Do members of non-Cathoic denominations believe their church is the One True Church of Jesus Christ?

[Contarini]

The point is we don’t have the name of the men who found the church. It was true that Jesus said to peter “Upon this rock I will bouild my church.” Ive gotten into argument’s with the Church of Christ saying they found it. The point is the Catholic stuff is a myth Jesus found the Christian church!! When you see people out on the streets suffering, do yall people help them or ask them if there Catholic, because yall seem to be denying the scriptures. There is nowhere in the BIBLE where Jesus founded the CATHOLIC church he found the uneversal church!

Catholic translates as “universal.” But early Christians did not think that just anyone who called themselves Christians were part of the Church. I’m willing to bet that you don’t either–or do you think Mormons and JW’s are part of the Church?

And Church of Christ believes they were the first to!(They weren’t)

This is a logical fallacy. The fact that one group claims something falsely does not mean that a similar claim by someone else is false. Each case has to be examined on its own merits.

We can easily show when the “Church of Christ” was founded–the Stone/Campbell movement of the 19th century.

I think it’s possible to say that the Roman Catholic Church began at a certain point in history, in the sense that certain changes or developments took place which we non-RC’s think were not entirely faithful to the original revelation. But you haven’t made such a suggestion so far. For myself, I would say that if there is such a point it’s probably the Gregorian Reforms of the 11th century, which went along with the adoption of the Filioque into the Creed at Rome.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Okay,but has independence solved the issue of DISUNITY?

Certainly not. It has made it worse. My point is simply that a congregation or denomination is not necessarily a separate Church in the Catholic sense just because it is organizationally independent.

Whether dependent or independent,I do not see or hear much effort by mainline Protestants to solve the chaotic divisions of Protestanism.

Perhaps that is a problem with your lack of knowledge and interest in the subject of Protestant ecumenism. Mainline Protestants are very interested in this–the problem is that they have yet to come up with a more effective method than “lowest-common-denominator” mergers which only appeal to dying, liberal denominations and just result in one somewhat bigger dying, liberal denomination.

I am sorry,but why do I need to go out on a limb to define unity?

Because different people mean different things by it. The meaning is far from self-evident. As long as you ignore this, your arguments will be ineffective.

Did St.Paul advocate,praise or encourage divisions? If he did,then show me where?

Straw man. The question remains: what is division? What is unity?

Is it “division” when a husband and wife worship at different Masses on a Sunday? I think it is–you probably don’t.

Is it “division” when Catholics ask anxiously on discussion forums where they may find an “orthodox” parish, because the parishes near their house are not orthodox? I think it is–you seem to be determined to deny that this situation even exists.

Again,does one need to wonder or question what Jesus meant by: May they ALL be ONE? It is you who has not provided what UNITY means to you and the thousands of different denominations.

Why do you consider me a representative of these “thousands of different denominations”?

And why should I define unity, since you are the one basing an argument on it?

But here’s my definition:

Unity means that
a. All the Christians in a particular place gather together for worship on a Sunday, and
b. Each such local gathering fully recognizes the faith and practice of each other such gathering throughout the world, so that a member in good standing of one can be automatically accepted (based on a letter or other testimonial) as a member in good standing of another; and
c. The universal Church presently existing as defined in b can trace unbroken continuity of faith throughout the centuries going back to the time of Christ. (In other words, we are called to unity with dead Christians as well as living ones.)

No offense, it is very difficult to discern your instance. I would have to know a lot more details about each parish and if any one of them is even considered as belonging to the Catholic Church.

I am happy to PM you the information on the two parishes in my town (I try to avoid posting publicly precise information on where I live, though this is probably a silly precaution). They are both Catholic parishes.

 

[Contarini]

Not all,that is not what I am trying to convey. Just because the priests here at the parish I work give mass another parish does not indicate disunity. Different parish with different names,but both under the same Rite or universal church. Is that what you are saying about the Grace Baptist Church and First Baptist Church?

Yes, with the exception that they may not have a common organizational structure that can give orders to both of them. That appears (again, it’s hard to be sure because you refuse to tell me) to be part of your conception of “unity.” I would disagree. If two congregations are totally independent of each other but fully recognize each other’s doctrines, worship, and ministry, then they are one.

