"All be one"

[Cat]

Personal decisions to convert are not that uncommon. Converting to Catholicism is relatively uncommon, but it’s not hard to see why an anti-Catholic might choose to convert.

Would you please tell me why an anti-Catholic might choose to convert to Catholicism? You say it’s not hard to see, but I don’t think I’m seeing the same answer you see.

My answer to that question is that the Holy Spirit leads men and women who trust in Him. That’s why my husband and I converted–we came to know and follow Jesus while were both very young, we learned to recognize and be obedient to the Holy Spirit, and when He called us to Catholicism and told us to trust Him, we obeyed Him.

I can see why you made the analogy, but Protestantism is nothing like the Soviet Union or the Roman Empire or the Ottoman Empire. It’s not even really like a bloc. The Catholic Church is actually more analogous to any of those things. Protestantism is a lot more like the Non-Aligned Movement, or NATO, or perhaps PACOM. There is not any one man- or even a small group of men- that can dissolve Protestantism/Evangelicalism in whole or even in significant parts. State religion is largely a thing of the past, so you can’t depend on someone like Napoleon to “save you” from “us.” You have to depend on individual decisions to abandon a flexible, competitive, evangelism-oriented coalition of churches in favor of a rigid inflexible one-trick pony that has virtually no lay involvement in evangelism. You can’t depend on this. What you’ve always needed is a means of eliminating the competition, and now you don’t have that. Turns out, European Christianity is not very competitive when people really have other choices.

Again, my answer to this is the Holy Spirit. He will lead men into Truth. There is not need for a “competition” or a human “Napoleon.”

And there is no need for me or any Catholic to be “saved” from “us” (Protestants). According to our Catechism, Protestant Christians are our brothers and sisters in Christ. We do not need to be saved from our own brothers and sisters who love the Lord and seek to serve Him.

Jesus did not pray for the elimination of all Christian faith-groups save one. He also did not pray that all would be united in Peter. He prayed that we would be one as He and His Father are one. His prayer is not your goal. You have a different goal, and Jesus’ prayer for unity is a pretext. You shouldn’t use it as a pretext, you should make it the real goal.

Romans 8: 26. I pray asking the Lord to bring me into harmony with His Will, and I trust that even if my prayers are inadequate or even wrong, that the Holy Spirit will pray for me and ask for the goals that the Lord Jesus has in mind.

You just might live to see the day when less than 50% of Christians in the world are Catholic. I believe you will- and I hope that I live to see the day when Protestants, Evangelicals, and Independents outnumber the Catholic Church by themselves. I also have a prediction for the ongoing discussions between Catholic bishops and Orthodox bishops. In about 25 years, your bishops will begin to wonder why they aren’t making the progress they’d hoped for. And in about 100 years, Catholics will look back on what’s happening now, wonder why it didn’t work, and look for the things that were done right- but mostly, they’ll look for the lessons they can learn as far as what not to do. The Schism will still be a Schism 200 years from now and well beyond that, too. Catholicism needs to drop to less than 30% of Christianity’s market share before Rome will make the concessions that it needs to make.

This is not realistic- Catholicism will lose percentage points in the next 50-100 years, not gain them. And wolves, really? You don’t live in Eastern Europe, do you? Wait- unless the wolves are really people, and those people are…non-Catholic Christians who enjoy comparative success in engaging young people with religion, including Catholic children? Is that where you’re going with it?

I’m using “wolves” in the sense that the Lord Jesus used the analogy in Matthew 10: 16. Wolves are those who are evil, and who seek to destroy not only our bodies, but our very souls. Remember Ephesians 6:12–we are not fighting mere flesh and blood, but rulers, powers, forces of darkness and wickedness in the heavenly places. The ones who stray from the flock and try to do battle on their own will be picked off. The apostle Paul tells us to put on the full armor of God, and the first piece of armor that he describes is the Truth.

As I said above, non-Catholic Christians are not “wolves.” They are our own dear brothers and sisters in Christ, and we do not war against them, but stand alongside them in the battle against the enemies described in Ephesians 6:12.

I haven’t read that one yet, but I will look into it. Chuck Colson is also one of the main public figures of the past century that caused the Evangelical meaning of “born again” to be the most ubiquitous one. Have you looked into that at all, or do you just give it a passing glance whenever you’re forced to redefine those words on Catholic terms?

I have never been “forced to redefine those words on Catholic terms.” I have been challenged to study the Bible to learn the meaning of the phrase “born again.”

I would not give Chuck Colson credit for making “born again” ubiquitous. The phrase has been in use for two thousand years. That’s one reason he chose the phrase–it was familiar to people.

And I think that there were (and still are) many people who thought that Colson’s “born again experience” was just another prison conversion, done mainly to get out of jail early. He had his full share of critics, and stood firm. I miss him so much–he is one of my heroes, and I’m not sure who will rise up to take his place.

 

[Sixpence]

Would you please tell me why an anti-Catholic might choose to convert to Catholicism? You say it’s not hard to see, but I don’t think I’m seeing the same answer you see.

