Is Christian Unity Really Possible?

[Beno]

I love ‘just-so’ statements

Montalban, personally I put Orthodoxy at the same level as the Catholic Church and I prefer to mention the Orthodox in the same breath as Catholicism. Were I not already Catholic, I would be Orthodox. I look forward to the day when there will be unity among at least the both of us. Peace and love.

 

[Montalban]

John 21:15-19.

Apparently there are other shepherds!
Acts 20:28

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

(note more than one overseer of the flock!)

Even Peter exhorts others to feed the flock

1 Peter 5:2

Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind

Even Pope Leo the Great stated that there are many shepherds.

Many shepherds…
“…though He has delegated the care of His sheep to many shepherds, yet He has not Himself abandoned the guardianship of His beloved flock.”

Leo the Great “Sermon III”. (On His Birthday, III: Delivered on the Anniversary of His Elevation to the Pontificate, Chapter II) quoted at
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-175.htm#P2769_633599
(more next post)

There is nothing about Peter being a shepherd above other shepherds.

The reason we elect our Prime Minister is that we are a democratic monarchy. The Queen is our real ruler; the Prime Minister is her “vicar,” who takes care of day-to-day business that she doesn’t have time for. Everything he does in his official capacity as Prime Minister, he does on her behalf and in her name.

The Pope has that exact same role with regard to Jesus our King.

The queen is head of state. Not head of government. Unfortunately the early church fathers recognised no one above a bishop, but Jesus. Catholics insert an extra-level of church heirarchy
Ignatius writes extensively on this fact
He stated all churches headed by a bishop are Catholic (Smyrnaeans 8), not the Pope, not a bishop of bishops, not power held only reference to Rome.

He stated nothing should be done without the bishop (Smyrnaeans 8), not Pope, not reference to Rome. RCC teaching allows the Pope to interfere in a bishopric.

The structure of the church has no place above Bishop (Trallians 3), not Pope, no reference to Rome

The bishop holds all power (Trallians 7), not Pope, nor only in reference to Rome

He states that there’s no one above the bishop, save for Jesus (Letter to Polycarp; Romans 9), not the Pope, nor only in reference to Rome

 

[Montalban]

Even a pope recognised Peter AND Paul both as shepherds, and both as foundations of the church in Rome

“I. Rome Owes Its High Position to These Apostles.
The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy anniversaries, and loyalty to the one Faith demands that whatever is
recorded as done for all men’s salvation should be everywhere celebrated with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which to-day’s festival has gained from all the world, it is to be honoured with special and peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a predominance of
gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where the chief of the Apostles met their glorious end. For these are the men, through whom the light of Christ’s gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, was made the disciple of Truth. These are thy holy Fathers and true shepherds, who gave thee claims to be numbered among the heavenly kingdoms, and built thee under much better and happier
auspices than they, by whose zeal the first foundations of thy walls were laid: and of whom the one that gave thee thy name defiled thee with his brother’s blood. These are they who promoted thee to such glory, that being made a holy nation, a chosen people, a priestly and royal state, and the head of the world through the blessed Peter’s holy See thou didst attain a wider sway. by the worship of God than by earthly government. For although thou weft increased by many victories, and didst extend thy rule on land and sea, yet what thy toils in war subdued is less than what the peace of Christ has conquered.
VII. No Distinction Must Be Drawn Between the Merits of the Two.
And over this band, dearly-beloved, whom God has set forth for our example in patience and for our confirmation in the Faith, there must be rejoicing everywhere in the commemoration of all the saints, but of these two Fathers’ excellence we must rightly make our boast in louder joy, for God’s Grace has raised them to so high a place among the members of the Church, that He has set them like the twin light of the eyes in the body, whose Head is Christ. About their merits and virtues, which pass all power of speech, we must not make distinctions, because they were equal in their election, alike in their toils, undivided in their death. But as we have proved for Ourselves, and our forefathers maintained, we believe, and are sure that, amid all the toils of this life, we must always be assisted in obtaining God’s Mercy by the prayers of special interceders, that we may be raised by the Apostles’ merits in proportion as we are weighed down by our own sins. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, &c.