My further point is that as I read the writings of the Fathers (and listen to what the Orthodox have to say), it appears that unity around a common altar is pretty important. So I honestly believe that the Western Catholic habit of proliferating Masses in one parish on a Sunday (or Saturday evening, in recent decades) is destructive of the unity of the Church. I am not just saying this to be facetious, though I recognize that you may find this hard to believe. And when you add the proliferation of sui juris churches, religious orders, personal prelatures/ordinariates, etc., within the Catholic Church, you have a situation where the local unity of the Church is somewhat less than manifest, to put it mildly.

Calvin claimed in all seriousness that the Reformation was restoring the unity of the Church, which was divided by the religious orders. That claim of course turned out to be one of the more hideous and absurd bits of irony in Christian history. But I believe that he made it in good faith and that its absurdity (in spite of the already existing Lutheran/Reformed split, which was mostly regional rather than local) was obvious only in hindsight.

Well is not doctrine very core?

I’m not necessarily disagreeing–I’m trying to get you to define your position. I defined my own above–and yes, I do think that doctrinal unity is necessary, in the sense that we need to have a common mind as to how much theological diversity is legitimate. (In other words, if I say that your doctrines are OK, but you think I’m a vile heretic, we aren’t united–this is often the case among Protestants as well as between Protestants and other Christians. Also, Protestants often mistake “live and let live” for unity. If I wouldn’t accept one of your pastors as a pastor because of your church’s beliefs, then we aren’t united even if I am happy to acknowledge you as fellow Christians.)

You think unity is okay if one church teaches the Eucharist is symbolic and another as the Real Presence?

Please do not make unfounded assumptions as to what I think is “okay.”

No, I don’t think that this particular instance is OK.

They’re united in certain aspects,but divided in others,and yet still part of the ONE Body of Christ?

Your own Communion teaches that we can be imperfectly part of the Body of Christ.
. .

I beg your pardon? Now you clearly display your lack of knowledge when it is applicable to Catholicism. Different parishes teaching different doctrines? And you have evidence to support your charge?

I have plenty of personal experience of Catholics complaining that certain parishes are not “orthodox,” and of hearing doctrines in one parish that I know other Catholics would consider to be heretical. If you don’t have such experience, then either you haven’t been a Catholic long or you have been living in a very conservative part of the Catholic world. I doubt that I’ll be able to convince you, but you can easily convince yourself. Just post a poll asking your fellow Catholics whether unorthodox parishes exist. (Note that it’s irrelevant to my point whether these parishes are really unorthodox, only that they are believed to be by other Catholics, including other priests and bishops.)

Edwin

 

[Texasgringo70]

Would it not benefit us more to rejoice that we are faithful to the Church that Jesus founded? The Catholic Church? And then rejoice that the message of Christ is being shared by those who know Truth?

Sure, but that cat is already out of the bag. You can’t un-ring the bell. Reconciliation is not going to happen until we stop focusing on the differences and decide to work and worship together on the similarities. Like in our conversation of Polycarp, I doubt he changed his mind about celebration Passover, but he decided that unity was more important than being right on that subject.

Or is it better for a minister from one protestant church to preach Christ by saying infant baptism is wrong and a minister from another protestant church to preach Christ by saying infant baptism is perfectly OK? What kind of jumbled-up message is that?

The last Church I went to didn’t baptize at all. They believed that baptism was a spiritual experience and didn’t require water. The minister of that church did baptize me and my wife because we thought it was important. My wife was Catholic until her early teens, so that was her second baptism. I would be willing to bet that if she still valued infant baptism that minister would have baptized our children too. What I think really jumbles up the different messages is when you start telling people that they will go to hell if they don’t get baptized the right way. That ratchets the rhetoric up to a whole different level and just makes people mad at each other. I think God is big enough to judge peoples’ hearts on this and other subjects.

I’m confused as to why you even brought up this passage. Who has selfish motives? The Catholic Church? Nope. Any protestant church? I don’t know but you introduced it and it appears to me that you are saying that it’s OK to belong to a protestant church because it’s OK to selfishly preach the message of Christ (please correct me if I’m wrong).

