iMonk 101: “The Happy Enough Protestant”
April 5, 2009 by iMonk
From March ‘08.
Because I’ve been wrestling with Protestant/Catholic issues throughout this past year, I receive a lot of email from those who have moved outside of their lifelong evangelicalism and somewhere within sight of the catholic tradition, if not the Roman Catholic church.
Some of that mail takes me to blogs and the writing of people who are in a tortured state of mind and heart. Some are ministers strongly drawn to Roman Catholicism. They have read Hahn and Howard. They are listening to The Coming Home Network on EWTN. They are tired of evangelicalism’s circus atmosphere, its deficits and its many problems.
The unity, antiquity and beauty of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy stand in stark contrast to the divisions, innovations and shallowness of evangelicalism. I have no problem understanding this attraction. It seems that Luther made a terrible mistake, and every person who “goes home” can take satisfaction in healing that historically disastrous and unnecessary rift.
When you are reading those books and thinking about the many strong suits of Catholicism, it’s hard to feel good about being a Protestant. A recent “Coming Home to the Roman Catholic” church television ad recited so many wonderful things about Roman Catholicism- without a hint of the other side of the coin- that it was difficult to see why anyone would want to remain a Protestant.
But there is a different way to approach this situation than the back and forth of pleading apologetic arguments, collections of verses or authority claims. Without insult to any Roman Catholic or criticism of anyone who has converted or will convert in the future, I want to say some things to the rest of us.
The rest of us? Yes, those of us who are Protestant and will remain Protestant for the rest of our lives. Not because we are angry, but because we are “happy enough” to be Protestant.
We have varying feelings about Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and the various divisions in Christianity, but we are not going to change our place as Protestants and evangelicals. We have deep respect and appreciation for the antiquity of these Christian traditions, and we have abandoned the idea that we are able to understand evangelicalism without them. But we are not changing churches because we believe we are part of the church.
We believe that the churches we have grown up in, the churches that we have served and that have served and nurtured us, are the churches God himself sovereignly brought us into. The debate about “what is the true church?” is not a compelling one for us, because we believe that all of us who belong to Christ are joined with him in his church.
Phrases about ecclesial bodies or less than fully communing churches are not heard by us in the same way they are heard by those who have a Roman Catholic view of the church. These are our churches and we love them. They have given Christ to us and many of us have given our lives in service and devotion to them. Unlike some of our brothers and sisters, we do not want to leave our Protestant churches behind, but we want to see the presence of Christ among his people in them more deeply manifested and demonstrated. We are “happy enough” to be embraced by imperfect Protestant churches and people as we make our pilgrim journey.
We love our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters, and respect the godly spiritual leaders and Biblical voices within those traditions. We are embarrassed by much of the anti-Catholicism that exists in evangelicalism, though we understand it as we understand the anti-Protestantism that exists within some of the Roman Catholic community.
We are “Happy Enough” Protestants. A strange title, I know, but an important one. We are happy enough as Protestants to remain Protestants, and we are happy to be protestant. We seek to practice a kind of Protestantism that is not characterized by unrest, anxiety and anger in relations with Catholicism. Our goal, in simple terms, is to be happy to be Protestant because we are happy in Christ and the Gospel that we find in Protestantism, even with all its flaws.
We are not seeking to evangelize Roman Catholics or to sell our churches as superior. We regret the rhetoric that commodifies church and Christian experience to “mine is better than yours.” We seek, instead, to embody what Paul so often talked about in his letters: Joy in Christ in the midst of a historically imperfect church.
We regret that for many of our Protestant brothers and sisters, it has not been possible to be Protestant and be faithful to Christ or happy in the church. We may have found this difficult and discouraging at times, but we have not found it impossible. We believe our Protestant experience can be filled with Christ, the legacy of the whole church and the distinctives of both evangelicalism and catholicism.
We are “Happy Enough Protestants” because we believe that God, in his providence, called us to this part of his one, holy, catholic and apostolic body/church. We accept, even celebrate, his providence in allowing us to hear the Gospel clearly and simply in Protestantism, to be taught in its churches and schools, allowed to serve in its ministries, sit at the feel of its scholars and pastors, be inspired by its mission’s legacy, learn from its saints, be challenged by its openness to the Spirit and renewed by its ability to return, again and again, to the Bible for authority, nurture and truth.
We recognize the checkered, broken past of Protestantism, but we are happy in much of what we find in that past. We believe that though they were sinners, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Wesley, Whitefield, Cramner, the Puritans, Spurgeon, Asbury, Ryle, The Baptists, Edwards and many other Protestant lights were called and gifted of God for the building up of his church and the equipping of his saints. We believe that within the Protestant tradition, God continues to call, equip, build, empower and demonstrate the presence of the Kingdom through his people.
We are “happy enough” to not despise ourselves or torture ourselves over what is missing in our tradition. We will, in a joyous spirit, work for restoration and the strengthening of the church. We pray that the work of the Spirit will unite all churches with the riches of Christ, but we believe those riches are accessible to us all by grace through faith and in the humble reception of the word of God.
We are “happy enough” to rejoice in the many statements of gracious inclusion and respect that have been offered in the ecumenical spirit, most particularly by the Roman Catholic church in Vatican II. But we are also “happy enough” to say we view the reformation as those who have benefited from it, and feel the responsibility to treasure and protect what was good and continually necessary in it. We believe that a tragic necessity need not remove all joy and mutual affection, nor abrogate the presence of all that is of value. We are determined in generosity and charity, to not allow all that the Reformation recovered to vanish in debates about authority and antiquity. God has sovereignly and graciously been at work in Protestantism, as well as in all Christian traditions.
In a spirit of mutual respect, we intend to be “happy enough” to tell the truth. As we repent of much in our tradition and as we see what is valuable in other traditions, we are unapologetic that much in our tradition exists more robustly and helpfully in Protestantism than elsewhere. It serves no good purpose to ignore the participation of laity, the starting of new churches, the extent of theological education, the use of congregational music, the depth of rigorous scholarship, the faithfulness in persecution, the emphasis on reform, the use of innovation in ministry or the healthy focus on personal evangelism. We will be “happy enough” to say these Protestant legacies are not to be abandoned or minimized, but should be gifts to the whole church.
At the points of our greatest disagreements, over authority, sacraments and justification, it is our prayer that we will all be “happy” in our convictions, and that should we find ourselves speaking over the greatest points of our separation, we will now have no agenda beyond living in the fruit of a joyful, “happy” experience of the truth. That someone should disagree with us should not send us into a tailspin of uncertainty or an attack-mode of anxiety. We are determined to be “happy enough” to speak of our convictions positively, winsomely and certainly without embarrassment before other Christians
I believe there are likely thousands of us who are “happy enough” Protestants and will remain so throughout our lives. We are not preparing to go to Rome, nor are we asking Rome to become Protestant. Our conversations should not be dominated by such an agenda and we repent of those occasions when such has been the case. We seek the day we can recognize Christ in one another, stand in the church of Jesus on both sides of the Tiber (and elsewhere) and be grateful to God for what he has done and what we all appreciate in our varying and various traditions. May all of us grow in the grace and goodness of Jesus and the mission of his people.
