Protestant man-made words or doctrines

[godsent]

I was reading somethign the other day which i found quite hipocritical of protestants always bashing catholics for our so called"man made doctrines".

Protestants have done what they say they are against:

Rapture
Invisible Church
Folding Hands, Bowing head
Alter Call
Age of Accountability
Revival
Denominations
Ask Jesus into your heart
Once Saved always Saved
Personal Lord and Savior
Eternal Security
Public Church buildings
Grape Juice not wine
Protestant

They have actually changed the Sacred Eucarist,blasphemy if you ask me.

any opinions?

 

[susie_g]

You’re right, and it’s very interesting. They insist that their faith comes from the Bible alone. This is the doctrine that got me into the Catholic Church. Where in the Bible does it claim to be the only word of God? It doesn’t, so we can’t claim it either. That teaching (sola scriptura) comes from men. They don’t see their hypocrisy on this or any of the other points that you mentioned. We need to continue to pray for our dear Protestant friends and family members. They are truly misguided, but most of them have great hearts for God.

 

[Little_Mary]

godsent:

I was reading somethign the other day which i found quite hipocritical of protestants always bashing catholics for our so called"man made doctrines".

Protestants have done what they say they are against:

Rapture
Invisible Church
Folding Hands, Bowing head
Alter Call
Age of Accountability
Revival
Denominations
Ask Jesus into your heart
Once Saved always Saved
Personal Lord and Savior
Eternal Security
Public Church buildings
Grape Juice not wine
Protestant

They have actually changed the Sacred Eucarist,blasphemy if you ask me.

any opinions?

You forget Wednesday night church, and Sunday worship for that matter. Both tradition and not in the Bible.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

godsent:

I was reading somethign the other day which i found quite hipocritical of protestants always bashing catholics for our so called"man made doctrines".

Protestants have done what they say they are against:

Rapture
Invisible Church
** Folding Hands, Bowing head**
** Alter Call**
Age of Accountability
** Revival**
Denominations
Ask Jesus into your heart
Once Saved always Saved
Personal Lord and Savior
Eternal Security
** Public Church buildings**
** Grape Juice not wine**
Protestant

any opinions?

Those that I bolded above, they’re not “Protestant Traditions” no, rather they are “Protestant traditions.” There’s a huge difference. That’s meant to be somewhat humerous, don’t blast me please…

With the exception of “Denominations” and “Protestant” those are items which different denominations believe are arguable from Scripture. So it’s not as though they believe that they are “manmade traditions.” They believe them because that’s what they believe the Bible teaches.

Also, I don’t quiet understand, don’t you Catholics have somewhat of an equivalent to “age of accountability?” I understand there are different Protestant beliefs on the eternal destiny of the child under the hypothetical age, but you also make a distinction with the “use of reason.” Why do you say that the “age of accountability” is unbiblical, when you yourself hold to a similar belief? Maybe what you’re associating with age of acc. is different than my association. There’s different views.

I was taught, in the church of Christ, that before that age, the child will go to heaven if it dies. They only baptize believers who are past the age of reason. I guess that’s an example of the standard belief. They deny the carnal nature that’s ours as a result of original sin.

Then as a Calvinist I understood that if the infant were to die, it would probably (not necessarily, because there’s a doctrine concerning elect infants) go to hell. Baptism would not matter, because (in that view) it’s not saving anyways, but the infant could have saving faith via God’s grace. Children of Christian parents stand a better chance (I Cor. 7:14). In other words, Calvinists don’t believe in an “age of accountability.” They don’t believe in it because they do believe we have a carnal nature due to original sin.

Then, I understand that the Catholic Church teaches, that an unbaptized child will go to some “limbo” (not hell, but deprivation of the image of God) and the baptized child to heaven. My primary understanding of that is from Pope Innocent III, Denzinger #410 in the edition I’ve got. And that understanding is based upon a distinction between original sin and actual sin.

So, please, tell me how it is that you don’t have something that’s called “age of accountability.” Is what you believe the same thing, and just another name? I’m just asking, I’m not being argumentative.

 

[Vincent1560]

godsent:

I was reading somethign the other day which i found quite hipocritical of protestants always bashing catholics for our so called"man made doctrines".