Anti-Catholics often have very bad reasons for hating Catholicism. It’s possible to correct that and replace it with good reasons not to be Catholic, accompanied by a more appropriate attitude toward Catholicism. But depending on how it happens, the inaccurate/wrong stuff can be replaced with shock, initial disbelief, and finally acceptance of whatever the Catholic Church has to say about itself. It can even lead to a tendency to reject any and all criticism of the CC on the assumption that iy can be reliably equated with all the mucky-muck that was previously believed.

I’m basically talking about overcompensation on the part of someone who already demonstrates a tendency to become inordinately caught up in the trenchant defense of a flawed way of thinking as if it were absolutely perfect. If a Catholic can break through their former way of thinking, it’s not too hard to imagine such a person latching on to a different way of thinking in a manner that is equally self-assured in the certitude it grants. Besides, if we’re being honest here, Catholicism is built for that to a much greater extent than almost any form of Protestantism.

Again, my answer to this is the Holy Spirit. He will lead men into Truth. There is not need for a “competition” or a human “Napoleon.”

Seems like you did needto Napoleon in order to rescue France from atheism and bring it back to Catholicism. Also seems like that’s the way you’ve always done it best- dictate a people’s religion via king or emperor (people who also used to fancy their authority as if it were flowing directly from a divine source) and build an institution in concert with that setup and a system of sacraments that works best with that situation. You’re right, you never really needed a Napoleon type figure. But you’ve always liked having him on your side, and you are not really built to function without him.

nd there is no need for me or any Catholic to be “saved” from “us” (Protestants). According to our Catechism, Protestant Christians are our brothers and sisters in Christ. We do not need to be saved from our own brothers and sisters who love the Lord and seek to serve Him.

That’s good progress. I hope you can make it the rest of the way.

As I said above, non-Catholic Christians are not “wolves.” They are our own dear brothers and sisters in Christ, and we do not war against them, but stand alongside them in the battle against the enemies described in Ephesians 6:12.

But you do see yourself as being in first place among your brothers and sisters, as the one who has the fullness of truth and the only legitimate answer to the issue of unity in the family. That’s not a good sibling.

I would not give Chuck Colson credit for making “born again” ubiquitous. The phrase has been in use for two thousand years. That’s one reason he chose the phrase–it was familiar to people.

I’d give him a great deal of credit. His testimony does constitute a bit of a watershed in the history of Christianity in America.

And I think that there were (and still are) many people who thought that Colson’s “born again experience” was just another prison conversion, done mainly to get out of jail early.

From what I recall, he got out early because another man volunteered to take his place and finish his sentence. This is done so infrequently and is rarely even possible, so I don’t know that anyone really believes he was working an angle to get that. But I could see how people might doubt whether the change in his life was necessarily God-ordained rather than an elaborately creative product of being in the public eye.

 

[guanophore]

You’re throwing up a couple of obstacles to unity here. First, you’re not at all respectful in general.

I am all for courtesy, but having respect for others does not include respecting their doctrines as true, or that ideas constructed 1500 years after Christ have the potential to be as valid as what the Church has received directly from Christ.

Yes, I did see where you demanded that I give a more specific identity for my faith-group. But I didn’t appreciate the tone of your post, I don’t like how you told me to do it, and I want to ensure that at least one point lands. You don’t even know what you’re looking at. As a reminder of this, you get to go a little longer without knowing. If you choose to keep talking to me- with a different approach, of course- I will tell you.

You are not required to share your affiliation here. You are right, that sharing it does bring out the prejudices in some members.

 

[guanophore]

What you've always needed is a means of eliminating the competition, and now you don't have that. Turns out,  European Christianity is not very competitive when people really have other choices.

The Church was given the authority by Christ to distinguish between the true faith, and heresy. It is not a matter of “eliminating the competition”, as people who wish to live in heresy certainly can do so. It is a matter of eliminating erroneous ideas from the faithful, so that they will not stray from the One Faith.

Jesus did not pray for the elimination of all Christian faith-groups save one.

Why would He? He never intended for there to BE more than ONE!

He also did not pray that all would be united in Peter.

I think you might need to go back and check your Greek again, Six. In fact, this is EXACTLY what He prayed!
Luke 22:31-32

31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

Satan demanded to sift all the Apostles, but Jesus prayed singularly for Peter, that his faith fail not. Therefore, anyone who wants to get in on Jesus’ prayer, better get in with Peter.

The Petrine gift given by Jesus was passed on to Peter’s successor, and so to this day, the successor of Peter has the responsibility for strengthening the faith of the brethren. He is the visible sign of unity on Earth.

He prayed that we would be one as He and His Father are one.

Yes. Unity occurs through adherance to the Truth. The more people depart from the Truth, the more division is created.

 You just might live to see the day when less than 50% of Christians in the world are Catholic. I believe you will- and I hope that I live to see the day when Protestants, Evangelicals, and Independents outnumber the Catholic Church by themselves.

May God be mercififul to us! I pray not!