I have lived in Latin America most of my life. I draw extensively from historic Christianity to effectively teach on topics such as the classic spiritual disciplines…presenting Biblical principles without necessarily heralding the sources. I believe that there have been sincere and loving Cristocentric disciples within the Roman Catholic and Orthodox religions throughout the ages.
However, let us consider THE WAY to God. I am not sure what version of Roman Catholicism is presented in the First World, but here in Latin America Mariology reigns. Visit, for example, the Basilica in Mexico City: Mary is the Redemptrix (nevermind “co”) and Christ is portrayed as weak (a baby in Mary’s arms, hanging on a cross), dead (sometimes in Mary’s arms), or at the very most, as a pathetically meek man. I have yet to see an image of a conquering, all-powerful one-and-only Savior. Mary supplants Christ, in function and predominance.
Evangelicals/Protestants in Latin America, for the most part, would never consider Roman Catholicism as another denominational option or even as a technically different version of Christianity–it is viewed as another religion altogether. On the flip side, check out what previous popes have said about he rise of evangelicalism in Latin America: nothing short of all-out declarations of war. Apparently this kind of inflammatory rhetoric is not broadcast in the politically-correct First World.
Can a mere human be infallible? Is tradition equal to or greater than Scripture? Is Mary the Mother of God? These are the issues that we confront here. While the Western world is seeking greater compatibility between the aforementioned traditions the Global South will not, in my estimation, follow suit.
Sue, I’m not going to get in a fight with you,especially over something I’m not well versed in, and is often the subject of much disinformation on both sides (Inquisition myths and half-truths abound). I will say that I sincerely believe St. Francis of Assisi presents a far better example of how to reform the faith. Of note, the Pope at the time only required 41 of what he considered to be errors be retracted. That was inclusive of the 95 Theses and other Lutherian writings. I will also give Luther credit for not overstepping what he saw, at that point, as his bounds, i.e. “This much I confess: if Dr Karlstadt or any one else could have convinced me five years ago that there was nothing but bread and wine in the sacrament, he would have rendered me a great service. I have undergone great temptations, and struggled and striven to get free of this because I saw clearly that with this I could have given the severest blow to popery. [...][76] But I am bound; I cannot get free of it; the text is too strong, and cannot be wrested from its sense by words. –Weimar Ausgabe 15:391-397
iMonk, well said. I remember the post from last year and thought then it was excellent.
I was “happy enough” to be a Protestant for a long time. I affirmed everything you write (still affirm the vast majority of it), I tried to live that way as a Protestant, and I expected to die a Protestant. But then something quite unexpected happened: my received theology unraveled and became incoherent when it came to some very deep questions I had had for a long time, but only allowed to surface with the advent and safety of the emerging church conversation: questions I had about what kind of God God is, and what is he up to with us humans, and the creation, and with our lives *before* we “go to heaven”, and about what exactly is the Gospel. These are all central questions, and they all deal with interpretation of scripture. Neither RC nor Prot interpretations added up; there were way too many loose ends for me in both of them. Then (bless God!!!) along came N.T. Wright, who answered those questions with an interpretation of scripture that makes sense to me as a “big picture” sort of thinker, without the loose ends. I gradually found out that 85-90% (my estimate) of what Wright expresses is what Orthodoxy teaches…
I was not looking for “the true church”, and was initially quite put off by tactless verbiage of some Orthodox. But once I had answers to my questions, it became a matter of conscience for me: what do I now do with what I know? It had been the same matter of conscience when I left RCatholicism in college: I had read my (Catholic) Bible deeply and found some rather huge things there that were out of synch with what I had been taught, and I had to do something with what I now knew… even in the face of potential misunderstanding or rejection by my family, then as now…
For me, RC and Protestantism (even Anglicanism) were two sides of the same coin. When I saw the path before me led to Orthodoxy, I actually went looking for the weaknesses and sin- and it didn’t take long to find them
I’ve been churched too long to have many illusions about church. I also found plenty of honest, non-defensive Orthodox people. Thank God, as Fr. Ernesto wrote, that “perfection” and “being the true church” are not connected. This is good news indeed for a recovering perfectionist!
For years I felt homeless in my own tradition, though finding the Northumbria Community and the “Celtic Christian” ethos gave me warm shelter. I am happy enough to have found a home. I do believe that Orthodoxy holds the fullness of Christian expression and retains the most threads of connection to the primitive church that emerged from Judaism. I know others struggle with these things and come to different conclusions, or never struggle at all. That’s ok. I believe above all else that God is good and merciful.
I appreciate your heart, which encourages me, and the safety and hospitality of your blog, which lead me to write more than I intend to when I start a comment…
Dana
My quest: A few random impressions from the past couple of weeks.
My Catholic mother-in-law speaks the word with distain: “Protestant. Why would anybody want to be known as a protester?”
Honestly, I feel no annoyance. She is 82 years old. The Catholic Church is her world. I get it. And while I’ve been known to read books like Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle, and while I don’t feel wed to any particular Protestant denomination I, personally, do not feel God’s Spirit pulling me toward the Catholic Church. Perhaps others do. If so, they should certainly follow where God’s Spirit leads.
My mother-in-law says, “As a Catholic mother I have a duty to see my son back in The Church before I die. If not, I have failed as a mother and will not go to Heaven.”
What do I say? The truth? I don’t think that would be very kind. The truth that I did not say: “Your son was raised to believe that the Catholic Church was the one true church and his only option. A child’s education extends far beyond a classroom curriculum. Every rebuke, every slap, every contradiction is also a lesson for the growing child. When your son realized the church was not for him he was left to conclude there was no God. I understand your son because his experiences were really not so different from what I experienced growing up in the Southern Baptist Church. Somehow Christ was able to reach through the briars and thickets around my soul and bring me back. But the briars around your son’s have sharper thorns because, the truth, his experiences were more damaging and more lasting.” Of course I did not say any of that. I said, “God knows his heart.” Other things I did not say, “Yes, I pray for him every day and I share various things that I read, some of which he actually finds interesting. While I pray that he finds his way back to Christ, where he then worships should come from the guidance of God’s Spirit.”
I think it is possible that we need different things from worship, possibly, at different times of our lives.
Since coming back into the fold I have attended a Methodist church, although I’m not really sure I’m a Methodist. I have a great respect for the pastor. The church runs some good community outreach programs although I would not call their approach evangelical. (neither would they) I am frustrated at them for lavishly spending on a larger building than needed. Right at the time the needs in the community are so high, the church is seriously in debt. (Perhaps a prayful reading of Genesis 41 would be a good idea for any church considering a building project.)
Oddly, this growing discontent seemed to be pulling me toward a tiny Assemblies of God church. This seemed like such an unlikely church for me, I resisted going for a very long time.
