The Catholic Church is just another denomination

[nerfherder]

In my experience of fundamentalism, mine and that of others, it is most needed when one’s sense of inner security is weak. there were several years that I was part of a fundamentalist community. Looking back, I think I was drawn to it because my psyche would have fallen apart without that rigid structure. Fortunately, I was able to survive it, and move on.

In truth, there is some bigotry, which was what I was fishing for in starting this thread. I sure caught what I was trolling for, didn’t I? But, I want to clarify a post I made about counterfeits. I was thinking at the time of my post of a dear friend of mine with whom I prayed and studied the word for seven years. Suddenly, she quit her job, sold her home, and went off to live in a commune in Calif. with a person who calls himself Jesus Christ Lightening Amen. She fell in love with this character, who is purporting to be the incarnation of the father, son and spirit. He is teaching that he wants all of the 144,000 to live within 50 miles of himself, so they are selling off their assets and moving to his estate. He is holding the keys to the kingdom which are 1) no animal products eaten or worn 2) no shoes (everyone goes barefoot) and 3) no sex. So far as I can tell, his people are very happy, and believe that the end of the world is nigh. (I told her not to drink the kool-aid).

I think Jesus believed He did. At least, He would not go around saying “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” otherwise.

Do you think that Catholics don’t believe this, by and large? Certainly those posting on this thread do not seem to.

This is an ENTIRELY Catholic saying!

This may be an agnostic statement? If Jesus really is the Truth, then there is such a thing as Absolute Truth. Perhaps you are saying that it is not possible for people to know that truth?

I am sure your heart will lead you the right way. However, I must note that you are already well into the Tiber, and have been carried by the current!

Since Jesus came to found only one church, and did only that, there is only one. Everyone who is part of His body is a member thereof.

SORRY GUANOPHORE. I HAVE A HUNCH THAT CRADLE CONVERT MAY BE A MIGHT ANNOYED THAT YOU HAVE ASCRIBED TO HIM/HER QUOTATIONS THAT WERE ACTUALLY MINE (SEE # 408). I LAY CLAIM TO MY OWN OBSERVATIONS! THANKS FOR YOUR REPLY.

 

[RNRobert]

I was responding to Jabulani. Jabulani was saying that the Catholic Church did have authority up until the time of the Reformation, and then lost that authority.

I was asking him, What happened to it, and where is it now?

Where did it go after that?

And how is that, exactly?

So, we can just wish ourselves into the Church, and we magically become Christians?

What happened to that whole thing with “go forth and teach them all things, and baptize them,” etc.?

Good questions!

A couple years ago on these fora, I debated with a Protestant on a couple different threads. It all came down to authority: The Apostles, I said, had authority to preach and teach, to discipline sinners (1 Cor 5) to set binding proclamations on discipline (Acts 15). When I asked him whatever became of their authority, he disappeared. I even started a couple threads asking this question, and never got a satisfactory answer.

 

[jmcrae]

Good questions!

A couple years ago on these fora, I debated with a Protestant on a couple different threads. It all came down to authority: The Apostles, I said, had authority to preach and teach, to discipline sinners (1 Cor 5) to set binding proclamations on discipline (Acts 15).

They even had the authority to unbind the commandment to circumcise Gentile converts, together with the commandment not to eat with Gentiles. (Where is that in the Old Testament? )

When St. Peter later avoided the company of Gentiles at meat, St. Paul, a Pharisee (meaning, a guy whose job it is to interpret and enforce God’s Law) rebuked St. Peter.

Get that - because it totally blew my mind the first time I got that. (A couple of weeks ago, for the first time, I really read that passage, and I got that, and I’m still saying “Wow!!”)

St. Paul, whose job it was to enforce God’s Law.

Rebukes St. Peter for not sitting down at meat with the Gentiles.

For not sitting down at meat with the Gentiles.

Remember: What was written in the Old Testament, which was their Bible (no word of the New Testament had yet been written at the time of St. Paul’s rebuke to St. Peter), was that they were never to sit down at meat with Gentiles. This was forbidden in their Scriptures, with no possibility of any exceptions to that rule.

So, again. (In case you missed it.)

St. Paul, whose job it was to enforce God’s Law.

Rebukes St. Peter for not sitting down at meat with the Gentiles.

Because St. Peter, at the Council of Jerusalem had (by the power of the Keys) reversed this law.

When St. Peter did this, the Law of God changed.

God’s Pharisee (St. Paul) begins to enforce this new law in exactly the same way that he for his entire life had enforced the whole Law of Moses.