It just came to my mind when I read the post I responded to. The poster said that in essence protestants founded their churches out of selfishness. That might be, but they all said they had theological reasons. Some protestants might think that Catholics are the selfish ones, but I don’t. What I was trying to say was that pointing fingers and calling names will only divide more and that it doesn’t really matter who really is the selfish one. I think it would be more productive to take the lemons of a divided Church and make some lemon-aid in the fact that we are all preaching Christ.

 

[Texasgringo70]

Okay my bad for misunderstanding you.

Well my apologies if you misunderstood me. My statement of insignifcant sect is not a reference to ANY Protestant,Fundamentalist,Evangelical,etc, but as to Christ Church which he founded here on earth.

Again,I my intent was not trash your faith in any shape or form. I know you are a God-loving Christian as are many Protestants.

Again, my apologies for coming across as insulting or disrespectful,those were not my intentions.

Thank you. Apology accepted. Sorry for being so thin skinned. I’ll try to keep my head about me next time.

 

[Texasgringo70]

Look, what I saw in your post was disrespect to the Catholic Church and I told you what I saw. Now it appears to me that you are using my statements to you as some sort of shield which you can back down behind and then say “well, I could say the same about you, but if I do I can get in trouble.”

Forget my post. I’m only a member here, just like you. Forget I ever said anything about what I perceived as disrespect to the Church. And please stop using my comments in such a twisted way.

I am sorry. You have my word that I will not mention it again. In my defense I was not referring to you specifically, but in how you described the CAF community in general passionately defending the Church. Apparently I have an acute case of foot in mouth disease.

 

[Texasgringo70]

Originally Posted by LittleSoldier
I can’t see anywhere where you came across as insulting or disrespectful. You didn’t even mention any or all protestant churches when you made your comment about “insignificant sect.” Someone assumed that’s what you meant, but it’s clear to me that you didn’t.

Well thank you for noticing too. Texasgringo70 simply misunderstood me and believed I was being disrespectful and I was not.

Glad to hear it. I didn’t think I was being disrespectful either though. Our backgrounds and teaching cause us to see things from our perspective and not the other’s.

All the best to both of you.

 

[schaick]

Do they? Do Lutherans believe their church was founded by Jesus Christ and to be infallible in matters of doctinre (sacremnts, etc). The same goes for Baptist, Anglicans, etc? I was baptized Lutheran in high school by converted to Catholicism towards the end. I don’t mean to be rude, I just want to know what other Christians really think about their denominations.

If it is not official doctrine that your denomination is the One True Church, how do you justify remaining in it?

Thanks

My view of Christ’s One True Church is not as narrow as the Catholic view. I believe all Trinitarian Christians hold on to the same basic tenets of faith and are a part of the universal Church.

There is no official “doctrine” stating this in my church but it is pretty obvious when you participate in a Bible study with Christians from many denominations.

We have the same faith, we simply celebrate that faith differently.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325

Okay my bad for misunderstanding you.

Well my apologies if you misunderstood me. My statement of insignifcant sect is not a reference to ANY Protestant,Fundamentalist,Evangelical,et c, but as to Christ Church which he founded here on earth.

Again,I my intent was not trash your faith in any shape or form. I know you are a God-loving Christian as are many Protestants.

Again, my apologies for coming across as insulting or disrespectful,those were not my intentions.

Thank you. Apology accepted. Sorry for being so thin skinned. I’ll try to keep my head about me next time.

It is okay,no big deal. Trust me, I know what it feels like to have one’s faith bashed or attacked. I know you are not a cruel person and how you reacted happens to all of us.

Peace my brother…

 

[LittleSoldier]

Is it “division” when a husband and wife worship at different Masses on a Sunday? I think it is–you probably don’t.

I would like to respond to part of your post. I’d like to know why you think it’s “division” when a husband and wife worship at different Masses on Sunday? Sometimes that is necessary, for example, when a child is sick and needs care and supervision. Even if the husband and wife attend different Masses they are still both fulfilling their Sunday obligation and are both participating in the Lord’s Supper. May I ask why it is so important that they be there together at the same Mass? Everyone is part of the faithful even if they aren’t at the church at the same time.

