Do you think Protestants should not leave their denomination and rather change it from within?

[benjohnson]

I’m not sure I can justify breaking Eucharistic communion with fellow Christians.

Edwin

That would be the hardest part for me.

There’s these little old ladies in my church that lovingly bake the bread for the host. There’s the old Swedish cantor who has a palsy in his voice. The organist who plays his heart and alway remembers the chimes for the Sanctus. The young Acolytes who are nervous with their new responsibility.

How could I possibly turn away from them, and when they ask, could I tell them that their communion is “not valid”?

 

[MasterAsia]

And here is the problem with “assumptions”.

Would it be fair to say that Catholics who truly ant non-Catholics to convert are depending on this?

Yes sir, definitely it is very very fair to say that. But is that question appropriate to the topic at hand? It is a question asked in the wrong place and at the wrong time.

Please revisit the thread premise (reading again the thread title helps). It suggests (or not) a Protestant by virtue of some personally acquired truth should not leave their denomination but attempt change within. Protestant changing a Protestant denomination, and still maintaining a Protestant belief.

Willing, for the moment, to respond to this polemic, how does it run counter to the protestant dictum of sola scriptura?

Jon

Sola Persona? Oops, Sola Scriptura, very simple. Please consider the illustration below…

Initial Setting:
Q. What is the source of the “initial” Protestant denomination?
A. The “initial” Protestant denomination was founded upon Sola Scriptura, to be exact, by virtue of the personal interpretation of a certain Pastor. Let us call this pastor’s group, Interpretation the First.

Betweener:
After some time, it happens a person, Joe, joined Interpretation the First ministry. Joe, a very devout man, grew in Biblical knowledge and wisdom; to the point that he “discovered” that Interpretation the First’s interpretation is wrong.

Conflict:
So what does Joe do? He will, either, turn a blind eye, or leave, or confront the pastor.

Practical Resolution:
Q. Why are there “branches” in Protestantism? Why are they constantly dividing like bacteria?
A. More often than not, Interpretation the First’s pastor and loyal adherents will never accept the new personal revelation of Joe. After all, Interpretation the First’s pastor will also lay claim to a superior earlier personal interpretation. Who will determine who is correct? Who will rule who is wrong? Nobody. (Look at the Anglican mess and evangelical divisions) The authority is their conscience alone. That is why unless you have overwhelming charisma or an army; Sola Scriptura’s practical end is to agree to disagree. Reforming a Protestant denomination from within actually translates to “leaving” it in the first place.

 

[JRKH]

That would be the hardest part for me.

There’s these little old ladies in my church that lovingly bake the bread for the host. There’s the old Swedish cantor who has a palsy in his voice. The organist who plays his heart and alway remembers the chimes for the Sanctus. The young Acolytes who are nervous with their new responsibility.

How could I possibly turn away from them, and when they ask, could I tell them that their communion is “not valid”?

A wonderfully written post. And something that can confront all who seek after truth…

While reading this I couldn’t help flashing on Jesus words…" He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;" (Mt 10:37)…And I began substituting “cantor” and “organist” and “acolytes”.

You rightly ask, how would could tell them that their communion is not valid…And in truth, the only answer to that question is - you must be convinced of this truth yourself such that you believe that NOT telling them is doing the greater harm.
This is not to denounce the graces that they receive in their fellowship. Indeed we know that Jesus is present for He tells us, “* where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Mt 18:20)* Yet - if one is truly convinced - truly convicted - in their belief that the Catholic Church is the one true Church…one must act on that belief…

Now - how that works in relation to the theme of this thread would be - can/should one “stay” in their protestant denomination and promote closer ties with the Catholic Church? Or should they - indeed must they come out of that denomination into the Catholic Church…

I hope the above does not offend…Just the thoughts I had upon reading your very fine post.

Peace
James

 

[Stilldreamn]

That would be the hardest part for me.

There’s these little old ladies in my church that lovingly bake the bread for the host. There’s the old Swedish cantor who has a palsy in his voice. The organist who plays his heart and alway remembers the chimes for the Sanctus. The young Acolytes who are nervous with their new responsibility.

How could I possibly turn away from them, and when they ask, could I tell them that their communion is “not valid”?

Brother, we are in the same boat.

 

[AlwaysCurious]

That would be the hardest part for me.