Why? Because, … thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Matthew 16:18-19)

When I asked him whatever became of their authority, he disappeared. I even started a couple threads asking this question, and never got a satisfactory answer.

Yeah, I believe it.

 

[nerfherder]

Why do you speak to me as if I were some kind of alien idiot? Would I speak to you that way? Why? Would you speak to an Indian or a black person, a Pakistani or an immigrant in this way? How far does your bias go? Does it achieve anything at all that is good? I find this unutterably disturbing, unkind and positively unhelpful. Not to mention unChristian: you give Roman Catholics and indeed all Christians a bad reputation. And your smileys are puerile.

Jabulani;

So, let me get this straight. Having discovered Christ’s Church, and realizing that you needed to become a member, you joined RCIA and were all set to do so.

I am a baptised mainline reform church (Canadian Baptist) Christian. My professional travels brought me into contact with Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, various Christian communities or denominations. When I burned out from my international work on HIV, I decided to become sannyasa (enquirer after truth in the Hindu tradition). I rationally chose to stick with Christianity, I rationally chose to assess the possibility of converting to the Church of Rome, for reasons that are not entirely related to faith and morals. I am questing, quite explicitly through church attendance 5 times a week, adult enquiry classes, spiritual direction and retreats.

Until you found out that Christ’s Church has the audacity to actually say that it is Christ’s Church.

I was very aware - having grown up on the border of la Province de Quebec - of the failings of the RCC in many aspects. I did not understand until recently (when I joined this Forum) how fundamentalist, arrogant and uninspirational *some *Catholics could be. I have three spiritual directors - Bishop, Monsignor and a senior Jesuit - who had not warned me how tough some aspects of the journey would be. I learned instead from them:

All of our faith is about a person, essentially the person of Jesus Christ, and relating to him in heart and mind (and in that order) is the core and centre of everything else. There are doctrines and teachings (such as the Immaculate Conception or papal infallibility) that may raise questions, but our Catholic life is not a set of doctrines and teachings. It is the person of Jesus Christ, all that he stands for and all that flows from him.

And now - not because you don’t think it is, but because you resent the apparent “lack of humility” in this bare statement of basic facts - you are taking your ball and going back home to a religion that was first heard of some time in the late 1600s.

Your sarcasm is hurtful, and I am not sure why or what I should answer. Pride goeth before a fall?

In truth, I am not really bothered, as I said in my last line, about whether RCC is Christ’s One True Church or not: if you need to cling to that belief, that’s OK with me, but I do not need it. Nor do I need to be arrogant about having a lock on the Absolute Truth about a godhead. Did I say ‘lack of humility’? I think not: I am not bothered by that, only by the arrogance and explicit bias (akin to racism) of people of your ilk. You choose your way; I will choose mine. And I will reiterate what I have already implied in another posting: it is just possible that other denominations, other faiths are on the main path, and RCC is on a faulty detour. One needs to think about it. Whether or not the deliniation of a faith started in the 17th century has nothing to do with it.

But if we want to know what Christ teaches, and how to obey Him in spirit and in truth, then it’s important to become a member of His Church. That is, indeed, the very reason that He founded it.

This is your final statement? This is the reason you posted?! Do you think that what you said, and how you said it would in any way convince me that this RCC is the Christian denomination I would choose? Why on God’s green earth would I do that, if I thought it was in any way associated with a person who thinks and speaks as you do?

Pure puffery for your ego.

 

[nerfherder]

1. Regarding Baptism, for one, the Church is not the arrogant one. This Saturday, along with some unbaptized folks, we will welcome some adults into full communion, who were previously Baptized as Methodists and Baptists. Surely, all of us here know that the Church DOES NOT re-baptize these folks. Why? Because the Church recognizes anyone’s trinitarian baptisms as valid. In other words, these folks have been in God’s Christian family since their baptism!

Amazing, a certain amount of humility on this issue, within the Church. It doesn’t get mentioned enough…

A number of other denominations will take a fallen down Catholic, and re-baptize them in a heartbeat! (They’ll insist the first one did not count, etc. etc.)

Just thought I’d throw this in the mix…
God Bless Us All!

Just thought I’d let you know that it is not that simple for us folks. One can be a baptised Christian, and therefore not be eligible or required to be baptised again into RCC. However there is the small issue of catechism and classes and confirmation before one is accepted into full communion. I have been working at it for a year, and may have at least another six or more months to go before I choose whether to make the conversion. While little kids go up for the Eucharist, I kneel in prayer in my pew. I have learned to be humble when everyone else says how happy they are they can take communion and be saved, when I am excluded.

