The Pope of Christian Unity on Ecumenism

Benedict XVI then went on to thank the members of the congregation for their efforts towards "the full integration of groups and individuals of former Anglican faithful into the life of the Catholic Church, in accordance with the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus. The faithful adherence of these groups to the truth received from Christ and presented in the Magisterium of the Church is in no way contrary to the ecumenical movement," he said, "rather, it reveals the ultimate aim thereof, which is the realisation of the full and visible communion of the disciples of the Lord." (Source)

Protestant perception of the "Lord's Supper"

This post comes from a thread on the Coming Home Network International forums.

One poster, "Pange Lingua" (Michael), wrote:

I think that Baptist minister is probably much closer to Catholicism than he would ever venture to suspect. If all of these things [the bread and wine for the "Lord's Supper"] are meant to be mere symbols, then it shouldn't make a great deal of difference how they're dispensed or how they're dispensed with. If his heart tells him there's something more to it ... then the little disposable cups he probably uses in his own services begins to become suspect. How the leftover grape juice is poured down the drain begins to become suspect. What happens to the rest of that loaf of French bread he's using starts to matter - and the little kids running up to grab a hunk after the service - well, that starts to matter too.

I think the simple realization that things matter is a huge part of the journey.

Sometimes the journey home has to start at home as well, within the Church. Last year some noise had to be made in my own parish because it was discovered that the chalice was being cleaned improperly, with the remnants of the precious blood being poured down the drain. Perhaps we needed a sensitive Baptist to help us out. Perhaps he'll be able to within not too many years.

Another poster, Steven Barrett, responded:

I knew I was in a deep "cultural hole" and ready for some steady teasin' at the Baptist church we used to attend and I was a sexton for, on the day I refused to vacuum up the little pieces of remaining communion bread.

"I'm NOT sucking up the Lord!" sez I. They couldn't believe I was that respectful for the communion they allowed to fall on their rugs, which were no doubt ground down a few times ... and you wouldn't want to know how they treated their Bibles, which in a Baptist Church are more important than their portions of Communion.

Here is my response:

---

Imagine if a wife threw out the bouquet of roses her husband gave her 10 minutes later. She'd explain, of course, that the roses were a symbol of her husband's love for her, and she received them and so spiritually/symbolically received his love, and now the flowers had served their purpose and, really, they were only ever just flowers: the husband's attachment of his love to them didn't change them in reality, just in perception, and now the perception (as far as the wife is concerned) is gone, the actual love having been acknowledged.

But no wife does that (do they?!). Yes, even wives with no belief in the Eucharist or Jesus Christ at all keep roses, ordinary flowers that serve as mere symbols of love (romantic, erotic, etc.), around longer than many Christian communities keep their "Lord's Supper" around after it has been received.

Amazing Advent homily by Anglican priest on the Church being "one"

And with that, we encounter the truth that may feel inconvenient for us as Anglicans that full communion with the Pope, and the Oneness, the Unity, the fullness of the Church are inextricably and by God’s Will bound up together. And we Anglicans – in common with Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, URCs, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Presbyterians – do not have that full communion with the Pope, and so by this ancient understanding of the Church are separated from the Oneness, the Unity, the fullness of the Church.

Read the whole thing by Rev. Giles Pinnock ("a Catholic-minded Anglican").  It's the first of four homilies he will be giving during Advent on "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic" from the Nicene Creed.

Pray for unity, and pray for Benedict XVI, the Pope of Christian Unity.

Benedict XVI, Pope of Christian Unity

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (Fr. Z) has a good idea:  when speaking and writing about Pope Benedict XVI, describe him as the "Pope of Christian Unity".  This is not an attempt to wish something good into being; rather, it is an acknowledgment of what Pope Benedict has been working to achieve with the Orthodox, the Society of St. Pius X, and the Anglicans.

Rome preparing for massive Anglican influx

There have been meetings held today in England and Rome to this effect:  the Holy See is preparing an Apostolic Constitution which will establish the structure by which Anglicans may enter the Catholic Church without having to sacrifice liturgically and spiritually significant traditions which have grown over the past 450 years.

NOTE OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH ABOUT PERSONAL ORDINARIATES FOR ANGLICANS ENTERING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

With the preparation of an Apostolic Constitution, the Catholic Church is responding to the many requests that have been submitted to the Holy See from groups of Anglican clergy and faithful in different parts of the world who wish to enter into full visible communion.

In this Apostolic Constitution the Holy Father has introduced a canonical structure that provides for such corporate reunion by establishing Personal Ordinariates, which will allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony. Under the terms of the Apostolic Constitution, pastoral oversight and guidance will be provided for groups of former Anglicans through a Personal Ordinariate, whose Ordinary will usually be appointed from among former Anglican clergy.

The forthcoming Apostolic Constitution provides a reasonable and even necessary response to a world-wide phenomenon, by offering a single canonical model for the universal Church which is adaptable to various local situations and equitable to former Anglicans in its universal application. It provides for the ordination as Catholic priests of married former Anglican clergy. Historical and ecumenical reasons preclude the ordination of married men as bishops in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Constitution therefore stipulates that the Ordinary can be either a priest or an unmarried bishop. The seminarians in the Ordinariate are to be prepared alongside other Catholic seminarians, though the Ordinariate may establish a house of formation to address the particular needs of formation in the Anglican patrimony. In this way, the Apostolic Constitution seeks to balance on the one hand the concern to preserve the worthy Anglican liturgical and spiritual patrimony and, on the other hand, the concern that these groups and their clergy will be integrated into the Catholic Church.

Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which has prepared this provision, said: "We have been trying to meet the requests for full communion that have come to us from Anglicans in different parts of the world in recent years in a uniform and equitable way. With this proposal the Church wants to respond to the legitimate aspirations of these Anglican groups for full and visible unity with the Bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter."

These Personal Ordinariates will be formed, as needed, in consultation with local Conferences of Bishops, and their structure will be similar in some ways to that of the Military Ordinariates which have been established in most countries to provide pastoral care for the members of the armed forces and their dependents throughout the world. "Those Anglicans who have approached the Holy See have made clear their desire for full, visible unity in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. At the same time, they have told us of the importance of their Anglican traditions of spirituality and worship for their faith journey," Cardinal Levada said.

The provision of this new structure is consistent with the commitment to ecumenical dialogue, which continues to be a priority for the Catholic Church, particularly through the efforts of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity. "The initiative has come from a number of different groups of Anglicans," Cardinal Levada went on to say: "They have declared that they share the common Catholic faith as it is expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and accept the Petrine ministry as something Christ willed for the Church. For them, the time has come to express this implicit unity in the visible form of full communion."

According to Levada: "It is the hope of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, that the Anglican clergy and faithful who desire union with the Catholic Church will find in this canonical structure the opportunity to preserve those Anglican traditions precious to them and consistent with the Catholic faith. Insofar as these traditions express in a distinctive way the faith that is held in common, they are a gift to be shared in the wider Church. The unity of the Church does not require a uniformity that ignores cultural diversity, as the history of Christianity shows. Moreover, the many diverse traditions present in the Catholic Church today are all rooted in the principle articulated by St. Paul in his letter to the Ephesians: ‘There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (4:5). Our communion is therefore strengthened by such legitimate diversity, and so we are happy that these men and women bring with them their particular contributions to our common life of faith."