Leo “Sermon LXXXII”. (On the Feast Of the Apostles Peter and Paul (June 29).) quoted at
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-214.htm#P4043_1035305 (see Appendix for extensive quote).

 

[jmcrae]

Apparently there are other shepherds!
Acts 20:28

Yes, they work with Peter and in unity with Peter. Not independently, as though he did not even exist.

The structure of the church has no place above Bishop (Trallians 3), not Pope, no reference to Rome.

If so, then every Diocese should be its own separate, independent denomination - and you guys should not be having Patriarchs any more than we should be having a Pope, since if this is to be taken literally, then nobody can be allowed to tell the local Bishop what to do - not the Pope, and not the Patriarchs.

 

[Montalban]

Yes, they work with Peter and in unity with Peter. Not independently, as though he did not even exist.

And Peter works with them. There’s no ‘chief’ shepherd in any of the quotes presented by either your side, or mine.

If so, then every Diocese should be its own separate, independent denomination - and you guys should not be having Patriarchs any more than we should be having a Pope, since if this is to be taken literally, then nobody can be allowed to tell the local Bishop what to do - not the Pope, and not the Patriarchs.

We don’t have a Patriarch *as *you have a Pope.

Just as the Trinity members are all fully God, yet all joined together to be one God so each and every church headed by a bishop should be in love united to each and every other church headed by a bishop, and that’s the Triune mystery at work in the church

 

[AlegreFe]

Apparently there are other shepherds!
Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
(note more than one overseer of the flock!)
Even Peter exhorts others to feed the flock
1 Peter 5:2

Pope Benedict XVI is a Bishop. We have many Bishops for the different dioceses and archdioceses that we have in the US and around the world.

Montalban:

There is nothing about Peter being a shepherd above other shepherds.

Sure there is. Jesus Himself picked Peter to be shepherd over all shepherds.

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus
said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John,
do you love me more than these?” He said
to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon,
son of John, do you love me?” He said to him,
“Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said
to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son
of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed
that he had said to him a third time, “Do you
love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know
everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus)
said to him, “Feed my sheep.
18 Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were
younger, you used to dress yourself and go
where you wanted; but when you grow old,
you will stretch out your hands, and someone
else will dress you and lead you where you do
not want to go.”
19 He said this signifying by what kind of death
he would glorify God. And when he had said this,
he said to him, “Follow me.”
Jn 21:15-19

Jesus is only talking to Peter there ^ and at the end tells Peter to follow Him. Our Pope follows Jesus all the time.
Here are the footnotes from the NAB for those verses above;
[15-23] This section constitutes Peter’s
rehabilitation and emphasizes his role in
the church.
[15-17] In these three verses there is a remark-
able variety of synonyms: two different Greek
verbs for love (see the note on John 15:13); two
verbs for feed/tend; two nouns for sheep; two
verbs for know. But apparently there is no
difference of meaning. The threefold confession
of Peter is meant to counteract his earlier
threefold denial (John 18:17, 25, 27).
The First Vatican Council cited these verses in
defining that Jesus after his resurrection gave
Peter the jurisdiction of supreme shepherd and
ruler over the whole flock.
[15] More than these: probably “more than
these disciples do” rather than “more than
you love them” or “more than you love these
things [fishing, etc.].”

Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and only to Peter as “head” Bishop.
15 He said to them, “But who do you say
that I am?”
16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the
Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed
are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh
and blood has not revealed this to you,
but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of the netherworld shall not
prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom
of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose
on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Mt 16:15-19

The power of binding and loosing remains with the Pope until Jesus comes back. The Bishops in union with the Pope also have that power as the power remains with the Church.

more in next post…

 

[AlegreFe]

…cont.