There’s these little old ladies in my church that lovingly bake the bread for the host. There’s the old Swedish cantor who has a palsy in his voice. The organist who plays his heart and alway remembers the chimes for the Sanctus. The young Acolytes who are nervous with their new responsibility.

How could I possibly turn away from them, and when they ask, could I tell them that their communion is “not valid”?

Difficult, no doubt. But I imagine there are lots of sweet little old ladies in all the various faiths and religions. Does their kindness or sincerity mean that their theology is correct or irrelevant? Have we come back around to the tired idea that it doesn’t really matter what you believe as long as you’re nice about it? Consider what the first Christians must have gone through personally as they “broke” from their Jewish heritage!

“Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
Luke 12:51-53

The consequences of pursuing the Truth are part of our cross to bear. We shouldn’t be mean and nasty about it: we can be appreciative of everything we learned and loved from our previous communions while understanding that God has something perfect in mind, planned from the beginning, and better for all of us, including the nice little old ladies in our midst.

 

[JonNC]

=MasterAsia;9406302]Yes sir, definitely it is very very fair to say that. But is that question appropriate to the topic at hand? It is a question asked in the wrong place and at the wrong time.

Perhaps not, but it was afair response to your previous comment.

Please revisit the thread premise (reading again the thread title helps). It suggests (or not) a Protestant by virtue of some personally acquired truth should not leave their denomination but attempt change within. Protestant changing a Protestant denomination, and still maintaining a Protestant belief.

true. If I see my Lutheran synod swerving away from the confessions and scripture, and I work within the synod to attempt t maintain confessional beliefs, then I am working to maintian those confessional beliefs.

Sola Persona? Oops, Sola Scriptura, very simple. Please consider the illustration below…

This is the polemic I was speaking of.

Initial Setting:
Q. What is the source of the “initial” Protestant denomination?
A. The “initial” Protestant denomination was founded upon Sola Scriptura, to be exact, by virtue of the personal interpretation of a certain Pastor. Let us call this pastor’s group, Interpretation the First.

Lutheran would contend that our confessions are consistent with scripture, and within the one true catholic and apostolic faith.

Betweener:
After some time, it happens a person, Joe, joined Interpretation the First ministry. Joe, a very devout man, grew in Biblical knowledge and wisdom; to the point that he “discovered” that Interpretation the First’s interpretation is wrong.

If he wishes to remain - I’m Lutheran, so I am speaking from that POV - a Lutheran, he is bound to seek the council of his pastor, who is bound to teach Lutheran doctrine.

Conflict:
So what does Joe do? He will, either, turn a blind eye, or leave, or confront the pastor.

Not confront, but seek council.

I read the thread as to mean if the communion itself is swerving from its confessional beliefs.
Practical Resolution:

Q. Why are there “branches” in Protestantism? Why are they constantly dividing like bacteria?

Like bacteria. Again, polemics. To my knowledge, there are virtually no branches off of Lutheranism. Most of the branches of protestantism (the problem with this term is the [false] assumption that protestantism was/is a singular monolith.

A. More often than not, Interpretation the First’s pastor and loyal adherents will never accept the new personal revelation of Joe. After all, Interpretation the First’s pastor will also lay claim to a superior earlier personal interpretation. Who will determine who is correct? Who will rule who is wrong? Nobody. (Look at the Anglican mess and evangelical divisions) The authority is their conscience alone. That is why unless you have overwhelming charisma or an army; Sola Scriptura’s practical end is to agree to disagree. Reforming a Protestant denomination from within actually translates to “leaving” it in the first place.

While there are disagreements within Lutheranism, few are in terms of doctrine, other than perhaps who should serve as ordained clergy. And here, the confessions and scriture, along with the historic Church, are on the side of the LCMS - men only. For us, however, the confessions, as a right reflection of scripture, make the determination.
As for agree to disagree, not hardly. The Calvinists are heterodox in their TULIP, and in their expression of the Lord’s Supper. The Baptists are wrong regarding Baptism. We don’t “agree to disagree”, as attested by our policy of close communion.

As for “sola persona”, it is quite unfamialiar to me. I hold to the teachings of the Church, and the Lutheran Confessions.

