Do you believe there is one true church?

[Contarini]

Sophistry? This is not helpful. And one of the concerns of the reformers was the intervention of civil authorities in the affairs of the Church.

The magisterial Reformers greatly increased the intervention of civil authorities in the affairs of the Church. One of their grievances (early on, especially–later the Calvinists reintroduced a “new popery” which eventually led to separation of Church and State) was the fact that the Church had an authority structure independent of the State. They won support from civil governments in large part by becoming citizens (which the Catholic clergy had generally refused to do) and handing over control of the administrative aspects of the Church (including its finances!) to the state.

Your view is a commonly held one, but the more I study the Reformation the more convinced I become that it is the complete opposite of the truth.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I cannot argue with that! There does seem to be an extrordinary degree of oppositionality , defiance, refusal of authority, and even mocking here at times. I think the forum tends to draw folks like that. On the other hand, if they were not trying to work out issues, they wouldn’t BE here! All of us know, intuitively, the Jesus did not want denominations, and it is our lack of love that separates and wounds His body.

Christ omniscient knew there would be denominations within his church and did not intervene to stop increasing diversity of belief. He has perhaps protected the mother church, as the essential repository of faith for Christendom. That is another matter.

I think I don’t agree that Christ would not have opted for denominations: the Catholic Church has been stronger, has been held to account more particularly, and has been able to serve mankind more perfectly since the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, and since Vatican II - the first council that took place before the eyes of the world.

Please, please see that from the point of view of those of a protestant persuasion, there **does **seem to be ‘an extraordinary degree of oppositionality, defiance, refusal of authority, and even mocking, sniggering and patronising advice’ on this Forum, which perhaps draws out folks on both sides who like the thrust and bustle of scoring points where nobody gets hurt, but the spirit is traumatised. I know I went to sleep last night with a heart full of sorrow and shame at the grating infighting among those who call themselves Christians, of whatever denomination.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

jmcrae is explaining what is set out in the Catechism. I don’t call it nothing! Just because people have different beliefs than you does not mean they don’t have their “act together”. However, I can see how post to which you are responding seems to point the “guilty” finger at all protestants. In truth, most protestants have no clue about the obligations jmcrae spells out here, and are therefore invincibly ignorant. They only know what they are taught, and most protestants are non-sacramental. I disagree on one point with jmcrae, that is the application of the term “heretic”. While such persons are not practicing within the fullness of the truth as revealed by Jesus through His apostles, they cannot be rightly called heretics. In order to qualify for that title, one must first know the truth, then willfully turn from it. Since most protesants have been taught errors about Catholicism from the beginning, they may be misguided, but don’t qualify as heretics. Now, if they listen to John Corapi and THEN turn away, that is another story…

I have a feeling that the words heresy, heretic, orthodox and heterodox are thrown about fairly commonly, without justification. They are not helpful, and may be red herrings to cover over an absence of real discussion.

I was thinking too that I would not like to say that someone is a heretic. I cannot judge in that way. I do not think it is my right, my prerogative. Someone else’s perhaps, but not mine. I will not say a Buddhist is a heretic.

The Dalai Lama (Buddhist), Professor Adam Curle (Quaker), Basil Cardinal Hume (CC), Sonny Ramphal (international civil servant), Jimmy Carter (reformed church), when they met several times each year to discuss faith and peace, did not spend time catfighting about heresy.

Christ is our guide; others on earth set practical examples. It is not our place to judge what is orthodox and what is heterodox, unless for certain and very particular purposes.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I have trouble understanding your point of view on how different doctrines keep interpretation clean.

Put very simply, giving an example: until the Reformation, the RCC was a law unto itself. Some of its doctrines were truly based on scholarly research and divine insight. On the other hand, others were devised in reaction to heresies, potential schisms, and other events of the time - thus being, in effect, historical anomalies.