Jesus talks about a “leader” so there is one who is leader. But since they are all considered Bishops they are the same in that sense. But Jesus did appoint Peter as “leader” as he is “prime minister.” The Pope is called the “servant of the servants.”
24 Then an argument broke out among
them about which of them should be
regarded as the greatest.
25 He said to them, “The kings of the
Gentiles lord it over them and those in
authority over them are addressed as
‘Benefactors’;
26 but among you it shall not be so.
Rather, let the greatest among you
be as the youngest, and the leader
as the servant.
27 For who is greater: the one seated
at table or the one who serves? Is it not
the one seated at table? I am among
you as the one who serves.
28 It is you who have stood by me in
my trials;
29 and I confer a kingdom on you, just
as my Father has conferred one on me,
30 that you may eat and drink at my
table in my kingdom; and you will sit on
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 "Simon, Simon, behold Satan
has demanded to sift all of you
like wheat,
32 but I have prayed that your
own faith may not fail; and once
you have turned back, you must
strengthen your brothers.”
Lk 22:24-32
Well, Satan did manage to sift many of us like wheat as there are many thousands of different denominations of Protestantism. But I thank God that Satan will never prevail just as Jesus promised Peter, the one upon which our Church is built. Of course we all know that Jesus is thee Rock!
I will remain under Peter as I want to be included in Jesus’ prayer for Peter.
NAB footnotes
[31-32] Jesus’ prayer for Simon’s faith and the
commission to strengthen his brothers anticipates
the post-resurrectional prominence of Peter in the
first half of Acts, where he appears as the
spokesman for the Christian community and the
one who begins the mission to the Gentiles
(Acts 10-11).
[31] All of you: literally, “you.” The translation
reflects the meaning of the Greek text that uses
a second person plural pronoun here.

Another thing to consider is that Peter’s name (whether it be “Simon” or “Peter” or “Cephas” is mentioned more times than all the other Apostles combined. Here is something else you can read about Peter’s Primacy.

more in next post…

 

[AlegreFe]

…cont.

Montalban:

Catholics insert an extra-level of church heirarchy

“Catholics” didn’t do that. Jesus did.

Montalban:

Ignatius writes extensively on this fact
He stated all churches headed by a bishop are Catholic (Smyrnaeans 8), not the Pope, not a bishop of bishops, not power held only reference to Rome.

Ignatius is correct in saying that. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a “head” Bishop. These Bishops or shepherds have to be united in some way. The only way is through the Bishop of Rome.

Montalban:

He stated nothing should be done without the bishop

That’s right. But we have to remember that any and all Bishops have to be united with the Bishop of Rome if they consider themselves Catholic.

Montalban:

The structure of the church has no place above Bishop.(Trallians 3), not Pope, no reference to Rome

The Pope is a Bishop. Wherever the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church, the Church which Jesus Christ built on our first Pope, Peter the Rock, the Bishop above all Bishops.

Montalban:

The bishop holds all power (Trallians 7), not Pope, nor only in reference to Rome

That’s right, and those Bishops are all in union with the Bishop of Rome.

Montalban:

He states that there’s no one above the bishop, save for Jesus (Letter to Polycarp; Romans 9), not the Pope, nor only in reference to Rome.

The Pope calls himself “servant of the servants” so I don’t know if this could be what that means. Whenever there is a referrence to a “bishop” it means the “head bishop” which is the Pope; as in the statement, “wherever the Bishop is there is the Catholic Church.” Of course that could also mean a Bishop in union with the Pope.

 

[Montalban]

AlegreFe:

Pope Benedict XVI is a Bishop. We have many Bishops for the different dioceses and archdioceses that we have in the US and around the world.

Excepting that the Pope is a bishop of bishops.

AlegreFe:

Jesus is only talking to Peter there and at the end tells Peter to follow Him.

But it wasn’t restricted to Peter alone. I just showed you that it wasn’t. Even one of your popes understood this. I love it when Catholics defy doctrine and try to resort to a sola scriptura argument. Yes, indeed, in scripture we have evidence that Jesus commissioned this of Peter. Does this mean He commissioned only Peter? You seem to think so, based on supposition. I used other verses plus Church Fathers who say that others were also given the task of shepherds.
St. Cyril of Alexandria said " …for then Peter and John, who were of equal honour with each other, being both Apostles and holy disciples [would have been one, and], yet the two are not one."