Protestants have done what they say they are against:

Rapture
Invisible Church
Folding Hands, Bowing head
Alter Call
Age of Accountability
Revival
Denominations
Ask Jesus into your heart
Once Saved always Saved
Personal Lord and Savior
Eternal Security
Public Church buildings
Grape Juice not wine
Protestant

They have actually changed the Sacred Eucarist,blasphemy if you ask me.

any opinions?

I am a Protestant, let me see if can help with this:

Rapture: read Luke 17:31-36 and 1Thessalonians 4:16-17

Invisible Church: Not quite sure what you mean here. Most protestants believe the church to be the body of Christ which is composed of all Christian believers. Sure there can be outward structures and organizations to organize the body of believers, but such things should not be mistaken for the church. Colossians 1:18-24 (defines church as body of Christ) Romans 12:5 (defines body of Christ as consisting of members of the faith)

Folding hands, bowing head: This is not a matter of doctrine, but merely a convention. Protestants don’t believe one has to pray this way, many choose to stretch out their arms and look up during prayer. Whatever helps you focus on God is the way you should pray in my view.

Alter Call/ Revival: I grouped these together because they both fall under obedience to Christ’s Great Commision. The tactics used to fulfill this command may vary of course and often do depending on what the situation dictates is the best way to preach the gospel.

Age of Accountability: There is no set age of accountability Support of the idea that humans have to acheive a certain mental capacity inorder to held accountable for sin is based mainly on logical deductions from various scriptures. (much like the trinity). For example the bible teaches that God is just and will judge each person.** Romans 2:15** also implies that God judges according to our conscience. An infant does not have the mental capacity to understand good or evil, let alone sin, and thus to hold an infant responsible for something it can’t conmprehend would seemingly be unjust. There are more complex explanations if you would like them.

Denominations: Denominations are not a doctrine. Some can argue that denominations existed in the early church based on the diversity of beliefs (particularly regarding adherance to Mosaic Law) represented by Paul’s letters to various churches. Denominations are usually a result of groups not sharing the same interpretaion of scripture. I agree that this is unfortunate, and I think all Christians hope that one day the Church can become more united.

OSAS: I know this is a contentious issue, but it does have scriptural support. John 17:12 comes to mind.

Personal Lord and Savior: What do you mean? I thought this was the whole point of Christ’s death and Resurrection. Maybe you are getting hung up on the word personal? It just means that once you accept Christ he is your Lord and Savior. I think this should be farily non-controversial to all Christians.

Eternal Security: see OSAS

Public Church Buildings: I don’t see where you are going with this. It is a matter of convention not doctrine. No protestant I know of believes that “thou must have public church buildings of such and such dimensions.” Many churches, especially poorer ones meet in peoples homes and that is fine.

Grape Juice Not Wine: Wine is merely fermented grapes so I don’t see a big difference. But I will admit grape juice doesn’t come up in the bible that I know of. Although I think this is being a bit legalistic. No one knows exactly what kind of wine Christ used to my knowledge, but I don’t think that having grapejuice instead of wine or having varying types of wine hinders Christ’s ability to change it into his blood.

Protestant: We are scriptually commanded to test all things to determine what is good and to abstain from what is evil. 1Thessalonians 5:21-22 Protestants are groups of persons intellectually descended from those who tested the teachings of the Catholic Church and found a large enough discrepancy between it and Scriptural belief to warrant separation. Again not an ideal state: see denominations.

 

[dafalax]

Regarding the age of accountability question above: the point is not whether or not the Catholic Church has one. We do. It is 7. The point is that there is no scriptural basis for an age of reason. We Catholics have a Church guided by the Holy Spirit to help us fill in what Jesus was not explicit about. Where protestants get these notions, only God knows. It’s hypocritical, is the point. Also, Christmas trees are a man made tradition. I don’t see many people rallying ’ round to eliminate them. Oh, unless they’re in front of a court house.

 

[Vincent1560]

dafalax:

Regarding the age of accountability question above: the point is not whether or not the Catholic Church has one. We do. It is 7. The point is that there is no scriptural basis for an age of reason. We Catholics have a Church guided by the Holy Spirit to help us fill in what Jesus was not explicit about. Where protestants get these notions, only God knows. It’s hypocritical, is the point. Also, Christmas trees are a man made tradition. I don’t see many people rallying ’ round to eliminate them. Oh, unless they’re in front of a court house.