I also have a prediction for the ongoing discussions between Catholic bishops and Orthodox bishops. In about 25 years, your bishops will begin to wonder why they aren’t making the progress they’d hoped for. And in about 100 years, Catholics will look back on what’s happening now, wonder why it didn’t work, and look for the things that were done right- but mostly, they’ll look for the lessons they can learn as far as what not to do. The Schism will still be a Schism 200 years from now and well beyond that, too.

For someone who is chiding others on having disingenuous goals for unity in the Church, this is a strange prophetic position to take. Why would you NOT want East to be unified once again with the West?

Catholicism needs to drop to less than 30% of Christianity’s market share before Rome will make the concessions that it needs to make.

The Church is not authorized to abandon the faith that was committed to us by the Apostles. That is why she cannot “make concessions”. However I think the Holy Father’s prediciton will come true, and that Catholics will continue to find themselves in a minority as the wheat is separated from the chaff, and there will be fewer Catholics who are stronger in their faith. Those who are lukewarm (nominal) Catholics will continue to fail to keep the faith, and eventually the pressure from the modern culture will separate them from the Church. This has already happened, and will continue to happen as the government forces Catholics into a position to have to pay fines for their faith, or go without services because they are a violation to Chrisitan conscience.

... those people are....non-Catholic Christians who enjoy comparative success in engaging young people with religion, including Catholic children?

Certainly there are many things we can learn from our separated brethren, catechizing our youth not the least. Most American Catholics have forgotten that the parents are the primary catechists.

… whenever you’re forced to redefine those words(born again) on Catholic terms?

The definitions of such theological terms have been handed down to us from the Apostles. We are not at liberty to change that once for all deposit of faith that has been committed to the Church. For that reason, we cannot be “forced to redefine those words”. Modern Protestantism has been redefining terms for 500 years, and will continue to do so.

What I see happening among Evangelicals, however, is a process not very much unlike any given academic process whereby something like scientists or historians determine what is accepted in their field and what is not. Experts work together in something less like a Council and more like a Society that largely consists of people (experts) writing things and reviewing each others' work, and through this process, they constantly have a variety of matters that are under consideration while reaching consensus on certain matters which they are of one mind in holding fast to or rejecting.

Yes, I think you are right. The difference between this process, and the Catholic process is that Catholics do not believe that doctrine should be formed scientifically or by consensus. We believe that doctrine comes from Christ, and that it is a matter of divine revelation, not a product of human effort.

 

[guanophore]

It’s a process, and it certainly doesn’t happen overnight. But it’s the best way to make progress. Average Christians, of course, could choose to interact with this process or ignore it. And church leaders could choose to work well with others or take their ball and go home. But over time, it will become especially clear that refusing to engage in the process is bad for churches, for leaders, and for those being led.

Yes. A person really needs to get in on a democratic process, or become marginalized. This has been the testimony of history.

I don’t think that Catholic or Orthodox leaders could ever bring themselves to be a part of something like this

This is true. It would be a violation of what Christ has committed to the Church. For us, the Divine Deposit of faith was a once for all gift to the church that is immutable. It is not a matter of such investigation and discussion to establish. It was delivered to us fully established.

, but it would get their attention, especially if this sort of process came to supercede any of them in the scope of its influence on Christian beliefs and attitudes in the world.

I don’t think so. Certainly Protestantism has always overshadowed American faith experience, and it has not in any way changed the Doctrines that were once for all deposited. The only think I can see is that more catholics have left the faith, and gravitated toward those who invent a new faith.

It might even cause the Catholic and Orthodox bishops to work together more

What would be the point of that, from your perspective? Above you already pronounced such effort useless?

That is the sort of at-will participation that America will bring to the table, and when the influence of this thing far outweighs the influence of your thing, your thing will change in ways that make it a bit more competitive. I don’t see a future absent of the CC or the EOC as realistic, meaning I believe there’s a zero percent chance that either of them will go away entirely. But I do see a future where American Protestants/Evangelicals take the initial lead in developing the kind of multi-national para-church organization that can support this sort of process.

Well, I am all in support of Protestant/Evangelicals coming into unity with one another, instead of the present direction of more fragmentation. However, the purpose of the Church is not to “compete” with sects that have left the faith. Such an attitude would only distract the faithful from their purpose in life. The One Faith is not some kind of market commodity that seeks to improve customer support.

Rome is going to spend a lot of time and effort on figuring out just what this thing is and how, exactly, Rome should regard it. It probably won’t come up with any definitive answer. Rome came up with a definitive idea of what they thought the Reformers were, but as yet, it doesn’t know what to make of their theological descendants that are 500 years removed from the Reformation. Once my prediction comes true, Rome will be in an even more awkward position. It still won’t know what to make of those people, and in a very real sense, those people will also be running the show.

It seems that you have not read the Catechism, which is very succint in how Rome views what has happened 500 years since the Reformers, and how Catholics are to react to it. Since this is a sure norm for the faith, it is not likely to change just because our separated brethren start overcoming some of the divisions that have been caused by that doctrine of Sola Scriptura that was created during the Reformation.