“Third Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius “ quoted at monachos.net/patristics/christology/cyril_to_nestorius_3.shtml

Thus, when referring to Peter as ‘shepherd’ in one or many verses, this might, in isolation seem of some value to your case, but when he elsewhere says that they are all of the same honour, then this is the right context to understand these words.

AlegreFe:

The power of binding and loosing remains with the Pope until Jesus comes back. The Bishops in union with the Pope also have that power as the power remains with the Church.

Again this was not restricted to Peter alone.
Hilary of Poitiers is quite clear that all who hold that faith have the keys for binding and loosing…

1. This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father’s gift by revelation; even the knowledge that we must not imagine a false Christ, a creature made out of nothing, but must confess Him the Son of God, truly possessed of the Divine nature

Hilary of Poitiers “On the Trinity” Book VI.
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/Npnf2-09-13.htm#P1388_859877

”For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now”
John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1”
quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, p1
See also
The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him.
Origen
Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew: Book XII.11
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-48.htm
This is simply more supposition from you. Peter still as yet didn’t have a full understanding of what he was saying, and wouldn’t until Pentecost, when ALL the Apostles received the Holy Spirit together. Why didn’t Peter receive it first?

“For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge…,”

Irenaeus - “Against Heresies” Book III.I.I

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859

See also John 13:7 Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but you will after this.”

Thus they all got the same understanding TOGETHER.

And, even if it were, you have to invent some reason why it passed only to the bishops in Rome (as opposed to Anitoch, which Peter founded first).

AlegreFe:

Ignatius is correct in saying that. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a “head” Bishop. These Bishops or shepherds have to be united in some way. The only way is through the Bishop of Rome.

That’s the very point. He says that there is none above a Bishop.
“In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.”

Ignatius -

“The Epistle to the Trallians”, Chapter III

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-18.htm#P1604_276864

It is specific. There IS NO ONE ELSE. The Catholic church says there is; the Pope.

Oh, and how can they (the church) remain united? The way they are united is through community in Jesus.

 

[Montalban]

AlegreFe:

That’s right.

That’s not how the RC Church operates. The pope can circumvent a bishop.
I believe you can’t agree with Ignatius and the RC Church way, because he does not say one has to be in communion with the Pope. For him the bishop is the head of the church. Not “The bishop in communion with the Bishop of Rome”

AlegreFe:

But we have to remember that any and all Bishops have to be united with the Bishop of Rome if they consider themselves Catholic.

Truism. Of course the Catholic church operates this way. That’s the very argument we’re having, is this THE WAY that Ignatius thought of the church and the answer is a resounding NO, because for him the bishop is supreme. For you, the Pope is.

AlegreFe:

The Pope is a Bishop. Wherever the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church, the Church which Jesus Christ built on our first Pope, Peter the Rock, the Bishop above all Bishops.

Ignatius doesn’t say “Where there is this particular bishop, there is the church”.

 

[mdgspencer]

The latest messages show why representatives of the Churches meet together to try to reach a mutual understanding and, sometime in the future, perhaps unity. There are many issues to be faced. All the same, I don’t think unity is impossible. If God wants it perhaps something will result.

 

[Ace86]

All the same, I don’t think unity is impossible. If God wants it perhaps something will result.

Ah but all **Christians **have to *want * unity as well. And therein lies the critical point.

 

[Sixtus]

Christ prayed for it. Who dares to say He prayed in vain

 

[spauline]

I can’t believe that after four pages of posts, nobody mentions (unless I missed it) EWTN’s perspective, based on the great and painstaking scholarship of Birch and Donovan on what Catholic Private Revelation has to say about it.

According to here: Millennialism/End Times

The mystics in general prophesy of an intermediate apostasy and tribulation (the MINOR apostasy and tribulation) to occur before the ones of the end of the world (the GREAT apostasy and tribulation), after which will occur the Reunion of Christians.