Since the Reformation, which led to the Counter-Reformation, which cleaned out the augean stables on both sides of the divide, Catholics have in many instances held denominations of the protestant persuasion to account, and have indeed provided an archive of scholarly research and inspiration unequalled anywhere. Likewise, the other denominations of Christendom - and I am talking here of the mainline denominations and the World Council of Churchs, with which RCC associates itself - have similarly held RCC to account. Cardinal Ratzinger as a theologian read Christians of all denominations - and the possibilities for ecumenism - right when he impeded Pope John Paul II, a profound Mariologist, from issuing a Papal Bull which would have put Our Lady on the same footing as Our Lord. Public opinion, within any denomination, has a power to effect doctrine - and to keep it as close as possible to Christ’s intentions.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Evidently you did not hesitate long enough.

Moreover, ‘obsession’ is quite strong language; and an unwarranted putdown of a considered contribution to this discussion, I would note.

:dts:

I notice by the way that you have in no way even bothered to respond to the content in my post. Ah well, that leaves folks thinking that you have nothing substantive to add.

You have no way of knowing that. Please do not attempt to mindread. :hypno: Thank you.

I posted what I thought was necessary for this thread. Unlike you I am loathe to take up two pages to post what I have to contribute.

If it is complexity for which you are looking then perhaps you would do us the favour of providing it? :bounce:

‘Central’ importance? How many figures do you consider to be of ‘central’ importance? Moreover, since you are interested in those ‘many more figures’ whom I have left out, please feel free to champion their causes at length.

Forgive me Lord, but may I please set this out as an example of the kind of sniggering, uninformed and unnecessary baiting to which posters on either side are subjected. The posting serves no purpose but to hurt and create in the heart of the recipient disdain and shame for the poster.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

You have not demonstrated that it is biassed opinion. I note that you often do not respond to content by contributing reasoned and referenced points of your own but instead rely heavily on rhetorical judgments of other people’s points.

I think you have noticed wrong.

And although you were offended by my two pager, I wonder if you read it and would like to respond to its substance?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

From my experience it is due to ignorance and false teachings of those on the outside looking in. Complancency of those who read the bible and think they have full revelation of the Word of God and can therefore judge others by their own interpretation of the Truth. Their are false presumptions and prejudice in abundance about the actual teachings and doctries of the Church.

“Not 100 in the United States hate the Roman Catholic Church, but millions hate what they mistakenly think the Roman Catholic Church is” Bishop Fulton Sheen

The question is, of course, how millions get a mistaken impression of what the Roman Catholic Church is.

It is highly visible, some of my best friends and colleagues are Catholics, and yet I am perhaps pervaded by a cloud of unsureness about whether I will be chained or tetheredto, or brainwashed into a faith defined by a Church which insists that I accept all or nothing. This goes against the grain of democracy (and perhaps Christ was the first democrat) to which we have been born, and the encouragement we have been given to think for ourselves. In my formative years, it was the Kremlin, the Chinese Communist Party of Mao Tse Dong (I could give other examples, but they would give offence) which insisted on absolute devotion to its promulgated principles. And that took us all down routes that we would rather forget.

There is therefore perhaps a reluctance on the part of some of us - perhaps older ones - to commit totally, absolutely, in black and white - to a doctrine promulgated by an organisation, whether it is in Christ’s name or not.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Hence the political chaos which ensued and which the reformers took full advantage of.

You have no idea what I am referring to here: check your history books on the reformation. It had nothing to do with politics or political chaos, but the right of civil authorities to try religious cases referred to it by the Church.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

And another unsupported and unwarranted putdown.