Background information

Since the sixteenth century, when King Henry VIII declared the Church in England independent of Papal Authority, the Church of England has created its own doctrinal confessions, liturgical books, and pastoral practices, often incorporating ideas from the Reformation on the European continent. The expansion of the British Empire, together with Anglican missionary work, eventually gave rise to a world-wide Anglican Communion.

Throughout the more than 450 years of its history the question of the reunification of Anglicans and Catholics has never been far from mind. In the mid-nineteenth century the Oxford Movement (in England) saw a rekindling of interest in the Catholic aspects of Anglicanism. In the early twentieth century Cardinal Mercier of Belgium entered into well publicized conversations with Anglicans to explore the possibility of union with the Catholic Church under the banner of an Anglicanism "reunited but not absorbed".

At the Second Vatican Council hope for union was further nourished when the Decree on Ecumenism (n. 13), referring to communions separated from the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation, stated that: "Among those in which Catholic traditions and institutions in part continue to exist, the Anglican Communion occupies a special place."

Since the Council, Anglican-Roman Catholic relations have created a much improved climate of mutual understanding and cooperation. The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) produced a series of doctrinal statements over the years in the hope of creating the basis for full and visible unity. For many in both communions, the ARCIC statements provided a vehicle in which a common expression of faith could be recognized. It is in this framework that this new provision should be seen.

In the years since the Council, some Anglicans have abandoned the tradition of conferring Holy Orders only on men by calling women to the priesthood and the episcopacy. More recently, some segments of the Anglican Communion have departed from the common biblical teaching on human sexuality—already clearly stated in the ARCIC document "Life in Christ"—by the ordination of openly homosexual clergy and the blessing of homosexual partnerships. At the same time, as the Anglican Communion faces these new and difficult challenges, the Catholic Church remains fully committed to continuing ecumenical engagement with the Anglican Communion, particularly through the efforts of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity.

In the meantime, many individual Anglicans have entered into full communion with the Catholic Church. Sometimes there have been groups of Anglicans who have entered while preserving some "corporate" structure. Examples of this include, the Anglican diocese of Amritsar in India, and some individual parishes in the United States which maintained an Anglican identity when entering the Catholic Church under a "pastoral provision" adopted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II in 1982. In these cases, the Catholic Church has frequently dispensed from the requirement of celibacy to allow those married Anglican clergy who desire to continue ministerial service as Catholic priests to be ordained in the Catholic Church.

In the light of these developments, the Personal Ordinariates established by the Apostolic Constitution can be seen as another step toward the realization the aspiration for full, visible union in the Church of Christ, one of the principal goals of the ecumenical movement.

For more details, stay tuned to:

• The New Liturgical Movement
• Creative Minority Report
  
• Te Deum laudamus
  
• The Hermeneutic of Continuity
  
• What Does the Prayer Really Say?
  
• Holy Smoke
  

Sacraments in the Protestant communities

Here is an excerpt from a blog post of a pastor at a nearby non-denominational Christian community:

We will be looking at the two sacraments practiced by the Protestant Church - communion and baptism. Communion symbolizes the doorway to the church. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross paves the way for personal cleansing and a relationship with God. Josh will be sharing this weekend and I ask that everyone be praying for a clear message and call concerning the sacrifice of Christ and the elements of communion that facilitate our remembrance of that event. We trust some will make a decision this weekend to enter that door they have only previously gazed at from a distance. Then we hope they will be baptized the following week.

I mean Pastor Boyd no disrespect, but I think he's got Communion and Baptism backwards. Maybe it's just him, maybe it's the tradition in which he was brought up, maybe it's much of Protestantism in general.

St. Peter and St. Paul did not speak of Communion as the doorway to the Church. They preached Baptism first. I'm curious if the ecclesiology suffers when these two sacraments of initiation are put in the wrong order...

Bible Study: Witnessing on John 6:35ff

I attended the men's Bible Study at the Princeton Alliance Church near Queenship of Mary this past Thursday night. I got an email (along with the other regulars) out of the blue from the leader, Barry, which said "We'll kick off this week with Chapter 6, verse 35." No mention of the book of the Bible, but I'm a Catholic, so I know my Scriptures!

What other 6:35 would you start a Bible Study session with? John 6:35. The "Bread of Heaven" discourse! At a non-denominational Bible Study! As a Catholic, I felt compelled to go.

We didn't get to the verses about eating and drinking the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ until the very end of the evening, because there was much more discussion (and disagreement) over some of the verses before those. "All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out. ... No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:37, 44) There was some discussion about predestination, why some people answer the call and others don't, whether God calls everyone or only some people.

My contribution to the discussion was to offer that God's desire that all men be saved (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9) is distinct from His sovereign will. I argued that we have free will in this way: 1) sin is a transgression against God, thus 2) sin is a transgression against the will of God, so 3) God cannot command or will a person to sin because He would be willing against His will, so 4) our choice to sin is determined by our free will. God is not the author of sin, even though He is the author of those who sin.

It would be utterly contrary to His nature for God to will someone to not do His will. That's a paradox, plain and simple: in disobeying God, that man would be obeying God! Another way to come to the same conclusion comes from the words of Christ: "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21) If we have no free will, then that means we are all doing simply what God pre-ordained us to do: we are all doing God's will for us. That means all of us shall enter the kingdom of Heaven. That's absurd and is refuted soundly by Scripture. Thus, we have free will.

And again, we pray "Thy will be done". Why would we bother praying that if it's already being done?

God knows our free will decisions because He is God. He is outside of time, and so He knows what I'm doing before I go to bed, not because He commanded or willed it, but because He has already seen it by virtue of his omniscience.

With that out of the way, we finally moved onto John 6:53-58. I suggested that I was in the minority in my interpretation of these verses because I'm Catholic. Barry (who is such a gentle and kind man, and is newly engaged, so pray for him and his fiancée) asked me to give that Catholic interpretation.

So I did. I defended the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist several ways. I defended drinking Christ's blood against the commandment not to consume the blood of animals. I defended Christ's language, going from phago ("to consume" which could be philosophical, not physical) to trogo ("to gnaw", which is not used outside of the literal sense). I defended the context of this passage, which starts with the miraculous multiplication of fishes and loaves (a superabundance, an overabundance); which starts with mention of the Passover and ends with mention of Judas' future betrayal (as do the Last Supper accounts of the synoptic gospels). I defended the Church's "policy" on a "closed communion": receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church is a sign of being in Communion with the Church and all she teaches and professes to be true. I defended against the argument of "it is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail", because Jesus does not say his flesh is of no avail, and the words that he spoke (which are Spirit and life) are quite plainly: "eat my flesh and drink my blood".

I also corrected a few misconceptions (voiced or not). The Church does not teach that Jesus becomes bread and wine: bread and wine become Jesus. The Church does not teach that mindless and rote consumption of Holy Communion saves us; on the contrary, she believes what St. Paul says on the subject, that those who receive unworthily receive condemnation! (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-30) I answered a question about whether a person has to receive Communion (such as a person who is baptized and dies before receiving Communion), although I didn't cite the Council of Trent (Session 21, Chapter IV).