Not only that, I am utterly convinced that Public Revelation addresses this as well. For if unity is attained at the climax of Church history, before the very end, how could the Scriptures and Tradition not address this?

And, in fact, I see it veiled in the most common sense place: the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11.

Fundies, who are Futurists, think the most important meaning is literal Enoch and Elijah, who will [supposedly ] return to earth during the reign of Antichrist to literally preach for “1260 days”.

Liberal Preterists think it is, on the other hand, usually Sts. Peter and Paul, who literalistically preached under the “beast”, “Nero”. ]

OK, fine, maybe there’s some legitimacy to either extreme, but nobody seems to think of another layer of meaning possible, an Intermediate meaning: Scripture and Tradition! For does not the Church herself, through the Two Great Divine Wellsprings, the Sacred WRITTEN Tradition and the Sacred ORAL Tradition, bear “witness” to the truths of God, calling one to repentance in “sackcloth and ashes.”

For just as the OT Prophets developed the understanding of the Law given by Moses to the Jews, so the Magisterium of the Church, precisely in and through both the Written Word of God and the Oral Word of God, develops the doctrines once and for all deposited by the apostles and proclaims them to the Gentiles. And just as the OT prophets suffered rejection and opposition to their preaching from a stiff-necked people, so the Church has suffered countless schisms and heresies that attempted to “harm” her witness. And is it not perfectly true that “whoever will harm” the witness of the Church through denying a particular set of doctrines put forth by the Oral and Written Word of God, “will be harmed in this very same manner”, for the recognition of the truths of God are part of our very redemption, and to refuse to accept a beautiful and loving truth of God, even if not fully culpable, is to suffer the spiritual loss of a truth that can heal, and therefore you are harmed spiritually precisely to the degree of how much and how important the truth is that you are rejecting.

And note that up until modern times**, the attacks on the “witnesses” never went so far as to completely kill them, for even though all the great intermediate religions that arose in opposition to the Church in her history indeed had issue with SOME of the truths of Mother Church*, ***they always recognized at least some elements of truth in the witness.

For example, simply to briefly elaborate, the Muslims, serious as their errors are, nevertheless accept the existence of one God, who must be obeyed and submitted to, and they at least recognize that God has revealed Himself through “Messengers”, even if their ideas are only partly true about the identities and precise nature of the “messages”.

Ditto for the Orthodox, for even though they “harm” the Church’s witness by denying the special office of Peter, they will hear almost everything else (more or less).

Ditto for Protestants. Indeed, their harm is worse, for not only will they not hear the Pope, they will neither hear the bishops in general, nor the Oral Tradition. But they will listen to Scripture.

Ditto even for the first age of the “Enlightenment”, for even though they are even much worse than Prots, in that they won’t even hear Scripture, nevertheless, at least the Deists and Rationalists will acknowledge some of what can be known from* Reason*, for they admit that even Reason testifies to the existence of SOME Supreme Being, and that this Being should be honored, and that man should at least seek to live according to natural virtue, which is evident from the Creation.

… continued next post…

 

[spauline]

…continued from above…

But in modern times, the apostasy of Secular Messianism, manifesting in two primary forms, atheistic materialism in the East and relativistic hedonistic materialism in the West, is basically a murder of the Two Witnesses. For the full apostates of these ideologies will basically hear nothing of what is to be had from the witness of the Church. And so there is the sense that “beast” has killed the witnesses and that modern humanity, in its near total disregard of the Church, “sends gifts to one another that these two prophets are dead”, saying, “Finally, we’re free from the torture of religion. We can completely disregard religion and live even in denial of reason, we can violate even the self-evident morals of the natural law (fornication, contraception, divorce, abortion, etc.), and everything will be fine.”

This makes our modern time precisely a type of what existed in Judah just prior to the Babylonian chastisement: right up until the time when Babylon invaded Jerusalem, the Jews as a near whole scoffed and ridiculed the prophets, completely disregarding their warnings. But lo, and behold, when Babylon swept down and utterly and terribly plundered Jerusalem, the Jews were shocked into an awareness of their sinfulness and unfaithfulness, and began to reconsider the words of the prophets.