Yesterday I attended the traditional Methodist service in the morning and the Assemblies service in the evening. I felt blessed by both and am beginning to see that at this particular point in my life I need this evangelical influence.
I see so much alienation, confusion and pain in the lives of young people. Last week, even while we visited our son, one of his neighbors committed suicide. With my heart breaking for this kid that I had never met, I stood at the window and prayed for the church (all Christians) to find ways to reach out with Christ’s love. The need is so great. We can help feed with bread, but their alienation will only deepen if they are not offered living water.
If only we could put our differences aside and reach out as one body. Of course we will disagree about many things but can we at least agree that Christ’s love transforms lives? Even for those with no desire to be transformed, we can listen.
As the prodigal I would long to grab my big brother’s hand and say, “Yes, I know I’m the screw-up in the family, but I’ve seen a few things during my travels. I know how it feels to be completely alone. But at least I hadn’t completely forgotten about my father’s house. Too many people don’t even know they have a father and a home. Do you think maybe together we could go and tell them about our amazing father?
My goodness, so many words! Yet they are loving kind words full of reverence for one another. The Spirit is moving across the waters of chaos! I am a Christian who expresses my faith in Christ through the RC Church. I have long been grateful to Protestant teachers of the scriptures for keeping the Word alive and teaching me how to understand with my heart the continuing revelations of God. I am grateful to the RC for being the unwavering keepers of the Eucharist and for maintaining the “Primacy of the Spiritual” throughout its history of frequent human shortcomings. One day we will all be bible thumping receivers of the Eucharist. For this I pray daily. May you, my brothers and sisters in Christ, recieve all the blessings the Lord has stored up for you.
MAJ Tony
I don’t wish to fight over it either. Everyone has blood on their hands in Protestant-Roman history. I have a RC friend who says what is wrong with the RC Church is the people don’t know their own church history and the saddest thing is the RC church doesn’t want them to know it.
The only way to stop it is to stop it. I guess my problem with the RC Church is it’s insistance that it is the only true church and has the only means of salvation. We had hope with Vatacan II. This pope seems to want to close that door.
I believe it is up to the people. We need to practice forgiveness. I have been a great defender of the RC people. Many Evengelicals(so to speak) say RC aren’t Christians. I know that is not true.
The longer I go on my faith journey the more I realize it’s the love of Christ that ties us together. Many RCs love their church, many hate their church, many are neutral. It’s the love of Christ across the wide array of Christianity that overcomes the divid. Most religious institutions are just to political and veated in maintaining their own power to bring the Body together.
@sue: I have a RC friend who says what is wrong with the RC Church is the people don’t know their own church history and the saddest thing is the RC church doesn’t want them to know it.
Absolutely, and I get a lot of surprised looks from people when I go on a tirade when people start parading the usual tired and clichéd canards about Catholics and Catholicism and then go into a rant about the things about the RCC which drive totally bonkers (and to an extent really discourage me from going to an RC Church).
I’m a lot like Michael and how he feels about the SBC tradition he grew up in. For better or for worse, I was raised a Roman Catholic, so I’ll always feel this inescapable pull towards Rome that I can’t and won’t deny, and my time immersed in Evangelicalism has really shown me how the RCC does a lot of good things that many Evangelicals should take notice of (and vice versa, naturally). That pull however, shouldn’t blind me to the real problems that the Church has on a variety of levels.
Seems we have a lot of Catholic versus Protestant thing today. As a Catholic I appreciate the fact that protestants keep the focus on scripture alive and do may missional things whether that be in the community, regionally or some village in another country. I love Eastern Orthodoxy for its liturgy and it seems to be very much inline with my contemplative way of praying. I love the Catholic Church because it encompases so much and I call it home.
And I appreciate those who are not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox but still can respect us, those who do not hit me in the head with the good book. Of course I am also not a big fan of militant over zealous Catholics either (no I am not a cafeteria catholic by a long shot) so it goes both ways…
Sue, I submit to you and others (within the RCC and without) that you misread the Pope’s intentions, and the intentions of Vat II. It’s certainly not the intent of the Pope to cut off relations with “separated brethren” nor was it the intent of Vat II to change Church teaching on the subject on a basic level. Any organization that believes it is the ONE true organization of it’s type and all others are not is going to insist that it is so. Would you expect anything different? Vatican II merely changed the tone from “beat them over the head” to “P.R. campaign.”
Our P.R. campaign didn’t go as well as planned early on because we forgot about the folks already in the RCC (failure of catechesis). We’re just now catching up. I think the losses to Evangelicalism and the gain of “transverts” like Scott Hahn, etc. has served us well, as we’ve learned from the Evangelicals in both processes.
I am afraid I could never be Catholic or Orthodox. Eight years of living in the Balkans during the 1990’s has totally cured me of that. If you think that American evangelicalism is political… well, the Moral Majority was kids stuff compared to the heavy duty politics inherent in contemporary RC and Orthodoxy.
The problem with evangelicalism is that it has outgrown its movement orientation and has turned into something similar to the religious institutions that Orthodoxy and Catholicism have been for centuries. When I feel angst toward evangelicalism (and I often do) the last thing I want is to go further toward institutionalized religious systems.
That’s one reason why the predictions that RC and Orthodoxy will grow in the future are, in my view, wrong. What forms of Christianity are growing the fastest today on a global scale? Certainly not those with high structures and dogmatic leadership styles. They are the house church networks and informal structures of Asia and Africa.
And that is why MAJ Tony dear, I am happy enough to be Protestant.
BillyHW
“As long as Christians are “happy enough” to remain visibly divided, Islam will continue to take over the world.”
You don’t think Muslims are divided? We had our 100 years war. They are still fighting their version of that war that started 1200 years ago. Iraq is just a front in that war. (And we seemed to forget that when we stepped in.) Iran is the “rouge state”. And even within many of the “mainlines” there are serious divisions. Plus the western liberal Muslims that are very much not appreciated in the middle east. And the Muslim influence in our prisons is from a group that most Muslims around the world think of as way off the beaten path so to speak.
Sue,
I respect where you are and your path toward heaven.
But, I am very bothered by your quote from your friend, about the Catholic church keeping people from its history. I’ve never seen that, nor can even imagine how it is happening. It is so easy to find books on church history on your own. When I first started reading it, I was amazed at what I hadn’t been taught in Sunday School or church.
I contend that many people don’t know much about any history and don’t know how to recognze the viewpoint of the author. Just the way U.S. Grant’s version of the Civil War is different from Jefferson Davis’ version of the War of Northern Aggression, or the Politically Incorrect version.
Great post,
this is the mind and heart that will win the day for all.
By the way could you please repost your review of “Spirit and Forms of Protestantism”.
thanks
Kurt – you think Christ on the Cross is portraying Him as “weak”?
You want a depiction of “a conquering, all-powerful one-and-only Savior.”?
Would you like Him toting an M16 while we’re at it?
(Apologies for the snark, Michael, and if you want to wipe this I’ll understand, but frankly I’m fuming here).