Not unwarranted, clearly supported, and true. But for goodness sake, do not open yourself to this kind of criticism which you so freely dish out to others. Learn to engage rather than to attempt to humiliate. You have posted over 10,000 posts, an incredible number. It makes me wonder if you are perhaps in the world enough, with other people enough, in discussion with real people in real chairs at real tables or in real pews enough. Try it, and find humanity.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

In being an ex-cradle Catholic, I can see that the largest problem here is that Catholicism teaches and brands into the minds of its faithful that the Roman Catholic church is THE one holy Catholic and apostolic church and that there is no other PERIOD! In being out of the church for over three years now, it has become clearer to me that this has caused a huge stumbling block in dialogues between Roman Catholics and other churches. I have even heard some of you claim that the Roman Catholic faith isn’t even a denomination. That is how poured into the concrete many Catholics believe that their church is the only church of Christ. However, I have come to know that many folks Catholic included would be considered one holy catholic and apostolic church. I know that many of you will disagree with me and that’s fine, but many others besides Roman Catholics are included in Christ’s one church.

Thank you for this thoughtful comment and observation. I for one agree, and wish it could be otherwise. Perhaps, if we continue to believe in the reality of a universal church of Christ, that is, one holy, catholic and apostolic church (catholic with a small c).

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Kinda sounds like a cafeteria approach to spiritual pursuits. If one searches diligently, one can find just the right spiritual home that will scratch their individual itch. Looking at all the offerings as equal in value and contribution to one’s path of growth will promote a selection that will uniquely benefit one’s needs.

Perhaps to me faith means principally being cradled in the arms of a loving God, who loves me, and whom I love; who speaks to me and to whom I speak; who guides me and mentors me, informs my conscience through scripture and other inspired readings (Nouwen, Vanier, Nolan, Merton - none of our great 20th century spiritualists get a look in here, complementing the scriptures as they do); who helps keep me out of trouble. Primarily, He is the one who comforts me, and makes living not only less difficult (whoever said life was meant to be happy?), but a joy. Serving him is a life of service in humanity, that is Chist.

Right now we see through a glass darkly. My relationship with God is so clouded over by doctrine and dogma, do this and don’t do that, eat this flesh and drink this blood, that He has disappeared somewhere into the unknown. I regret this. I want my intimate relationship with Him back, without having to worry about transubstantiation or Mariology or Absolute Truth.

A repository of faith, a history and a central interpretation of Christ’ mission, which is generally acceptable is required for all Christians. But just as we fall in love with one person rather than another, so we will fall in love with the essence of Christ depicted for us by one authority over another. This has nothing to do with cafeterias (which I would throw out with the number 30,000 as useless rubbish).

Anyone with an informed conscience (or one that is being informed, or trying to be informed), anyone of integrity, anyone who knows Christ personally, and particularly anyone who has been baptised in the faith, will of course make informed choices. That does not automatically mean that such a person will regard all offerings as of equal value - they are of course not. Only a fool would make that assumption, no?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

“Among you there will be lying teachers who will bring in destructive sects . . . And many will follow their wanton conduct, and because of them the way of truth will be maligned.” - 2 Peter 2:1-2

It is nothing new, has been happening since the begining, therefore is expected.

And it seems possible that this Forum (viz Keating’s letter on liberal recommendations) is trying very hard to keep anything new from happening. Does this mean that we must all remain in a fundamentalist, conservative paradigm forever, all our lives? Or can we follow the Church’s teaching (*The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, *1993) and find some wiggle room which would bring us more into line with social and political contexts, 2000 years after Christ made his sacrifice for us. If we did this, would you designate us heretics?

Who, within the Catholic Church, are defined as heretics, in your opinion?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

By this logic, God wanted the Holocaust to happen. Are you sure you want to go there?

The fact that God permits something does not mean that it is according to His will.

Edwin

I have written about this at length elsewhere - the issue of God’s intervention. There are two principles at work, it seems to me: (1) that God - and Christ, being divine - know, knew, and will know all that there is to be known about human development and the state of the globe (and a lot more besides, given the size of this multiverse he has created); and (2) that God/Christ has chosen, as far as we can understand with our very poorly evolved minds, not to intervene in the laws of nature which control the workings of the material universe, but may choose to intervene in the social relationships of humanity.

