike
Kurt, I spent a substantial part of my adult life in Latin America. It’s a big place and countries differ WIDELY, as do regions of countries. I have been in evanglical and Catholic settings and count many folks from several different groups as well as Catholics of varying degrees of faith and fidelity as good friends. I am also fluent in speaking and reading Spanish. Now, what you are describing is more of a cultural problem than a religious one. The Marion devotions in the Catholic Church in some Latin countries are very popular. So are pirating radio stations and setting up your own “radio evangelico” that bleed over and take up licensed stations because “God told me to”. Everybody drives badly and aggressively and “Viva Yo!” is the rallying cry. I don’t think you can blame what you see on the Catholic Church. It is the culture it lives in. Evangelicalism has the same problems and more and is very easily used to cover over illegal business practices, immoral behavior, etc. Catholics don’t catechize well, often, but evangelicals don’t either. Actually, the groups I have seen that make the most difference in holiness and application to life are those such as Regnum Christi and Opus Dei. BTW, I have never ever known anyone who believed that Mary was God. Most believe that since she is the Mother of Jesus, the Mother of God, she can put in a good word for them, maybe move some difficulty, since, after all, she is His Mother, just in the same way they relate to their own mothers. As for knowing Jesus as personal Savior, well, there is room for growth. AnneG in NC
LikeLike
I’m no longer attending the Catholic Church. I guess I felt that my pledge of loyalty was supposed to be directed more toward Rome than to Christ. And I felt that with Benedict, the church was moving backwards rather than forwards, as it had been under John Paul.
LikeLike
The difference as I see it between Protestants and the Roman Church is in the idea of what is Church. Protestants see the Christian Church as the Body of believers in Christ with Jesus as the head of this Church. If you are a ‘believer’ you are part of this Church of Jesus.
When Roman Church believers say the Roman Church institution is the only true church they are saying,we believe our institutional church is the only one that God can work through.
If God can offer salvation through the Baptist Church or Lutheran Church then Roman Church member have options. If God is controled by the Roman Church then we all must join that Church to be saved.
In my option Protestant Churches are a Spiritual movement within the True Church of Christ. Making them Truly Catholic.
Personaly I have experienced God’s presence in a number of religious venues including the Roman one.
Your religion is what you choose as a framework for your spirituality. Don’t be hasty in picking the first one your come to or are brought to. Beware of all the claims religious institutions make about themselves. You wouldn’t buy the first car you saw at the first dealership you came to even if they told you this was the one true car. Or the only car wash that really cleans.
LikeLike
Ky boy:
Well, maybe the book was just that “a condensed version”. In case you did not get the memo, the Treaty of Westphia ended the Wars of Reformation in 1648, which were largely the work of “then Catholic” France as the peace terms that were agreed upon were the work of Cardinal Mazarin.
And yes, I do acknowledge there were abuses that were going on, all Catholic scholars recognize that, abuse of indulgences, Bishops not living in their dioceses, but rather living in the Big Cities to court temporal rulers, etc and then taxing their local parishes to support lavish lifestyles, etc. The Western Schism and Avignon papacy had resulted in a weakened Bishop of Rome, etc, which hurt the Church in the 13th and 14th centuries, which immediately predated the Reformation. Also, the rise of nationalism was also something that caused the breakup of what was then “Christendom”.
So, yes, I am aware that those things went on but that did not mean the Church had embraced heresy nor does it mean that it is still not the Church, just means people sinned then, as they did before and as they do now.
LikeLike
Mary, I live in Latin American–it would be hard to do so without participating in their economy. The last time I was up in the US, I was there for a day and I purchased a George Foreman Grill from Target, thus doing my part to help the North Americans live the way THEY want to (tongue in cheek). Ironically, I am of 100% Mennonite stock.
The images question is too complex to detail here, but let me make a couple of points. First, I do believe that the use of images or icons may draw some people closer to God. We know that they can also be used as good luck charms and as objects of worship or superstition. I see more of the latter here, and it becomes increasingly prevalent as one descends through the socio-economic strata (and the Prehispanic people groups are miserably on the bottom rung). It should be noted that in many cases the imagery portrays a syncretistic marriage of Pre-Hispanic and Roman Catholic beliefs. Ideologically, the upper class minority identifies more closely with the Roman Catholicism of the Western World.
This is not meant to take away from some of the beautiful works of art, found in cathedrals and monasteries throughout the region (paradoxically built on the back of indigenous and imported slave labor), that have been utilized to convey the Gospel to segments of society that could not read or write.
I feel that we are drifting further from the original intent of internetmonk’s article, so I will stop here.
LikeLike
Kurt,
Let me apologize for some of my comments. When I posted, I did not realize that you had as much experience as you do.
LikeLike
Kurt,
I have several follow up questions for you.
Do you try to support the native Latin Americans by buying stuff from them (like through the Mennonite program) to help them live they way they want to, on their land with their own crafts?
Have you considered that the images of Christ and Mary are appropriate for them. Art history, or so I’m told, shows that different images of Christ appear at different times. The ones made are the ones most needed by the people at the time. The Indians there are poor, marginalized, at best ignored by the government, at worst killed by both sides in ongoing problems. I just don’t see how a Triumph Christ would mean anything to them. A suffering Christ yes, a mother loving her son, both alive and dead, Yes.
LikeLike
Louisiana Catholic or Sue Kephart:
“Actually, the Catholic Church is very open about its history, and it is there in all its Glory and weaknesses for all to see.”
My wife’s sister converted to RCC when she married. We see them in person once or twice a year. A few years ago on a bookshelf in their home was a book on the history of the Catholic Church. I flipped through it and got to the section on the reformation. About 1 paragraph. Basically it said Luther exposed a few problems in the RCC but it was all OK now.
That has to be the most condensed version of the reformation ever written. And it’s all “OK now”?
LikeLike
Not too happy with the idea of taking the name “catholic” or “protestant” or “evangelical” or “radical reformer.” I really don’t know what name fits, although others can probably come up with something. I’m in the middle of studying the “local church membership” issue that’s been circulating among evangelicals, and a topic recently discussed here on IM’s blog. And here’s a question that presents itself — Is there much real difference between evangelicals and catholics on how they look at church authority? Maybe some readers of this blog could tell me from both perspectives.
From the strong dispensational cessationists (Macarthur), to the third wave charismatics (Vineyard), to the reformed continualists (Piper, Mahaney), to the PCA Calvinists (Ligon), to a myriad of independent evangelical churches, to a myriad of independent charismatic churches, to the hybrids, to a growing number of Baptist churches including one named Saddleback, to even seeker friendly churches both charismatic and otherwise — apparent similarity in approach seems to exist among the vast majority on the “church authority” issue. If you look at websites and other sources from these churches, which are otherwise often at theological loggerheads with each other, the vast majority do stress the importance of getting new church “members” to agree to a membership covenant (also called commitment, vow, call, confession, etc.) to the effect that the leaders of the church they are “joining” are to be their recognized authorities in the Lord. Some churches state it explicitly, some implicitly (“I will work for the unity of my church, its pastors, and so on,” is widespread), but all are getting at the same thing. The condition for “joining,” or if semantics are involved, for “full participation,” is a covenant recognizing local church authorities and usually vowing to submit to them. Notice I am not questioning whether there are authorities appointed by the Holy Spirit in the church, and I’m not even asking here how to tell the true ones from the false ones. What I ask is whether covenants of submission or their equivalent, as pre-conditions for “membership” in a church, are works of the Spirit or of the flesh? This is of course a variation on the “authority” question of some 2000 years.
Here’s my take. There is only one “church covenant” that is honored by the Holy Spirit – the covenant in the body and blood of Jesus the Messiah. All other “covenants” or “vows,” especially those of submission to authorities whether worldwide or local, even if the authorities themselves are “true,” are at best an attempt to take what began in the Spirit and make it perfect by the flesh, and at worst bondage. It is clear from the scriptures that the Lord Himself, by His Spirit, appoints authorities in His Church. It is also true that we are all enjoined to know who these authorities are (that’s sometimes the hard part, I think), and to esteem them for their work’s sake, and submit to them. However, we don’t supplement the new covenant in the Lord’s body and blood with “covenants” of submission to under-shepherds or even apostles.