Please do make acceptance into RCC seem easier than it is.

Just thought I’d throw that into the mix too!

 

[jmcrae]

This is your final statement? This is the reason you posted?! Do you think that what you said, and how you said it would in any way convince me that this RCC is the Christian denomination I would choose?

I am not trying to “sell” you the Church. I’m just trying to wake you up to the facts at hand. It is your choice to accept or to reject. Christ’s Church will still be the same Church, either way.

Yes, Jesus Christ is the Church, and all doctrine, all Sacraments, and every other aspect of the Church flows out of Him.

It is not a man-made organization, nor is it merely a choice on a menu of choices, equal in status to every other choice on the menu.

 

[nerfherder]

To unpack this one simple paragraph might take hours, the nuancing within Catholicism is something that requires a dictionary of connotations not just definitions.

The first sentence seems simple enough, “All members of Christ are by default member of His Body, which is the church.” But there is not agreed upon definition of what any two Catholics, let alone any two persons mean by the term “church” on this board. For one it is …

How it would have helped all of us if there could have been some agreement on terminology. I tried.

(1) catholic (in the way used in the Nicene Creed) = universal body of Christ
(2) Catholic = Roman Catholic

(3) Church = Roman Catholic Church, Church of Rome
(4) church = body of Christian believers of whatever denomination and/or the universal catholic church

(5) Protestant and non-Catholic are not ways to define churches/denominations which have broken with the Roman See, as it defines them in terms of what they have left behind. I prefer to use the term reformed churches, protestantism (small p). [There must be something better than ‘reformed churches’ but I cannot think of it.]

(6) note the difference between a Christian denomination and a ‘sect’.

 

[mark_a]

I agree that the interpretation that the Catholic Church gives to Matthew 16:18 is a misapplication.

How would you interperet the end of the Gospel of John?

15 8 9 10 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.

 

[jmcrae]

(5) Protestant and non-Catholic are not ways to define churches/denominations which have broken with the Roman See, as it defines them in terms of what they have left behind. I prefer to use the term reformed churches, protestantism (small p). [There must be something better than ‘reformed churches’ but I cannot think of it.]

“Reformed” normally refers to the Calvin/Knox tradition, which isn’t even shared by most mainstream Protestants (the majority come out of or derive from the Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Congregationalist, or Mennonite traditions), let alone all non-Catholic Christians.

 

[nerfherder]

I am not trying to “sell” you the Church. I’m just trying to wake you up to the facts at hand. It is your choice to accept or to reject. Christ’s Church will still be the same Church, either way.

You have certainly awakened me to certain facts about adherents of the Church of Rome, if you are an exemplar. I have already said it is my choice to accept or reject, and I am not aiming to change this immoveable church.

Yes, Jesus Christ is the Church, and all doctrine, all Sacraments, and every other aspect of the Church flows out of Him.

Oh, well said, too late!

It is not a man-made organization, nor is it merely a choice on a menu of choices, equal in status to every other choice on the menu.

That may be your opinion - note opinion - but it is not mine. Roman Catholicism **is **a choice people make. It is one of a number of mainline Christian denominations, each one of which has its own priorities - some of them opting for focus on salvation, others on following the example of Christ’s mission on earth.

And perhaps those of us considering conversion are more aware of this than those who are cradle Catholics infused with rote belief by mother’s milk. We struggle, we consider, we know there is no Absolute Truth, we respect the beliefs of others, we understand the struggles that RCC has with and within itself. We must learn and think and work hard and search for our faith and for any belief we might have that this is the one church which represents our values, our priorities, and our sense of Christ. Many of us believe that we do have choices - and this is a maxim that has been applied in many successful advertising campaigns. It would be well to keep it in mind.

 

[Kurt_G]

Just thought I’d let you know that it is not that simple for us folks. One can be a baptised Christian, and therefore not be eligible or required to be baptised again into RCC. However there is the small issue of catechism and classes and confirmation before one is accepted into full communion. I have been working at it for a year, and may have at least another six or more months to go before I choose whether to make the conversion. While little kids go up for the Eucharist, I kneel in prayer in my pew. I have learned to be humble when everyone else says how happy they are they can take communion and be saved, when I am excluded.

Please do make acceptance into RCC seem easier than it is.

Just thought I’d throw that into the mix too!

Duly noted, Jabulani. This forum watching is something I don’t get to do too often… I become addicted and then don’t do some work I’m hired to do! And it’s Holy Thursday services this moment. So I bid that God Bless Us All!