 

[Cat]

Anti-Catholics often have very bad reasons for hating Catholicism. It’s possible to correct that and replace it with good reasons not to be Catholic, accompanied by a more appropriate attitude toward Catholicism. But depending on how it happens, the inaccurate/wrong stuff can be replaced with shock, initial disbelief, and finally acceptance of whatever the Catholic Church has to say about itself. It can even lead to a tendency to reject any and all criticism of the CC on the assumption that iy can be reliably equated with all the mucky-muck that was previously believed.

I’m basically talking about overcompensation on the part of someone who already demonstrates a tendency to become inordinately caught up in the trenchant defense of a flawed way of thinking as if it were absolutely perfect. If a Catholic can break through their former way of thinking, it’s not too hard to imagine such a person latching on to a different way of thinking in a manner that is equally self-assured in the certitude it grants. Besides, if we’re being honest here, Catholicism is built for that to a much greater extent than almost any form of Protestantism.

Forgive me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying. Your language is a little flowery. I would do better if you could use simpler language and not try to hide what you mean with a lot of verbage. What I hear you saying is that I and certain other Protestants are “bandwagon” Christians who leap at every new (or ancient) innovation. Is that correct?

You’re also assuming that I and my husband were anti-Catholic. That is not true. Here is the quote from my post:

“Ten years ago, if you had told me that my husband and I, along with our daughter, would be Catholic, we would have laughed in your face. Now we are not only Catholics, but there’s a very good chance that our parents-in-law will convert–that’s about as “impossible” as Pres. Obama switching to the Republican party and advocating for abolishing the federal income tax!”

We were never “anti-Catholic,” nor did we believe any of the “mucky-muck” as you call it. Based on our incomplete knowledge of Catholism, we simply did not believe that the Catholic Church was the appropriate Christian church for us

Seems like you did needto Napoleon in order to rescue France from atheism and bring it back to Catholicism. Also seems like that’s the way you’ve always done it best- dictate a people’s religion via king or emperor (people who also used to fancy their authority as if it were flowing directly from a divine source) and build an institution in concert with that setup and a system of sacraments that works best with that situation. You’re right, you never really needed a Napoleon type figure. But you’ve always liked having him on your side, and you are not really built to function without him.

Like most Americans, I know very little about European history other than what I suffered through in high school over 35 years ago. Sorry I can’t keep up with this discussion. Can you use a more recent celebrity? How about Michael Jordan? I remember him. Or Ryan Seacrest?

That’s good progress. I hope you can make it the rest of the way.

But you do see yourself as being in first place among your brothers and sisters, as the one who has the fullness of truth and the only legitimate answer to the issue of unity in the family. That’s not a good sibling.

I see myself in last place among all my Christian brothers and sisters. I am a sinner, and it is only through Christ’s mercy that am I worthy of any forgiveness.

I see the Catholic Church as the original Christian church, the Church that is described in the New Testament and the 1st Century non-Scriptural Christian writings.

My brother knows how to weld. This does not make him a “bad” sibling because he knows something that I don’t know.

I’d give him a great deal of credit. His testimony does constitute a bit of a watershed in the history of Christianity in America.

From what I recall, he got out early because another man volunteered to take his place and finish his sentence. This is done so infrequently and is rarely even possible, so I don’t know that anyone really believes he was working an angle to get that. But I could see how people might doubt whether the change in his life was necessarily God-ordained rather than an elaborately creative product of being in the public eye.

Chuck Colson is known mainly among evangelical Protestants. I don’t think most other Christians would have a clue who he is, unless they have an interest in studying the Watergate scandal. There are many evangelical Protestants who reject many of Colson’s teachings, especially after he got together with Father Neuhaus and started Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Notable evangelicals like Packer and Sproul refused to sign the ECT documents, while other notable evangelicals like Dr. Bill Bright (RIP) did sign the documents. Colson had his fans (me!), and his critics. Now he is with the Lord.

 

[jlhargus]

Catholicism will lose percentage points in the next 50-100 years, not gain them.

JL: That could possibly be true only time will tell. Then you will have your one faith group where truth is irrelevant, secular religion. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Church’s ultimate trial

675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576

676 The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,577 especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.578

677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.579 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.580 God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.581 [bold print in 677 added by me]

[2Thes2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come,**except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.]

 

[jlhargus]

We were never “anti-Catholic,” nor did we believe any of the “mucky-muck” as you call it. Based on our incomplete knowledge of Catholism, we simply did not believe that the Catholic Church was the appropriate Christian church for us

JL: I came from a non-denominational faith group. They were not anti-Catholic I’m still on good terms with them. By definition it was Evangelical although at that time the term was not in vogue.

Like most Americans, I know very little about European history other than what I suffered through in high school over 35 years ago.

JL: Yes sadly most Americans know little about history in general. The following is a New Advent link on Napoleon and the Chruch. newadvent.org/cathen/10687a.htm

 

[submariner2]

Today’s reading in John 17: 20-26 reminds me of a question I have been thinking about for a while now. What does “may they all be one…” mean to you?

adf,

He is speaking of those “who through their words put their faith in me.”

To me He is saying that they should be unified as one catholic church regardless of denomination or variety of practices, that unity expressed through communion with each other.