Jon

 

[mangy_dog]

I’m an Anglican and know that within our denomination there is much to be improved on. (For instance, I think there is much to be learnt from Catholics regarding a higher view of Mary in response to the verse “…henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”)

However, I subscribe to the words of Billy Graham “'By all means look for the perfect church, and when you find it, join it. But remember, when you join it, it ceases to be perfect!”

One who seeks the perfect Church will have to wait a very long time (until death) to find it.

Hence the question, do you think there is value instead in staying in your own church and in the words of Mahatma Gandhi “Be the change you want to see”?

Gandhi and Graham: Glimpses of the true solution.

What has happened in the Anglican church is a prime example of a faith community coming to the realization that the Catholic church is the one true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of which He left Peter as the first pope…264 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI. And the gates of hell have not and will not prevail against her.

Solution from within is contained in the aforementioned formula.

 

[aicirt]

That would be the hardest part for me.

There’s these little old ladies in my church that lovingly bake the bread for the host. There’s the old Swedish cantor who has a palsy in his voice. The organist who plays his heart and alway remembers the chimes for the Sanctus. The young Acolytes who are nervous with their new responsibility.

How could I possibly turn away from them, and when they ask, could I tell them that their communion is “not valid”?

Benjohnson and Stildream: What about Luke:14, 25-27? Does that help?

How do you know that you aren’t the one they’ve been waiting for to set an example, to do what they may be longing to do, and who have the same fears of leaving?

Marcus Grodi was a Presbyterian pastor, Scott Hahn and his wife were very involved in their church.

I would imagine knowing the truth would be so overwhelming that you cannot stay. You have to go.

 

[Stilldreamn]

Benjohnson and Stildream: What about Luke:14, 25-27? Does that help?

How do you know that you aren’t the one they’ve been waiting for to set an example, to do what they may be longing to do, and who have the same fears of leaving?

Marcus Grodi was a Presbyterian pastor, Scott Hahn and his wife were very involved in their church.

I would imagine knowing the truth would be so overwhelming that you cannot stay. You have to go.

I look at the example of the ALCC and pray that the LC-MS will also walk this path if God so wills.

 

[rinnie]

Protestants should leave their churches made by mere man and sinners.

I don’t actually agree with this. Although I am a RC and have been my whole life I have much respect for Protestants also.

I have much repect for ANYONE who wants to preach the word of God.

I believe that God uses many doors and many windows to reveal his truth. I would rather see a Protestant worship God and pray and be a good person, then to see they deny Christ alltogether.

I believe that for many the Protestant Church is the first step to comming back to the Catholic Church. Its still a start. And if they would remain in the Protestant Church for some reason known only to God, I think God understands and knows a heart.

This may be wrong to say but I believe that for many they will never truly see the truth in the RCC. I don’t know why, But I do know that they will also by the grace of God be granted entrance to eternal life.

It all comes from God and his grace to put us where we are. There are reasons for everything and only God knows them.

But anyone who wants to talk about Jesus, anyone who obeys his commands the best they can, and are kind, share, love others. Is A okay in my book.

Like my Dad always said, Let God sort these things out. And he will. But we must love one another, be kind and share our faith, but let God’s grace do the rest.

It kind of reminds me of the Jews. they had the one true faith, the one true Church, but they became a little too big for their panties, and look what happened to them. God gave them understanding did he not? He blinded many of them to the truth of the Church.

Lets not get too big for our panties here! While we do indeed have the truth, lets be understanding to others.

 

[JRKH]

(Snip - - )
As for agree to disagree, not hardly. The Calvinists are heterodox in their TULIP, and in their expression of the Lord’s Supper. The Baptists are wrong regarding Baptism. We don’t “agree to disagree”, as attested by our policy of close communion.

(Snip—)

Jon

With all due love and respect Jon…I find this a bit difficult to incorporate seriously…I know you are sincere, but still…

First, you wish to say that others are heterodox - that is that they have accepted, “opinions or doctrines at variance with an official or orthodox position” (wiki), and yet Lutheranism itself is founded upon just such a foundation.

Second - you say that you don’t “agree to disagree” but where were the early councils among reformers to resolve these matters? Where are the councils anywhere in the last 500 years among reformers and various protestant sects designed to embrace and enforce the instruction and example of the NT “Church” authority to rule on doctrinal disagreement?