We didn't finish the chapter, so I'll be going again next Thursday night for some "followup". Please pray for me, and pray for Barry, Steve, Kevin, Steve, John, Alan, Sidney, Joe, Yeol, and Gary.

Prayer Intention: Conversation this weekend

This weekend, I am meeting with two non-Catholic Christians for a dialog about the trustworthiness of the Magisterium of the Church (specifically regarding doctrine concerning membership in the Church and salvation).

Please pray for me, that the Holy Spirit would give me the words to say; and for B. and T. with whom I am meeting, that the Holy Spirit would touch their hearts to be open and receptive to the Catholic faith.

You can see some of the dialog thus far, in the form of a paper (PDF) from B. and my response (MS Word).

Ecumenism: From Preacherman's blog

If you're from Preacherman's blog, and you're willing to enter into dialog about my recent comment there, this is the place. Please, if you comment here, stick around to hear my response. And don't slander the Church; I will delete comments that are untruthful or vicious. (And I don't delete comments often!)

Ecumenism: Answering a series of allegations against the Catholic Church

This post is a reply to a woman named Kerri who has expressed several concerns about Catholics. I'm putting it here because it's far too large for her blog's comment-box to handle. (Luckily for me, I saved the text.)

Kerri, I'd like to answer your claims here, orderly, one at a time. I would ask that, while I am doing so, if you choose to respond, you deal with ONE topic at a time, and do not introduce NEW topics until the ones present in this entry are reasonably handled.

Now, you're concerned that the Catholic Church focuses on death a lot. Well, death IS a part of life, and if we were to ignore it, we would not be ministering to the WHOLE person. And, to be honest, I hear an awful lot of evangelical Christians starting conversations by asking "if you DIED tonight, would you go to heaven?" That's a bit morbid, and I don't remember Jesus or any of his disciples starting a conversation that way. ;)

FIRST: Crucifixes, crosses with the crucified body of Jesus on them. (Technically, a crucifix is ONLY a crucifix if it has the body on it; otherwise, it's just a cross.) Many of these go so far as to include many wounds and signs of torture, and bleeding, etc. Why do Catholics do this? Don't we know that Christ is raised from the dead, to die no more?

Of course we do. However, lest we forget HOW it was that Jesus atoned for our sins, we keep his cross ever in our sight. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen said: "Keep your eyes on the crucifix, for Jesus without the cross is a man without a mission, and the cross without Jesus is a burden without a reliever." We also call to mind the words of St. Paul: "WE PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles" (1 Cor 1:23). Now, just because we have crucifixes does not mean we neglect the Resurrection! In any given church, there's really only supposed to be one crucifix; other images and icons of Jesus show him in his glorified body after the Resurrection (whether on earth or in heaven), or before his death, even as a child or infant. This is simply to remind us of the WHOLE of Jesus's life, not just one part of it.

Finally, on the topic of the crucifix, might I remind you of the vision that St. John had, of "a Lamb standing, AS THOUGH IT HAD BEEN SLAIN" (Rev. 5:6).

SECOND: Saints, and prayers to them. [For a fuller defense of this Catholic belief, see this post.] Now, I don't know what you think about saints in general, but I know a Baptist church nearby that's named "St. Mary", so clearly THEY think Mary is a saint too. Praying to a saint is not worshiping him; the verb "to pray" means "to ask, to entreat". When we pray to a saint, we are really asking him to pray for us to the Father; sometimes, we ask that God would grant us a favor or miracle through that saint's intercession, which means we merely want the saint to pray for our intention. Asking a saint to pray for us is no different in substance from asking a fellow Christian to pray for us; we are told to intercede for one another (1 Tim. 2:1).

Why do we pray to saints? Well, they may be dead to those on earth, but death has not separated them from Christ! On the contrary, I am sure that death will not "be able to separate us from the love of God in Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 8:38-39), and that to "be away from the body" is to be "at home with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8). We are "surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses" (Heb. 12:1). I know that "the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (James 5:16). St. John mentions the "prayers of the saints" THREE times in the book of Revelation (5:8 and 8:3-4) as being like incense rising before the altar of God in heaven.

Therefore I am confident that those Christians who the Church has recognized as saints can hear us, and that they present these prayers to our Father in heaven!

THIRD: The "wafer", the Eucharist. I think I'll leave this one for later since it is really the BIGGEST issue, and I'd rather get these "peripheral" issues out of the way first. Trust me, though, when I say that the Church's teaching on the Eucharist being the ACTUAL BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, AND DIVINITY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST is scriptural and supported by historical accounts of the early Church over and over again.

FOURTH: Prayers FOR the dead in Purgatory. Purgatory, though not named in the Bible (which puts it in company with "the Baptist church" and "the trinity") is nevertheless supported by Scripture. I will refrain from quoting from those books of Scripture that you do not accept (and would mistakenly claim that the Church added to the Bible after the Reformation, at the Council of Trent). We know that, as sinners, we are not perfect, right? This means we're unclean; if we were perfect, we would be clean, we would be holy as God is holy. But we are unclean. Now, St. John tells us that "nothing unclean shall enter it", referring to the New Jerusalem (in Rev. 21). Well, if we're unclean NOW, but we end up in heaven LATER, when do we stop being unclean? The Bible clearly tells us that WE will be judged (and not Jesus in our place). So then, at some point in our existence (life and death), we must be made completely clean; do you admit this?

The Catholic Church calls this "cleansing" Purgatory, because all remnants of sin are finally and utterly purged from our souls; it is traditionally thought to be an experience similar to passing through flame. St. Paul alludes to this trial by fire, as it were, in 1 Cor. 3:10-15: "each man's work will become manifest; for THE DAY WILL DISCLOSE IT, BECAUSE IT WILL BE REVEALED WITH FIRE, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. ... If any man's work is burned up, HE WILL SUFFER LOSS, THOUGH HE HIMSELF WILL BE SAVED, but only as through fire." The word "saved" there does not merely mean "preserved" (as in, not destroyed by the flames), but "saved" as in "saved to eternal life".

There is also the testimony of Jesus himself, when he says that "whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will NOT BE FORGIVEN, either in this age or IN THE AGE TO COME" (Matt. 12:32). We can infer that SOME sins are capable of being forgiven in the age to come, but we know that no one in Hell is forgiven, and no one in Heaven is in need of forgiveness anymore, so that leaves a "tertium quid" (a third thing): Purgatory.

FIFTH: The sacrament of "Last Rites", as you called it. This is a misnomer; it is "extreme unction" or "the anointing of the sick". "Unction" means "anointing": it is an act of prayer of anoiting with oil when a person is very ill or near death; it is also appropriate before someone undergoes surgery or the like. This sacrament is based on James 5:14-15.