 

[jmcrae]

You have certainly awakened me to certain facts about adherents of the Church of Rome, if you are an exemplar. I have already said it is my choice to accept or reject, and I am not aiming to change this immoveable church.

Oh, well said, too late!

That may be your opinion - note opinion - but it is not mine. Roman Catholicism **is **a choice people make. It is one of a number of mainline Christian denominations, each one of which has its own priorities - some of them opting for focus on salvation, others on following the example of Christ’s mission on earth.

And perhaps those of us considering conversion are more aware of this than those who are cradle Catholics infused with rote belief by mother’s milk. We struggle, we consider, we know there is no Absolute Truth, we respect the beliefs of others, we understand the struggles that RCC has with and within itself. We must learn and think and work hard and search for our faith and for any belief we might have that this is the one church which represents our values, our priorities, and our sense of Christ. Many of us believe that we do have choices - and this is a maxim that has been applied in many successful advertising campaigns. It would be well to keep it in mind.

Meaning what? That I am supposed to be offended or upset if you reject Christ? That your rejection of Christ is going to be because a few words I write in between my housework and other chores isn’t persuasive enough?

Sorry. Won’t wash. I, too, am a convert - and for years, I was blaming my lack of conversion on Catholics who were imperfect in one way or another - until I was present to watch someone I loved die, and realized that nobody is responsible for who I am when I arrive at that moment, except for me. That my opinion of that person meant absolutely nothing, as she went forward to the Judgement Seat of God - and that any choices she made out of respect for my opinion, and not out of what she knew to be true and right, were being burned up right before my very eyes as she lay there dying.

It’s the same with you. If you don’t want to convert, then don’t. But don’t lay the blame on me. You are responsible for your own choices.

There is, by the way, such a thing as Absolute Truth - and He will judge us at the moment of our death. He won’t be judging how well we respected other people’s opinions, or how “nice” we were. He’ll be judging how well we did what we knew to be right.

 

[guanophore]

You have certainly awakened me to certain facts about adherents of the Church of Rome, if you are an exemplar. I have already said it is my choice to accept or reject, and I am not aiming to change this immoveable church.

Your actions say otherwise! I sense that, if the folks here were a bit more palatable for you, that your posting today would not sound so angry, and that you would not have delayed your initiation rites.

That may be your opinion - note opinion - but it is not mine. Roman Catholicism **is **a choice people make. It is one of a number of mainline Christian denominations, each one of which has its own priorities - some of them opting for focus on salvation, others on following the example of Christ’s mission on earth.

And perhaps those of us considering conversion are more aware of this than those who are cradle Catholics infused with rote belief by mother’s milk. We struggle, we consider, we know there is no Absolute Truth, we respect the beliefs of others, we understand the struggles that RCC has with and within itself. We must learn and think and work hard and search for our faith and for any belief we might have that this is the one church which represents our values, our priorities, and our sense of Christ. Many of us believe that we do have choices - and this is a maxim that has been applied in many successful advertising campaigns. It would be well to keep it in mind.

Are you saying Catholicism should have a better marketing strategy? I think I disagree about the choices thing. Not to negate free will in any way, but whatever choices you think you have are really irrelevant. In the end, the only thing that will matter is what God wants from you. Inevitibly you will choose this, whatever suffering may accompany it (such as becoming in union with all us insufferable, arrogant, pompous, bone headed Catholics). You have a choice, surely, but until you choose to take the path that God wants you to be on, you will not be at peace. Therefore, in the end, it is not about how well the Church can be marketed, or how poorly we all represent her. What will only matter in the end is that you go where Christ wants you to go. You may be kicking against the goads.

 

[nerfherder]

Meaning what? That I am supposed to be offended or upset if you reject Christ? That your rejection of Christ is going to be because a few words I write in between my housework and other chores isn’t persuasive enough?

I don’t know you and you don’t know me - someone who also does housework. It is not for you to persuade me. I do not reject Christ - I walk with Him and He has walked with me for years. Now I am trying to find a place to put that faith in community. That’s all.

Sorry. Won’t wash. I, too, am a convert - and for years, I was blaming my lack of conversion on Catholics who were imperfect in one way or another - until I was present to watch someone I loved die, and realized that nobody is responsible [for who I am when I arrive at that moment, except for *me

. That my opinion of that person meant absolutely nothing, as she went forward to the Judgement Seat of God - and that any choices she made out of respect for my opinion, and not out of what she knew to be true and right, were being burned up right before my very eyes as she lay there dying.

I am truly sorry for your trouble. I know the pain.