Just so you do not think I am being hi-handed in this, I fully recognize the role of the “bull-headed” elements of the RC leadership (as well as various political aspects) in the initial protestant separation (I will not say break) from Rome.
But - I find it difficult to swallow that those who claim most fiercely to believe and follow the Bible failed, so quickly and so permanently, among themselves to submit to the obvious instructions and example of the NT in such matters…In fact - denying, in many protestant, communions that the clear instructions mean what they clearly DO mean.
The historical result has been, not a “reform” of the Church by Luther and others, but a splintering of the attempt at reform -The rejection of Rome as authority did not result in the establishment of a new common, councilior “Church” authority, but rather a general rejection of authority and a willingness of groups to go their own way.
This is the 600 pd gorilla in the protestant house that no one seems to want to talk about.

Jon you know me and that I mean no disrespect to you - I hold you in high regard and so I know you will not be offended by what I have written here.
I also know that Lutheranism, at least the Lutheranism that you hold to, recognizes the need for church authority and submission to that authority. Yet that belief - by your communion - cannot prevent you from "agreeing to disagree with other communions, because the underlying rejection of universal Church authority prevents your communion from doing anything else…

Peace
James

 

[Peter_J]

Hi JRKH. Your thinking here is not unusual – if anything, those of us who have “been around a few times”, as it were, will likely get feelings of deja vu.

Certainly, you and I consider Lutheranism to be hetrodox. But is it really surprising that Lutherans don’t consider themselves to be heterodox (and in fact consider us to be so)?

 

[JRKH]

Hi JRKH. Your thinking here is not unusual – if anything, those of us who have “been around a few times”, as it were, will likely get feelings of deja vu.

Certainly, you and I consider Lutheranism to be heterodox. But is it really surprising that Lutherans don’t consider themselves to be heterodox (and in fact consider us to be so)?

Thank you for your kind words…
Of course it is not surprising that the Lutheran of today would consider the Catholic to be heterodox…
But then - that could hardly be the case in Luther’s day…Since it was Luther who departed from the “orthodox and established” beliefs and therein lies the seeds of the underlying weakness of the reformation/protestantism. If Luther could dissent from Rome, then Calvin could dissent from Luther and Zwingli from Calvin and Luther both and on down the line to today.
That is the 600 lb gorilla I refer to.

Again - I wish to reiterate that I recognize the RC has many troubles of her own when it comes to dissension. It is a matter that we ALL need to recognize and address.
But the problem within the Catholic community is fundamentally different than that which exists among the protestant community…The fundamental difference is in our views of the extent and validity of authority.

Peace
James

 

[exnihilo]

That would be the hardest part for me.

There’s these little old ladies in my church that lovingly bake the bread for the host. There’s the old Swedish cantor who has a palsy in his voice. The organist who plays his heart and alway remembers the chimes for the Sanctus. The young Acolytes who are nervous with their new responsibility.

How could I possibly turn away from them, and when they ask, could I tell them that their communion is “not valid”?

I completely agree. And if you are in a church because you were raised in that church you also are in some way rejecting, as all acts of choosing necessarily reject other, your family and most especially your parents.

While reading this I couldn’t help flashing on Jesus words…" He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;" (Mt 10:37)…And I began substituting “cantor” and “organist” and “acolytes”.

You rightly ask, how would could tell them that their communion is not valid…And in truth, the only answer to that question is - you must be convinced of this truth yourself such that you believe that NOT telling them is doing the greater harm.
This is not to denounce the graces that they receive in their fellowship. Indeed we know that Jesus is present for He tells us, “* where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Mt 18:20)* Yet - if one is truly convinced - truly convicted - in their belief that the Catholic Church is the one true Church…one must act on that belief…

And that is the right answer to the dilemma.

I would also add that many, maybe most, people in a church are there mostly because of indoctrination by parents. In my experience very few people have seriously studied the particular faith they have and this includes Catholics. So a person being at a church is not often due primarily to study and choice. Most of the old ladies I know are very proud of their roots in their church, that is both the building and the denomination. The good and proper instinct of respecting tradition is strong in the kind of person that would due honor to the True Church, whichever that is.