SIXTH: Preoccupation with Jesus's suffering, crucifixion, and death (collectively referred to as his Passion). To this, I would respond, why was JESUS so preoccupied with it? Why did he prophesy about his Passion several times to his disciples (who were clueless about it)? Why did the writers of the Gospel mention his humiliation and suffering (sweating drops of blood, being blindfolded and beaten, spat upon, scourged, whipped, and finally crucified... no, crucified and then run through with a spear)? Since that's all in the past, should we just remove it from the Bible so it doesn't occupy our minds anymore?

Seriously, though, Catholics are concerned with suffering because the Bible tells us that suffering is going to be a part of our lives (whether or not we believe in God). St. Paul is pleased to suffer for the name of Jesus Christ: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church" (Col 1:24). The epistles are full of references to suffering; here's a list of occurrences which I URGE you to check out and read (in context, of course) on your own: Rom. 5:3, 8:17-18; 1 Cor. 6:7, 12:26; 2 Cor. 1:5-7; Eph. 3:13; Phil. 1:29, 3:8-10; Col. 1:24; 1 Thess. 3:4; 2 Thess. 1:5; 2 Tim. 1:8-12, 2:3, 4:5; Heb. 2:9-10,18, 5:8, 10:32, 11:26; James 5:10; 1 Pet. 1:6, 2:19-23, 3:14-17, 4:1,13-19, 5:9-10. WHEW.

I'd point out too that Hebrews goes so far as to say that God made "the pioneer of their salvation [Jesus Christ] perfect THROUGH SUFFERING" (Heb. 2:10) and again: "Although he was a Son, HE LEARNED OBEDIENCE THROUGH WHAT HE SUFFERED; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him" (Heb. 5:8-9). THAT is why Catholics remember the Passion of Christ so vividly.

SEVENTH: You say "We are NOT saved by being baptized." I disagree. The clearest contrary position in Scripture is 1 Pet. 3:21: "BAPTISM, which corresponds to this" -- by which means Noah and his family being saved from corruption through waters of the flood -- "NOW SAVES YOU, not as a removal of dirt from the body but AS AN APPEAL TO GOD FOR A CLEAR CONSCIENCE, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ". St. Paul says that "you were BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM, in which you were ALSO RAISED WITH HIM THROUGH FAITH in the working of God" (Col. 2:12). And again, "as many of you as were BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST HAVE PUT ON CHRIST" (Gal. 3:27). And again, "For by one Spirit we were all BAPTIZED INTO ONE BODY" (1 Cor. 12:13), and that "body" he refers to is, of course, the Body of Christ which is the Church. And again, he writes that we "were buried therefore with him by BAPTISM into death, SO THAT as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, WE TOO MIGHT WALK IN NEWNESS OF LIFE" (Rom. 6:4)... he said it, not me: we are baptized into Christ so that we might walk in newness of life.

Now, through the book of Acts, people are being exhorted to baptism. Peter told the crowd on Pentecost to "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS" (Acts 2:38), which makes the forgiveness of sins DEPENDENT on repenting and being baptized. You don't mean to say that we are saved without repenting and being forgiven, do you? And the Lord sent Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch for TWO purposes: to open the Scripture to the man (teaching him the Good News) AND TO BAPTIZE HIM (Acts 8:35-39). No sooner was the man baptized did the Lord take Philip away again. Why was baptism so important!? And once more, near the end of the book, is recorded this message: "Rise and BE BAPTIZED, AND WASH AWAY YOUR SINS, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16), which directly links the "washing away" of sins with the waters of baptism.

Finally, it should come as no surprise to you that the Catholic Church teaches that John 3:3-6 which speaks of being "born of water and the Spirit" means baptism. And "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). That is how the Church has interpreted that verse throughout history, which is why there was incredible emphasis on baptism in the book of Acts and throughout the rest of the history of the Church.

The Nicene creed (which I suppose Baptists don't consider themselves bound to) professes a belief in "ONE BAPTISM FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS".

EIGHTH: You said "We are NOT saved by eatting a wafer and drinking wine." But Jesus said that there is "food which endures to eternal life" (John 6:27), and calls himself that "bread of life" (John 6:35). He said: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. ... Truly, truly, I say to you, UNLESS YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YOU HAVE NO LIFE in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood HAS ETERNAL LIFE, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is FOOD INDEED, and my blood is DRINK INDEED. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ABIDES IN ME, and I in him. ... he who eats me WILL LIVE BECAUSE OF ME" (John 6:51-57).

As I said, I'm not going to defend the Church's teaching on the Eucharist in this reply (I'll do that later) but I want to make it clear that Jesus himself said that eating his flesh and drinking his blood gives us eternal life, and NOT doing so means we have NO life within us. Now, the standard Protestant response is John 6:63, "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." But this verse is twisted by people to make Jesus out to be a liar in the preceding verses! First, notice that when Jesus taught this the first time, the people didn't understand him and grumbled. Then he explained himself again, USING EVEN STRONGER LANGUAGE, not changing his speech so that they would realize he was being figurative (as if "eat my flesh and drink my blood" simply meant "believe in me"). The Greek text here uses the verb which means "to gnaw on", which is not a figurative verb at all. And after Jesus taught this a THIRD TIME in the SAME EXPLICIT LANGUAGE, most of his followers LEFT HIM! Why wouldn't Jesus have called after them saying "no, no, it was a metaphor, it was just a figure of speech!"?

Let's look at what Jesus said again:

"It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail." This sounds familiar to what he said to Peter in Matt. 16, when Peter declared that Jesus was the Christ. It was not revealed to him by flesh and blood, but by the Father in heaven, who is spirit. The flesh is of no avail, because WE cannot grasp this great mystery of faith, that what looks like bread and wine is in reality the Body and Blood of our Savior. It is a matter of faith, and the Spirit gives life to us in that regard, so that we can believe what flesh cannot.

"The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Jesus is saying that he has spoken the truth this whole time, not that simply his WORDS (in general) are "spirit and life", but specifically that what he has taught about his Body and Blood IS truth, it is "spirit and life".

In addition, mere bread and wine -- or mere flesh and blood, for that matter -- does not bring us everlasting life. It requires the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, by which the bread and wine are consecrated into the Body and Blood of our Lord. THEN, and ONLY THEN, is consuming the Eucharist efficacious for our souls!

Before I go on, I'd like to add that, OF COURSE baptism and the Eucharist and prayers from/to Mary, works, etc. won't save us, if there is no faith with them. However, faith without works is dead, and he who has faith in Jesus Christ will obey his commandments. So on to number nine.

NINTH: You said, "We are NOT saved through the prayers of Mary." I'd say we're not saved BY the prayers of Mary, but we can certainly be saved through them, just like someone else can be saved through your prayers. Those prayers can result in that person receiving the grace they need to repent, or to accept Christ for the first time, or to persevere in the face of hardship. I mean, if we can't be saved through (not BY, but THROUGH) the prayers of others, then why on earth did God tell Abimelech that Abraham would pray for him and he would live? (Gen. 20:7) Why did the people ask Samuel to pray for them that they may not die? (1 Sam. 12:19) Why did Rehoboam ask the prophetto pray for his hand to be healed? (1 Kings 13:6) Why did God tell the friends of Job that they would not be treated harshly because of Job's prayer for them? (Job 42:1) Remember too that Job offered sacrifices and prayers for his children, lest they had happened to offend the Lord during the course of the day. (Job 1:5) King Zedekiah asked Jeremiah to "pray for us to the Lord our God" (Jer. 37:3).