Of course God could not possibly have wanted the Holocaust to happen, if He is the God we think he is. But he knew it would happen, and he did not - he chose not to - intervene. Up to this time, it is impossible for us to understand why He looked on as the Holocaust, WWII, the Rwandan genocide, the HIV plague, the Asian tsunami, Chinese earthquakes happened. He did not intervene.

I have posited elsewhere that He chooses to intervene only rarely because He originally endowed humanity (or so He thought - perhaps this was a big mistake) with sufficient intelligence, compassion, creativity and getgo to solve human problems without His intervention. Perhaps he holds back most of the time from intervening because He hopes that ultimately, we will learn to get our act together. (Faint hope?)

So yes, the fact that something happens does not mean that it is according to His will unless he is teaching us the hard way what we should know already: that humanity is one, and that each is divine and equally divine, and that we only live if the other lives. Perhaps you have another take on your statement that would provide further insight.

 

[guanophore]

Christ omniscient knew there would be denominations within his church and did not intervene to stop increasing diversity of belief. He has perhaps protected the mother church, as the essential repository of faith for Christendom. That is another matter.

I think that is the same matter. I think this demonstrates His intervention to preserve the truth, in the face if great opposition. Jesus nowhere teaches “diversity of belief”. Everywhere he teaches that we are to obey His commandments. That does not mean we get to pick and choose which commandments we think are important, or which ones we fell like obeying.

the Catholic Church has been stronger, has been held to account more particularly, and has been able to serve mankind more perfectly since the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, and since Vatican II - the first council that took place before the eyes of the world.

The world was different in the ancient times, and the previous councils took place as much “before it” as they do now. They were lacking mass media, but the teachings if the councils were discussed, decided, and promulgated by through, and for all Christendom, each in their time.

It sounds like you are crediting the Reformers for purifying the church. It is true that rebellion, heresy, and persecution do purify the Church, but that purificaiton occurs from within, by the faithful willing to die for what they believed. This started happening only decades after the gospel spread, so it is not a Reformation invention.

Please, please see that from the point of view of those of a protestant persuasion, there **does **seem to be ‘an extraordinary degree of oppositionality, defiance, refusal of authority, and even mocking, sniggering and patronising advice’ on this Forum, which perhaps draws out folks on both sides who like the thrust and bustle of scoring points where nobody gets hurt, but the spirit is traumatised. I know I went to sleep last night with a heart full of sorrow and shame at the grating infighting among those who call themselves Christians, of whatever denomination.

It is a great gift that you have been given to suffer sorrow of the Wounds in His Body. This makes you a more pure vessel for intercessory prayer for unity. I am trying to see the points you are making about the benefits of the reformation. You are right, I have a strong contrary prejudice because I believe Christ meant what He said about Unity.

John 17:11
Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one."

John 17:20-21

20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”

The denominations do not reflect to the world that Jesus has been sent by the Father. In order to do that, we must demonstrate unity. I don’t deny that diversity is needed, but there must be a way for that to happen within the unity God desires.

 

[guanophore]

I have written about this at length elsewhere - the issue of God’s intervention. There are two principles at work, it seems to me: (1) that God - and Christ, being divine - know, knew, and will know all that there is to be known about human development and the state of the globe (and a lot more besides, given the size of this multiverse he has created); and (2) that God/Christ has chosen, as far as we can understand with our very poorly evolved minds, not to intervene in the laws of nature which control the workings of the material universe, but may choose to intervene in the social relationships of humanity.

Of course God could not possibly have wanted the Holocaust to happen, if He is the God we think he is. But he knew it would happen, and he did not - he chose not to - intervene. Up to this time, it is impossible for us to understand why He looked on as the Holocaust, WWII, the Rwandan genocide, the HIV plague, the Asian tsunami, Chinese earthquakes happened. He did not intervene.