Is it “division” when Catholics ask anxiously on discussion forums where they may find an “orthodox” parish, because the parishes near their house are not orthodox? I think it is–you seem to be determined to deny that this situation even exists.

This is a difference in discipline and it isn’t “division.” As long as the Mass is a celebration of the Lord’s Supper it doesn’t matter which type of Mass one attends. Some people prefer one type and some another. I happen to prefer the style that uses music (guitars, flute, keyboard) and singers and also has the Agnus Dei in Latin and English. I feel more comfortable at this Mass and I feel blessed to be able to attend it. As long as transubstantiation occurs and the parts of the Mass are there, there’s really no difference except in preference. I love the beauty of the Latin Mass, the Gregorian Chant, and the incense but Latin, Gregorian Chant, and incense are not necessary. A Mass is a Mass is a Mass.

But here’s my definition:

Unity means that
a. All the Christians in a particular place gather together for worship on a Sunday, and
b. Each such local gathering fully recognizes the faith and practice of each other such gathering throughout the world, so that a member in good standing of one can be automatically accepted (based on a letter or other testimonial) as a member in good standing of another; and
c. The universal Church presently existing as defined in b can trace unbroken continuity of faith throughout the centuries going back to the time of Christ. (In other words, we are called to unity with dead Christians as well as living ones.)

(a) Are you saying there is one service on Sunday and everyone attends the same service? If that were attempted in any large city the Catholic church would be so jammed with people that a large percentage would be standing in the parking lot. There has to be more than one service. I apologize if I read what you wrote incorrectly.
(b) A Catholic can attend any recognized Mass in any part of the world without any sort of letter of other documentation showing that he/she is a member in good standing.
(c) I agree.

Except for the minor differences I noted it appears you have written a good description of the unity of the Catholic Church. We are called to unity with those who have passed on (we don’t think of them as “dead” as they are alive in Christ) if they are in heaven or in purgatory. It’s called the Communion of Saints. Unfortunately those in hell made the choice to not be with the rest of us.

The Church also has Apostolic Tradition going back to Peter, the first Pope, who was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven by Jesus Himself. This tradition is one of the most important parts of our faith.

[SIGN]Pax Vobiscum!![/SIGN]

 

[LittleSoldier]

I am sorry. You have my word that I will not mention it again. In my defense I was not referring to you specifically, but in how you described the CAF community in general passionately defending the Church. Apparently I have an acute case of foot in mouth disease.

Hey, join the club. I think you and I got off to a bad start and I’m very sorry about that. Would it be OK if we start over?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Texasgringo70:
Originally Posted by LittleSoldier
I can’t see anywhere where you came across as insulting or disrespectful. You didn’t even mention any or all protestant churches when you made your comment about “insignificant sect.” Someone assumed that’s what you meant, but it’s clear to me that you didn’t.

Glad to hear it. I didn’t think I was being disrespectful either though. Our backgrounds and teaching cause us to see things from our perspective and not the other’s.

All the best to both of you.

This is a strange thread. It’s not usually like this, at least from my experience. Somehow things got twisted. Am I the only one to see that?

Anyway, I just hope we can love each other as we are all children of God and very precious to Him. I’m sorry if I’ve been unkind or appeared to be unkind or whatever. After all this time I still haven’t figured out a way to get body language through the computer. It’s gone. Completely. And those little emoticons help a bit, but they can be used as sarcasm or as a genuine feeling. It’s so easy to misread someone’s post or to just be confused by what is being stated. And I don’t see any solution to this problem.

I don’t know why this thread is the way it is, but it’s here. I still think we can learn a lot from each other. And I know God created us in love and wants us to come home to Him. Even with our differences we can rely on that.

[SIGN]Pax Vobiscum!![/SIGN]

 

[Johnwesley]

With no disrespect, because there are many Catholics I absolutley love and adore, I don’t think half of you people know what you are talking about! If you want to talk to me private message, because I cannot individually answer all 15 of you on this.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Sure, but that cat is already out of the bag. You can’t un-ring the bell. Reconciliation is not going to happen until we stop focusing on the differences and decide to work and worship together on the similarities. Like in our conversation of Polycarp, I doubt he changed his mind about celebration Passover, but he decided that unity was more important than being right on that subject.