In the ecclesiological context the word “member” in the New Testament is used only in regard to “THE Body of Christ.” This is true whether the context is a local church, or the worldwide church. No one in scripture is called a “member” of a church, only a member of “the body of Christ” — which also, by the way, makes us “members one of another” whether we like it or not! Nevertheless many evangelicals have been resorting to the term, “A Body of Christ,” to make a case for church membership covenants in order to “join” a local church. Is this not a kind of evangelical “visible unity” doctrine?
As for the notion of “A body of Christ:” First, it is not wise to add the indefinite article where it does not exist in scripture. Moreover, there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” “For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.” “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.†“Joined.” “One.” “Body” When we speak of covenant, these are the words of the Holy Spirit to remember.
LikeLike
Nice of Luther to offer to come back to the Church as long as he was able to preach herecy in her.
As to iMonk I can certainly understand his feelings. Even if I disagree with them, I of course will keep praying for him and and other like him for the Holy Spirit to continue to do God’s work trough them.
LikeLike
I’m not happy to be “Protestant” because I think the term covers such a wide variety of claims as to be fairly useless, particularly when coupled with the phrase, “Protestants believe….”
However, I am happy to no longer be Catholic. After converting to Catholicism from evangelicalism and spending 12 years there in very active ministry (including leading RCIA and working in a parish), I eventually discovered that the “one true” church that I thought I had joined doesn’t really exist. While Catholicism at least engages its history (something evangelicals seem to have a hard time with), the reading of that history, at least in the case of doctrine and worse, Catholic apologetics, is extremely selective and claims more that it can support. What is presented as “what the church has always believed” is often not the case if one is willing to do the research–certainly not always, but too often. In my opinion the bishops are very poorly educated, with priests in even worse shape, and little attention is paid to biblical scholarship or issues of translation. That situation is very sadly not improving but instead is devolving (the new missal is a very good case in point here).
It was a big relief for me to finally realize that that one true church (as in “expression of Christianity”) doesn’t exist and thus I’m not responsible for trying to locate it—leaving me to find the community where I can be the most useful and that comes the closest, in my view, to being concerned with repentance, salvation and human dignity, along with historically connected liturgy and celebration of the Eucharist. For me, that’s a particular community of the ELCA.
I have absolutely no bitterness toward the Catholic church; I certainly owe much of my religious education to its teachers and writings. But eventually in my zeal for the faith I learned a little too much; but I guess I’m better for that too. As Jesus said, the truth will make you free.
LikeLike
Martha, I apologize for not being clear and for leaving you fuming. I am not an eloquent writer and struggle to put forth in words what I understand based on my observations.
Be that as it may, here is my attempt at a response: Christ on the Cross, by NO means makes him weak. My point is that the typical Roman Catholic that I know here does not see him in the light of the powerful act that WAS the crucifixion nor reflect the power that He carries today. For many, seeing him represented on the cross merely describes a pitiful and sad story. They see the death of the body but miss the spiritual significance and depth of His salvific act. M-16’s are not necessary Martha, but I would like to see a proper emphasis here in Latin America on what Christ’s death means for us, not to mention his present risen-ness (former Roman Catholics have admitted to me that even though raised as Catholics they never realized that Christ is alive.)
Louisiana Catholic, have no fears, the Latin American follower of Christ probably has more resolve to know nothing but Christ and him crucified than you might realize. Many still suffer persecution for maintaining this very resolve.
internetmonk and Louisiana Catholic: “Mother of God” Yes, I grant you your point on Theotokos–I have undertaken a quick study of the term and have discovered that I have embarrassingly misunderstood it. I am very sorry and humbled. Thank you. My previous view may have been adopted from the context in which I grew up. You see, to the average Latin American, Mary takes on the qualities of deity and the term just feeds the heresy that she lives and moves as an equal or even superior in the Godhead. Without adequate theological explanation the term can cause confusion (I say with a wry smile).
My statements are a reflection of what I have observed over a period of 3 decades in my beloved América Latina. I would also like to add that the concepts of motherhood and death are understood differently in Latin American than they are by most of those who post here. I hope this helps.
My intention was, and is, not to offend.
LikeLike
What has the Catholic Church done to give the impression that “happy enough” is good enough? What have Catholics done that prompts Protestants to prefer religious indifference (Latitudinarianism) to unity with the Church?
Considering Orthodox and denominational Christianity, the Catholic Church observes that “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation…”
Might a Protestant read these statements above and (using their own definition of the terms) conclude that the Church thinks that what they are doing is, in and of itself, adequate for a complete relationship with God? That the lukewarm level of “happy enough” is acceptable?
Who among the Protestants would not agree that all Christians can live a “life of grace,” or perform acts of “faith, hope, and charity?” Or… what Protestant would not be gratified to learn that they too have “interior gifts of the Holy Spirit?” Never mind that there is more to the Catholic faith than these few feel-good statements. Never mind that Catholic teaching is nuanced, and may not mean what the Protestant thinks it means. Never mind.
Perhaps then the Church, in seeing God at work in the myriad “ecclesial communities”, has given the impression that “happy enough” is good enough.
What of Catholics themselves. What have individual Catholics done, or left undone, to exacerbate the problem?
They have (at least enough times to be noticed): been bad examples of the Christian faith, been enslaved to carnal passions, asserted “a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience”, rejected “the Church’s authority and her teaching”, and shown “a lack of conversion and of charity.”
Are all Catholics usually like this? No. Do they all often show these “errors of judgment in moral conduct?” No. But, when a Protestant is looking for a reason to reject the Church the few examples they have will suffice.
So… on the one hand, the Church tells Protestants that their groups are a “means of salvation,” and, on the other hand, Protestants notice that the conduct of some Catholics is significantly less than honorable. With this perspective who among the Protestants would not want to stay put and think that “happy enough” is good enough?
Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 27-29, 817-819, 846, 1129, 1753 & 1792.
LikeLike
Catholic/Protestant. Whatever. While we debate the “issues” (which are man’s…not God’s)the world goes to Hell in a handbasket. The Holy Spirit made it pretty clear to me just the other day while reading again in John’s Gospel. Chapter 17: “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be ONE; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The Glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be ONE, just as We are ONE; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in UNITY, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.” vss.20-23.(Emphasis mine)
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female (there is neither Catholic nor Protestant– emphasis mine), for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
And I could go on to quote Ephesians 2:11-22.
I for one am tired of this meaningless banter and wonder why we can’t embrace the things Jesus said were most important, namely the First Commandment in the Law and the Second? Ought not the Word of God be the judge of our lives? Speaking only for myself, I am sadly lacking in this Love exemplified by my Lord.
LikeLike
I just happened across this page. I can’t believe what I just read. I go to a Catholic church because my wife does. I go to the same one I went to 49 years ago. I’ve lived all over the country and world in between. I joined the Church of Christ in N.C. and again in Pittsburgh. I have never been to a Protestant Church, but a lot of my friends did, growing up. I think there is a difference with Protestants that is very good. Respectable. Although I believe the Holy Spirit can work through anything, I have to say that I have always been disappointed by the Catholic Churches I have been to. I must admit, I don’t join any groups or such, which is one reason I like the Catholic church, and left the Church of Christ. I think Protestants have something very good going on, and I am surpised to hear you doubting yourselves so.
LikeLike
“Everyone has blood on their hands.”
Not Mennonites or Quakers. . . .
LikeLike
Sue Kephart:
Actually, the Catholic Church is very open about its history, and it is there in all its Glory and weaknesses for all to see. Your friends statement to you, while it may be true to him, does not make it a universal truth. Many Catholics are quite knowledgeable about History as Patristic studies have made a serious comeback during the Pontificate of John Paul II, who commissioned the new Catechism of the Catholic CHurch and now Pope Benedict, who is Patristic Scholar, par excellence. Now, I question the histories as portrayed by secular historians, who in many cases have acts to grind and also question historians with polemical axes to grind, which sometimes happens. I have read Warren Caroll’s History of Christendom series, and other histories of the Church, and he does not hide anything in his works.
As for Kurt’s comment about the Catholic, and Orthodox Churches having Crucifixes, I think St. Paul has something that is related here. He did not separate the Crucifixion from the other aspects of Christ life and fully incorporated into his theology. For example, in the opening chapter of Corinthians, St. Paul writes “For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified…”(c.f. 1 Cor 1:23). Later, Paul writes “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (c.f. 1 Cor 2:2). Later, St. Paul links the entire paschal mystery [passion, death and resurrection into one salvific act] as he writes “For I have delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3-4).