I think, because you do not believe in miracles, you do not see God’s intervention in places where it does, in fact, exist.

I have posited elsewhere that He chooses to intervene only rarely because He originally endowed humanity (or so He thought - perhaps this was a big mistake) with sufficient intelligence, compassion, creativity and getgo to solve human problems without His intervention. Perhaps he holds back most of the time from intervening because He hopes that ultimately, we will learn to get our act together. (Faint hope?)

I think this is a flawed creation perspective. God created us to live in union and unity with Himself. He never intended for us to “solve problems without His intervention”. This perspective is Deist. It is as if God is an absentee landlord, having set the world and creation in order, then goes away and leaves it running in his absence, for good or ill. However, I do agree that He hopes we will learn to get our act together.

So yes, the fact that something happens does not mean that it is according to His will unless he is teaching us the hard way what we should know already: that humanity is one, and that each is divine and equally divine, and that we only live if the other lives. Perhaps you have another take on your statement that would provide further insight.

Although I can agree that each human person is deserving of dignity because they were made in the image and likeness of God, I do not think that each person has that same degree of divinity. There are some, like Mother Theresa, who have more fully embodied that divinity that others.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Carol Coombe:

there **does **seem to be ‘an extraordinary degree of oppositionality, defiance, refusal of authority, and even mocking, sniggering and patronising advice’ on this Forum, which perhaps draws out folks on both sides who like the thrust and bustle of scoring points

Carol, do you not see tht this comment of yours may possibly display the hallmarks of projective identification? Look at your own posts. Last night I pointed out several of your comments which you posted in a row. Those comments came across – whether intended or not – as overly brusque dismissals of other posts for which other posters had given some considerable thought.

Moreover you offered these dismissals without offering support or substantive response to the content of the posts to which you were replying and therefore it was difficult for many of us to follow the gist of the discussion. Were these dismissals not attempts to score points – on your part?

(Note that I said ‘score’ points, not ‘make’ points.)

Many of us are content to answer questions about the Church (if we have them), give links to authoritative writers on Church history and teaching, learn about the Church, participate in social action projects for peace and justice and so on. Some of us are even content to be corrected where that is warranted.

I personally have conceded or apologized or both any time that someone has shown the error of my point(s) of view or even when I have not been able to go the whole nine yards in explaining my point of view.

Sometimes – but not always – what happens is that some folks – not all – put forward their theories. Then those theories are challenged. Then, rather than support those theories, some folks merely tautologize. When that tactic gets old and tired, then the innuendos and ad hominems start.

I am easily impressed by posts which are offered in the spirit of stimulating learning on all sides, offered logically and clearly, offered with links to writing which clarifies certain points put forward, and offered with a view to furthering the discussion. I am also impressed by posts which relate all this to personal experience.

guanophore:

It sounds like you are crediting the Reformers for purifying the church.

It sounds like that to me too. I have said what I am about to say before and you, Carol have dismissed that repetition as “obsession” on my part. Can you not concede that repetition is often warranted because some folks ignore the content of what I say in order to “score points”?

What I have said before is that I believe that it is very enlarging for us to read about the heresies – or rebellions and differences of opinion (RDOs), if that is a less loaded term for you – and to understand them.

The principle purpose I have for understanding the RDOs is that some folks present with an RDO, but genuinely love truth and wisdom. If those folks are considering the possibility that truth and wisdom resides in the Catholic Church or if they are considering the possibility that they can cooperate with the Catholic Church toward spreading truth and wisdom throughout a suffering world – then understanding their RDOs helps the communication between us.

And that communication helps the unity of the Church.

guanophore:

It is true that rebellion, heresy, and persecution do purify the Church, but that purificaiton occurs from within, by the faithful willing to die for what they believed.

Yes, from within.

guanophore:

I am trying to see the points you are making about the benefits of the reformation.