We see this in the New Testament also: Jesus tells us to "pray for those who persecute [us]" (Matt. 5:44)... if that prayer leads to them being saved, can we not say that they were saved THROUGH our prayer? St. Paul urges "that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men" (1 Tim. 2:1); that makes us co-mediators and co-intercessors (co- meaning "with", not "equal") with Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men" (1 Tim. 2:5).

TENTH: You say, "We are not saved nor kept by good works." Of course we are not saved by works: "for by grace you have been saved, through faith" (Eph. 2:8). I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "kept"... do you mean that, once "saved", we must do good works to REMAIN saved? I would argue that we do, because that is God's plan for each of our lives, as St. Paul writes: "For we are his workmanship, CREATED in Christ Jesus FOR GOOD WORKS, which God prepared beforehand, THAT WE SHOULD WALK IN THEM." (Eph. 2:10) Far be it from me to say that I can be saved without submitting to the will of Almighty God!

But I do know that we will be judged for our deeds: "For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life" (Rom. 2:6-7) But you were talking about being "saved … by good works". The Catholic Church does not teach that.

ELEVENTH: You say that Jesus "keeps us for eternity". Does that mean that once we are saved, we are always saved? If that is the case, why does Scripture exhort us to remain steadfast, to endure, to persevere? Why are endurance and perseverance necessary if, at the MOMENT we are "saved", we are saved for eternity? Isn't enduring a "work"? Isn't persevering a "work"? (Maybe you will come to realize that all "works" are not "works of the law", and that "good deeds" and "works of the law" are two separate categories!)

If we are kept for eternity from the moment of our salvation, please tell me when St. Paul was saved. He was worried for his own salvation: "I pommel my body and subdue it, LEST AFTER PREACHING TO OTHERS I MYSELF SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED." (1 Cor. 9:27) Tell me, how could a man like St. Paul, who received a revelation from Christ in a most extraordinary way and proceeded to go about the land preaching the Gospel… how could HE be disqualified?

And in the book of Revelation we get further evidence that "saved" Christians can lose their salvation. Jesus tells Christians in Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea to "repent" (Rev. 2:5,16,22, 3:3,19)… why would a Christian need to repent again if they're already saved? Jesus's language to these churches was one of conditional salvation: "Remember then FROM WHAT YOU HAVE FALLEN, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and REMOVE YOUR LAMPSTAND from its place, UNLESS YOU REPENT." (Rev. 2:5) Added to this is the fact that Jesus promises not to "BLOUT [a] name OUT of the book of life" (Rev. 3:5) which means that those whose names are in the book can be in danger of having their names blotted out from it!

TWELFTH: You say, "Only by receiving the IMPUTED righteousness of Christ can we be saved." The Catholic Church uses the term "infused" rather than "imputed". It is not that we are filthy beings who are merely covered with something pure; rather, we are MADE pure by being INFUSED with the righteousness of Christ. The righteousness of Christ is not a "token" we carry around with us as a "get out of sin free" card; rather, it is a very mark on our character that binds us to Christ.

Consider the parable Jesus told of the wedding feast (Matt. 22:1-12). Notice how one of the men who came to the feast was not dressed properly, and was thrown out. (Matt. 22:11-13) Responding to the invitation to the kingdom is not enough: we must be "dressed" properly. That means we must co-operate with (respond positively to) the graces which God bestows on us.

Although we are never worthy to receive this gift of righteousness (it is through grace, not works) the Lord does expect us to grow into it, to BECOME worthy after the fact. Three times in his letters, Paul prays for the people of a Church "to lead a life worthy of the Lord". For Scriptural support of this claim, see: Matt. 10:37-38, 25:30 (if the UNWORTHY servant is thrown out, that means the OTHER two were worthy); Luke 20:35; 1 Cor. 4:2, 1 Cor. 11:27; Eph. 4:11; Phil. 1:27; Col. 1:10; 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 1:5,11; Rev. 3:4.

IN CONCLUSION:

I agree with you when you say "It isn't in the saying of words, it is the faith of the heart." Sometimes, with Baptists, it doesn't seem that way, though, since they provide this quaint little formula (just say this Sinner's Prayer – not found in the Bible anywhere – and accept the Lord Jesus into your heart). But I agree, the Lord knows our hearts, and he knows if what we are doing is done with faith or not. See, that is why the Bible says in Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 that "EVERY ONE who calls upon the name of the Lord WILL BE SAVED" and yet Jesus himself says "NOT EVERY ONE who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' SHALL ENTER the kingdom of heaven, BUT HE WHO DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER who is in heaven." (Matt. 7:21) Thus, to "be saved" and to "enter the kingdom of heaven" are not the same, since you can lose your salvation, but you cannot leave the kingdom of heaven once you are in it (after you have died). And because Jesus knows if we are calling on his name in faith or not.

That about wraps it up for your main post, except for the Eucharist which, I think to save my fingers, I will only get into if you genuinely want to hear the Catholic defense of this great mystery of faith. I don't want to waste my time or yours talking about the Eucharist if you don't want to give the Catholic Church a chance to prove itself to you. I might end up responding to a couple of statements you made in your replies to Pamela, though.

Ecumenism: Real Catholic ecumenism in action!

The following is a dialog from a Catholic forum between me and a member of the "Church of Christ". His comments will be in green, mine in blue.

I think I know enough about Catholicism to maintain my reasonable position that they are wrong in many areas. I wouldn't call it a poor view; I'd call it a realistic view. You would not likely ever convince me, for instance, that "Veneration" of icons is OK, or that it's OK to ask a "Saint" to "intercede" for me. These, and many other Catholic doctrines are directly contradicted by plainly worded passages of scripture. No amount of appealing to church authority, which is all you could do, would convince me that these things are God's will. [Emphasis mine]

Can you explain what you find unbiblical about the intercession of saints? I'd really like to know.

Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

I have direct access to the Father through Jesus Christ. Why would I pray to a saint? To me, it smacks of pagan polytheism. You're going to war? Pray to Mars. Going sailing? Pray to Neptune.

Then why does Paul ask for others to pray and make intercessions, just a couple verses before that? 1 Tim 2:1-2 read "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way." If we can intercede for one another, that makes us co-mediators with Christ (even though our intercessions are ultimately directed through Christ to the Father). "Co-" here does not mean "equal", but "with", as in "communion": "co-union", union with.

It is in fact this co-mediation, this intercession, that is the primary ministry of the baptismal priesthood! Once we are baptized into the Body of Christ, we have that access to the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit, and we can offer our sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, as well as our prayers and petitions.

Have you never asked anyone else (I mean living here on earth) to pray for you? If you have, why did you do it? You have direct access to the Father through Jesus Christ, you don't need some sinner praying for you, do you?

So, if you have asked another person to pray for you, please explain why you did so. If you have not, well then, I don't have much else to say on the matter, since you and Jesus have this thing pretty well wrapped up.