It’s the same with you. If you don’t want to convert, then don’t. But don’t lay the blame on me. You are responsible for your own choices.

Exactly! No blame on you at all. It is my choice. I am trying to convert, but it is getting very difficult.

There is, by the way, such a thing as Absolute Truth - and He will judge us at the moment of our death. He won’t be judging how well we respected other people’s opinions, or how “nice” we were. He’ll be judging how well we did what we knew to be right.

And for me, that means following Christ’s example in this life, and not worrying too much about life everlasting. God chose us when we were born. We all have the spark of divinity in us, and we are all equally divine. I do not believe God wishes to put anyone but the truly evil into ‘hell’, and the Dogmatic Constitution, Vatican II, supports that point.

I am sorry you are upset. I would like to say something to comfort you, but I suspect that is not possible right now.

 

[nerfherder]

Someone on another thread asked me to verify my cv as a would-be Catholic. Others have noted that I am somewhat grumpy right now. It is 0400 in the morning here in Pretoria, because with 6-10 hours’ difference between here and you, this is the only time to post.

I need to set out where I am coming from, and perhaps be forgiven for being testy, for being sensitive about religious bias, and for misunderstanding some of what I read on the Forum.

Another poster wrote to me:

You have claimed you are ‘fairly far along on your spiritual journey’. Is it not fair for us then to examine, to quantify this claim?

(See quantifiable list below.)

I don’t intend to answer your question (below) as you would like, but I will give you some information which might be useful as a snapshot of one would-be Catholic, one who is trying - earnestly - to join the Catholic Church.

I attend St John Fisher Roman Catholic Church, Lynwood Road, Pretoria, South Africa. My spiritual directors are Bishop D Verstraete (age 82, ret, formerly Bishop of Klerksdorp); Monsignor Marc de Muelenaere jcd of Pretoria (64), and Father Michael Kelly SJ (78) of Lusaka Zambia. Fr Michael is a friend and colleague of 30 years.

I attend mass three times a week, and service twice on the weekend. I have had adult enquiry classes every Thursday since last July. I have at least one hour each week with Msgr de Muelenaere, my parish priest. I have been on two retreats (since last August - one at a Silent House of Prayer (Sisters of St Joseph) near Ottawa, and the other at Good Shepherd Retreat near Pretoria, five days each time).

I have my own prayer room at home in Pretoria, where I have a large library of ‘legitimate’ books, including various Bibles, CCC and books by Rolheiser, Merton, Nouwen and Vanier (the latter two family friends), Nolan, Borg, Armstrong, Vinoba Bhave, Krishnamurty, various Buddhist teachers inter alia. I read, I contemplate, I pray. I am computer literate, and have access on my own laptop to the Catholic Encyc., Vatican publications, etc. I have written chapters for a Book of Grace setting out this sannyasi journey, in the Hindu tradition.

We have a large extended family - Zambians, Malawians, Nepalis, South Africans, Chinese - who we support at school, in addition to our own children. We learn from them too.

My journey began when I burned out from 12 years’ work on the impact of HIV on education, on teachers, on children. I worked to governments, for international development aid agencies, for the United Nations, in Africa and Asia particularly.

You cannot go into a Thai hospital and see two rooms - one with abandoned children who will receive HIV drugs, and the other with those who will not - without Christ’s presence being with you. The degredation of humanity caused by this plague has meant more to me than any library of books. We have ten million AIDS orphans in the southern Africa region alone. What can you do about them? What can I do about them? We can only walk with Christ and hope.

And that is where my learning comes from, that is where my faith is coming from for I know that it was God who protected me in dangerous places around the globe, who let me serve usefully in this richly textured life, who permitted me to learn intimately about His people. To Him I owe my life, my allegiance, and my love.

Few of us have been so privileged to serve Him. And now all I ask is for a place to put that love. What would **you **have me do?

I have responded in the hope that others will know that it is not just what you know about the dogma and doctrine, but what you know about life, and how you choose to serve Christ and his children.

“Far along in your spiritual journey” looks like what exactly?

Yes or no answers please:

–Do you attend Mass?
–Do you speak to a priest?
–Do you have a Catholic spiritual director?
–Are you attending RCIA?
–Are you studying Magisterial teaching?
–If so, what have you studied so far?
–Have you studied the Church Fathers?
–The Martyrs?
–The Saints?
–The Popes?
–Have you read the CA Library?
–Pillar of Fire Foundation of Faith?
–Have you consulted someone who is very knowledgeable in these fields or merely fallen back on your own interpretation or the interpretations of those who persist in misrepresenting Magisterial teaching?
–Have you posted questions on the Ask an Apologist forum?
–Have you had any Catholic experiences which could be characterized as transformational or conversional?