Kurt,
I reviewed your posting, after Martha made some follow up comments.
I will grant that some people do tend to come closer to worshipping Mary than they should.
And you might be uncomfortable with the title Mary, Mother of God. But, the only way that it is wrong is if Jesus is not God.
And any quibbles about the nature of Jesus could get you close to heresy. (Personally I don’t expect to escape some flirtation with heresy. When priests are advised that sometime they will teach heresy, they do need to know which ones (and therefore how to correct it.))
Mary Mother of God is a “common ground” affirmation for all Christians. Rejecting it is far more disturbing to me than the possible abuse of it.
Sue Kephart:
Actually, the Catholic Church is very open about its history, and it is there in all its Glory and weaknesses for all to see. Your friends statement to you, while it may be true to him, does not make it a universal truth. Many Catholics are quite knowledgeable about History as Patristic studies have made a serious comeback during the Pontificate of John Paul II, who commissioned the new Catechism of the Catholic CHurch and now Pope Benedict, who is Patristic Scholar, par excellence. Now, I question the histories as portrayed by secular historians, who in many cases have acts to grind and also question historians with polemical axes to grind, which sometimes happens. I have read Warren Caroll’s History of Christendom series, and other histories of the Church, and he does not hide anything in his works.
As for Kurt’s comment about the Catholic, and Orthodox Churches having Crucifixes, I think St. Paul has something that is related here. He did not separate the Crucifixion from the other aspects of Christ life and fully incorporated into his theology. For example, in the opening chapter of Corinthians, St. Paul writes “For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified…”(c.f. 1 Cor 1:23). Later, Paul writes “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (c.f. 1 Cor 2:2). Later, St. Paul links the entire paschal mystery [passion, death and resurrection into one salvific act] as he writes “For I have delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3-4).
St. Paul also connected the celebration of the eucharist to Christ’s crucifixion. St. Paul describes the tradition of the eucharist in 1 Cor 11: 23-25, then he writes “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes again.”. He goes on to say, “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord” (c.f 1 Cor 11:27).
In these passages, St. Paul is clearly not advocating a theology of the resurrection, that is totally separate from the incarnation, life of Christ, and his passion and death. In addition, St. Paul is clearly linking the celebration of the eucharist to the passion, death and resurrection of Christ.
Finally, Imonk, thanks for affirming Mary as the Theotokos, the Mother of God, which was and is an important dogmatic statement in protecting Christ Divine personhood.
Regards
“Everyone has blood on their hands.”
Not Mennonites or Quakers. . . .
I just happened across this page. I can’t believe what I just read. I go to a Catholic church because my wife does. I go to the same one I went to 49 years ago. I’ve lived all over the country and world in between. I joined the Church of Christ in N.C. and again in Pittsburgh. I have never been to a Protestant Church, but a lot of my friends did, growing up. I think there is a difference with Protestants that is very good. Respectable. Although I believe the Holy Spirit can work through anything, I have to say that I have always been disappointed by the Catholic Churches I have been to. I must admit, I don’t join any groups or such, which is one reason I like the Catholic church, and left the Church of Christ. I think Protestants have something very good going on, and I am surpised to hear you doubting yourselves so.
Catholic/Protestant. Whatever. While we debate the “issues” (which are man’s…not God’s)the world goes to Hell in a handbasket. The Holy Spirit made it pretty clear to me just the other day while reading again in John’s Gospel. Chapter 17: “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be ONE; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The Glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be ONE, just as We are ONE; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in UNITY, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.” vss.20-23.(Emphasis mine)
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female (there is neither Catholic nor Protestant– emphasis mine), for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
And I could go on to quote Ephesians 2:11-22.
I for one am tired of this meaningless banter and wonder why we can’t embrace the things Jesus said were most important, namely the First Commandment in the Law and the Second? Ought not the Word of God be the judge of our lives? Speaking only for myself, I am sadly lacking in this Love exemplified by my Lord.
What has the Catholic Church done to give the impression that “happy enough” is good enough? What have Catholics done that prompts Protestants to prefer religious indifference (Latitudinarianism) to unity with the Church?
Considering Orthodox and denominational Christianity, the Catholic Church observes that “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation…”
Might a Protestant read these statements above and (using their own definition of the terms) conclude that the Church thinks that what they are doing is, in and of itself, adequate for a complete relationship with God? That the lukewarm level of “happy enough” is acceptable?
Who among the Protestants would not agree that all Christians can live a “life of grace,” or perform acts of “faith, hope, and charity?” Or… what Protestant would not be gratified to learn that they too have “interior gifts of the Holy Spirit?” Never mind that there is more to the Catholic faith than these few feel-good statements. Never mind that Catholic teaching is nuanced, and may not mean what the Protestant thinks it means. Never mind.
Perhaps then the Church, in seeing God at work in the myriad “ecclesial communities”, has given the impression that “happy enough” is good enough.
What of Catholics themselves. What have individual Catholics done, or left undone, to exacerbate the problem?
They have (at least enough times to be noticed): been bad examples of the Christian faith, been enslaved to carnal passions, asserted “a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience”, rejected “the Church’s authority and her teaching”, and shown “a lack of conversion and of charity.”
Are all Catholics usually like this? No. Do they all often show these “errors of judgment in moral conduct?” No. But, when a Protestant is looking for a reason to reject the Church the few examples they have will suffice.
So… on the one hand, the Church tells Protestants that their groups are a “means of salvation,” and, on the other hand, Protestants notice that the conduct of some Catholics is significantly less than honorable. With this perspective who among the Protestants would not want to stay put and think that “happy enough” is good enough?
Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 27-29, 817-819, 846, 1129, 1753 & 1792.
Martha, I apologize for not being clear and for leaving you fuming. I am not an eloquent writer and struggle to put forth in words what I understand based on my observations.
Be that as it may, here is my attempt at a response: Christ on the Cross, by NO means makes him weak. My point is that the typical Roman Catholic that I know here does not see him in the light of the powerful act that WAS the crucifixion nor reflect the power that He carries today. For many, seeing him represented on the cross merely describes a pitiful and sad story. They see the death of the body but miss the spiritual significance and depth of His salvific act. M-16’s are not necessary Martha, but I would like to see a proper emphasis here in Latin America on what Christ’s death means for us, not to mention his present risen-ness (former Roman Catholics have admitted to me that even though raised as Catholics they never realized that Christ is alive.)
Louisiana Catholic, have no fears, the Latin American follower of Christ probably has more resolve to know nothing but Christ and him crucified than you might realize. Many still suffer persecution for maintaining this very resolve.
internetmonk and Louisiana Catholic: “Mother of God” Yes, I grant you your point on Theotokos–I have undertaken a quick study of the term and have discovered that I have embarrassingly misunderstood it. I am very sorry and humbled. Thank you. My previous view may have been adopted from the context in which I grew up. You see, to the average Latin American, Mary takes on the qualities of deity and the term just feeds the heresy that she lives and moves as an equal or even superior in the Godhead. Without adequate theological explanation the term can cause confusion (I say with a wry smile).