St. Paul also connected the celebration of the eucharist to Christ’s crucifixion. St. Paul describes the tradition of the eucharist in 1 Cor 11: 23-25, then he writes “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes again.”. He goes on to say, “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord†(c.f 1 Cor 11:27).
In these passages, St. Paul is clearly not advocating a theology of the resurrection, that is totally separate from the incarnation, life of Christ, and his passion and death. In addition, St. Paul is clearly linking the celebration of the eucharist to the passion, death and resurrection of Christ.
Finally, Imonk, thanks for affirming Mary as the Theotokos, the Mother of God, which was and is an important dogmatic statement in protecting Christ Divine personhood.
Regards
LikeLike
Mary Mother of God is a “common ground” affirmation for all Christians. Rejecting it is far more disturbing to me than the possible abuse of it.
LikeLike
Kurt,
I reviewed your posting, after Martha made some follow up comments.
I will grant that some people do tend to come closer to worshipping Mary than they should.
And you might be uncomfortable with the title Mary, Mother of God. But, the only way that it is wrong is if Jesus is not God.
And any quibbles about the nature of Jesus could get you close to heresy. (Personally I don’t expect to escape some flirtation with heresy. When priests are advised that sometime they will teach heresy, they do need to know which ones (and therefore how to correct it.))
LikeLike
Kurt – you think Christ on the Cross is portraying Him as “weak”?
You want a depiction of “a conquering, all-powerful one-and-only Savior.”?
Would you like Him toting an M16 while we’re at it?
(Apologies for the snark, Michael, and if you want to wipe this I’ll understand, but frankly I’m fuming here).
LikeLike
Great post,
this is the mind and heart that will win the day for all.
By the way could you please repost your review of “Spirit and Forms of Protestantism”.
thanks
LikeLike
Sue,
I respect where you are and your path toward heaven.
But, I am very bothered by your quote from your friend, about the Catholic church keeping people from its history. I’ve never seen that, nor can even imagine how it is happening. It is so easy to find books on church history on your own. When I first started reading it, I was amazed at what I hadn’t been taught in Sunday School or church.
I contend that many people don’t know much about any history and don’t know how to recognze the viewpoint of the author. Just the way U.S. Grant’s version of the Civil War is different from Jefferson Davis’ version of the War of Northern Aggression, or the Politically Incorrect version.
LikeLike
BillyHW
“As long as Christians are “happy enough†to remain visibly divided, Islam will continue to take over the world.”
You don’t think Muslims are divided? We had our 100 years war. They are still fighting their version of that war that started 1200 years ago. Iraq is just a front in that war. (And we seemed to forget that when we stepped in.) Iran is the “rouge state”. And even within many of the “mainlines” there are serious divisions. Plus the western liberal Muslims that are very much not appreciated in the middle east. And the Muslim influence in our prisons is from a group that most Muslims around the world think of as way off the beaten path so to speak.
LikeLike
And that is why MAJ Tony dear, I am happy enough to be Protestant.
LikeLike
I am afraid I could never be Catholic or Orthodox. Eight years of living in the Balkans during the 1990’s has totally cured me of that. If you think that American evangelicalism is political… well, the Moral Majority was kids stuff compared to the heavy duty politics inherent in contemporary RC and Orthodoxy.
The problem with evangelicalism is that it has outgrown its movement orientation and has turned into something similar to the religious institutions that Orthodoxy and Catholicism have been for centuries. When I feel angst toward evangelicalism (and I often do) the last thing I want is to go further toward institutionalized religious systems.
That’s one reason why the predictions that RC and Orthodoxy will grow in the future are, in my view, wrong. What forms of Christianity are growing the fastest today on a global scale? Certainly not those with high structures and dogmatic leadership styles. They are the house church networks and informal structures of Asia and Africa.
LikeLike
Sue, I submit to you and others (within the RCC and without) that you misread the Pope’s intentions, and the intentions of Vat II. It’s certainly not the intent of the Pope to cut off relations with “separated brethren” nor was it the intent of Vat II to change Church teaching on the subject on a basic level. Any organization that believes it is the ONE true organization of it’s type and all others are not is going to insist that it is so. Would you expect anything different? Vatican II merely changed the tone from “beat them over the head” to “P.R. campaign.”
Our P.R. campaign didn’t go as well as planned early on because we forgot about the folks already in the RCC (failure of catechesis). We’re just now catching up. I think the losses to Evangelicalism and the gain of “transverts” like Scott Hahn, etc. has served us well, as we’ve learned from the Evangelicals in both processes.
LikeLike
Seems we have a lot of Catholic versus Protestant thing today. As a Catholic I appreciate the fact that protestants keep the focus on scripture alive and do may missional things whether that be in the community, regionally or some village in another country. I love Eastern Orthodoxy for its liturgy and it seems to be very much inline with my contemplative way of praying. I love the Catholic Church because it encompases so much and I call it home.
And I appreciate those who are not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox but still can respect us, those who do not hit me in the head with the good book. Of course I am also not a big fan of militant over zealous Catholics either (no I am not a cafeteria catholic by a long shot) so it goes both ways…
LikeLike
@sue: I have a RC friend who says what is wrong with the RC Church is the people don’t know their own church history and the saddest thing is the RC church doesn’t want them to know it.
Absolutely, and I get a lot of surprised looks from people when I go on a tirade when people start parading the usual tired and clichéd canards about Catholics and Catholicism and then go into a rant about the things about the RCC which drive totally bonkers (and to an extent really discourage me from going to an RC Church).
I’m a lot like Michael and how he feels about the SBC tradition he grew up in. For better or for worse, I was raised a Roman Catholic, so I’ll always feel this inescapable pull towards Rome that I can’t and won’t deny, and my time immersed in Evangelicalism has really shown me how the RCC does a lot of good things that many Evangelicals should take notice of (and vice versa, naturally). That pull however, shouldn’t blind me to the real problems that the Church has on a variety of levels.
LikeLike
MAJ Tony
I don’t wish to fight over it either. Everyone has blood on their hands in Protestant-Roman history. I have a RC friend who says what is wrong with the RC Church is the people don’t know their own church history and the saddest thing is the RC church doesn’t want them to know it.
The only way to stop it is to stop it. I guess my problem with the RC Church is it’s insistance that it is the only true church and has the only means of salvation. We had hope with Vatacan II. This pope seems to want to close that door.
I believe it is up to the people. We need to practice forgiveness. I have been a great defender of the RC people. Many Evengelicals(so to speak) say RC aren’t Christians. I know that is not true.
The longer I go on my faith journey the more I realize it’s the love of Christ that ties us together. Many RCs love their church, many hate their church, many are neutral. It’s the love of Christ across the wide array of Christianity that overcomes the divid. Most religious institutions are just to political and veated in maintaining their own power to bring the Body together.
LikeLike
My goodness, so many words! Yet they are loving kind words full of reverence for one another. The Spirit is moving across the waters of chaos! I am a Christian who expresses my faith in Christ through the RC Church. I have long been grateful to Protestant teachers of the scriptures for keeping the Word alive and teaching me how to understand with my heart the continuing revelations of God. I am grateful to the RC for being the unwavering keepers of the Eucharist and for maintaining the “Primacy of the Spiritual” throughout its history of frequent human shortcomings. One day we will all be bible thumping receivers of the Eucharist. For this I pray daily. May you, my brothers and sisters in Christ, recieve all the blessings the Lord has stored up for you.
LikeLike
My quest: A few random impressions from the past couple of weeks.
My Catholic mother-in-law speaks the word with distain: “Protestant. Why would anybody want to be known as a protester?â€
Honestly, I feel no annoyance. She is 82 years old. The Catholic Church is her world. I get it. And while I’ve been known to read books like Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle, and while I don’t feel wed to any particular Protestant denomination I, personally, do not feel God’s Spirit pulling me toward the Catholic Church. Perhaps others do. If so, they should certainly follow where God’s Spirit leads.