If not, then I suggest that your next step in your spiritual journey might be to meditate for some substantial amount of time on the kettle and the pot.

 

[MrS]

Someone on another thread asked me to verify my cv as a would-be Catholic. Others have noted that I am somewhat grumpy right now. It is 0400 in the morning here in Pretoria, because with 6-10 hours’ difference between here and you, this is the only time to post.

I need to set out where I am coming from, and perhaps be forgiven for being testy, for being sensitive about religious bias, and for misunderstanding some of what I read on the Forum.

Another poster wrote to me:

(See quantifiable list below.)

I don’t intend to answer your question (below) as you would like, but I will give you some information which might be useful as a snapshot of one would-be Catholic, one who is trying - earnestly - to join the Catholic Church.

I attend St John Fisher Roman Catholic Church, Lynwood Road, Pretoria, South Africa. My spiritual directors are Bishop D Verstraete (age 82, ret, formerly Bishop of Klerksdorp); Monsignor Marc de Muelenaere jcd of Pretoria (64), and Father Michael Kelly SJ (78) of Lusaka Zambia. Fr Michael is a friend and colleague of 30 years.

I attend mass three times a week, and service twice on the weekend. I have had adult enquiry classes every Thursday since last July. I have at least one hour each week with Msgr de Muelenaere, my parish priest. I have been on two retreats (since last August - one at a Silent House of Prayer (Sisters of St Joseph) near Ottawa, and the other at Good Shepherd Retreat near Pretoria, five days each time).

I have my own prayer room at home in Pretoria, where I have a large library of ‘legitimate’ books, including various Bibles, CCC and books by Rolheiser, Merton, Nouwen and Vanier (the latter two family friends), Nolan, Borg, Armstrong, Vinoba Bhave, Krishnamurty, various Buddhist teachers inter alia. I read, I contemplate, I pray. I am computer literate, and have access on my own laptop to the Catholic Encyc., Vatican publications, etc. I have written chapters for a Book of Grace setting out this sannyasi journey, in the Hindu tradition.

We have a large extended family - Zambians, Malawians, Nepalis, South Africans, Chinese - who we support at school, in addition to our own children. We learn from them too.

My journey began when I burned out from 12 years’ work on the impact of HIV on education, on teachers, on children. I worked to governments, for international development aid agencies, for the United Nations, in Africa and Asia particularly.

You cannot go into a Thai hospital and see two rooms - one with abandoned children who will receive HIV drugs, and the other with those who will not - without Christ’s presence being with you. The degredation of humanity caused by this plague has meant more to me than any library of books. We have ten million AIDS orphans in the southern Africa region alone. What can you do about them? What can I do about them? We can only walk with Christ and hope.

And that is where my learning comes from, that is where my faith is coming from for I know that it was God who protected me in dangerous places around the globe, who let me serve usefully in this richly textured life, who permitted me to learn intimately about His people. To Him I owe my life, my allegiance, and my love.

Few of us have been so privileged to serve Him. And now all I ask is for a place to put that love. What would **you **have me do?

I have responded in the hope that others will know that it is not just what you know about the dogma and doctrine, but what you know about life, and how you choose to serve Christ and his children.

Here in the States we are approaching Good Friday. We will have our Good Friday services with a wonderful younger priest (45) and I will ask him to pray for you, as I will. I will also include prayers for all those suffering whom you have describes in such candor.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

They even had the authority to unbind the commandment to circumcise Gentile converts, together with the commandment not to eat with Gentiles. (Where is that in the Old Testament? )

When St. Peter later avoided the company of Gentiles at meat, St. Paul, a Pharisee (meaning, a guy whose job it is to interpret and enforce God’s Law) rebuked St. Peter.

Get that - because it totally blew my mind the first time I got that. (A couple of weeks ago, for the first time, I really read that passage, and I got that, and I’m still saying “Wow!!”)

St. Paul, whose job it was to enforce God’s Law.

Rebukes St. Peter for not sitting down at meat with the Gentiles.

For not sitting down at meat with the Gentiles.

Remember: What was written in the Old Testament, which was their Bible (no word of the New Testament had yet been written at the time of St. Paul’s rebuke to St. Peter), was that they were never to sit down at meat with Gentiles. This was forbidden in their Scriptures, with no possibility of any exceptions to that rule.

So, again. (In case you missed it.)

St. Paul, whose job it was to enforce God’s Law.