Do you think there is a chance for reconciliation? Before I joined CAF I didn’t even know the Church wanted reconciliation. Unfortunately there are parts of my faith that I am very unclear about, although I’m trying to learn. I don’t know what the Catholic Church is actively doing to promote reconciliation and unity except a bit of what is going on with the Anglican Church. I agree that focusing on the similarities is good - at least it’s a good first step. It makes sense to know what we have in common instead of starting off by disagreeing about everything.

The last Church I went to didn’t baptize at all. They believed that baptism was a spiritual experience and didn’t require water. The minister of that church did baptize me and my wife because we thought it was important. My wife was Catholic until her early teens, so that was her second baptism. I would be willing to bet that if she still valued infant baptism that minister would have baptized our children too. What I think really jumbles up the different messages is when you start telling people that they will go to hell if they don’t get baptized the right way. That ratchets the rhetoric up to a whole different level and just makes people mad at each other. I think God is big enough to judge peoples’ hearts on this and other subjects.

I agree. It’s never appropriate to tell people they are going to hell for any reason. My husband took his own life and a few Catholics, including one priest, told me he had gone straight to hell. I didn’t need to hear that. The truth is that we don’t know if he went to hell because we don’t know what was in his heart. If he was ill with depression and took his life because of despair, that would certainly reduce his culpability. We don’t know. I don’t know but I do trust in the love of God.

I don’t think God sits up there in heaven on a throne with a big book and puts marks after peoples’ names and once a person gets a certain number of marks they are sent down to the bowels of the earth to suffer for eternity. We don’t know what is in a person’s heart. Only God can judge people fairly. We don’t have the ability to do that and when we try we end up with prejudice, racism, sexism, not accepting people of other faiths, etc. God is omniscient. I remember arguing with my brother in law about this. He had read about a gang member who did something awful and he said that person would go to hell for what he did. I disagreed and said that only God can judge a person because only God knows absolutely everything about everyone - their past, present, and future experiences, how they look at life, absolutely everything. If God knows every feather on a sparrow surely He knows us, who are created in His image. I couldn’t get through to my brother in law. He wouldn’t accept this; I think it’s because he was just so angry about what this person had done.

I don’t believe a person even has to be Christian or believe in God to go to heaven. If someone’s actions on earth show love toward his fellow man isn’t he also showing love for God?

This is one of my favorite passages from the bible:

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’

Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’

And the king will say to them in reply, **‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ **

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’

Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’

He will answer them,** ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’**

And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

[Matthew 25:31-46, NAB, bolding added]

-----continued in next post-----

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation of last post-----

It just came to my mind when I read the post I responded to. The poster said that in essence protestants founded their churches out of selfishness. That might be, but they all said they had theological reasons. Some protestants might think that Catholics are the selfish ones, but I don’t. What I was trying to say was that pointing fingers and calling names will only divide more and that it doesn’t really matter who really is the selfish one. I think it would be more productive to take the lemons of a divided Church and make some lemon-aid in the fact that we are all preaching Christ.

Thank you for the clarification. I think some people founded some Protestant churches for selfish motives (I’m thinking about a king in England), but others did so because they believed they were doing the right thing. I don’t know their reasons. One thing I have problems remembering is that any message given without love will probably not be accepted, even if it reflects Truth. But if we agree to discuss our differences in the spirit of love and peace, we are much more likely to accomplish greater things and to discover Truth together.

[SIGN]Pax Vobiscum!![/SIGN]

 

[LittleSoldier]

With no disrespect, because there are many Catholics I absolutley love and adore, I don’t think half of you people know what you are talking about! If you want to talk to me private message, because I cannot individually answer all 15 of you on this.

John, with all due respect, I am confused by this message. Don’t you want to be part of this discussion? A lot of people read these posts but don’t post themselves. They’re called lurkers and part of the reason threads are started and continued is for them. If everyone PMs you with a question or comment people are being left out of the discussion - not only the lurkers, but anyone who is active in this thread but doesn’t see your response to a question or comment or the question or comment itself.

I don’t think it’s possible to have a discussion via PMs.