My mother-in-law says, “As a Catholic mother I have a duty to see my son back in The Church before I die. If not, I have failed as a mother and will not go to Heaven.â€
What do I say? The truth? I don’t think that would be very kind. The truth that I did not say: “Your son was raised to believe that the Catholic Church was the one true church and his only option. A child’s education extends far beyond a classroom curriculum. Every rebuke, every slap, every contradiction is also a lesson for the growing child. When your son realized the church was not for him he was left to conclude there was no God. I understand your son because his experiences were really not so different from what I experienced growing up in the Southern Baptist Church. Somehow Christ was able to reach through the briars and thickets around my soul and bring me back. But the briars around your son’s have sharper thorns because, the truth, his experiences were more damaging and more lasting.†Of course I did not say any of that. I said, “God knows his heart.†Other things I did not say, “Yes, I pray for him every day and I share various things that I read, some of which he actually finds interesting. While I pray that he finds his way back to Christ, where he then worships should come from the guidance of God’s Spirit.â€
I think it is possible that we need different things from worship, possibly, at different times of our lives.
Since coming back into the fold I have attended a Methodist church, although I’m not really sure I’m a Methodist. I have a great respect for the pastor. The church runs some good community outreach programs although I would not call their approach evangelical. (neither would they) I am frustrated at them for lavishly spending on a larger building than needed. Right at the time the needs in the community are so high, the church is seriously in debt. (Perhaps a prayful reading of Genesis 41 would be a good idea for any church considering a building project.)
Oddly, this growing discontent seemed to be pulling me toward a tiny Assemblies of God church. This seemed like such an unlikely church for me, I resisted going for a very long time.
Yesterday I attended the traditional Methodist service in the morning and the Assemblies service in the evening. I felt blessed by both and am beginning to see that at this particular point in my life I need this evangelical influence.
I see so much alienation, confusion and pain in the lives of young people. Last week, even while we visited our son, one of his neighbors committed suicide. With my heart breaking for this kid that I had never met, I stood at the window and prayed for the church (all Christians) to find ways to reach out with Christ’s love. The need is so great. We can help feed with bread, but their alienation will only deepen if they are not offered living water.
If only we could put our differences aside and reach out as one body. Of course we will disagree about many things but can we at least agree that Christ’s love transforms lives? Even for those with no desire to be transformed, we can listen.
As the prodigal I would long to grab my big brother’s hand and say, “Yes, I know I’m the screw-up in the family, but I’ve seen a few things during my travels. I know how it feels to be completely alone. But at least I hadn’t completely forgotten about my father’s house. Too many people don’t even know they have a father and a home. Do you think maybe together we could go and tell them about our amazing father?
LikeLike
iMonk, well said. I remember the post from last year and thought then it was excellent.
I was “happy enough” to be a Protestant for a long time. I affirmed everything you write (still affirm the vast majority of it), I tried to live that way as a Protestant, and I expected to die a Protestant. But then something quite unexpected happened: my received theology unraveled and became incoherent when it came to some very deep questions I had had for a long time, but only allowed to surface with the advent and safety of the emerging church conversation: questions I had about what kind of God God is, and what is he up to with us humans, and the creation, and with our lives *before* we “go to heaven”, and about what exactly is the Gospel. These are all central questions, and they all deal with interpretation of scripture. Neither RC nor Prot interpretations added up; there were way too many loose ends for me in both of them. Then (bless God!!!) along came N.T. Wright, who answered those questions with an interpretation of scripture that makes sense to me as a “big picture” sort of thinker, without the loose ends. I gradually found out that 85-90% (my estimate) of what Wright expresses is what Orthodoxy teaches…
I was not looking for “the true church”, and was initially quite put off by tactless verbiage of some Orthodox. But once I had answers to my questions, it became a matter of conscience for me: what do I now do with what I know? It had been the same matter of conscience when I left RCatholicism in college: I had read my (Catholic) Bible deeply and found some rather huge things there that were out of synch with what I had been taught, and I had to do something with what I now knew… even in the face of potential misunderstanding or rejection by my family, then as now…
For me, RC and Protestantism (even Anglicanism) were two sides of the same coin. When I saw the path before me led to Orthodoxy, I actually went looking for the weaknesses and sin- and it didn’t take long to find them 😉 I’ve been churched too long to have many illusions about church. I also found plenty of honest, non-defensive Orthodox people. Thank God, as Fr. Ernesto wrote, that “perfection” and “being the true church” are not connected. This is good news indeed for a recovering perfectionist!
For years I felt homeless in my own tradition, though finding the Northumbria Community and the “Celtic Christian” ethos gave me warm shelter. I am happy enough to have found a home. I do believe that Orthodoxy holds the fullness of Christian expression and retains the most threads of connection to the primitive church that emerged from Judaism. I know others struggle with these things and come to different conclusions, or never struggle at all. That’s ok. I believe above all else that God is good and merciful.
I appreciate your heart, which encourages me, and the safety and hospitality of your blog, which lead me to write more than I intend to when I start a comment…
Dana
LikeLike
Sue, I’m not going to get in a fight with you,especially over something I’m not well versed in, and is often the subject of much disinformation on both sides (Inquisition myths and half-truths abound). I will say that I sincerely believe St. Francis of Assisi presents a far better example of how to reform the faith. Of note, the Pope at the time only required 41 of what he considered to be errors be retracted. That was inclusive of the 95 Theses and other Lutherian writings. I will also give Luther credit for not overstepping what he saw, at that point, as his bounds, i.e. “This much I confess: if Dr Karlstadt or any one else could have convinced me five years ago that there was nothing but bread and wine in the sacrament, he would have rendered me a great service. I have undergone great temptations, and struggled and striven to get free of this because I saw clearly that with this I could have given the severest blow to popery. […][76] But I am bound; I cannot get free of it; the text is too strong, and cannot be wrested from its sense by words. –Weimar Ausgabe 15:391-397
LikeLike
I have lived in Latin America most of my life. I draw extensively from historic Christianity to effectively teach on topics such as the classic spiritual disciplines…presenting Biblical principles without necessarily heralding the sources. I believe that there have been sincere and loving Cristocentric disciples within the Roman Catholic and Orthodox religions throughout the ages.
However, let us consider THE WAY to God. I am not sure what version of Roman Catholicism is presented in the First World, but here in Latin America Mariology reigns. Visit, for example, the Basilica in Mexico City: Mary is the Redemptrix (nevermind “co”) and Christ is portrayed as weak (a baby in Mary’s arms, hanging on a cross), dead (sometimes in Mary’s arms), or at the very most, as a pathetically meek man. I have yet to see an image of a conquering, all-powerful one-and-only Savior. Mary supplants Christ, in function and predominance.
Evangelicals/Protestants in Latin America, for the most part, would never consider Roman Catholicism as another denominational option or even as a technically different version of Christianity–it is viewed as another religion altogether. On the flip side, check out what previous popes have said about he rise of evangelicalism in Latin America: nothing short of all-out declarations of war. Apparently this kind of inflammatory rhetoric is not broadcast in the politically-correct First World.
Can a mere human be infallible? Is tradition equal to or greater than Scripture? Is Mary the Mother of God? These are the issues that we confront here. While the Western world is seeking greater compatibility between the aforementioned traditions the Global South will not, in my estimation, follow suit.
LikeLike
I am a happy Protestant-thanks for writing that essay-peace Jonny “crookedfingers”
LikeLike
Maj Tony,
Luther did not “leave” the catholic church. He and all the pastors and churches teaching justification by faith were thrown out of the Church.(Read that excommunicated.) It was never his intent to leave, he never wanted to start another church, unlike other reformers. He actively tried to repair the breach for years.
Maybe it was the magisterium that did not wait on God’s timing, and come to a more amenable solution, but instead issued a decree of excommunication prematurely. Then they sealed the rift in stone in the Council of Trent, effectively declaring the Gospel of justification by faith alone, and anyone teaching it to be anathema.(eternally condemned)
The ‘Lutheran Party’ had said that they would return to the fold if they were allowed to preach the gospel, and hold that the papacy was of human origin for the good order of the Church.
Come on guys,learn your own history.
As to the subject of the post, I have found my home and my people in the Lutheran Church. I will be buried in Lutheran dirt.
Seems to me the divisions in the Church are a kind of ‘Tower of Babel’ thing, and God in His wisdom has allowed the church to blossom into tens of thousands of different expressions that everyone might hear the Gospel in his own laguage and culture. In my thinking, any other interpretation leaves Jesus’ prayer to the Father for unity among His people to be completely unanswered.