Ahh now I see the point of confusion. You would agree that the bible supports a concept of age of accountaility but not a specific age? I would agree and most Protestants I know don’t cite a specific age for that reason. Rather we believe that it could be different for each individual, as all seven year olds don’t possess the same level of understanding it would be unfair to hold them all responsible to the same degree. Rather for us Protestants (I think I speak for most) the age of accountability is only determinable by God for each individual, and the assignment of an arbitrary age is merely a human devised construct.

And as for Christmas trees, they are not a point of doctrine. I believe they actually have their origin in pagan festivals which worhipped evergreens as a triumph of life over death and the coming of Spring. They are a fun Holiday tradition but are about as doctrinally relevant as eggnog.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Vincent1560:

Ahh now I see the point of confusion. You would agree that the bible supports a concept of age of accountaility but not a specific age? I would agree and most Protestants I know don’t cite a specific age for that reason. Rather we believe that it could be different for each individual, as all seven year olds don’t possess the same level of understanding it would be unfair to hold them all responsible to the same degree. Rather for us Protestants (I think I speak for most) the age of accountability is only determinable by God for each individual, and the assignment of an arbitrary age is merely a human devised construct.

This is a nice verse that I suppose gives some support for some sort of “responsibility/reason” thought.

Deuteronomy 1:39 - “Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them, and they shall possess it.”

Considering the context, the fear of many people (not trusting God) not wanting to take on the Amorites, and God cursing them for it, perhaps people could take the verse to different conclusions. But at least God apparently realizes that “sons” of the age of those whom He was speaking of, have “no knowledge of good or evil.” That may or may not alter their eternal destiny were they to die in that state, that one verse really gives no information to that question, but it’s a statement by God that gives us a little information about “sons.”

 

[deb1]

I think that there is some confusion over godsend’s point. He is not criticizing the Protestant traditions that he is citing, he is merely pointing out that some Protestants hypocritically do what they blast Catholics for doing. Make up traditions and customs.

Take Wednesday service. There is not a thing wrong with Wednesday services. There is nothing in the bible against meeting in the middle of the week but…it is still a tradition based on man not the bible.

 

[Vincent1560]

deb1:

I think that there is some confusion over godsend’s point. He is not criticizing the Protestant traditions that he is citing, he is merely pointing out that some Protestants hypocritically do what they blast Catholics for doing. Make up traditions and customs.

Take Wednesday service. There is not a thing wrong with Wednesday services. There is nothing in the bible against meeting in the middle of the week but…it is still a tradition based on man not the bible.

I am arguing that he is confusing convention for doctrine. On points of doctrine Protestants believe there must be a scriptural basis. On matters of convention (i.e. wether to serve decaff and dougnuts or regular and scones after service) obviously there will not be a scriptural basis because no claim about ultimate truth is being made. As for when to have service Paul clearly leaves it open. **Romans 14: 5-6 ** Thus there would be a biblical basis for having it on any day you choose.

 

[Nicene]

Vincent1560:

I am a Protestant, let me see if can help with this:

Rapture: read Luke 17:31-36 and 1Thessalonians 4:16-17

Depends on what is meant by Rapture, the coming and being caught up in the blink of an eye, or secret comings before the second coming. One is scriptural one is not. A little irony: rapiemur (rapture) comes from the latin translation of 1 Thess, greek manuscripts actually use the word perileipomenoi. Christ uses the term parousia (greek) in Mt 24:27 to describe His second coming.

Invisible Church: Not quite sure what you mean here. Most protestants believe the church to be the body of Christ which is composed of all Christian believers. Sure there can be outward structures and organizations to organize the body of believers, but such things should not be mistaken for the church. Colossians 1:18-24 (defines church as body of Christ) Romans 12:5 (defines body of Christ as consisting of members of the faith)

Hrmm, Paul speaks of one church, not multiple churches. Ephesians 2:19-22, 5:27, 4:4. with a heirarchy set up Eph 4:11-13 in order that we not become Eph 4:14. And tells us who the pillar and foundation is in 1 Tim 3:15

Folding hands, bowing head: This is not a matter of doctrine, but merely a convention. Protestants don’t believe one has to pray this way, many choose to stretch out their arms and look up during prayer. Whatever helps you focus on God is the way you should pray in my view.