He is referring to all who claim to put their faith in Him rather than saying some should be rejected because they have different doctrines or practices. There was much variety in the NT churches but no indication of any approval of excommunication. I am thankful that my church accepts all christians to our Lords Table.

Rob

 

[guanophore]

He is speaking of those "who through their words put their faith in me."

To me He is saying that they should be unified as one catholic church regardless of denomination or variety of practices, that unity expressed through communion with each other.

He is referring to all who claim to put their faith in Him rather than saying some should be rejected because they have different doctrines or practices. There was much variety in the NT churches but no indication of any approval of excommunication. I am thankful that my church accepts all christians to our Lords Table.

Rob

I can see your point, but history does not support this view. In the late second century and early first century, various splinter groups could be seen. At that point, the Fathers put the rule in place that the only “valid” communion is the one celebrated with the Bishop, or his designate. We are instructed to be of “one mind”, embracing “one faith”. That means those who have different doctrine have left the faith. All the NT Churches were Catholic, and had ONE FAITH.

All demonimations are defined by which portions, and how much, of the Apostolic faith is rejected. You are right, we should all be in communion, but it is forbidden to those who have received the Apostolic faith to commune with those who have different doctrines because unity has been lost. We would be lying with our bodies - making a proclamation that what was committed to us by the Apostles was not of first importance.

It is the duty of the Bishop to ensure the one doctrine of Christ is preserved:

1 Tim 1:3

3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,

The Reformers departed from their Bishops. At that time, their communion became invalid.

It is not that we reject the persons, most of whom have embraced heresies through no fault of their own, but the “different doctrines”, which we are not permitted to embrace under threat of excommunication.

Gal 1:6-9

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel - 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

Although most denominations continue to embrace most of what was committed to us by the Apostles, all denominations have departed on some doctrines. Denominate means “to take one’s name from”. Denominations are formed when they take their names away from the apostolic faith, and name themselves in such a way as to distinguish what they believe from what came before.

Catholics are forbidden by the Apostles to commune with those who denominate.

 

[Contarini]

Protestants can achieve a level of cooperation and unity with each other that Catholics cannot achieve with non-Catholics, so I would suggest taking measures that allow you to catch up.

But why narrow the Church to just Protestants?

Also, you’re simply wrong on the point of fact. Many Protestant groups can do this. But what allows them to do this is not being Protestant, but sharing some specific umbrella of belief/practice within Protestantism. So, for instance, mainline denominations can cooperate with each other because they tend to share a similar moderate/liberal take on Christianity in which the basic teachings of the Apostles’ Creed are assumed (even if the more liberal members of these churches may hold fairly loosely to them), together with a code of social ethics mostly identical with that of the secular liberal intelligentsia. They share the assumption that what Christians mostly need to cooperate on is alleviating physical suffering, promoting social justice, etc.

Similarly, evangelicals cooperate with each other because they share the same basic Apostles-Creed teachings as the mainliners, plus a soteriology based on a pietist/revivalist mutation of Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone, plus a fairly conservative view of Scripture. They agree with each other that what Christians need to cooperate on most of all is bringing people to a personal relationship with Jesus in which they trust only in Christ’s righteousness for salvation.

But it’s actually more complicated than that. Some evangelicals also embrace a conservative political/social agenda which unites them (and also unites them with m any Catholics). Others, especially recently, have come to embrace a more “progressive” political/social agenda which unites them with each other, with mainliners, and, again, with many Catholics. Others hold to a more “seamless web” approach which cuts them off from liberal Protestants on issues like abortion and homosexuality and from the standard conservative caucus on many other issues–and this, again, unites them with Catholics.

And then you have a number of groups that cooperate with other Christians far less than Catholics do.

So your generalization is simply false.

Furthermore, where do you get the idea that unity is about “cooperation”?

That’s a pale, bloodless parody of what Christian unity is supposed to be.

By a higher level of submission, I mean the submission that is required for people of different denominations to work closely in a united effort to convert people to Christianity and, together, establish new houses of worship that we call “churches.”

But “submission” really has nothing to do with it. Two Protestants get together, and they compare notes on theology. (I heard this happening yesterday, in the same coffee shop in which I was sitting now–somebody was being interviewed for a position with some kind of ministry–I think it was Samaritan’s Purse.) If they agree that they agree enough, then they work together. If they don’t, then they don’t. But even if (as in the case I overheard yesterday) one of the two parties is in some kind of authority position (a more personal example for me would be applying for teaching jobs with Christian colleges, which I’ve been doing–I just applied for a job teaching history at a Southern Baptist college, and naturally they’re going to have some questions about my “fit” with their mission), I don’t think “submission” is the word. If I apply for a job at a school that requires me to subscribe to their statement of faith, then either I can or I can’t, based on my pre-existing beliefs. The institution neither has nor claims any authority to teach me what my beliefs ought to be. Hence, this kind of cooperation, which you rather oddly try to label “submission,” can’t actually create unity. It simply acknowledges a unity that already exists.