LikeLike
A story on the Guatemala mission trip:
My brother-in-law’s father-in-law was sharing his disappointment with me a couple of years ago about a mission trip to Guatemala he had been on. He stated that the priest in the village Catholic church would not let their group hold services in their building for the local community they were visiting. I asked if his group was evangelizing and he said they were , and I asked him about the group’s long term goals and he stated that they were going to build a church so that they could bring the local inhabitants to Christ. I then asked him if he thought it would be right if aonther denomination came and asked to preach in his Church and then evangelized his congregation away to their new church down the street. He told me he didn’t believe we were comparing apples to apples.
LikeLike
i wonder if jesus cares as much about our labels as we do..?
LikeLike
Interesting post. I’ve been raised in the Protestant world my whole life. I was just telling a Catholic co-worker of mine about my brother-in-law’s recent youth mission trip to Guatemala. He replied that he is somewhat offended about all of the mission trips that protestant churches take to Latin America, which is hugely catholic.
It wasn’t something I had really thought that much about. I grew up being taught that we needed to save people from Catholicism. Now that I’m a little more mature (little being the operative word here) I see that we do have a lot more similarities than differences and I find myself seeing more and more value in the ideas and benefits of a more liturgical, traditional system of worship. I am content as seeing us as brothers and sisters in Christ with a few differences of opinion.
That said I too am “happy enough” despite some of the ridiculousness we see out here in Protestant land.
LikeLike
We believe that the churches we have grown up in, … are the churches God himself sovereignly brought us into.
Absolutely. I tell those who want to change me: God is sovereign and made me a Catholic.
Reminds me of what Fr. Greeley says, “Catholics like being Catholic.” Folks is just gonna have to respect that.
The churches need people of good will in them. Period.
Good, resurrected post.
LikeLike
Aliasmoi, I knew I should have used a gender neutral term… although I tend to refer to everyone as “guy” like “How’re you guys doin'” – I’m sure there are a lot of women that secretly want to smack me ; )
LikeLike
Monk, even though I’m a Catholic, when I read things like this one you wrote… I can’t help closing my eyes and saying: “Thanks, God, for Protestantism”.
Blessings.
LikeLike
Maj
Do you mean to suggest that Luther should have been burned at the stake. That was God’s (timing)expectation? That is how the Roman Church had planned for Luther to leave the church along with countless other monks, priest and nuns. Do you think that was God’s will?
LikeLike
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to ***observe all that I commanded you;*** and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Matt. 28:19-20
***This is where the argument begins, and in God’s time, ends. It’s that simple, and no party is without sin in that respect. We’re all human, and fallen.
Three words that sum up where we need to be (in Latin “Ut Unum Sint”) fr John 17:21
“That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”
It literally answers the 5Ws and (IMHO) How.
WHO/WHERE (they: all of us everywhere)
WHAT (unity)
WHEN (logical assumption is “always”)
WHY (that the world believe)
HOW (“as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee” which, to me, is pretty strong language considering the nature of the Trinity; think about that for a minute or a month)
Not to demonize Luther, but IMHO Luther left the RCC because he was unwilling to work on “God’s time” (not that he didn’t have PLENTY of help on both sides of the issue). Just to give non-Catholics an understanding of what I mean by “God’s time” I will use some examples from recent (since Vat II) RCC history. Very little happens in Rome in any sort of rapid fashion, and oft for good reason.
It took the current Pope two years (maybe more) to publish “Summorum Pontificum” liberalizing the use of the 1962 Missal for those who desire it, and that was probably beneficial, as he was able to work WITH his brother bishops to, for the most part, gain their acceptance, versus springing it on them and getting excessive pushback. He still has that problem, especially in France and Germany, but worldwide, it’s generally been accepted.
We’re just now getting what was going to be the 2004 edition of the English translation of the 2002 Roman Missal. The plan is to publish by the end of 2010 (yep, count ’em, EIGHT years). ICEL (the folks that do the English translation for the whole world) have worked with the USCCB (bishops conf) and revised the English translation of the 2002 Rom Mis 4 times to get the “recognitio” from Rome. The reason for the change and time to do it: believe it or not, the use of more literal biblical language in Eucharistic Prayers and responses (i.e. the Centurion’s prayer “Lord I am not worthy…” and Malachi: “from the rising of the sun to its setting,†[versus “from east to west,”]) may a perfect offering be made…”
Previous edition timelines:
1st was 1969 for Latin/1970 for Engl]
2d was 1972/74 with a minor rev in 1985 due to the new Code of Canon Law.
These are the “easy” things.
LikeLike
Definitely if anyone thinks he or she will find the “perfect” church in Catholicism, that person is in for a big shock – and should not even contemplate conversion in the first instance, if they are looking for perfection. That’s about as solid a foundation as converting because you prefer the music or the architecture or the vestments, and you will get as badly burned.
Luther got a lot of things right – and the badly needed Counter-Reformation in the Church came about in response to the Reformers – but a lot of change was also despite, not because, of them.
But you are perfectly correct, Michael, in saying that the first concern should be to be most conformed to Christ wherever or in whatever denomination one finds oneself.
LikeLike
It is always interesting to listen to people talk about church and take notice to how they use the word.
When it come to my thinking about the church I don’t ever want to go back to were I think of anything other than actual people that are christians. It all too often sounds like “the church” is some entity that would exist even if everyone left it.
The church is the people. Some people are really off base. Some people are doing really bad things.
It seems to me that Paul spends a lot of time giving correction to those who he considers to be the church, yet when we look at similar problems today we dicide that they are not the church.
Want visible unity? Love the people who make up the church universal in spite of the machinery that is too often confused with the church itself.
LikeLike
Q: What is the largest protestant denomination in the United States?
A: The Roman Catholic Church in America.
— Old Lutheran joke
LikeLike
I wish that we could work together better. That way the weaknesses of one tend to match up with the strengths of another.
I crossed the Tiber, but would never try to convince another to do so. If they were struggling where they were, I would show what I know about Catholicism, including warts, and divisions. I respect the theological differences, and let’s face it, we need to be concerned about the hurting world that is out there.
If anyone doesn’t think that Islam is divided, may I remind you of Sunni, Sufi, and Shi’ite. One group, the Ahmadiyya, are considered heretics by the mainstream Islam, even though they consider themselves Muslim. They are still trying to kill each other, even when the US isn’t involved. (Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that the US is a cause of it. Perhaps a common enemy though).
LikeLike
Sue Kephart:
On some level, I think true ecumenism can’t be based on a minimalist approach. There are core doctrines which are never to be simply negotiated away for the sake of a quick unity, which ultimately is a false unity.
I was just posing a question regarding your statement regarding Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and I think the evidence, at least from the Catholic side, is that the Orthodox Church is a Sister Church, and in Catholic doctrine, an Orthodox Christian can receive Communion in a Catholic parish, altough the Orthodox Church would rather them not, unless it is an emergency.
My point is, the polemics between the Catholic Church adn Orthodox Church, which you implied with your statement, is non-existent, and at the Level of Bishops and theologians is very charitable and there is serious dialogue between the two Churches. From the theological discussions, what can take place is ultimately a transformation among the hearts among the lay faithful [where sometimes there is polemics still going on] will ultimately lead to full communion, in God’s time, between the Catholic and Orthodox Church.
Vatican II, and the mutual lifting of the excommunications of 1054 was an act of charity and reconciliation and as Pope Benedict stated, the acts of 1054, by God’s grace, have been officially purged from the Church and must be purged from her memory.
At the same time, Vatican II looked at the splits in Western Christendom, i.e. Catholics vs the various churchs of the Reformation, and rather than focusing solely on the differences, acknowledged that those baptized into the Holy Trinity, while not in perfect communion, are incorporated into Christ and the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”, expressed in the Creeds, and those are related to us as brothers and sisters in Christ.
In closing, I am firmly in the Catholic camp and believe the fullness of Apostolic Tradition, which comes from Christ, rests in the Catholic Church in union with the Bishop of Rome. However, at the same time, I recognize that Christ is working through various Protestant communities and that there are some very orthdoox Protestant Christians in those communities who are in the culture wars facing modern America, are natural allies.