All good points. I can't really argue against much of that. I was hesitant to actually use that first scripture, because there is a difference between mediating the covenant and interceding with prayer, so I was stretching a bit there.

Ok, so we can move on to the question of how asking a Christian on earth to pray for us is different from asking a Christian in heaven to pray for us.

I cannot point to a Biblical difference. Other than the fact that necromancy is considered pretty bad in the Old Testament. Except, that was using magic and divination to communicate with the dead, not prayer, so I guess even that objection doesn't hold much water.

Now, we must first ask, is there currently anyone in heaven? Surely there has to be the judgment first! But the Catholic understanding is that, at death, the soul goes where it shall remain for eternity (except for that moment when it is reunited with the resurrected body). Thus (purgatory aside) after death, and before the resurrection, there are souls in Heaven and souls in Hell.

I'm with you here.

Furthermore, if we are united to the Body of Christ (in baptism), and death cannot separate us from the love of God (cf. Rom. 8:35-39), then our membership in his Body does not diminish or cease when we die (so long as we die in his Body).

The Apostle tells us in 2 Cor. 5:8 that he "would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord". And again in Phil. 1:23, he writes that his "desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better." Now, generally speaking, this would imply that after death, although we are poetically "asleep", we -- that is, our souls -- are present with the Lord Jesus Christ in Heaven (hopefully!). This is attested to by 1 Thess. 4:14, where Paul writes that, when Jesus returns (from heaven to earth), he will bring with him (from where else but heaven?) those who have fallen asleep!

The only problem I have here is with the rest of that passage. Paul said it was more beneficial to them for him to remain. Don't you think that if he had "better" access to Jesus from heaven that he would have said something different?

I think it is safe to say that Paul's physical presence was more important to the Church (and the individual churches) at that time than his spiritual intercession. For Paul, being home with the Lord was best, but for the Church at that time, being alive and ministering to them physically was best.

Continuing the train of thought now... This is supported by Hebrews 11-12 as well as the book of Revelation. In Hebrews 12:1, we are told that we are "surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses". Now, it is true that "witness" (the Greek word μαρτύρων also means "martyr"!) here is understood as referring to their individual "witness" to the faithfulness of the Lord, but at the same -- given the example of a race and a prize, thus calling to mind the image of a stadium with spectators watching athletes compete -- it is referring to their present witness (that is, "spectating") of us. John describes seeing the prayers of the saints rising like incense before the altar in heaven (cf. Rev. 5:8, 8:3-4) and he reports hearing the souls of martyrs cry out from beneath the altar (cf. Rev. 6:9-11).

I see what you're saying, but find it questionable whether this actually supports intercession on the part of dead saints.

All this together -- only dealing with Scripture -- leads to the conclusion that there are souls in heaven who are not oblivious to what goes on here on earth... not because they are demigods (like the pagan pantheons) or by any power of their own, but simply by the grace and will of God.

Ok, that's a good point. That was actually one of my objections: that souls in heaven are not omnipresent or aware of what goes on on earth.

Now, there is a customary rebuttal to this conclusion from Scripture, in Ecclesiastes 9:5: "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward; but the memory of them is lost." But that cannot possibly be taken literally, because it would contradict so much other Scripture: Samuel's spirit conversing with Saul, the presence of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration of Jesus, and the parable Jesus told about the rich man and Lazarus. If taken literally, it denies that there is any reward after death (which we know is entirely untrue). It also denies that there is any memory of them. This verse cannot be taken at its literal face value, out of its context.

I agree with you here. The dead in Christ are aware, as far as I can tell from the scriptures.

The final stumbling block is the misunderstanding of the verb "to pray". When a non-Catholic hears that Catholics pray to Mary (or saints, or angels, etc.) they immediately assume two things a) they are not praying (or even acknowledging) Jesus Christ, and b) they are worshiping the saint or angel. Neither of these things is true.

First, the verb "to pray" means "to ask, beseech, entreat". To pray [to] anyone means to ask something of them; it has nothing to do with worship. Catholics worship God alone!

I'll agree with you that prayer, or asking for prayer rather, does not equal worship.

Second, every Catholic knows to begin and end his prayers "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". We know that we only have access to God -- and to those who are close to Him in Heaven -- through His only-begotten Son, our Lord. And so to pray to a saint is never to ask them anything and attempt to circumvent Jesus (or any Person of the Holy Trinity), but to ask them to assist us in our prayers by praying for us as well. Nothing a saint in heaven does is by his own power, only by the grace of God.

"The prayer of the righteous man is powerful and effective." Saints = righteous. Got it.

So, that's a Scriptural argument in support of the Catholic practice of praying to those whom the Church has acknowledged, through revelation from God, as saints. It's part of what the Church means when it professes belief in "the communion of saints".

Fairly convincing argument.

I guess my point is that you needn't feel beholden to pray to saints and ask for their intercession, but in avoiding communion with them, you're avoiding the perfected members of the Body of Christ. I know Catholics who don't regularly (if at all) pray to the Saints (apart from saying the Confiteor during Mass), even though Eucharistic Prayer III affirms that "we rely for help" on the "constant intercession" of the saints. This doesn't make them bad Catholics -- perhaps ignorant, but not malicious -- it just means they're missing out on part of the benefits of belonging to the Body of Christ.

Ok, I'll officially remove "Intercession of the Saints" from my list of gripes against the Catholic church.

Not to make an example of this or you, but what just happened here -- this questioning of a Catholic belief or practice, followed by the civil discussion and defense of it, and your resulting change of mind concerning the practice -- is what the Catholic Church means to do when it speaks of ecumenism. Not to sound arrogant, but the Catholic Church is quite convinced that what it believes about the Mary, sin, Holy Communion, the intercession of saints, and the Pope (to name a few) is actually God's revealed truth to His Church, and the ecumenical movement is about proposing and explaining the Catholic faith in a way that -- without diminishing it, denying it, or ignoring it -- is acceptable to non-Catholic Christians.

I'm glad you have reconsidered the validity of the intercession of saints. I'm not going to press you any further now, but I do encourage you to reappraise your other "gripes against the Catholic Church". Have a good day, and may God bless you with His many graces.

Well, that's part of the reason I'm here. I am interested in the Truth, whatever it may be.

Ecumenism: Rabbi praises Pope Benedict for his clear teaching

This is from Fr. Z's blog, WDTPRS. Rabbi Yerachmiel Seplowitz is not at all miffed at the Pope for saying that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church established by Jesus Christ. In his words, "I, for one, am not at all put off by the fact that the leader of another religion sees that religion as primary. If he thinks his religion is right, he obviously thinks mine is wrong ... What the pope is saying – and I agree 100 percent – is that there are irreconcilable differences, and we can’t pretend those differences don’t exist."

That's refreshingly honest.

Ecumenism: True Catholic Ecumenism

How can you tell if an ecumenical Christian movement is Catholic? Read this excerpt from Communionis Notio, a Curial Letter "On Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion" sent by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in 1992 to Bishops around the world. Oh, and if the sentiment sounds familiar, that's because this document was quoted from in the recent CDF document Responsa ad quaestiones (and its commentary). You see, the Church has a way of teaching the same thing generation after generation...