Revivalist Protestantism rooted in the Great Awakening succeeded in creating an umbrella of belief and practice by the mid 19th-century that united much of American Protestantism (never all of it) enough to engage in common evangelistic efforts and in efforts for the betterment of society. Even though this common front fractured fairly quickly (see Mark Noll’s America’s God), it has haunted American Protestants ever since as an ideal, and large pieces of it remain in place. This can give the illusion of unity–an illusion you are apparently happy to embrace.

all non-Catholic humanitarian aid to the developing world includes some kind of support for contraception as a means of doing some good.

Balderdash. There exists a substantial minority of conservative Protestants with a stricter view of contraception than Catholics hold. I knew quite a few of them growing up–my mother was frequently made to feel guilty for only having one child (though in fact there were good medical reasons for this).

 

[Contarini]

Additionally. There hasn’t been that many Protestant denominations that were formed out of doctrinal disagreement.

I don’t think I agree with this, though it depends on how we define the terms in question. I agree that Catholics have a simplistic caricature of how denominations are formed.

In most cases, reference to a Protestant denomination as a sect is a bit of a misnomer.

True.

Mainline denominations formed as a result of sectarian conflict with Rome

No, not really. Mainline denominations, at least in the American context, formed as part of the construction of the umbrella I mentioned above. In fact, many mainline denominations as we know them today were formed later, in the 20th century, through mergers.

You’re confusing the original, confessional forms of the various “oldline” Protestant traditions with the institutional structures we call “mainline denominations” today. That allows you to make mainliners look more sectarian than free-church evangelicals, which is misleading.

So, for instance, my own denomination is the Episcopal Church, which was formed in 1789, not as a result of sectarian conflict with Rome but as the result of the American Revolution.

But the vast majority of Protestant denominations were not formed as a result of anything remotely sectarian. Most of the 30,000 new denominations that have formed since the early-mid 1800s

The problem with the 30,000 figure, and with the whole concept of “denomination,” is that the 30,000 figure was reached by counting separate denominations in each nation around the world. Many, not all, denominations do function that way (so, for instance, as I mentioned above, my “denomination” is the Episcopal Church, though my confessional affiliation is the Anglican Communion–but actually the Episcopal Church has some dioceses in other countries, a fact unfortunately highlighted and promoted by our current Presiding Bishop).

have been the product of the cooperative efforts that were previously described- and in both the short and long term, denominations that are born of such cooperation tend to do better than those that are birthed through painful dissent and disagreement.

Define “doing better”! And again, I don’t see evidence supporting your contention. A denomination can originate through “painful dissent and disagreement” without continuing to function in a sectarian manner. And in fact, nearly all denominations I can think of did originate through painful dissent and disagreement. Even those that were formed “cooperatively” still originated in dissent and disagreement of some kind. So, for instance, the United Brethren (the denomination with which the college I’ve been working for is affiliated) were formed through cooperation among German-American revivalists in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. But these early revivalists eventually had to separate from their original traditions in order to cooperate with each other–Martin Boehm, one of the founders, was excommunicated by the Mennonites. And the UB exist as a distinct denomination today because they derive from a minority group within the original UB, which split from the larger body in the late 19th century. The larger group is now part of the mainline United Methodist Church. The smaller body still exists.

This is one if the keys to understanding the evolution and development of Protestantism. We couldn’t pissibly be doing this well if we consistently operated as a bunch of tiny militant states at war with each other, always hurting ourselves and each other.

Oh, indeed. Whatever “doing well” means, the kind of “doing well” characteristic of American Protestants certainly involves (with some exceptions like the LCMS) a good deal of interdenominational cooperation. And Catholics do indeed have a caricature of how Protestant denominations work.

The reality, however, is still a travesty of Christian unity as called for by the New Testament and the ancient traditions of the Church. Whether conversion to Catholicism is the answer is more dubious. But it may in fact be.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Seems like you did needto Napoleon in order to rescue France from atheism and bring it back to Catholicism. Also seems like that’s the way you’ve always done it best- dictate a people’s religion via king or emperor (people who also used to fancy their authority as if it were flowing directly from a divine source) and build an institution in concert with that setup and a system of sacraments that works best with that situation. You’re right, you never really needed a Napoleon type figure. But you’ve always liked having him on your side, and you are not really built to function without him.

I think there’s some overstatement and caricature here, but you’re certainly right that for much of Christian history the Catholic Church has functioned together with rulers, and that many of its institutions and habits are shaped by that history. This is a valid criticism in my opinion and one of the things that bothers me about Catholicism.

But here’s the other side of the coin: the kind of Protestantism you’re articulating and defending is just as dependent on American political and social structures and habits. You have made several disparaging references to Europe and rather glowing ones to America. So I can’t see that your version of Christianity is any less dependent (perhaps even idolatrously so?) on secular society. Hence your casual equation of unity with cooperation. Hence your complacent triumphalism, which matches and complements that of the conservative Catholics on this thread.

The Catholic Church certainly became far too dependent on Roman and quasi-Roman forms of civil authority, and this has been its bane spiritually. But the Catholic Church has the resources to survive and function outside that context. I’m not sure that evangelicalism could survive the collapse of the American, free-market, democratic model of society. And since that’s just another worldly structure, prone to demonic and idolatrous corruption like any other, it seems to me that evangelicalism actually has far more serious problems in the long term than Catholicism. I suspect that the American model has a long run to go, even if it’s beginning to decline in certain ways. So in the moderately long term (i.e., a century or two) your forecast is probably right.