My statements are a reflection of what I have observed over a period of 3 decades in my beloved América Latina. I would also like to add that the concepts of motherhood and death are understood differently in Latin American than they are by most of those who post here. I hope this helps.
My intention was, and is, not to offend.
I’m not happy to be “Protestant” because I think the term covers such a wide variety of claims as to be fairly useless, particularly when coupled with the phrase, “Protestants believe….”
However, I am happy to no longer be Catholic. After converting to Catholicism from evangelicalism and spending 12 years there in very active ministry (including leading RCIA and working in a parish), I eventually discovered that the “one true” church that I thought I had joined doesn’t really exist. While Catholicism at least engages its history (something evangelicals seem to have a hard time with), the reading of that history, at least in the case of doctrine and worse, Catholic apologetics, is extremely selective and claims more that it can support. What is presented as “what the church has always believed” is often not the case if one is willing to do the research–certainly not always, but too often. In my opinion the bishops are very poorly educated, with priests in even worse shape, and little attention is paid to biblical scholarship or issues of translation. That situation is very sadly not improving but instead is devolving (the new missal is a very good case in point here).
It was a big relief for me to finally realize that that one true church (as in “expression of Christianity”) doesn’t exist and thus I’m not responsible for trying to locate it—leaving me to find the community where I can be the most useful and that comes the closest, in my view, to being concerned with repentance, salvation and human dignity, along with historically connected liturgy and celebration of the Eucharist. For me, that’s a particular community of the ELCA.
I have absolutely no bitterness toward the Catholic church; I certainly owe much of my religious education to its teachers and writings. But eventually in my zeal for the faith I learned a little too much; but I guess I’m better for that too. As Jesus said, the truth will make you free.
Nice of Luther to offer to come back to the Church as long as he was able to preach herecy in her.
As to iMonk I can certainly understand his feelings. Even if I disagree with them, I of course will keep praying for him and and other like him for the Holy Spirit to continue to do God’s work trough them.
Not too happy with the idea of taking the name “catholic” or “protestant” or “evangelical” or “radical reformer.” I really don’t know what name fits, although others can probably come up with something. I’m in the middle of studying the “local church membership” issue that’s been circulating among evangelicals, and a topic recently discussed here on IM’s blog. And here’s a question that presents itself — Is there much real difference between evangelicals and catholics on how they look at church authority? Maybe some readers of this blog could tell me from both perspectives.
From the strong dispensational cessationists (Macarthur), to the third wave charismatics (Vineyard), to the reformed continualists (Piper, Mahaney), to the PCA Calvinists (Ligon), to a myriad of independent evangelical churches, to a myriad of independent charismatic churches, to the hybrids, to a growing number of Baptist churches including one named Saddleback, to even seeker friendly churches both charismatic and otherwise — apparent similarity in approach seems to exist among the vast majority on the “church authority” issue. If you look at websites and other sources from these churches, which are otherwise often at theological loggerheads with each other, the vast majority do stress the importance of getting new church “members” to agree to a membership covenant (also called commitment, vow, call, confession, etc.) to the effect that the leaders of the church they are “joining” are to be their recognized authorities in the Lord. Some churches state it explicitly, some implicitly (“I will work for the unity of my church, its pastors, and so on,” is widespread), but all are getting at the same thing. The condition for “joining,” or if semantics are involved, for “full participation,” is a covenant recognizing local church authorities and usually vowing to submit to them. Notice I am not questioning whether there are authorities appointed by the Holy Spirit in the church, and I’m not even asking here how to tell the true ones from the false ones. What I ask is whether covenants of submission or their equivalent, as pre-conditions for “membership” in a church, are works of the Spirit or of the flesh? This is of course a variation on the “authority” question of some 2000 years.
Here’s my take. There is only one “church covenant” that is honored by the Holy Spirit – the covenant in the body and blood of Jesus the Messiah. All other “covenants” or “vows,” especially those of submission to authorities whether worldwide or local, even if the authorities themselves are “true,” are at best an attempt to take what began in the Spirit and make it perfect by the flesh, and at worst bondage. It is clear from the scriptures that the Lord Himself, by His Spirit, appoints authorities in His Church. It is also true that we are all enjoined to know who these authorities are (that’s sometimes the hard part, I think), and to esteem them for their work’s sake, and submit to them. However, we don’t supplement the new covenant in the Lord’s body and blood with “covenants” of submission to under-shepherds or even apostles.
In the ecclesiological context the word “member” in the New Testament is used only in regard to “THE Body of Christ.” This is true whether the context is a local church, or the worldwide church. No one in scripture is called a “member” of a church, only a member of “the body of Christ” — which also, by the way, makes us “members one of another” whether we like it or not! Nevertheless many evangelicals have been resorting to the term, “A Body of Christ,” to make a case for church membership covenants in order to “join” a local church. Is this not a kind of evangelical “visible unity” doctrine?
As for the notion of “A body of Christ:” First, it is not wise to add the indefinite article where it does not exist in scripture. Moreover, there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” “For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.” “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” “Joined.” “One.” “Body” When we speak of covenant, these are the words of the Holy Spirit to remember.
Louisiana Catholic or Sue Kephart:
“Actually, the Catholic Church is very open about its history, and it is there in all its Glory and weaknesses for all to see.”
My wife’s sister converted to RCC when she married. We see them in person once or twice a year. A few years ago on a bookshelf in their home was a book on the history of the Catholic Church. I flipped through it and got to the section on the reformation. About 1 paragraph. Basically it said Luther exposed a few problems in the RCC but it was all OK now.
That has to be the most condensed version of the reformation ever written. And it’s all “OK now”?
Kurt,
I have several follow up questions for you.
Do you try to support the native Latin Americans by buying stuff from them (like through the Mennonite program) to help them live they way they want to, on their land with their own crafts?
Have you considered that the images of Christ and Mary are appropriate for them. Art history, or so I’m told, shows that different images of Christ appear at different times. The ones made are the ones most needed by the people at the time. The Indians there are poor, marginalized, at best ignored by the government, at worst killed by both sides in ongoing problems. I just don’t see how a Triumph Christ would mean anything to them. A suffering Christ yes, a mother loving her son, both alive and dead, Yes.
Kurt,
Let me apologize for some of my comments. When I posted, I did not realize that you had as much experience as you do.
Mary, I live in Latin American–it would be hard to do so without participating in their economy. The last time I was up in the US, I was there for a day and I purchased a George Foreman Grill from Target, thus doing my part to help the North Americans live the way THEY want to (tongue in cheek). Ironically, I am of 100% Mennonite stock.
The images question is too complex to detail here, but let me make a couple of points. First, I do believe that the use of images or icons may draw some people closer to God. We know that they can also be used as good luck charms and as objects of worship or superstition. I see more of the latter here, and it becomes increasingly prevalent as one descends through the socio-economic strata (and the Prehispanic people groups are miserably on the bottom rung). It should be noted that in many cases the imagery portrays a syncretistic marriage of Pre-Hispanic and Roman Catholic beliefs. Ideologically, the upper class minority identifies more closely with the Roman Catholicism of the Western World.