Pax et bonum
LikeLike
Radagast, I’m a woman. So, it should be atta girl!
LikeLike
“Several years ago, I worked the overnight shift at a Salvation Army shelter. I heard very little preaching while I was there. But, during that time, I saw the love of Christ at work like I’d never seen it before. The staff/church members LOVED those people in the shelter.”
“Wasn’t it St. Francis who said, “Preach the gospel always – when neccessary use words.—
Atta boy – Right with you there…
I believe Michael had a recent posting about the Gsopels and living the Kingdom of God…
Better to know me by my actions and love than by the book I’m beating you with…
LikeLike
Dear Louisiana Catholic,
Must we continue with Religious institution politics forever?
“Whoever wants to be first must be the very last and a servant of all.”
“Whoever welcomes ones of these little children ( someone who is not a member of ones own church, perhaps???) in my name welcomes me and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.”
How do our religious institutions stack up against that?
LikeLike
Dan Crawford:
In line with Michael’s policy, I am in no way saying that you should come into full communion with the Catholic Church, that is between you and the Lord. However, if you do decide to come into full communion with the Catholic Church, I hope you would formally rejoin [privately, rather than publicy] and return to the Eucharist, which as the Second Vatican COuncil so beautifully put, is “the source and summit of Christian life”.
In the meantime, you sound like an excellent Pastor, and the congregation you lead seems to be in a good hands. I wish you and your congregation a blessed Holy Week.
Pax et bonum
LikeLike
How beautifully and thoughtfully written. Thank you!
LikeLike
Having spent considerable time and energy in both Protestant and Catholic camps, I expect that that after I retire as a Protestant clergyman, I will wander back to the Catholic Church. I will not ask to be formally received into the Church – I will sit in the back row and not take communion, and take great comfort in the realization that on the Last Day, the churches, purged of their arrogance, pride, sins, failures, apostasies, self-deceptions, prejudices and damn silliness, will praise Christ as their Lord and Savior and join Him in the celestial banquet.
LikeLike
I’m hearing an awful lot about preaching the gospel and very little about being the gospel. Rich Mullins said, “People don’t become Christians because someone explained the nuts and bolts of Christianity to them. They become Christians because someone WAS the nuts and bolts of Christianity to them.”
Several years ago, I worked the overnight shift at a Salvation Army shelter. I heard very little preaching while I was there. But, during that time, I saw the love of Christ at work like I’d never seen it before. The staff/church members LOVED those people in the shelter. When I worked Sunday evening, people from the church would come over and tell me about when they were in the shelter. So, I asked my boss if anyone kept records of people who were helped by the Salvation Army who later joined the church? He said, “Where do you think we get our membership from?”
Wasn’t it St. Francis who said, “Preach the gospel always – when neccessary use words.”
LikeLike
Sue Kephart:
Can you please enlighen me as to how “the Orthodox Church has more evidence for their case” as the True Church.
For the record, the Catholic Church has always recognized that in the Eastern Orthodox Church, there is the fullness of the 7 sacraments/Holy Mysteries, and thus they are fully a Church that was ordered by Christ and since the mutual lifting of the excommunications of 1054 by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras in December of 1965, which happened just 2 years after the two met in the Holy Land in 1963.
At the meeting in 1963, Metropolitan Athenagoras of Thyratia of Athenagoras greeted Pope Paul VI with these words “The first bishop of the Church, among equals”. He continued by stating to the Pope “You are the first bishop of Christianity, and your brother, the second in rank. The Bishop of Constantinopile for the first time in centuries, by reason of the Holy event of this day, turn to mankind with one voice and one heart to proclaim to them the good tidings of Christmas: Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth to the people he loves” Later, Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople stated “against all expectations, the bishop of Rome is among us, the first among us in honor, he who presides in love [citing St. Ignatius of Antioch] [quotes taken from Pope Benedicts Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 216]
Now, why did I cite this, the meeting between Pope Paul VI and Patriach Athenagoras produced the bond of Charity between the two CHurches, which ultimately must lead to Eucharistic Communion. Since the events fo the 1960’s, the Catholic and Orthodox CHurches have moved closer and just last summer, the Patriarch, on the feat of SS Peter and Paul, celebrated the Liturgy of the Word in St. Peters and preached the Homily/Sermon along with Pope Benedict and then both of them recited the Nicene Creed together in the Greek form. In other words, the Catholic and Orthodox Church, in God’s time, will restore full Eucharistic communion and in fact, don’t see each other as non-Churches, as both recognize each other as part of the Church in the fullness of Apostolic Tradition.
Sorry for the long post, but trying to pit the Catholic adn Orthodox Churches against each other is not in line with the historical events going back to Vatican II, and does nothing to further Christian unification.
Regards
LikeLike
Just posting again something I wrote before (Ironies of Evangelicals). Maybe adding some more stuff….
Have you ever heard say: “Jesus is not religion, it’s life (… relation or whatever the bumper sticker says)”?
How many of us “evangelical christians” slap this words in the face of (mostly) catholic people and then preach them: If you want to become a REAL CHRISTIAN, you have to become… EVANGELICAL!!!? (Obviously we don’t say it that way).
We rant about a void religious life and then go trough the motions every single weekend without questioning our own religious practices, because we find them fulfilling(or at least “happy enough” with them). Then what’s the difference (or wrong) with other religious practices that other people find fulfilling for them?
I’m no theology scholar, but it seems to me that Hebrews speaks of Christ replacing the religious order of communion with God (trough Sacrifices – read tithes and offerings – Temple and Priests) for another more natural and familiar trough Christ. He replaced the religious agenda with the original idea of communion set on the Garden of Eden. (What was Adams religion? anyone?).
Am I wrong here? or we’re missing the point? Jesus didn’t come to replace old religions with a brand new one. He came to (in his own words): Set the captives free!!! (even religious ones included). That’s why I find pointless arguing of catholic vs. evangelicals, or them vs. us. Once you get rid of the religious agenda, you’re set free to be a true witness of the gospel.
One of the many problems of OUR WITNESSING is that we want it to become THE WITNESSING MODEL. Instead of focusing in the Gospel of Christ (plain, simple and straightforward), we replaced it with OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THAT GOSPEL and focused in the PERSONAL EFFECTS of the GOSPEL in our lives, not leaving room for anything that is not familiar to US.
So here we are, 2000 years later, still doing religious proselytism, good ol’ fashioned (pharisee vs. sadducees) style proselytism.
I know maybe this post will be misunderstood, or even criticized. I know we can keep arguing forever about the relevance of our religious liturgy and practices. But lets face it… Our Religion and denominationalism is one of the main things the hinders the church to witness to people like Bill Maher, Muslims, far eastern religions, atheists, agnostics, etc. (John 17? anyone?).
Let me be clear on this, I’m no ecumenist… far from it! Forget all what you know and start over. Discover the bigger picture… It’s about God, not about our religions. Jesus slammed the religious establishment of his days; Paul was unwilling to allow the corinthians jump into the denominationalism bandwagon; and here we are almost 2000 years later trying to make sense of all the religion-mess that we are in.
Some people wave the flag of reformation, but then I ask to myself, what’s the point of reforming something that it’s wrong from its very core and since the beginning?
WE DON’T NEED ANOTHER REFORMATION, WE NEED A REVOLUTION!!!
Wanna be revolutionary? Fall passionately in love with God, know him and Go and live a “normal” life (eg.: do whatever you do for a living) and while you’re at it, make disciples, cast out devils, heal the sick, plead the case of the widow and the poor; don’t worry about being saved by grace or by works, just be a christian-less all the add-ons. I dare you to see the counter-cultural effects of that.
Have ears to hear?
Peace and Love!
LikeLike
Fr. Ernesto said:
“…one would expect Satan, who goes around as a roaring lion and as an angel of light, to sow confusion in the Church.” [AMEN]
“Confusion and strife are only indicative of the fact that we are at war and should serve to remind us that the war is not against flesh and blood, ‘but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.'”[AMEN x 3]
“There are several components as to what makes a Church but lack of strife and confusion is not one of them.” [AMEN, thus it has always been]
Aliasmoi: Whether most Catholics agree with 100% of Church teaching, I don’t know the stats, but the until-recent weak leadership in the RCC at the local level hasn’t pushed the issue, so, to borrow from the Army philosophy, if you don’t enforce the standard, you just set a new standard. I chalk it up to less-than-faithful catechesis especially on things like auricular confession, which is a bedrock of both RCC and Orthodox practice.