Rebukes St. Peter for not sitting down at meat with the Gentiles.

Because St. Peter, at the Council of Jerusalem had (by the power of the Keys) reversed this law.

When St. Peter did this, the Law of God changed.

God’s Pharisee (St. Paul) begins to enforce this new law in exactly the same way that he for his entire life had enforced the whole Law of Moses.

Why? Because, … thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Matthew 16:18-19)

Yeah, I believe it.

Now ask yourself this question:
By what authority did St. Paul rebuke St. Peter?
It is as if St. Paul thought that his own personal experience of encountering Christ was equal to that of St. Peter’s experience of being set apart by Christ for the ministry that he would have.

Surely, St. Paul was wrong. Surely he was speaking heretically. But no. You recognize St. Paul’s authority to rebuke St. Peter. You do not call St. Paul a heretic for teaching something contrary to what the Catholic Church was teaching. Indeed he is allowed to challenge and even correct both the Church and the Pope. Who is this St. Paul? He has no authority except that which he claims from personal experience and his own claim to a unique encounter with God in the person of Jesus. What’s next? Will people everywhere start to assert that God has spoken to them as well. Will others in the Church dare to stand up to the Pope, to challenge him, to rebuke him, to risk being called a heretic because they have a better understanding of what God’s will is for the Church than the Church itself does? What is to keep a person from claiming that God sent them to establish a different branch of the Church?

Answer: Nothing!!

That’s the point. Protestants claim the same type of authority in the face of Peter that St. Paul did in the face of St. Peter. We too believe that God speaks to us – remember we are Trinitarian, when the Holy Spirit speaks to us it is just as much God speaking to us as it was when Jesus spoke to St. Paul.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

You have told us what Peter was not being commanded to do, but you have not yet told us what you believe it is that Peter was being commanded to do.

Again (I think I’ve asked you this before) what is going on in John 21:15-19? If it isn’t Peter being ordained Chief Shepherd of the Church, then what is it? What is Peter being commanded to do, in this passage?

So, Christ spent three years of His valuable time and pulled 12 healthy young men away from their families and livelihoods in order to establish a metaphor?

The moniker “Catholic” was first written down in 110 AD. What non-Catholics were around, who weren’t either pagans or completely heretical?

When Ignatius of Antioch used the term, it was an adjective. Catholic as used by Ignatius was a synonym for universal. He wasn’t naming the Church the Catholic Church, he was describing the Church as the universal Church. So it wasn’t a moniker at the time the term was introduced. It became a moniker only when the universal Church decided that there were people that didn’t quite fit in. Now, you can’t go calling yourself the universal Church and then tell some people that you consider Christian that they don’t belong. That makes a joke out of your name.

You seem to like analogies, so let’s try one.

Let’s say that I went down the street to my local Catholic Church (by the way I spent the afternoon with the local priest designing yet another worship service that we will be celebrating together, some how he considers me a legitimate Christian brother, not separated brethern so this wouldn’t really be the case in this community at least). So I go down the street to my local Catholic Church – Friendly Catholic Church. Now, I am warmly received when I walk in the door. People shake my hand, give me a missal, and introduce me to a few other people that I can sit with. After worship they show me around the building and invite me to join them for dinner. I have a great time they are truly friendly toward me.

I tell them that I’ve never been to a church that was named “Friendly” before. But they say it was one that they were given by the Pope himself because 150 years before during a papal visit he had passed through what was then a brand new community being established on the prairie and discovered that this little bitty community was the friendliest place he had ever been. A priest who was a childhood friend of the Pope was establishing a mission station there in the hopes that there wold be a Catholic Church present when the community grew large enough to sustain one. The aread had become known as “Friendly” because of what the Pope said, and though the name of the town was eventually changed, the name of the church had remained “Friendly Catholic Church”.

Well, my experience was that this church certainly lived up to its name; it was indeed a friendly Catholic Church. I joined that church and raised my kids in it. A generation passes and my kids move away, all the time I find the church to still be a friendly church. I have never met a person in it that I didn’t feel friendly toward or who I didn’t think felt friendly toward me. More time passes and I am well along in years. My kids want me to come live with them, but I balk at it. All my friends are here in this church. I couldn’t leave it. Why couldn’t they move back here if they felt the need to be near me? And so they do.