This is not meant to take away from some of the beautiful works of art, found in cathedrals and monasteries throughout the region (paradoxically built on the back of indigenous and imported slave labor), that have been utilized to convey the Gospel to segments of society that could not read or write.
I feel that we are drifting further from the original intent of internetmonk’s article, so I will stop here.
Ky boy:
Well, maybe the book was just that “a condensed version”. In case you did not get the memo, the Treaty of Westphia ended the Wars of Reformation in 1648, which were largely the work of “then Catholic” France as the peace terms that were agreed upon were the work of Cardinal Mazarin.
And yes, I do acknowledge there were abuses that were going on, all Catholic scholars recognize that, abuse of indulgences, Bishops not living in their dioceses, but rather living in the Big Cities to court temporal rulers, etc and then taxing their local parishes to support lavish lifestyles, etc. The Western Schism and Avignon papacy had resulted in a weakened Bishop of Rome, etc, which hurt the Church in the 13th and 14th centuries, which immediately predated the Reformation. Also, the rise of nationalism was also something that caused the breakup of what was then “Christendom”.
So, yes, I am aware that those things went on but that did not mean the Church had embraced heresy nor does it mean that it is still not the Church, just means people sinned then, as they did before and as they do now.
The difference as I see it between Protestants and the Roman Church is in the idea of what is Church. Protestants see the Christian Church as the Body of believers in Christ with Jesus as the head of this Church. If you are a ‘believer’ you are part of this Church of Jesus.
When Roman Church believers say the Roman Church institution is the only true church they are saying,we believe our institutional church is the only one that God can work through.
If God can offer salvation through the Baptist Church or Lutheran Church then Roman Church member have options. If God is controled by the Roman Church then we all must join that Church to be saved.
In my option Protestant Churches are a Spiritual movement within the True Church of Christ. Making them Truly Catholic.
Personaly I have experienced God’s presence in a number of religious venues including the Roman one.
Your religion is what you choose as a framework for your spirituality. Don’t be hasty in picking the first one your come to or are brought to. Beware of all the claims religious institutions make about themselves. You wouldn’t buy the first car you saw at the first dealership you came to even if they told you this was the one true car. Or the only car wash that really cleans.
I’m no longer attending the Catholic Church. I guess I felt that my pledge of loyalty was supposed to be directed more toward Rome than to Christ. And I felt that with Benedict, the church was moving backwards rather than forwards, as it had been under John Paul.
Kurt, I spent a substantial part of my adult life in Latin America. It’s a big place and countries differ WIDELY, as do regions of countries. I have been in evanglical and Catholic settings and count many folks from several different groups as well as Catholics of varying degrees of faith and fidelity as good friends. I am also fluent in speaking and reading Spanish. Now, what you are describing is more of a cultural problem than a religious one. The Marion devotions in the Catholic Church in some Latin countries are very popular. So are pirating radio stations and setting up your own “radio evangelico” that bleed over and take up licensed stations because “God told me to”. Everybody drives badly and aggressively and “Viva Yo!” is the rallying cry. I don’t think you can blame what you see on the Catholic Church. It is the culture it lives in. Evangelicalism has the same problems and more and is very easily used to cover over illegal business practices, immoral behavior, etc. Catholics don’t catechize well, often, but evangelicals don’t either. Actually, the groups I have seen that make the most difference in holiness and application to life are those such as Regnum Christi and Opus Dei. BTW, I have never ever known anyone who believed that Mary was God. Most believe that since she is the Mother of Jesus, the Mother of God, she can put in a good word for them, maybe move some difficulty, since, after all, she is His Mother, just in the same way they relate to their own mothers. As for knowing Jesus as personal Savior, well, there is room for growth. AnneG in NC
Greg F.
OK, I’ll let the cat out of the bag- IMonk doesn’t speak for us all. Some of us are ‘more than happy’ to be protestant, as opposed to ‘happy enough.’ We don’t have ‘denominational guilt’ or spend time worrying about the various splits in the church. We play the hand the Lord has dealt us and work for His Kingdom where he has planted us. Neither I nor my friends are responsible for the present state of ‘disunity’ among the churches nor are most of us in a position to effect real change in the situation. There is more than enough to do or worry about without taking on the burden of a problem that for most of us is really theoretical.
Given Catholic doctrine, if given the choice of an RC Church or no church, I would choose no church.Barring a major retooling of Catholic Dogma, the RC has got nothing for me. Without justification by faith alone, I don’t give a rip about a ‘continuous magisterium’ coming down from the Apostles, indulgences(even ‘rightly understood’) adoration of the saints,etc.etc.etc. I am constitutionally incapable of living the life of ‘faith and love’ in a manner that will get me anything other than a couple hundred thousand years in purgatory after a life of struggle and heartache. If thats all I have to look forward to, I’ll pass. If Jesus didn’t pay it all I’m sunk, and hearing anything other than that wars against my faith and causes despair. I don’t say this to start a fight,just wanted to give voice to another perspective.
RWS2: Thanks so much for the laugh. I really needed that.
ProdigalSarah: Protestant actually means “Good Testament or News. It has nothing to do with protesting.
Bill: Thanks for the laugh. How true that the pacifists do not have blood on their hands.
As a former RC, let me just say I am so much happier now that I am outside the RC Church. With all of the imperfections within evangelicalism, I am so happy to be there. Anathema is such a good thing!
Kurt, I’ve calmed down now and I should apologise. I think I was reacting more to perceived criticisms of Christianity as “for wusses”, “feminized” and the remedy is to “toughen up” the image of Christ in a kind of muscle-bound, gun-toting, Ramboesque way. Which has a pedigree in the Victorian ‘Muscular Christianity’ movement, and 19th century Protestant representations of Roman Catholicism as a ‘feminine’ religion (appeals to emotion, sentimentality, the involvement of women) in contrast to ‘masculine’ Protestantism (reason, progress, male headship). Frankly, I think the lasting achievement of ‘Muscular Christianity’ was to exalt sport to the status of religion and water down Christianity to ‘behaving like a gentleman’.
But I have never perceived the image of the Cross as weakness, so I didn’t understand your point.
And regarding the images of Mary – we have a Pieta also in our town church, and it is not intended to show Mary triumphant over the defeated Christ, but rather “All ye that pass by, is there any sorrow like unto my sorrow”? Mary with the Child Jesus – all the attributes of Mary revolve around her Maternity and the fundamental importance of the Incarnation. She is important because she heard and believed, not through any separate power of her own.
I would close to say what is in every tabernacle in every Catholic church in the world? It’s not the body of Mary.
To return to the Errors of Rome
, I’d like to quote Mark Shea (responding to a query about Papal Infallibility, but applicable here also, I think):
“It essentially means that the Catholic Church is populated by nothing but screwups and without the special action of the Holy Spirit, the revelation of Christ would have been lost a half an hour after Pentecost.”