Nothing wrong with this in fact it is admirable, however kneeling is more biblical, Moses and the bush, the transfiguration, the garden of gesthemene, Eph 3:14.

Alter Call/ Revival: I grouped these together because they both fall under obedience to Christ’s Great Commision. The tactics used to fulfill this command may vary of course and often do depending on what the situation dictates is the best way to preach the gospel.

Nothing in particular wrong with an Altar call. (short doctrinal pun: "Alter call"? see above quote) though this is a man made tradition, which is the thrust of the OP. However the Great Commission is to actually go forth and baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Altar calls don’t fulfil that, Acts 2:14-41. Revivals: edify and build each other up.

Denominations: Denominations are not a doctrine. Some can argue that denominations existed in the early church based on the diversity of beliefs (particularly regarding adherance to Mosaic Law) represented by Paul’s letters to various churches. Denominations are usually a result of groups not sharing the same interpretaion of scripture. I agree that this is unfortunate, and I think all Christians hope that one day the Church can become more united.

1 John 2:19-20. In 1 Cor 5:2-5 and 1 Cor 5:13 Paul states that those who don’t adhere to the doctrines of the of the church of the apostles are to be excommunicated exercising the right Jesus granted in Matthew 18:15-18 (Notice he says Church, not plural church(es), and they have been given authority)

cont…

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

OSAS: I know this is a contentious issue, but it does have scriptural support. John 17:12 comes to mind.

Mainly because it contradicts Mt 25:33-46 and Acts 5:1-11, 8:9-24, James 2:17-24 and quite a few other scriptures.

Personal Lord and Savior: What do you mean? I thought this was the whole point of Christ’s death and Resurrection. Maybe you are getting hung up on the word personal? It just means that once you accept Christ he is your Lord and Savior. I think this should be farily non-controversial to all Christians.

Hrmm, I thought the whole point of Christs death was that he died for all that many may be saved, not one person. It appears according to scripture that Christ built a family, mothers, brothers, sisters, of which we are all a part of one body, not one person himself.

You’ll find that some catholics (I would be in the some category) have a problem with this because it is exclusive to “Me and Jesus” Instead of “Jesus and his flock” and the “Household of God” Eph 3:15, Mt, 12:46-50, Mk 3:33-35. The problem with “personal savior” is that he died for me exclusively, and not for all, excluding others, and this is typically how it is used. “Have you accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?” To which I usually respond, No, He died for His bride, not just me. Egocentric vs Christocentric. The body of Christ is a community of believers, brothers, sisters, and mothers, the many for whom Christ died. The body of Christ is not the individual alone, boasting. He died for all that none may boast. 1 Cor 1:28-31, 1 Cor 9:16-17, Rom 2:27 Jesus is the savior of the world that we all may be saved.

Eternal Security: see OSAS

See OSAS above.

Public Church Buildings: I don’t see where you are going with this. It is a matter of convention not doctrine. No protestant I know of believes that “thou must have public church buildings of such and such dimensions.” Many churches, especially poorer ones meet in peoples homes and that is fine.

Have to agree with you, not quite sure where the OP was going with this.

Grape Juice Not Wine: Wine is merely fermented grapes so I don’t see a big difference. But I will admit grape juice doesn’t come up in the bible that I know of. Although I think this is being a bit legalistic. No one knows exactly what kind of wine Christ used to my knowledge, but I don’t think that having grapejuice instead of wine or having varying types of wine hinders Christ’s ability to change it into his blood.

Grape juice didn’t exist until the 19th century, 1869 by paseurization. All grapes until then were fermented (wine). Pasteurization killed the fermentation process. However having valid Holy Orders is requisite, Jn 20:22-23, Acts 1:15-26, Acts 6:1-6, Acts 13:1-3, 1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 1:6-7

Protestant: We are scriptually commanded to test all things to determine what is good and to abstain from what is evil. 1Thessalonians 5:21-22 Protestants are groups of persons intellectually descended from those who tested the teachings of the Catholic Church and found a large enough discrepancy between it and Scriptural belief to warrant separation. Again not an ideal state: see denominations.