My take on Islam is it is partly the notion that the Christians are lacking in unity, especially with respect to doctrinal unity. Islam doesn’t really have a governing body. Even Shiism is more loosely governed than the RCC, and the doctrinal differences within the various mainline sects in Islam is not that great compared to RCC/Ortho vs Mainline Prot/EV Prot’ism.
LikeLike
Aliasmoi:
Regardless of what individual Catholics think about those issues, the Catholic Church is clear on “all of those issues”, that all of those birth control, same-sex relations, abortion, euthansia, embryonic stem-cell research are morally wrong [although I think there is a moral distinction within those issues as to which are objectively graver sins, which gets into the Catholic theological distinction between Mortal and venial sins with is implied in 1 John 5:16-17].
With respect to Islam, on the surface, what you say may make it appealing, and in the context of U.S. prisons, I think we are largely talking about Black Islam, which also has some connotations of Black Nationalism. Still, IMO, the problem with Islam still remains. If one becomes Muslim and is falls into certain types of sins, do wee what happens to the Pakistani 17 year old girl who dressed inappropriately [she was publicy flogged], we see that in Iraq men suspected of homosexuality are killed, we continue to see if a woman was raped [and she was not with a male relative], then she was guilty of exciting the man, thus she was at fault.
In closing, I do not want to pick a fight with individuals who happen to be Muslim, they were all created by the same God and are entitled the respect and human dignity because they, as all human beings, are created in image of God (c.f. Genesis 1:26-27).
However, the religion of Islam is another matter and I think it would be wise far all Christian confessions to stop going at each other and make a common witness to Christ’s love. Does this mean compromising core beliefs of our confessions. Of course not, but where we agree, Trinity, Divinity of Christ, paschal mystery [passion, death, resurrection of Christ], God’s Grace restoring us back to communion with God, etc, etc, we need to acknowledge this and point out that we agree on more than we disagree with. In the end, all of us would be wise to look around the world and see that Islam wherever it becomes the dominate relgion, non-Muslims are given secondary status [i.e. shiria law].
Pax et bonum
LikeLike
Act 10:45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
Let everyone be judged by this standard and let the cards fall where they may.
LikeLike
Thanks for a beautiful post. I agree. Unity will come about when all followers of Christ respect each other. Religious institution of ALL kinds are political. I used to think the RC churchs’ statements about being the one true church was to dis Protestants. I now understand it as an ongoing fight with the Orothdox church which also believes they are the one true church. So if that is important to you join the Orthodox one as they have more evidence for their case.
Protestants of all stripes, RC, Orthodox are not all in agreement with each other within their own traditions.I have learned from all traditions. All have much to offer. Respect what is given you and keep an open mind.
The disciples never got to ask Jesus what He thought about “who was the greatest” as they where too embrassed to admit they were fighting over it. Can we do no better?
LikeLike
Actually, I like the fact that there are Protestants and non-Catholics that are Catholic friendly. With a bit of common understanding and the agree to disagree attitude conversation about faith can be fun and informative. I just hate getting thumped in the head and told I’m not saved and going to hell (probably as much as you feel about some Catholics!).
As for Islam – its draw for some – especially males is that it is a masculine faith that brings discipline. Ever notice, at least in Catholicism, that there are fewer and fewer men who volunteer for anything? I think the second piece is that Islam can be intense spiritually. The third piece is that there is a lot of evangelization for Islam in the prisons.
LikeLike
I think this is an important post, but I have to point out that there are many like myself who don’t really resonate with either position. Personally, I don’t understand the attraction to Catholicism (or Orthodoxy), but I’m most definitely not “happy enough” to remain protestant.
If it’s true that Evangelicalism is a circus (and I think it is), then Catholicism is the Land of OZ with it’s “great and powerful wizard,” and while I’m weary of the pop hucksterism of the circus, I certainly can’t imagine trading it in for the absurdities and contrivances of the Emerald City.
I have a great deal of respect for the spiritual giants of Christian history that come out of every tradition (as well as some of the practices of each) and I would never question the general sincerity of faith present in any of these traditions. However, I have less and less tolerance in my life for religious bunting. I agree Luther made a terrible mistake; he didn’t go nearly far enough.
LikeLike
Maybe the reason so many are converting to Islam is because Christians are wasting a huge amount of time trying to convert eachother rather than reaching out to the unaffiliated. We spend a lot of time trying to convince people that if they really believe life will be all hearts and flowers when that just ain’t true. While we preach forgiveness of sins, we don’t really believe it, and people who were serious sinners feel it when they come to our churches. There’s a reason Islam is huge in the prison system. American Islam preaches and seems to actually believe that it doesn’t matter what you’ve done in the past, you can redeem yourself with God. Can you imagine a convicted murderer coming to your church and ever being anything more than tolerated? Can you imagine him becoming a respected member of the community? I’ve seen it happen in American Islam – can’t speak for middle eastern Islam, but American Islam is impressive. Maybe another reason people convert to Islam is that Islam provides clear cut boundaries. Right and wrong is still right and wrong. The Christian churches ARE becoming increasingly wishy washy about these things. Before the Catholics start chirping, most Catholics I know take a great deal of pride in not believing what the church teaches about birth control, gay rights, etc. So, this is not a Protestant thing.
LikeLike
“We are not changing churches because we believe we are part of the Church.” This was a concept I had trouble explaining to my Catholic friends while I was an Assemblies of God minister AND a monk with the Brothers and Sisters of Charity. I didn’t feel compelled to “convert” to Catholicism, for I was already part of the one, true Church, with the imprimatur of the Holy Spirit in my life as God’s seal of approval.
I’m a happy Protestant/Pentecostal because I’m where I believe God wants me to be. Furthermore, since I was saved in a Baptist church, I laughingly refer to myself as a “Bapticostalic.” It seems to me that if I were to claim to be only a Catholic or only a Baptist, I’d be denying the wonderful input I’ve received from many different traditions. I like to tell people there is only one Church in my town; we simply meet in different locations. If we remember that Christ is the head of the Church, not one man or group of men, then we’ll always have a reason to find the true source of our unity and put our petty differences aside.
LikeLike
Living outside the RC world (as a baptist) and inside the RC world (as my wife is a teacher in a RC School), I am happy enough where I am because I see behind the green curtain.
The ties to RC have taught me there are a lot of wonderful catholic believers, who in many ways live a life far more richly than many baptists.
Those same ties have shown me the many RC who are broken by the RC Church, and lead lives of desperation.
I am happy enough to be a baptist who loves catholics.
LikeLike
Let me respond to a couple of comments on the “true” Church. Perfection and being the True Church have never been connected. One of Our Lord Jesus’ early warnings was the parable of the wheat and the tares, in which He warned that the Kingdom of God would have a mixture of true and false believers until He returned.
St. John writes in one of his epistles that “they left because they were not of us,” while to the Thessalonians, St. Paul writes to have nothing to do with those who do not follow the traditions.
To point to disagreement within a Church as though that were indicative that they were not the Church is mistaken. To point to disagreement within a Church as though that meant that the Church did not know Truth is mistaken. Given what Our Lord, St. John, and St. Paul said, that type of disagreement is more indicative of wheat and tares than anything else. In fact, one would expect Satan, who goes around as a roaring lion and as an angel of light, to sow confusion in the Church.
Confusion and strife are only indicative of the fact that we are at war and should serve to remind us that the war is not against flesh and blood, “but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
There are several components as to what makes a Church but lack of strife and confusion is not one of them.
LikeLike
Billy HW-
Is this the reason people convert to Islam? (I really haven’t studied this or read very much about it. It’s a legitimate question.)
Does God really need us to figure this out & get this straight in order for Him to build His kingdom?
My answer to that question is “no.” Because He has been building His kingdom from the beginning of time & He will continue to do so. I will gladly join Him in His work, and I consider it a blessing and gift to be used by Him in the lives of others. But, His work is not dependent upon me and my ability to figure things out & straighten things out.
LikeLike
“We seek the day we can recognize Christ in one another, stand in the church of Jesus on both sides of the Tiber (and elsewhere) and be grateful to God for what he has done and what we all appreciate in our varying and various traditions. May all of us grow in the grace and goodness of Jesus and the mission of his people.”