Hence, “and after the three days and a half, the breath of life entered into them, and a great fear fell upon those who saw them [the Two Witnesses]”. Again, the Catholic mystics predict an imminent Chastisement in our times, when, truly, as the world is plunged into disaster as a consequence of its sins, it will cease to scoff at religion and begin to “reconsider the words of the prophets [the Church]”. Never underestimate the power of suffering. For the Church understands that there are not merely spiritual consequences to sin, there are also temporal**.** Indeed, we know that when one dies spiritually, physical death follows. And so the true nature of the sins and errors that exist outside the Church’s teaching will be manifested through the horrors of the Chastisement, such that the world will have no other choice than to see the light. For the modern world believes the darkness to be the light and the light to be the darkness, but when the darkness is shown for what it really is, how much more noticeable will be the true light of the Church?

And so, it is written, “And a voice said come up hither, and the Two Witnesses were caught up to heaven. … and the rest were affrighted, and gave glory to God”. Again, the mystics predict the great salvation: as the world comes to see the true light, Christians are reunited and the faith is gloriously restored in the Age of Peace (again, see the EWTN article).

In consequence of this, I have great faith that God, even if it is terribly painful for us, can reunite His children before the very end.

 

[Montalban]

I can’t believe that after four pages of posts, nobody mentions (unless I missed it) EWTN’s perspective, based on the great and painstaking scholarship of Birch and Donovan on what Catholic Private Revelation has to say about it.

End times speculation is not our way

"To speculate on the date of the Second Coming, even if it be only the year, is to seek to wrest a secret from God that Jesus explicitly states only the Father possesses. Therefore, speculating on the timing of our Lord’s return is arrogance bordering on blasphemy. As Bible commentator William Barclay explains, “It is not any man’s duty to speculate; it is his duty to prepare himself, and to watch.”…The aim of Jesus’ discourses on the Second Coming was always to one end: not to give us clues to dates His return, but to exhort us to be prepared.’ “Voice in the Wilderness”, Vol. 11, No.2 Apr-June 2003, p24 (published by Apostoliki Diakonia Committee Greek Orthodox Parish-Community of Saint George, Brisbane)

 

[lak611]

In one community, up until recently the local Methodist Minister was our own Deacon. He was asked by the Methodist community to undertake a caretaker role following the sudden death of their Minister [an outstanding man of admirable Christian principles and for whom I had a lot of respct].

I have a good friend who is a Methodist pastor. His wife is a Catholic. He and his wife both pray for Christian unity, as I do as well. He has never tried to convert his wife, nor has she tried to convert him. I have a lot of respect for him. I was going through a difficult time in my life about 1 1/2 yrs. ago. I asked my Methodist minister friend to pray with me. He did, and I felt like a weight was lifted off of me immediately. He is a good man, and he has helped me much in my spiritual life. I am thankful for his prayers for me.

 

[lak611]

Christ prayed for it. Who dares to say He prayed in vain

He definitely did not pray in vain. Since Christ is God and with God all things are possible, I believe that Christian unity will happen. I do not know if it is God’s will that it happens in my lifetime or sometime in the distant future, but since He desires it, I believe that it will happen.

 

[Friend_Of_Rome]

"Ditto for Protestants. Indeed, their harm is worse, for not only will they not hear the Pope, they will neither hear the bishops in general, nor the Oral Tradition. But they will listen to Scripture."

In my experience, they do listen to scripture, but they twist it. Often it become anti-Catholic, often it becomes the core of a heretical teaching i.e. the apostle whom Jesus loved most etc . . .I agree with the statement, but I also hope that the poster meant that they sometimes take too much liberty with their redactions.For instance, the KJV, and thus the NKJV, were never sanctioned by the Catolic church, only the Anglican. For this reason, the translations often are biased in support of the reformation.

 

[Sixtus]

Is not just between Protestants and Catholics, it is also about Catholic and Orthodox