There are benefits to most things. What we have not undertaken yet is a cost/benefit analysis of the Reformation. That might be useful. Another thread, but useful.

guanophore:

You are right, I have a strong contrary prejudice because I believe Christ meant what He said about Unity.

A belief supported by reason and by authority is not a prejudice.

guanophore:

The denominations do not reflect to the world that Jesus has been sent by the Father.

Perhaps, guanaphore, you could flesh this out in more detail? Maybe set up a dialectic for the pros and cons of this belief?

guanophore:

In order to do that, we must demonstrate unity.

What happens when we do not demonstrate unity?

guanophore:

I don’t deny that diversity is needed, but there must be a way for that to happen within the unity God desires.

Yes, diversity does not necessarily mean that folks rebel and go off into their corners. Moreover rebellion can quite frequently mean a lack of diversity, particularly if those rebelling do so for predictable reasons which they hold in common. Those similar reasons can be brought to light be examining the features of rebellion, rather than avoiding them.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Re: Diversity and Unity

While diversity is wonderful, Unity within the church is essential. The two are not incompatible. When I go to church on Sunday at my local RCC there is a marvelous diversity of people there that have come together for the purpose of worship. Masses are said in 3 different languages at various times. During Holy Week, sometimes a homily will be given in two languages at the same service.

When we meet together outside of church we are able to share the diversity of our viewpoints, our cultural and family traditions, etc. That is the value of diversity. The value of diversity does not come from divisiveness within the Body of Christ.

Melanie

 

[guanophore]

The denominations do not reflect to the world that Jesus has been sent by the Father.

Perhaps, guanaphore, you could flesh this out in more detail? Maybe set up a dialectic for the pros and cons of this belief?

I think that is the same matter. I think this demonstrates His intervention to preserve the truth, in the face if great opposition. Jesus nowhere teaches “diversity of belief”. Everywhere he teaches that we are to obey His commandments. That does not mean we get to pick and choose which commandments we think are important, or which ones we fell like obeying.

The world was different in the ancient times, and the previous councils took place as much “before it” as they do now. They were lacking mass media, but the teachings if the councils were discussed, decided, and promulgated by through, and for all Christendom, each in their time.

It sounds like you are crediting the Reformers for purifying the church. It is true that rebellion, heresy, and persecution do purify the Church, but that purificaiton occurs from within, by the faithful willing to die for what they believed. This started happening only decades after the gospel spread, so it is not a Reformation invention.

John 17:11
Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one."

John 17:20-21

20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”

The denominations do not reflect to the world that Jesus has been sent by the Father. In order to do that, we must demonstrate unity. I don’t deny that diversity is needed, but there must be a way for that to happen within the unity God desires.

I don’t think that Jesus opposes diversity at all, being the Creator of it Himself. However, He was clear that unity of His disciples would be a clear sign through which all would know that He was sent by the Father. In our disunity, we rob Christ of His mission,and fail to carry His testimony into the world. The separations in themselves, although tragic, are not in themselves as harmful as the cutting we do against one another. Catholics castigating Protestants, and Protestants calling Catholics the whore of Babylon, etc. I was in a shop yesterday with a number of chick tracks. As I was waiting for the clerk, I paged thru them. I was so sad to see all the error being promoted. Clearly this shopkeeper knows no better (he is a very good Christian man).

 

[Efrain]

The question is, of course, how millions get a mistaken impression of what the Roman Catholic Church is.

Ignorance for one. People fail to remember to judge by the fruit of others. In our secular society today, the media strives and gets their kicks by enhancing the negativity of Christianity, not just (although mainly) Cathlocism. The result is that the mis-informed public now has a one sided view of the Church and their ability to remain open to the Truth diminishes.

It is highly visible, some of my best friends and colleagues are Catholics, and yet I am perhaps pervaded by a cloud of unsureness about whether I will be chained or tetheredto, or brainwashed into a faith defined by a Church which insists that I accept all or nothing. This goes against the grain of democracy (and perhaps Christ was the first democrat) to which we have been born, and the encouragement we have been given to think for ourselves. In my formative years, it was the Kremlin, the Chinese Communist Party of Mao Tse Dong (I could give other examples, but they would give offence) which insisted on absolute devotion to its promulgated principles. And that took us all down routes that we would rather forget.