[SIGN]Pax Vobiscum!![/SIGN]

 

[Texasgringo70]

Hey, join the club. I think you and I got off to a bad start and I’m very sorry about that. Would it be OK if we start over?

I think we already did start over. Thanks.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
You think unity is okay if one church teaches the Eucharist is symbolic and another as the Real Presence?

Please do not make unfounded assumptions as to what I think is “okay.”

No, I don’t think that this particular instance is OK.

Okay then…so evidently those different beliefs hinder unity.

Quote:
I beg your pardon? Now you clearly display your lack of knowledge when it is applicable to Catholicism. Different parishes teaching different doctrines? And you have evidence to support your charge?

I have plenty of personal experience of Catholics complaining that certain parishes are not “orthodox,” and of hearing doctrines in one parish that I know other Catholics would consider to be heretical.

So do I and there are called gripes,complaints,opinions and hearsay. Everyone can have a complaint about anything and that alone does not constitute truth of the matter. Unless an individual has substantial evidence that a specfic parish is teaching false doctrines,then it is entirely different matter.I hear it all the time as a Director of Catechetical Ministry and it does not phase me one bit. I have even challenge people before to prove such a claim and the majority of the time they have nothing.

If you don’t have such experience, then either you haven’t been a Catholic long or you have been living in a very conservative part of the Catholic world.

Plenty of experience and as stated,if someone accuses the parish of such a thing,then he or she needs to prove it. Making noise about is not enough.

I doubt that I’ll be able to convince you, but you can easily convince yourself.

Opinions and hearsay will not convince me unless the bishop here at this Diocese specifically has enough evidence to prove a parish or several parishes are teaching different doctrines.Is it possible? Yes. Does it happen? I am sure it has somewhere.

Just post a poll asking your fellow Catholics whether unorthodox parishes exist. (Note that it’s irrelevant to my point whether these parishes are really unorthodox, only that they are believed to be by other Catholics, including other priests and bishops.)

Yes I can take a poll and it is going to be based on what? Their opinions,if unorthodox parishes exist? Or their expertise on doctrine backed up with actual evidence of unorthodox teachings being taught at the parish? Big difference.

 

[LittleSoldier]

My view of Christ’s One True Church is not as narrow as the Catholic view. I believe all Trinitarian Christians hold on to the same basic tenets of faith and are a part of the universal Church.

There is no official “doctrine” stating this in my church but it is pretty obvious when you participate in a Bible study with Christians from many denominations.

We have the same faith, we simply celebrate that faith differently.

May I please ask why you limit the universal Church to only Trinitarian Christians?

 

[Texasgringo70]

Do you think there is a chance for reconciliation? Before I joined CAF I didn’t even know the Church wanted reconciliation. Unfortunately there are parts of my faith that I am very unclear about, although I’m trying to learn. I don’t know what the Catholic Church is actively doing to promote reconciliation and unity except a bit of what is going on with the Anglican Church. I agree that focusing on the similarities is good - at least it’s a good first step. It makes sense to know what we have in common instead of starting off by disagreeing about everything.

I don’t know if reconciliation could ever happen. I think it would take a very long time if it ever happened. There are so many barriers that have been ingrained into the cultures of both Protestants and Catholics alike. The biggest one raised its ugly little head in this thread regarding what constitutes the one true church. We would have to decide to not demand that the other recognize our position as being the correct one as a prerequisite. It is more likely that we would just end up settling for increased cooperation and occasional nondenominational worship sans the sacraments. When we get to the point where we can both rejoice in the achievements of the other side and count them as a victory in Christ we would be getting close.

To a certain extent I see some of that happening already. I attended spiritual renewal program called Walk to Emmaus. It was born out of the Catholic Cursillo movement and it shows. Before becoming a separate movements both Protestants and Catholics participated together within the Cursillo organization. Unfortunately the popularity of the movement made it difficult to continue operating in that fashion. I also know that in my home town the Catholic priest and many from his Parrish commonly participate with the protestants in prayer breakfasts and other non-denominational events.

I am very sorry about your husband. I almost wish I hadn’t said anything about condemnation so as to not open that wound. On the other hand I am glad we were able to connect on a deeper level because of it.

All the best.