Can’t argue with that
“Ky Boy but not now”
Lessee…
You thumb through a lightweight book in A Catholics’ house and ….. this proves what?
billTuba
“Ky Boy but not now”
Lessee…
You thumb through a lightweight book in A Catholics’ house and ….. this proves what?
It was a comment on how little many RCC’s know about the history of the RCC. These folks are not stupid. And their kids all go to the local Jesuit school. But as my sister-in-law once said. “How come my niece and nephew attending public schools know more of the Bible and ALL church history than my kids going to Jesuit school all their lives?”
Basically they said that they were ignorant of way too much due to lack of teaching in their church and have been trying to fix it on their own.
Sue Kephart:
I agree with you that Catholics and Protestants have different understanding of the Church. I think your post was well written and there is much in which I agree with. However, I think there are some misunderstanding with respect to the Catholic Church’s understanding of the CHurch. I hope, in my post below, I have explained the Catholic position, in a non-polemical manner.
The Catholic Church’s understanding of the Church (i.e. its ecclesiology) is linked to its Theology about God. The Holy Trinity reveals the nature of God, which is God is a God of perfect communion and love and relationship. The Father eternally generates the Son and the Son returns of the love of the Father and the bond of love is the Holy Spirit. The second person of the Trinity, Christ, became incarnate (i.e. Christ has a fully human and divine nature) and founded a Church (Mt 16) which St. Paul describes as the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3: 15). The Church is described by St. Paul as the body of Christ (1 Cor 12: 12-14), the Bride of Christ (Eph 5: 26-27) and by St. Peter as the People of God (1 Pet 2: 9-10). Since Christ has one Body, and One Bride, and one people, and since God is a God of perfect communion (Holy Trinity), the Church then is ontologically also one.
Hence, the Catholic Church’s doctrine of the nature of the Church is tied to its theology of God (Trinity), and its theology about Christ (Christology). Christ, as A Divine Person, who through the incarnation has a full human nature along with his Divine Nature then, again, has implications for the Doctrine of the Church as Christ’s Body (c.f. 1 Cor 12:12-14) and thus from Catholic Theology, the Church is both a visible and spiritual community of faith, hope and charity which Christ communicates Truth and Grace to all men (CCC 771). Thus, the Church, in Christ, the Head of the Body [The Church], is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument of communion with God and thus is Christ’s instrument for salvation for all people.
In the early Church, the Church Fathers saw the Church as the means of salvation as it was often stated that outside of the Church, there was no salvation. For example, St. Irenaeus of Lyons [140 to 202 AD] writes:
“In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace” (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]; cited from Fr. Jurgen’s The Faith of the Early Fathers Vol. 1).
Origen [182 to 254AD] in his Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (ca 249-251 AD) writes [again cited from Fr. Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol..1]:
“If someone from this people wants to be saved, let him come into this house so that he may be able to attain his salvation. . . . Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death”
St. Cyprian of Carthage, writing in 250 AD would write “He cannot have God as is Father and not have the Church as his mother.” The Catholic Church still holds to this doctrine and re-formulates is in a positive fashion by stating “All salvation comes from Christ, the Head through the Church which is his body” (CCC 846).
So, from the Catholic perspective, it is Catholic Church, as Christ Body, that is endowed by Christ as the fullest means of Grace [i.e. 7 Sacraments] for the justification and sanctification of humanity. So, Christ is bound to the sacraments and thus the fullness of salvation is found in the Catholic Church. However, those who are baptized into the Holy Trinity, outside of visible communion with the Catholic Church are incorporated into the Holy Trinity and thus are in some communion with the Catholic Church, thus God does use the Protestant churches as instruments of salvation as well.
While the fullness of salvation is found in the Catholic Church given all 7 sacraments [Orthodox have the 7 Holy Mysteries as well], thus while Christ is bound to the sacraments, which are the normative means of Grace, Christ is not bound by them [CCC 1257] and thus in ways known to God alone, God’s Grace can still is available. Again, this idea is in line with the Apostolic Tradition of the early Church. It was Tertullian, writing as an orthodox Catholic around 200 AD [he later embraced the Montanist heresy] that there is a baptism of blood [martyrdom] which is like the sacrament of Baptism. St. Augustine writing in City of God would state that we have a second laver, which is a laver of blood. He goes on to state that whoever dies from confessing Christ without the laver of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of the persons sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of Baptism (City of God, Book 13, Chapter 7). St. Augustine also spoke of a “baptism of desire”.
So, in closing from the Catholic perspective, God has acted in History and through history through the revelation of God through Christ Jesus. Thus, the sacraments, nature of the Church, Liturgy and Worship are bound to the reality of the Incarnation of Christ, which took place in the context of the Roman-Greco world in the 1st century and thus how the Doctrines related to sacraments, the nature of the Church, etc were understood by the early Church Fathers is foundational for Catholics. Accordingly, from the Catholic perspective, the notion that an individual should seek to find a community that fits him are work with others to create a community to fit ones views is, in my humble opinion, a deconstructist/Marxist notion that history is to be rejected, because it is based on outdated values, philosophies, etc, and thus we can re-create a new community and world. I think this is going on in many Protestant communities, and was embraced in some Catholic circles as a political liberation theology [which was rejected outright by Pope John Paul II]. For example, Pope Benedict cites Psalm 104, which mentions bread, wine and oil. Of course, these elements are the matter used in Catholic sacraments and Pope Benedict responds to the criticism that these elements make sense in the Mediterranean and other elements should be used in other cultures and regions. As such, as Pope Benedict writes, “God has acted in history and through history and given the gifts of the earth [Bread, wine, oil] their significance. The elements become the sacraments through connection with the unique history of God in relation to Christ…..Incarnation does not mean doing as we please. On the contrary, it bounds us to the history of a particular time and while outwardly, that history might seem fortuitous, it is the form of history willed by God and for us it is the trustworthy trace he has imprinted on the earth, the guarantee that we are not thinking up things for ourselves but are truly touched by God and come into touch with him [Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 224]
Regards and God’s peace
Patrick Kyle (RE your 07 Apr 2009 at 12:11 pm post)
RE Neither I nor my friends are responsible for the present state of ‘disunity’ among the churches…
You are correct, and the Church does not hold you responsible: “… one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ…” (CCC 818)
RE There is more than enough to do or worry about without taking on the burden of a problem that for most of us is really theoretical.
It is not, however, a theoretical problem. “May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” This is Jesus’ prayer in John 17. Why should we be “brought to complete unity?” Our unity is a powerful witness of the gospel. It is a witness to everyone (“to let the world know”). It is a witness that Jesus is God’s Son (“that you sent me”). It is a witness that God loves people (“and have loved them”). It is a witness that the Father’s love for us is equal to His love for His Son (“even as you have loved me”).
RE Barring a major retooling of Catholic Dogma, the RC has got nothing for me.