(continued below)

 

[Grace_Seeker]

(continued)

I am ill their first Sunday back home, so I don’t go to church with them, but they are excited to go. They remember how friendly “Friendly Catholic Church” was for them too, years ago. Now some things have changed with time. Like my kids, most of the others raised in that church had moved away to other communities. There were a few new ones who moved in. The church has basically gotten older with time. Of course my friends are all still there, but none of them recognize my kids, and no one bothers to introduce themselves to them. The church has remodeled in the time my kids were gone, and they actually get lost looking for the restroom, but when asking for directions the person they stop justs point a finger down the hall and mumbles something inaudible as they scurry away. They find their own seat, there are plenty to choose from, and no one who enters greets them or sits by them. Finally just before the service starts someone approaches them, it is the person they had stopped in the hallway. My kids turn to greet him, only to be asked to scoot over because this individual needs to sit in that space. It’s reserved for the greeters. There is a time for the passing of the peace in the service. The person sitting with them walks across the aisle to greet someone else, but no one greets my kids. After the service is over, only the priest even acknowledges their presence. He tells them about a fellowship coffee in the church basement that they would be welcome at. My kids go down to the basement, at least that hadn’t moved, and there they are ignored while others appear to be engaged in riveting conversation with one another. After about 15 minutes of no contact with anyone, they return home where they tell me that it is the most cold-shouldered experience of their lives.

Now, the name on the front is still “Friendly Catholic Church”, but is it? It is in name only. It isn’t friendly because it doesn’t treat people that way. It is as if those clusters of people in the basement of that church talking to each other were all that really mattered in the world. Perhaps they are all who really matters to them. They grown so inward looking that they miss what it means to live out their name anymore. If they are friend with each other, if they claim that once a long time ago this label was given to us by the Pope, then that makes it so. But if they think the merely remember that it was once true makes it true to today, then they are living in a delusion.

No. I am afraid to tell you. But Friendly Catholic Church no longer deserves the moniker “friendly”, primarily because it isn’t. And the Catholic Church no longer deserves the moniker “catholic”, again, primarily because it isn’t. It isn’t catholic, because it considers those who are not a part of their little group to be as nothing other than separated brethern. Of course I can see how it would happen. You’ve got a billion or more members. If you only accept the word of others who are part of your little coffee clutch, and don’t interact the other few million Christians in the world, well, then you’ll have no one to tell you that the name that once fit no longer does.

Sorry, I can’t get to all of your other questions today, or even tomorrow. Seems that every year around this time my calender sort of fills up. Have to check and see why that is some day.

Anyway, I’m not trying to ditch your questions, but also have to consider this conversation a lower priority than some of the other things going on in my life and ministry. Then next week I’ll be gone completely, spending some time with my daughter. So, it may be that this thread is another dozen pages long by the time I get back to it. Or it may be that the whole thing is forgotten and you’ve all moved on to other things. Anyway. If they are questions you truly want answered, as opposed to merely make your point by asking them, then hang on to them and I will be back in here in about 10 days or so.

 

[RNRobert]

Now ask yourself this question:
By what authority did St. Paul rebuke St. Peter?
It is as if St. Paul thought that his own personal experience of encountering Christ was equal to that of St. Peter’s experience of being set apart by Christ for the ministry that he would have.

Surely, St. Paul was wrong. Surely he was speaking heretically. But no. You recognize St. Paul’s authority to rebuke St. Peter. You do not call St. Paul a heretic for teaching something contrary to what the Catholic Church was teaching. Indeed he is allowed to challenge and even correct both the Church and the Pope. Who is this St. Paul? He has no authority except that which he claims from personal experience and his own claim to a unique encounter with God in the person of Jesus. What’s next? Will people everywhere start to assert that God has spoken to them as well. Will others in the Church dare to stand up to the Pope, to challenge him, to rebuke him, to risk being called a heretic because they have a better understanding of what God’s will is for the Church than the Church itself does? What is to keep a person from claiming that God sent them to establish a different branch of the Church?

Answer: Nothing!!

That’s the point. Protestants claim the same type of authority in the face of Peter that St. Paul did in the face of St. Peter. We too believe that God speaks to us – remember we are Trinitarian, when the Holy Spirit speaks to us it is just as much God speaking to us as it was when Jesus spoke to St. Paul.

Peter deserved to be rebuked by Paul, but not for his teachings, but for his **actions **(and remember, the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, he is NOT given impeccability. During the Middle Ages, St Catherine of Siena gently chided the Pope and encouraged him to return to Rome from Avignon. So yes, there is a history of Catholics standing up to the Pope when he was wrong. But there is no record of her or St Paul starting a new church when they disagreed with the Pope. Instead, scripture tells us to obey our leaders and to strive for unity. I don’t see anything in the Bible about the right of Christians to start their own denominations.