As are catholics to abstain from evil 1 Thess 5:21-22 and test those descended from those protesters 1 John 2:19-20, 1 Tim 1:6-7, 2 Timothy 4:3-4, Jude 1:16-23, 2 Pet 2:10-12 and found large enough discrepancy in their doctrine to warrant due discernment. Jesus in Mt 18:17. Jesus also promises them in John 16:12-15 and Mt 28:18-20. Inherantly protestantism states that Jesus failed and man triumphed over His church.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

deb1:

I think that there is some confusion over godsend’s point. He is not criticizing the Protestant traditions that he is citing, he is merely pointing out that some Protestants hypocritically do what they blast Catholics for doing. Make up traditions and customs.

Take Wednesday service. There is not a thing wrong with Wednesday services. There is nothing in the bible against meeting in the middle of the week but…it is still a tradition based on man not the bible.

Actually they are biblical. The church still practices them, it is the Liturgy of the Hours. However I’m not sure all protestants practice this, possibly they have made adaptations from the original protestant churches. The Lutherans and Anglicans still practice the Liturgy of the Hours. However the LotH is every day not just two days a week. The wednesday and sunday services seem to be reminiscent of Vespers.

The hours are Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext (sixth hour, hour Christ died as well), None (ninth hour), Vespers and Compline.

I think it’s admirable that they practice some form of it whether they know they are or not. Eph 5:19, Acts 10:9 (the sixth hour), John and Peter Acts 3:1 (the ninth hour) Acts 16:25 (midnight)

Divine Office (Liturgy of the Hours - Breviary)

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Vincent1560:

I am arguing that he is confusing convention for doctrine. … As for when to have service Paul clearly leaves it open. **Romans 14: 5-6 ** Thus there would be a biblical basis for having it on any day you choose.

Good show Chap!!

In addition to what you’re saying, let me add that it really does little good to try to point out such “not found explicitly in the Scriptures” practices as contrary to Sola Scriptura.

Though there may be little agreement on exactly what Sola Scriptura means when it comes to details, the more Reformationally based denominations are not so doctrinally fragile as to have their entire structure crumble by someone pointing out that pocket New Testaments are not mentioned in the Bible.

I mean nothing negative towards the OP, I’m only pointing out that meaningful discussion often times calls for an understanding and maybe even a little appreciation on what your opponents believe, and why they believe it. Anti-Catholics rarely extend such respect to you (Catholics), but that doesn’t mean that you can’t extend it to them.

Recommended for further reading:

The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison

I’ll tell you now, much of Mathison’s critique of the Roman view is based on the Lutheran, Heiko Oberman’s, “Tradition 1,2,3” line of reasoning. But you’ll at least learn more about one version of “sola Scriptura” and practical applications of it, and the relationship of Scripture and Tradition from Mathison’s mostly Presbyterian vantage point.

 

[Nicene]

Rerformed Rob

I think churches that claim Sola Scriptura actually view it in light of their own traditions. It is inevitable that structure is built around the belief system. That system becomes their tradition.

A differentiation is being made now a days between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura.

Interestingly enough as the tradition of different churches begins to take hold Sola Scriptura ceases to be the sole rule of faith and equalizes with each churches tradition. Scripture is viewed in light of what their church teaches.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[deb1]

Nicene:

Actually they are biblical. The church still practices them, it is the Liturgy of the Hours. However I’m not sure all protestants practice this, possibly they have made adaptations from the original protestant churches. The Lutherans and Anglicans still practice the Liturgy of the Hours. However the LotH is every day not just two days a week. The wednesday and sunday services seem to be reminiscent of Vespers.

The hours are Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext (sixth hour, hour Christ died as well), None (ninth hour), Vespers and Compline.

I think it’s admirable that they practice some form of it whether they know they are or not. Eph 5:19, Acts 10:9 (the sixth hour), John and Peter Acts 3:1 (the ninth hour) Acts 16:25 (midnight)

Divine Office (Liturgy of the Hours - Breviary)

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Thank you. I did not know that.

 

[Anima_Christi]

Reformed Rob:

Also, I don’t quiet understand, don’t you Catholics have somewhat of an equivalent to “age of accountability?” I understand there are different Protestant beliefs on the eternal destiny of the child under the hypothetical age, but you also make a distinction with the “use of reason.” Why do you say that the “age of accountability” is unbiblical, when you yourself hold to a similar belief? Maybe what you’re associating with age of acc. is different than my association. There’s different views.