Anyway, this excerpt, nos. 17-18 of the letter, is the entirety of section five, subtitled "Ecclesial Communion and Ecumenism". Pay close attention to what I've emphasized (with bold -- the italics are retained from the original):

17. "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter" (Lumen Gentium, 15). Among the non-Catholic Churches and Christian communities, there are indeed to be found many elements of the Church of Christ, which allow us, amid joy and hope, to acknowledge the existence of a certain communion, albeit imperfect (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, 3a, 22; cf. Lumen Gentium 13d).

This communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, 14, 15c). Indeed, "through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature" (ibid., 15a), for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present (cf. supra, 5, 14).

Since, however, communion with the universal Church, represented by Peter's Successor, is not an external complement to the particular Church, but one of its internal constituents, the situation of those venerable Christian communities also means that their existence as particular Churches is wounded. The wound is even deeper in those ecclesial communities which have not retained the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. This in turn also injures the Catholic Church, called by the Lord to become for all "one flock" with "one shepherd" (John 10:16), in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of its universality in history.

18. This situation seriously calls for ecumenical commitment on the part of everyone, with a view to achieving full communion in the unity of the Church; that unity "which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time" (Unitatis Redintegratio, 4c). In this ecumenical commitment, important priorities are prayer, penance, study, dialogue and collaboration, so that, through a new conversion to the Lord, all may be enabled to recognise the continuity of the Primacy of Peter in his successors, the Bishops of Rome, and to see the Petrine ministry fulfilled, in the manner intended by the Lord, as a worldwide apostolic service, which is present in all the Churches from within, and which, while preserving its substance as a divine institution, can find expression in various ways according to the different circumstances of time and place, as history has shown.

True Catholic ecumenical dialogue is not content with recognizing our differences and moving on. True Catholic ecumenical dialogue isn't just dialogue! It's action that seeks to re-unite our separated brothers and sisters in Christ with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ: the Roman Catholic Church.

CRC #5: C. S. Lewis and Ecumenism

(This is an entry for the Christian Reconciliation Carnival, #5.)

Have you ever read literature by a Christian of a denomination other than yours... and found yourself agreeing with much of what he or she has written? I have, and it's one of the reasons I hold a hope that there can be a clearer understanding between Christians and even, eventually, a reconciliation. I hope it is God's will that this reconciliation happens this side of Heaven, but I will let His will be done.

In college, in the library of my fraternity house, one finds lots of old -- even ancient -- books. There are old RPI yearbooks, old textbooks, old encyclopedias, and old novels. I found one book titled The Apostle (9780881841671), by Sholem Asch, held my interest last time I visited the house. But the first book I found there that I actually took back to my room to start reading was a book by the famed author of the Narnia series (of which I'd only read the first). The book was mere christianity (9780805420463), the author was C. S. Lewis.

I'm pretty sure I knew that Lewis was not a Catholic before I started reading mere christianity. However, to my 19- or 20-year-old brain, that meant he was "a Protestant", which in turn meant he was "a Baptist or something". (I apologize for the tone of ignorance that will be displayed on occasion in this post, but it is simply indicative of what I knew about other denominations of Christianity at the time.) I was somewhat surprised, then, after reading mere christianity, that his view of core Christianity made so much sense to me.

That was five years ago. Two years ago, after leaving college (not graduating, mind you, just leaving) and moving to the Princeton, NJ area for a job, I had my first apartment, complete with boxes of stuff I didn't want to unpack (and still haven't unpacked!) and a mostly-empty bookcase. I went to Barnes & Noble and bought the "Signature Series", a set of six books by Lewis; I was determined to read as many of his books as I could to understand this Catholic-sounding Christian's point of view. I've since gotten the complete Narnia series as a gift from my fiancée, and purchased two anthologies (comprising seven other works), the space trilogy (I still haven't started the third book), and a few other odds and ends (The Abolition of Man, The Weight of Glory, and Till We Have Faces). I also received a book about Lewis and the Narnia series, as well as a book about Lewis's relationship with J. R. R. Tolkien, author of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

But back to Lewis and his appealing take on Christianity.

It was not until I was reading his anonymous work, A Grief Observed, written after the death of his wife, Joy, that I found out what his particular church was. On page 65 (very near the end of the book), he writes (emphasis mine): "Tomorrow morning a priest will give me a little round, thin, cold, tasteless wafer. Is it a disadvantage -- is it not in some ways an advantage -- that it can't pretend the least resemblance to that with which it unites me?" I knew he was not talking about a Catholic priest, so I realized that he meant either an Orthodox priest or an Anglican priest, and since Orthodox Communion is not with wafers, that meant Lewis was an Anglican.

My future studying, which included the book C. S. Lewis and the Catholic Church (0898709792), helped me understand Lewis's faith, what he thought of Rome, and what he thought of Christianity in general. Lewis was a liturgically-oriented orthodox Anglican. This put his writings in a fuller context. I finally understood where he was coming from. At that moment, it really did not matter to me that he wasn't Catholic; what mattered to me was that he had been able to explain the core tenets of the Christian faith to a Catholic, and that he had bolstered my belief in God and my faith in Jesus Christ. Perhaps this is why so many Catholics mark Lewis as a signpost on their "road to Rome", or as a buoy as they "cross the Tiber". I have no doubt he has helped Christians of other denominations feel "at home" in their churches either.

Lewis has succeeded in writing an ecumenical work -- several, really -- with which so many Christians can identify, and I believe it is a foundation on which to build more serious, more intelligent, and more charitable dialogue in reconciling the Christians of the world to one another, and ultimately, to God Himself.

Religion: My response to "When will we get Christianity right?"

If you have a helmet, now's a good time to put it on. Seatbelts should be fastened. Tray tables and seat backs: upright and locked. Security blanket. Government savings bond. Flame retardant clothing. Fat-free ice cream.

On ChristianForums.com, while searching threads updated recently, I came across one named "catholic is the one true church". I didn't notice how many replies there were in that thread... over 200. Well, I'd read more than half when one caught my eye, and I decided to reply to it. I read the remainder of the replies just to see if anyone else was saying the same thing I was about to say. For the faint of heart, here's a brief synopsis of the thread:

• Did Jesus start the Catholic church? That doesn't mean they can just make stuff up (like papal infallability).
• Yes, he did. [Examples from Scripture].
• No, he didn't. [Examples from Scripture].
• When did they use the word "Catholic"?
• When did they use the word "Protestant"?
• OMG you call the Pope the "Holy Father"?
• Orthodox and Catholics pretend they are the one true church and then posts like this arise and their differences are made clear.
• Why can't we all just get along? Christianity is about Christ.
• Jesus didn't start a physical church, he started a catholic (= universal) church, meaning it transcended nation and race.
• Prove [such and such] from Scripture!
• Neither Catholicism nor the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura, so why don't you look at these early Christian writings from Ignatius?
• If there's no record of Peter in Rome in the Bible, I don't want to hear about it.