The Church recognizes that there may be “anxiety aroused” for some because certain aspects of the faith are rather obscure, and that because of this there may be some “hesitation in believing” in God as He is revealed in His Church, and that there may be some “difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith.” (CCC 2088)
RE I am constitutionally incapable of living the life of ‘faith and love’…
All is not lost. Don’t lose hope. Every day the Lord is working to draw you to His Body, which is the Church. As the saying goes: God is not finished with you yet.
RE I don’t say this to start a fight,just wanted to give voice to another perspective.
Me too.
I grew up in the Catholic church and learned a lot about its history and it’s doctrine. I left in college and became a protestant. First Presbyterian, then non-denominational. We should agree on a few things as Christians.
1) what gets in the way of worship of God is bad. whether that’s routine, ceremony, ignorance, arrogance or replacement of the pure God with other things; images, filters, etc.
2) we are charged by our Savior to “make disciples of all men” and to hold each other accountable in love. We need to do that out of love. If we start down a path of argument, we need to be careful that it’s not more about us being right than loving our brothers and sisters. Yet, not challenging things that conflict with #1 is a problem.
I have an extended Catholic family with several siblings and live in a very Catholic town. I can tell you through 30 years of experience, and now 15 of prayer that many “practicing” Catholics know very little about their doctrine and have no personal relationship with Christ. I pray daily for these people and try to get them personally involved in their faith. Their church is no help.
I find it hardest to reconcile the Priesthood of all believers with the Catholic Church’s hierarchical model. After serious study over my 15 years since conversion, this gap in doctrine the hardest to overcome and the one that, for me personally, creates the most resentment and my contribution to this rift. The scandal in the Catholic church recently only made this more emotional for me.
I can’t live with getting along by going along. It’s not what Christ did. I choose to truly follow Him, both in terms of challenging people as well as doing it in obvious love. Love for Christ is pure. All the other stuff we humans add to it is very questionable.
Boethius, where’d you get this piece of trivia from:
“Protestant actually means “Good Testament or News. It has nothing to do with protesting”
Is that really true? How?
Louisiana Catholic,
I am very happy for you that you are happy with your religious institution. I mean no disrespect. There is much to learn from the Roman Church. After all it is where my tradition came from and I am a Protestant member of the Lay Cistercians.
I do much interdenominational work and have several RCs in my formation groups and prayer classes. My LCG coordinator (RC) teaches a prayer class at a local Lutheran Church.
We all have respect for each other, don’t proslitize and learn from one another. I also facilatate a Bridges to Comtemplative Living course put out by the Merton Society.
So you see I am not anti Roman Church. I just don’t like the propagada about the one true church. It keeps people apart and many Christ loving RCs I know find it arrogant.
The word Catholic mean universal. As in the Universal Church of Jesus Christ. Some are able to see a bigger picture with all believes and lovers of our Lord unitied by this “catholic” Church.
Protestant has at the beginning PRO meaning for something.We are for the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ.
I think you and I could be friends if you put down your Church documents and join me in the Love and Peace of the Trinity.
The Marion devotions in the Catholic Church in some Latin countries are very popular. So are pirating radio stations and setting up your own “radio evangelico” that bleed over and take up licensed stations because “God told me to”. — Anne G
Bit of surrealism suggested by that last line…
Everybody drives badly and aggressively and “Viva Yo!” is the rallying cry. — Anne G
Surface-street traffic in Greater Los Angeles. With thump-trucks blasting Mexican pop music at 150+db. (At least it drowns out the car alarms at night…)
Sue, the problem is we really AREN’T ONE. We differ not just on some disciplinary issues, but on some bedrock ones, especially the “solas.” Of those, I would have to say “Sola Scriptura” is the biggest, and perhaps only true obstacle, and one that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches find to be without the absolute biblical support that Protestants claim.
True, nothing can contradict Scripture, but we can’t even agree on what is canonical scripture, or the meaning of what we do agree on being scripture.
Disclaimer: this is not an attack on anyone’s faith, ESPECIALLY you, Sue. I have no doubt of either your sincerity or your love for our Lord. My beloved fraternal Grandmother was a faithful follower of His in the Methodist Church.
Scripture says not to make graven images to worship, and Protestants generally take this to mean you can’t even HAVE imagery or sculpture in a church. Yet, the bible says the temple was adorned with two seraphim on the ark, bulls, etc. Nobody worships the seraphim, bulls, the ark itself, etc.
Scripture says not to talk to the dead, and Protestants generally espouse the view that we can’t ask the Saints in Heaven (especially Mary the Mother of God) who are very much ALIVE to pray to God THRU JESUS for us. Does not the bible tell us that the prayer of a righteous man is worth much more than the prayers of those not righteous (us folks down here on earth)? You (many if not most Protestants) say that the Saints in Heaven can’t hear us? Where’s that in the bible?
And you call us arrogant.
I am not calling anyone arrogant. Saying my church is the only true church is an arrogant remark no matter who’s church it is.
On the other matter, people can respectfully disagree. There are many interupatation of Scripture. I don’t agree with everything you say Protestants believe!!!
Not all Roman Catholic agree on lots and lots of stuff.
Such is life in the real world! We need to find a way to disagee respectfully. Our love for God is what ties us together. Learn what others find important to them in their walk with the Lord without thinking about what I think or agree or disagree. Just give a child of God space to be open.
Let’s face it none of us have it all right. We only see dimly. It’s the struggle to see that counts.
I’d like to add to something very true Wolf Paul said:
” … even if we all became Roman Catholics, the church would still be visibly divided.”
The regular battle over liturgy and practice means that superficially Catholics are divided within the Church. In fact every human failing found in every Church can probably be found somewhere in the expansive Catholic Church because it composed of people and human nature has not changed.
What defines the limits of the Catholic Church and binds us to her is the Eucharist and faith in the Real Presence and our faith in the tenet that the Bread of Life is surely found within Her. Of course there are folks sitting in pews who may not share this view, but I have news for you, your or my opinion is not what matters. Nothing could be less relevant than what I want. In fact what I want is the entire problem. It’s what God wants that matters. I believe, like I believe in the resurrection, that the Catholic Church, yes our very human sprawling and confusing Church, provides, through grace, the Bread of Life. Are there graces available elsewhere? Probably, certainly the Church itself says that graces extend “beyond the visible boundaries of the Church” but these graces are unclear, less understood and I’m not taking chances with something so important.
So faith in Christ and Faith in the Church are intermingled. I have no faith in man and every expectation that, to the degree that any Church is left in the hands of men, it will fail in some way.
Can I just say, don’t we all believe in the same Jesus and Holy Spirit? Aren’t we all baptized in water? I think focusing on what we don’t agree on rather than the much more important doctrines which we DO agree on is much more productive.
Isn’t this kind of like arguing over how many angels will fit on the head of a pin?
As long as we are all imperfect human beings, there will always be aspects of faith on which we will disagree because we are, after all, subject to fallible human interpretation (even the Pope).