I was taught, in the church of Christ, that before that age, the child will go to heaven if it dies. They only baptize believers who are past the age of reason. I guess that’s an example of the standard belief. They deny the carnal nature that’s ours as a result of original sin.

Then as a Calvinist I understood that if the infant were to die, it would probably (not necessarily, because there’s a doctrine concerning elect infants) go to hell. Baptism would not matter, because (in that view) it’s not saving anyways, but the infant could have saving faith via God’s grace. Children of Christian parents stand a better chance (I Cor. 7:14). In other words, Calvinists don’t believe in an “age of accountability.” They don’t believe in it because they do believe we have a carnal nature due to original sin.

Then, I understand that the Catholic Church teaches, that an unbaptized child will go to some “limbo” (not hell, but deprivation of the image of God) and the baptized child to heaven. My primary understanding of that is from Pope Innocent III, Denzinger #410 in the edition I’ve got. And that understanding is based upon a distinction between original sin and actual sin.

So, please, tell me how it is that you don’t have something that’s called “age of accountability.” Is what you believe the same thing, and just another name? I’m just asking, I’m not being argumentative.

The “age of accountability” is unbiblical. It’s part of Tradition and is found nowhere in the Bible . . . the difference is that Catholics accept both Scripture and Tradition while Protestants claim to accept only Scripture; it’s therefore inconsistent for them to believe in an age of accountability.

 

[Vincent1560]

Anima Christi:

The “age of accountability” is unbiblical. It’s part of Tradition and is found nowhere in the Bible . . . the difference is that Catholics accept both Scripture and Tradition while Protestants claim to accept only Scripture; it’s therefore inconsistent for them to believe in an age of accountability.

No it isn’t for the reasons I posted above. The assignment of a particular age (i.e. 8 and a half) would be unbiblical. Deducing non-explicit truths from scripture is still basing the belief on scripture. This is why we believe in the trinity for example.(Scripture says God is one and scripture shows three persons to be God. Scriptural Deduction: God is triune.)

 

[Tom]

I’d like to thank Vincent at Bob for their warm and honest answers. We certainly don’t agree on everything the “others” do, so rather than highlighting the differences why not embrace the similarities. Does it matter if Jesus is my personal savior? Not to me, it just seems a little wordy, I mean, personal is automatically implied, is there any other sense it can be taken? Did someone think He was a “professional” savior? Or maybe an impersonal savior? I don’t call my Bible my “paper” Bible, although it is indeed made of paper. I think some may take offense because it seems to segregate people by the use of the words. Certainly He’s a “personal” savior. And you are my “personal” brother in Christ.
I do pray for our separated brethren because they have denied themselves of some of the most beautiful and fulfilling Sacraments instituted by our “shared” Lord and savior, Jesus the Christ (I’m sorry I couldn’t resist…) Let’s pray that we shall again become one body in Christ, one Church as was intended.

 

[Vincent1560]

Tom:

I’d like to thank Vincent at Bob for their warm and honest answers. We certainly don’t agree on everything the “others” do, so rather than highlighting the differences why not embrace the similarities. Does it matter if Jesus is my personal savior? Not to me, it just seems a little wordy, I mean, personal is automatically implied, is there any other sense it can be taken? Did someone think He was a “professional” savior? Or maybe an impersonal savior? I don’t call my Bible my “paper” Bible, although it is indeed made of paper. I think some may take offense because it seems to segregate people by the use of the words. Certainly He’s a “personal” savior. And you are my “personal” brother in Christ.
I do pray for our separated brethren because they have denied themselves of some of the most beautiful and fulfilling Sacraments instituted by our “shared” Lord and savior, Jesus the Christ (I’m sorry I couldn’t resist…) Let’s pray that we shall again become one body in Christ, one Church as was intended.

Thankyou and I too pray that we can all become more united. Although I think that the only way (God of course is not limited by my limited perspective) that is likely to happen is for the pope to renounce his infallibility or for Protestants to accept it, neither of which I see happening anytime soon. I think all the other disagreements could be resolved if that one could be resolved.