 

[Contarini]

I would also add that many, maybe most, people in a church are there mostly because of indoctrination by parents. In my experience very few people have seriously studied the particular faith they have and this includes Catholics. So a person being at a church is not often due primarily to study and choice. Most of the old ladies I know are very proud of their roots in their church, that is both the building and the denomination. The good and proper instinct of respecting tradition is strong in the kind of person that would due honor to the True Church, whichever that is.

Yes, but I don’t think you’re quite getting the problem.

We are talking about a community of baptized Christians. To abandon this community for an alleged “fuller union” with the Church (remember that Vatican II says that Protestants do have an imperfect union with the Church) cannot, in my judgment, be other than a sinful act.

Bear in mind that I think people oughtn’t to relocate from one town to another without permission from their local church! In the 21st century we need a serious dose of Benedictine stability. I’m deeply sympathetic to William Langland’s suggestion (in the 14th century) that people ought to be buried in the same parish where they were baptized.

You guys are opposing the need to follow Jesus to what you take to be a merely sentimental attachment. For me, at least, it’s a whole lot more than that.

The only way I could convert to Catholicism, living where I live now, would be to go on participating in some way in the parish I currently belong to. To do otherwise would not just be perfectly difficult–I believe it would be sinful.

At the same time, you are right that I need to witness to the folks in my parish regarding the need for a fuller union with the Church, and the highly imperfect nature of our union with the Church at the moment. I’ve tried to do this, as much as is appropriate. But there’s a limit to what words can do. I taught a lengthy adult ed series about the concept of the “Catholic Church” throughout history, emphasizing how important early Christians saw unity and orthodoxy, and trying to shake up some of their assumptions about the history of Anglicanism. (As my wife says, though, I nuance everything to death, so I don’t think the message got through very well because of my efforts to be fair. My discussion of the English Reformation could have been done by a staunch Protestant–my intention was to show how decidedly Protestant early Anglicanism was, and my agenda was to unsettle the causal quasi-Anglo-Catholicism of many folks in the parish–but as a good church historian I was as fair and sympathetic to the Reformation as I could be, and in this I may have succeeded too well!) Folks in my parish know that I’m very “pro-Roman” in their terms, and they smile tolerantly at me.

Edwin

 

[Cinette]

As far as I know (in my very limited knowledge I must admit), at the Diet of Worms, Luther when asked to recant, of points on doctrine he was most willing to concede, but recanting meant also recanting his works that dealt with the tyranny and injustice that the German people suffered, which he could not do. What else could he had done?

Hence, from what I said above, I do not think Luther would even persisted if the situation was not more political than doctrinal in nature (since it was with doctrinal issues that Luther was most willing to give in).

No offence taken at all ^_^. I readily admit that at least my denomination have merely parts of the truth.

That’s precisely one of the main reasons I won’t likely ever move from my denomination, I acknowledge that a church is not always pretty.

However, I cannot how God has moved in my Christian experience from the life of Protestants. I believe there is genuine miracles, genuine love for God and man, genuine presence of God and genuine conversion.

I believe my faith to be true and I hope it be proven by my works.
In the words of Luther, “God help me!”

*Luther said that you could commit adultery and murder numerous times in the same day and that would not cost you Eternal Life!! Once you accept God as your Lord and Saviour you will go to Heaven whether you like it or not!!!

Henry VIII had at one time been a very good Catholic and wrote a very good book on the Faith. The Pope at the time even called him the Defender of the Faith. He then went off the rails. You are Anglican - Anglican did not follow Luther or is there perhaps a branch of the Anglican Church which does?

God bless
Cinette*

 

[Contarini]

*Luther said that you could commit adultery and murder numerous times in the same day and that would not cost you Eternal Life!! *

Technically, in his theology, it would have no direct effect on your justification. However, you are picking on a hyperbolic statement he made in one pastoral letter to a scrupulous friend. Luther made it very clear in many places that a person who had true, justifying faith would not want to sin, would sin only through weakness, and could continually struggle against the works of the flesh.

• Once you accept God as your Lord and Saviour you will go to Heaven whether you like it or not!!!*

That was not Luther’s view. He did not believe in “eternal security.” In fact, he explicitly says in the Galatians commentary that a believer who did not continue to struggle against the works of the flesh would eventually lose faith and (unless he repented) would be damned.
*

Henry VIII had at one time been a very good Catholic and wrote a very good book on the Faith. The Pope at the time even called him the Defender of the Faith. He then went off the rails. You are Anglican - Anglican did not follow Luther or is there perhaps a branch of the Anglican Church which does?