Again we fail to understand or remember Scripture, the gates of hell will never prevail. If we tend to view the Church as dictaorship rather than the guidance for the Truth, then we do not completely trust Jesus and His teachings. Democracy is important in our society, but democracy is not relativism (or at least it shouldn’t be), the Truth is one not various truths. The Word of God is like a two sided sword, we are in either side of the fence, so why would people not realize that the Church is guiding us completely to the Light and can never err and lead us to darkness. When we fail to follow certain Church doctrines then we fail to give ourselves up completely to the Lord.

There is therefore perhaps a reluctance on the part of some of us - perhaps older ones - to commit totally, absolutely, in black and white - to a doctrine promulgated by an organisation, whether it is in Christ’s name or not.

I think it is complanceny. We tend to remain in our comfort zone and that becomes dangerous to our faith. We cannot strive for perfection while not seeking the fullness of Truth. If we tend to follow hersey (not heresy, which probably derives from the same word), we do not test each spirit and are tossed to and fro. It is up to each individual member of the Church to establish a relationship with Jesus on their own. What better way than through the Church who’s function as the bride of Christ is to teach the children the Word of God fully.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

It sounds like you are crediting the Reformers for purifying the church. It is true that rebellion, heresy, and persecution do purify the Church, but that purificaiton occurs from within, by the faithful willing to die for what they believed.

Clearly, I do not believe so. The Church was responsible for the Counter-Reformation, and that purification happened from within the Church as it was constituted at that time.

I am trying to see the points you are making about the benefits of the reformation. You are right, I have a strong contrary prejudice because I believe Christ meant what He said about Unity.

…The denominations do not reflect to the world that Jesus has been sent by the Father. In order to do that, we must demonstrate unity. I don’t deny that diversity is needed, but there must be a way for that to happen within the unity God desires.

Perhaps there is a problem here that has been addressed many times over elsewhere, although I have not studied it. We are perhaps talking past each other in terms of the word ‘unity’. Your unity, put crudely, is unity within the paradigm of the Catholic Church. My unity, put crudely, is unity within the universal church of Christ, or Christendom.

I am failing to see why there cannot be diversity within the unity of the universal church, the body of Christ. Is it not like a country, a nation, with many varying ethnicities, geographical features, and economic circumstances, which is nevertheless regarded as a single unity - like the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom or South Africa (and perhaps particularly the latter, given its recent past under the apartheid regime).

Canada in particular has resisted always the ‘melting pot’ concept of a nation, and has endorsed and encouraged multi-ethnicity, many different peoples under one flag. This is quite distinct from the US pressure on citizens to be Good Americans before anything else. Canadians are hyphenated (Chinese-Canadian, French-Canadian, Russian-Canadian, and even a few of the original Scots-Canadians). Toronto is said to be the most multi-ethnic city in the world, and I believe that is true.

There are inevitably problems - French-speaking Quebec wanting increased political and economic power for example - but these are for the most part resolvable (I am trying to ignore examples in Rwanda, Serbia, Ireland and Sri Lanka at the moment, which have special concerns).

Internationally, Canada is seen as Canada. Within Canada and its provinces (the biggest of which is now operated by 25,000 First Nations peoples) the ethnic and regional differentiations are more visible. But Canadians are Canadians.

Likewise, it is possible to contemplate that Christians are Christians to the world, but that within that framework, great diversity is not only permissible, desireable but encouraged.

I know that that concept confronts every principle of the supremacy of the Catholic Church and its ownership of the Absolute Truth. But I do believe that this is the way the world is moving, and our faith must move with it.

Unity in diversity, strength in diversity.