But if Jesus hasn’t come back 1000 years from now, I am pretty confident that there will be a Catholic Church in communion with a successor of Peter, celebrating the sacraments, and teaching doctrines in recognizable continuity with those it teaches now.

I think it’s highly unlikely that the confidences and certainties that bind evangelicals together today (and distinguish them from other Christians–I’m obviously not talking about faith in Jesus) will seem more than interesting historical curiosities after that much time has passed.

Edwin

 

[mercytruth]

I think there’s some overstatement and caricature here, but you’re certainly right that for much of Christian history the Catholic Church has functioned together with rulers, and that many of its institutions and habits are shaped by that history. This is a valid criticism in my opinion and one of the things that bothers me about Catholicism.

But here’s the other side of the coin: the kind of Protestantism you’re articulating and defending is just as dependent on American political and social structures and habits. You have made several disparaging references to Europe and rather glowing ones to America. So I can’t see that your version of Christianity is any less dependent (perhaps even idolatrously so?) on secular society. Hence your casual equation of unity with cooperation. Hence your complacent triumphalism, which matches and complements that of the conservative Catholics on this thread.

The Catholic Church certainly became far too dependent on Roman and quasi-Roman forms of civil authority, and this has been its bane spiritually. But the Catholic Church has the resources to survive and function outside that context. I’m not sure that evangelicalism could survive the collapse of the American, free-market, democratic model of society. And since that’s just another worldly structure, prone to demonic and idolatrous corruption like any other, it seems to me that evangelicalism actually has far more serious problems in the long term than Catholicism. I suspect that the American model has a long run to go, even if it’s beginning to decline in certain ways. So in the moderately long term (i.e., a century or two) your forecast is probably right.

But if Jesus hasn’t come back 1000 years from now, I am pretty confident that there will be a Catholic Church in communion with a successor of Peter, celebrating the sacraments, and teaching doctrines in recognizable continuity with those it teaches now.

I think it’s highly unlikely that the confidences and certainties that bind evangelicals together today (and distinguish them from other Christians–I’m obviously not talking about faith in Jesus) will seem more than interesting historical curiosities after that much time has passed.

Edwin

Excellent!

 

[stevekehl]

Who could have guessed unity could get so complicated?

 

[adf417]

adf,

He is speaking of those “who through their words put their faith in me.”

Sincere greetings Rob,

Can you expound on this statement please? You see, even Jehovah Witnesses’ “have faith in Jesus”. Granted, their faith stops at considering him God, but simple faith, they do possess.

We as Christians share a deeper faith in Jesus and when we put the Nicene stipulation on our faith we expand that faith. Some would say “all we need is love for one another and all those other rules like, confession, faith, justification, etc. are not needed”. We do need to love each other as Jesus loves us but is that all we need to do?

Peace and many blessings!!!

 

[submariner2]

]I can see your point, but history does not support this view. In the late second century and early first century, various splinter groups could be seen. At that point, the Fathers put the rule in place that the only “valid” communion is the one celebrated with the Bishop, or his designate. We are instructed to be of “one mind”, embracing “one faith”. That means those who have different doctrine have left the faith. All the NT Churches were Catholic, and had ONE FAITH.

guano.

Yes there were varieties of christians even in the NT yet there is no approval given for excommunication for that reason. In my mind there is no approval therefor based on the varieties today. I dont see how you can read everyones mind anyway.

Of course we should celebrate one faith. That does not mean we all have to think the same about everything. In fact the definiton in the fourth century was the apostles creed. that does not seem to be sufficient anymore.

Here is the opinion of Father Raymond Brown on that issue.

“Most of the NT was written before the major breaks in ‘koinia’. detectable in the second century, and so NT diversity cannot be used to justify Christian division today. We modern Christians have broken ‘koinonia’ with each other, for, explicitly or implicitly, we have excommunicated and/or stated that other christians are disloyal to the will of Christ in major issues. Such a divided situation does not have NT approbation.”

Raymond Brown, The Churches The Apostles Left Behind, p 148. Approved with the Imprimatur.

All demonimations are defined by which portions, and how much, of the Apostolic faith is rejected. You are right, we should all be in communion, but it is forbidden to those who have received the Apostolic faith to commune with those who have different doctrines

I am thankful that Jesus did not teach that and that my church invites all christians to the Lords Table and encourages us to participate in communion at other churches even with different doctrines.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Sincere greetings Rob,

Can you expound on this statement please? You see, even Jehovah Witnesses’ “have faith in Jesus”. Granted, their faith stops at considering him God, but simple faith, they do possess.

We as Christians share a deeper faith in Jesus and when we put the Nicene stipulation on our faith we expand that faith. Some would say “all we need is love for one another and all those other rules like, confession, faith, justification, etc. are not needed”. We do need to love each other as Jesus loves us but is that all we need to do?

Peace and many blessings!!!

Adf5,

My church uses the Nicene creed and recites the apostles creed every sunday. That used to be sufficient for communion between churches.