It’s complicated. Anglicans certainly do not follow Henry VIII–this is a common misconception among Catholics.

The English Reformation was certainly influenced by Luther. However, English Protestants tended to identify more with the “Reformed” camp–which in sixteenth century meant a broad coalition of Protestants who did not follow Luther on all points and who tended to have a broader reform agenda than Luther’s, trying to use Scripture as a sort of law code to reform the Church as a whole instead of simply starting with justification and working from there.

The 39 Articles, the historic BCP, and other classic Anglican formularies reflect a moderate Reformed approach to theology. However, in the late sixteenth century more radically Reformed folks (the “Puritans”) criticized official Anglicanism for not going far enough, and establishment Anglicans began a long process of backing away from Reformed theology and, in many cases, from Protestantism itself.

Edwin

 

[AlwaysCurious]

We are talking about a community of baptized Christians. To abandon this community for an alleged “fuller union” with the Church (remember that Vatican II says that Protestants do have an imperfect union with the Church) cannot, in my judgment, be other than a sinful act.

Edwin

What is the basis of the sin, beyond your own judgment? Is Benedictine stability a positive command? I can understand it being difficult, or even heartbreaking in a sense–but sinful?

 

[exnihilo]

You guys are opposing the need to follow Jesus to what you take to be a merely sentimental attachment. For me, at least, it’s a whole lot more than that.

The only way I could convert to Catholicism, living where I live now, would be to go on participating in some way in the parish I currently belong to. To do otherwise would not just be perfectly difficult–I believe it would be sinful.

For clarification I’m just agreeing that sentimental attachment would cause any decent person to take pause. Whether we should ignore that emotion or instinct depends on what our duty is. Our highest duty is of course to God but because of God’s nature we also have a duty to our fellow man which includes leading them to truth at all times and in all places. If it is a sin to leave our current protestant church out of duty to the institution then it was a sin for our ancestors to leave the Catholic church. Therefore I would have a hard time seeing we would have any duty to something born of sin. Not that this perfectly clarifies things.

I am a resident of the United States. We all agree, I imagine, that we have some duty to the lawful government. But my lawful government was born out of a rebellion against the lawful government, the Kingdom of Britain. To whom did the people alive during the rebellion owe allegiance? The matter is easier for modern US citizens as Britain relinquished its claims. Less than one hundred years later the southern states tried to form their own government. This was put down by force by the US, itself born of rebellion. Most Americans today are quite sure their country was morally formed and that those who not even a hundred years later employed the same principles were rightfully stopped by violence and death. If things are so muddled in matters of state maybe it is no surprise they are so muddled in matters of the church. Yet one thing must be clear and that is that our obligation to the church is greater than our obligation to the state.

We know that Christ told us that his mother and brethren were those who did God’s will. We also know that He told us that if the people will not listen we should shake the dust off of our feet and move on. It would seem to me the question then might be when to shake the dust off of our feet?

I taught a lengthy adult ed series about the concept of the “Catholic Church” throughout history, emphasizing how important early Christians saw unity and orthodoxy, and trying to shake up some of their assumptions about the history of Anglicanism.

I would have thoroughly enjoyed this class. I learn quite a bit from just your comments here.

 

[Peter_J]

Right. It’s the valid orders thing that causes trouble in practice for me. I can’t bring myself to care deeply about “validity”–grace seems more mysterious to me than is containable under that concept. I know I’ve received grace (of one sort or another) from the Eucharist in Episcopal churches (and even in non-episcopal Protestant communities). I know that this grace binds me together with my fellow Episcopalians and with other Protestant brothers and sisters (and the fact that this includes my wife certainly plays an important role in the practical difficulties the issue presents for me). I cannot renounce that grace. But I also feel the urgency of publicly and visibly uniting myself to the bishop of Rome and taking my place within the community marked by union with Rome and full acceptance of the historic Christian tradition (the Orthodox, in my opinion, have the latter to all intents and purposes, but obviously not the former).

Edwin

I quite understand what you’re saying, the Orthodox are lacking in the communion-with-the-Pope department. But what do you say to Orthodox who claim that, at some point in history, the Pope ceased to be the first-ranking bishop?