Yeah, so as you can see, things were going swimmingly. So I responded to a comment.

wmc1982: I personally believe anyone who believes in the diety of Jesus Christ and follows His teachings are all part of the "One True Church"

And away I went. Please let me know what you think. This can also be found at ChristianForums.com, in the thread linked above, page 23, post #226.

If we're all right, who'll admit to being wrong first?

I apologize if this appears to be a rant, or if my tone is less ecumenical than that of my brothers and sisters here, but I feel there are topics being avoided and words being swallowed. I ask St. James to pray for me and to help seek guidance for the "tongue" with which I speak now, for I do not wish to deceive my heart or anyone else's, and prove my religion to be in vain (James 1:26, 3:1-10). wmc1982, this is not directed at you personally, but it was your comment (since it was a recent one) that I decided to reply to.

But where do you draw the line as to what his teachings are? Did he (or did he not) institute the Eucharist, whereby the bread and wine he shared with the Apostles was his body and blood? Did he (or did he not) declare to the Apostles that they have the power to forgive sins (a power formerly attributed to God alone)? Did he (or did he not) command his Apostles to make disciples of the nations and baptize them? Did he (or did he not) instruct that faith yields fruits, and that these works of faith are necessary for your salvation to be true, just as John the Baptist had preached to the Pharisees?

You could ignore the majority of the Bible and just cling to Romans 10:9-10. But there's more in Paul's writing than those two verses, more epistles than those of Paul (like that of James, the only place "faith alone" is found, as in See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone, James 2:24), more to the New Testament than the epistles, more to the Bible than the New Testament, and more to the Church than the Bible! In fact, the Bible admits there's more to the teachings of Jesus than what's recorded in it, and yet Jesus told us to follow all his commands!

I won't deny Christians around the world share some core beliefs. But if there is a truth, it cannot be a different truth in one church than it is in another church. You can know some of the truth, which is different from knowing something contrary to the truth and calling it the truth. Look at it this way: you are calling for us to admit that we're all right so long as we accept Christ. Then who will be the first to admit that their church is wrong in the "extra details" it teaches, like how to baptize a person, and at what age it's permissible, and that tithing is necessary for the physical upkeep of the church as well as the financial support of its charitable missions? In fact, who needs "charitable missions" when we've got Christ?!

Catholicism didn't appear out of a vacuum. It didn't pop into existence the day Luther nailed his complaints to a door. It has been in existence since the day Jesus founded a Church, his Church, The Church. Holy Scripture and Apostolic Tradition and the teaching of those qualified to teach with authority are all ingredients to its growth over the centuries.

When John Q. Christian starts up his own church, "God's Way Bible Study Salvation Church", where does he find his authority? Did it take almost 2000 years for Christianity to have finally been "gotten right" by him? How does he interpret Scripture: is it really just how he reads it, or was he influenced by someone before him, who had another influence, and so on...? What about the historical interpretation by the Church Fathers and their successors? Is he interpreting the translated English text in his Bible, or examining the source documents in their historical context and language? Why does he ignore the history of the Church as presented by the Church Fathers? "It's not Scripture!" Well, if you're not going to believe something that's not in the Bible, then you'd better not place your trust in a "sinner's prayer" and an "altar call" for your salvation, since those are traditions of men. Nevermind what Paul actually wrote about accepting the traditions being passed onto the churches by the apostles. The Bible is not part of the Trinity, last time I checked. John 1 makes it clear that the Logos, the Word of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, was made incarnate in Jesus Christ, not "papyrate" in the Bible. The Bible is a testimony to God: Father, Son, and Spirit. The words written by its myriad authors were inspired in them by the Holy Spirit of God, making each of them prophets for us. Read Genesis 1:1-3 again, and there's the Trinity staring you in the face: the Father (who is creative in nature, for there is no Father without a child), the Spirit moving across the waters, and the Son and Divine Word (which was, from the beginning, "light"). What Divine Providence that the first three verses of the first chapter of the first book that comprises what we call "the Bible" point to His true essence!

So where am I going with all this? What is my point? If we haven't "gotten Christianity right" by today, then God has failed His promise to be with [us] always, until the end of the age (since we have clearly not been with Him), and God has failed His promise to build a new covenant with us written on our hearts that will not be broken (since we have failed to recognize that covenant since its inception), and God has failed His promise that His church would not be overcome by the gates of the netherworld (for all those "Christians" who have thus died in vain for nearly 20 centuries).

Christianity does not need to be scrapped and started from scratch. It needs to be re-united, it must be made one again, as the Son and the Father are one. This unity will not arrive at the snapping of fingers, but at the breaking of bread.

Peace be with you all.

Religion: When will we "get Christianity right"?

I don't mean for this to be an abrasive, offensive, inflammatory, degrading, derisive, disrespectful, or arrogant post. But it's going to come off that way. It's said that "the devil is in the details" (although I can't really find a source or date of origin for the phrase). I have a feeling, though, it's true in this case.

That Jesus Christ is God is the crux (no pun intended) of Christianity. Why, then, so many divisions, schisms, separations, heresies, etc.? One would hope it was not Jesus's desire to divide Christian from Christian (though he did come to divide us based on whether we believe in him, Matthew 10:34). Then can we not say the Devil has continued his toil against our salvation by pitting Christian brother against Christian brother? Is not the Devil in the details which separate one denomination from another?

I would like to see a chart that shows the geographical and chronological origins of the various denominations of Christianity; if someone could find this (online or not) I would be most grateful. As a Roman Catholic, I can't help but wonder why after the Eastern Orthodox split off, Anglicans split off, or the Lutherans split off, anyone else had to dissent to such a degree as to rally a group around themselves (excuse me, I mean: around Jesus). Why Baptist over Presbyterian? Why Methodist over Pentecostal?

What's even more astonishing is that there are new "denominations" every day, it seems, as though everyone over the past 2000 years, reformers included, have just "not gotten it". I think that by ignoring the history of Christianity, they assume it formed out of a vacuum and that the Bible showed up on their doorsteps one day with no one to explain it. The Church has always existed since Jesus told Simon Bar-Jonah, "you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18)... yet those few words alone have sparked fiery debate. Nevertheless, there has always been the Church, and to think that it went so off track so early in its existence speaks very poorly of the will of God and His promise to us: "I am with you always, until the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20). This was an echo of what the Spirit said through the prophets:

• Though the mountains leave their place and the hills be shaken, My love shall never leave you nor my covenant of peace be shaken, says the LORD, who has mercy on you. (Isaiah 54:10)
• This is the covenant with them which I myself have made, says the LORD: My spirit which is upon you and my words that I have put into your mouth Shall never leave your mouth, nor the mouths of your children Nor the mouths of your children's children from now on and forever, says the LORD. (Isaiah 59:21)
• One heart and one way I will give them, that they may fear me always, to their own good and that of their children after them. I will make with them an eternal covenant, never to cease doing good to them; into their hearts I will put the fear of me, that they may never depart from me. (Jeremiah 32:39-40)

For the sake of ecumenicalism, I won't continue my questions for non-Catholics, but I will end with this final question for all Christians: what would it take to unite Christians into a single church, the Ancient Church that was founded by Jesus during his ministry, a truly catholic (universal) church?