Amen.
LikeLike
My husband and I have travelled much the same path as you…and have ended up at the same place as you….”happy to be protestant” just the way you described it. Thank you for expressing our experience so eloquently:-)
LikeLike
I know that for myself having struggled with what church is right or wrong. I don’t feel that it really has to be one or the other. Having gone though a several year study of the Protestant verses Catholic Church. After a comment made by a teaching pastor against that Catholic Church. Which did not sit well with me. I have a love for the Protestant tradtions I have been a part of durning a time of seeking God or He was calling out for me. The finger point of you are not this and you are not that. This seems to be something rather disharting. I sometimes wonder what has happened to love we are called as follows of Jesus Christ. No matter what demonations we belong to.
LikeLike
Three cheers for this piece from a Baptist minister who, while in seminary, nearly swam the Bosporus to Constantinople (perhaps a logical impossibility in the minds of some who may be trying to transvert – not “convert” – you today).
I also give a hearty amen to Fr. Ernesto’s final paragraph. I believe in achieving the visible unity of the Church, but that will need to come amidst a reconciled diversity and recognition of the Spirit’s gifts at work in the various traditions and communions. The answer will not lie in disaffected groups and individuals simply shifting back and forth across the ecclesial frontiers.
LikeLike
Why do many “swim the Tiber” from “evangelicalism” to Rome without first stopping at Wittenberg? Lutherans describe themselves as both evangelical, catholic, and orthodox as opposed to “Evangelical”, “Catholic”, and “Orthodox”.
I do disagree with Micheal assertion that Luther left the church. Luther wanted to reform the Roman church and return it to the gospel However, Luther’s reforms were rejected and was excommunicated. Luther never intended to create a new church but to reform the existing one.
LikeLike
Thanks for the post there iMonk. I’m currently in my own two tortured minds about leaving Methodism to go back to the “trunk” of Anglicanism. You’ve given me something to think about tonight.
LikeLike
If it makes you feel better, Catholicism and Orthodoxy can be circuses too. (But bigger ones!) Pop quiz: What religion is most likely to use fisticuffs against (pacifist) Jehovah’s Witnesses, and then lie about it in court? (Recent scandal in Georgia–I mean Yurtzia, not Jawja.) As for unity, well, your phone book is likely to reveal a broad range of Orthodox groups with uncertain relations among them.
LikeLike
A couple of corrections and additions to my comment:
– In my first paragraph I meant to say, “your replies would make MORE sense to me” — I don’t want to imply that they make no sense at all.
– In the middle paragraph, the sentence should read, “they seem to us” (not “use”)
– Additional comment on visible division within the RCC: here in Austria, in large parts of the Catholic population, the German term “papsttreu” (faithful to the Pope) has become a derogatory term applied to priests and theologians.
LikeLike
Billy HW and JoAnna:
your replies would make sense to me if I didn’t experience every day here in Europe that even if we all became Roman Catholics, the church would still be visibly divided. The “We decide what Jesus meant for ourselves!†movement is alive and well WITHIN the Roman Catholic church, both here in Europe as well as in the United States (I have no personal knowledge of anywhere else). I have never heard the pope reviled as much by Protestants as he has been reviled by Catholics in Germany and Austria in the wake of the Williamson situation and the aborted attempt to name a conservative auxiliary bishop for an Austrian diocese in the last couple of months.
And, JoAnna, your struggles in an important aspect did not parallel the iMonk’s and those of many others, including myself: like you we are convinced that Christ established ONE Church, but unlike you we are not convinced that the RCC or any other earthly church institution can be fully identified with that one Church. Rather, they all seem to use more or less flawed human manifestations of that one true Church. Observing the divisions within the RCC also does not really convince us that institutional union is the way to spiritual or visible union.
Projects like Richard John Neuhaus’ “First Things” magazine, or Touchstone magazine to me are better expressions of visible Christian unity, as are recent events in Europe, like a week-long series of evangelistic meetings with a German Lutheran pastor, televised to venues all over Eastern and Western Europe, with local participaton from Protestant and Catholic churches/parishes. Of course these things are a drop in the ocean, and we have far to go towards visible unity, but you won’t convince us that organizational / institutional unification is the way to go.
LikeLike
As long as Christians are “happy enough” to remain visibly divided, Islam will continue to take over the world.
LikeLike
[MOD edit]
I think one would have to be absolutely crazy to think that any one form or body of Christianity is perfect and therefore the one true church. They are ALL just to flawed as history can undeniably tell.
I was raised to believe that the Church was not an institution, but the collection of all believers in Christ in all places and at all times. The different denominations therefore just makeup how the traditions of men express that identity.
So then are the creeds the common ground that all the catholic church worldwide can find ecumenical agreement?
I feel that the draws to Rome I have recently struggled with as a Baptist could possibly be more accurately explained as a desire for the Body of Christ to have worldwide unity. Oh for that day…
LikeLike
Though the use of the word “apologetic” might cause you to cringe here Michael, this is an excellent apologetic essay you’ve written. I very much like how you expressed the Protestant rationale with a sincere love of Christ to match.
Looking forward to your book already.
Brad
LikeLike
I’m a Protestant convert to the Catholic Church (raised in the ELCA), and your post details the internal debate I had for quite a while. I could still respect the Catholic Church while still being Lutheran… right?
Well, no. Because if Christ established one Church, and I became convinced that Christ only established one Church, then I wasn’t following Christ to the best of my ability if I deliberately remained outside of the Church that I was convinced He had established.
My other reason for converting was the realization that soon the Catholic Church will be the ONLY one still speaking out against abortion, contraception, same-sex “marriage”, and so forth. More and more Protestant denominations are capitulating to popular culture and declaring far and wide that truth must be determined by majority vote; otherwise known as the “We decide what Jesus meant for ourselves!” movement. I wanted to be in a church that taught the Truth of Christ’s message despite popular culture, not one that bowed to every social whim once the pressure got strong enough.
Thank you for your post; it was an interesting read.
LikeLike
Let me put in that some of the “tortured” souls that come into Orthodoxy continue to be “tortured” souls, particularly when they find all our weaknesses and sin. Some of those who come in waving the banner of the True Church have been incredibly shocked that not every jot and tittle of an Orthodoxy that they read about in a book is followed by the Orthodox today.
The priest most responsible for bringing me into Orthodoxy is a convert himself, and a former Director of a region for Campus Crusade for Christ back in the 1960’s. He is old now and will not last much longer. Yet, to this day, he speaks of his gratefulness for his Southern Baptist heritage. As he puts it, he learned about Jesus there; he went to seminary through them; he learned a love for the Word of God that he would never deny. BTW, he is also one of the translators of the Orthodox Study Bible.
As for myself, who was raised as a typical Latino Roman Catholic, that priest of whom I talk brought me to the Lord while he was still a Southern Baptist pastor, but after he had left Campus Crusade for Christ. I, too, am grateful for both the Roman Catholicism that I learned at my mother’s bosom and for the evangelicalism that I was taught when that pastor first reached out to me. Both are part of me, even now that I am an Orthodox priest.
In fact, it was an influx of Evangelicals into the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese that brought about much of the growth in us over the last 20 some years. Perhaps that influx points to a better way. You see, the tendency of the “tortured” souls is to completely reject what they have left for what they are joining. Not understanding the weaknesses of the place to which they are going, they arrogantly judge the weaknesses of the place they are leaving.
But, in the influx of 20 some years ago, both the “Orthodox” side and the “Evangelical” side were able to see the strengths of each one and join strength to strength, so that the “valley” of the one was filled by the “mountain” of the other, and the way of the Lord was made a much smoother road.
I would suggest that this is one of the ways forward. I am fully convinced that the Lord wants One visible Church. But, I suggest that there is more of a chance that we will get there if we learn to join strength to strength into that One visible Church, so that the strength of each covers and fills the weakness of the other. Relating to each other by matching arrogance to arrogance is only a recipe for even more schism.
LikeLike
I don’t know exactly why, but this post really struck a chord in me. Thank you for really articulating my own thoughts and feelings. The Spirit of God continues to do all kinds of surprising work in all kinds of surprising quarters – whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. I’m glad the Spirit is like that, and I’m happy enough to be a Protestant.
LikeLike