Communion is explained and our invitation is for those who want to commune with Jesus. No one is turned away.from the Lords Table. We celebrate communion with the presbyterian church across the street every year. We believe that the NT does not teach approval of excommunication for the reason of varieties in doctrines.

Peace, JohnR

 

[jlhargus]

Adf5,

My church uses the Nicene creed and recites the apostles creed every sunday. That used to be sufficient for communion between churches.

Communion is explained and our invitation is for those who want to commune with Jesus. No one is turned away.from the Lords Table. We celebrate communion with the presbyterian church across the street every year. We believe that the NT does not teach approval of excommunication for the reason of varieties in doctrines. Peace, JohnR

JL: I’m going to take a guess you are United Church of Christ. If you celebrate communion with Presbyterians why don’t you close your church and go there unless of course DOCTRINE stands in the way?

Basically you’re preaching there is no gospel truth and truth is irrelivent. Everyone’s truth is as valid as another’s even though they contradict each other. That’s a house built on sand.

[Rms16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. **THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST SALUTE YOU. 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, MARK THEM WHICH CAUSE DIVISIONS and offences CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINE which ye have learned; and AVOID THEM. 18 For THEY that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. 19 For YOUR OBEDIENCE IS COME ABROAD UNTO ALL MEN. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. 20 And THE GOD OF PEACE SHALL BRUISE SATAN UNDER YOUR FEET SHORTLY. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.]

God doesn’t show favoritism but He is not indifferent to truth. The truth that makes us free. [Jn8:32 ye shall know the truth, and THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE.] He doesn’t approve false teachers. According to scripture.

2Pt2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in DAMNABLE HERESIES, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; BY reason of WHOM THE WAY OF TRUTH shall be evil spoken of.]

To whom much is given much is required. With Catholics more is required because we have the fullness of the truth and no excuse. That’s why Paul calls the Church the PILLAR and GROUND of TRUTH, 1Tm3:15. Christ promised to lead His people INTO ALL TRUTH not guess work or INDIFFERENCE TO TRUTH. Jn1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

2Jn1: 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in THE DOCTRINE of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 IF there come ANY unto you, and bring not THIS DOCTRINE, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Paul seemed to think ONE Correct DOCTRINE is essential, for UNITY, in that ONE VISIBLE APOSTOLIC FELLOWSHIP. Paul even checked his teaching with that one fellowship.

[Gal2:1 Then fourteen years after ** I WENT UP AGAIN TO JERUSALEM with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up BY REVELATION, and COMMUNICATED UNTO THEM that GOSPEL which I PREACH among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, LEST BY ANY MEANS I SHOULD run, or HAD RUN, IN VAIN.]

 

[guanophore]

guano.

Yes there were varieties of christians even in the NT

Perhaps you can explain how you see that?

From the point of view of the Apostolic Churches, there is only One Faith. There are believers in the NT who are inadequately catechized, such as those in Ephesus who had not yet received the HS. But they were not espousing different doctrines, as we see splinter groups do today.

In fact, Paul writes to Titus that it is his duty as a Bishop to make sure there are no different doctrines taught.

yet there is no approval given for excommunication for that reason. In my mind there is no approval therefor based on the varieties today. I dont see how you can read everyones mind anyway.

Excommunication has been practiced since Apostolic times for both disciplinary and heretical reasons. Persons who embrace heresies excommunicate themselves, so there is no reason to make a formal ritual about it.

When you read th early documents of the Church, it is clear that those who are not one in the faith are not admitted to Holy Communion,

You are right about the mind reading. The Church in our day errs on the side of faith, and presumes that those who come for the sacrament are in good standing with the Church.

Of course we should celebrate one faith. That does not mean we all have to think the same about everything.

Not about everything, of course, just matters of faith and doctrine.

Phil 1:27-28

27 Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,

Phil 2:2
…complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind In fact the definiton in the fourth century was the apostles creed. that does not seem to be sufficient anymore.

These passages refer to the doctrine of the faith.

Here is the opinion of Father Raymond Brown on that issue.

“Most of the NT was written before the major breaks in ‘koinia’. detectable in the second century, and so NT diversity cannot be used to justify Christian division today. We modern Christians have broken ‘koinonia’ with each other, for, explicitly or implicitly, we have excommunicated and/or stated that other christians are disloyal to the will of Christ in major issues. Such a divided situation does not have NT approbation.”

Raymond Brown, The Churches The Apostles Left Behind, p 148. Approved with the Imprimatur.

Yes. The catechism is clear that we are to receive all properly baptized persons as members of the One Church, founded by Christ. This is not to say that unity is not still wounded, because all of our separated brethren have embraced heresies to a greater or lesser degree. Ecumenism is not served by compromising the Truth.

I am thankful that Jesus did not teach that and that my church invites all christians to the Lords Table and encourages us to participate in communion at other churches even with different doctrines.

Rob

Hopefully one day you will come to appreciate that Jesus wanted us to all be one, and that unity is gained by adherance to the Truth. When people depart from the Truth, unity is compromised and communion is broken.