Catholics, Protestants and Christian Unity

Has anyone else read Catholics and Protestants: What We Can Learn from Each Other by Peter Kreeft? I'd like to get some insights from Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox. As an Episcopalian, I'm as dismayed as Kreeft by Christian disunity, but I can't see there ever being one Catholic church. I see too many differences between, say Baptists and Pentecostals with Catholic theology.

Some random thoughts:

When I say "one, holy, catholic church... " in the Nicene and Apostles' creeds it's very definitely a small "c" that encompasses all Christian churches and groups who believe in Jesus. I see the entirety of Christian denominations, churches and groups as making up the body of Christ.

While my heart believes it would be great if there was only one denomination, my reason doesn't see it as feasible or even desirable. First, for our conscience's sake. If we have free will and are expected by God to take a stand for our conscience, I don't see where we can have the one Catholic church for all. The theology is unbendable in some places (like the Immaculate Conception of Mary or Purgatory). Second, there's a part of me that thinks the competition between the denomination keeps us from getting complacent, which may be one God-given reason for the Reformation.

There's a lot that Kreeft addresses and he does his best to be even handed, but in the end, I think the book comes out as solidly pro-Catholic (as you would expect from a Catholic writer).

As I said, I'm interested in your thoughts.

I think the disunity among Protestants can border on the ridiculous, and there is a trend, at least in Canada, of having community churches which embrace a broad swathe of (Protestant) Christians by having a minimalist statement of faith. But a reconciliation between Protestants and Catholics might be difficult-- Protestants would either have to accept Papal authority, or Catholics would have to reject it. I don't see much possibility of either side doing that.

However, here in China, when the small groups of foreigners meet together in Christian 'fellowships' (mini-churches) we regularly have Catholics and Protestants of all denominations worshiping together. And theology has rarely even come up. For those who want to baptize their babies-- we do that. For those who want to be baptized as adults-- we do that to. We have grape juice communion so as not to offend some members, we welcome hymns from all traditions, and since we don't have a minister, we take turns speaking-- so all denominations are heard. All nationalities too-- we have Nigerians and Ethiopians, as well as Canadians, Americans, Australians, Germans, Ukrainians, Koreans, etc. Most importantly, we try not to push each other's buttons, avoiding controversies when possible. And we almost always eat lunch together and take the bus or carpool home together. That's a community church.

>2 madpoet: What you say about the fellowships in China reminds me of the Episcopal Church to which I belong. There is a w-i-d-e spectrum of belief within the Episcopal Church from very conservative to liberal spiritually speaking. Some believe in the Virgin birth, others don't. Some believe in the Resurrection of Christ, others don't. (I do, fwiw). It can be very uncomfortable at times, when I talk with someone to whom I radically disagree. In the meantime, we worship together using the same liturgy, speak and listen to one another carefully and prayerfully (at least that's the ideal), and agree to disagree. I will let God judge in the end.

I draw the line at public preaching and announcements. If I was in a church that had a priest or pastor who was publically advocating things I thought were wrong (for instance, that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead), then I'd likely leave. But then, that's how we end up with 10,000 flavors of Protestants.

I respect the Catholics for being clear and consistent with their doctrine, even if I disagree with some of it. But they nail it down to the "nth" degree (as do many Protestant churches) and there's no room for someone with my beliefs.

I'm repeating myself from my first post, but I kind of think it's good and healthy to have different denominations. People are so various that I don't think the Church can be one size fits all. For example, I really like the liturgy you find in the Anglican Communion and Catholicism. That's not for everyone. I went to Pentecostal churches and they weren't for me. Too much emphasis on emotion. So, different churches meet different needs.

When I encourage someone who is unchurched to begin attending, it's great if they want to come to my church, but the most important thing is to attend a church that teaches Jesus Christ and where they can grow as Christians.

>3 pmackey: they nail it down to the "nth"

Theare's an old Catholc joke that says everything that is not forbideen is compulsory...

>2 madpoet: in Christian 'fellowships' (mini-churches) we regularly have Catholics and Protestants of all denominations worshiping together. And theology has rarely even come up

I think we will have pockets / occasions of Christian unity long before we will ever have institutional unity.

In Sudan and South Sudan we have a long and proud record of churches working together, at least since the late 1960s, out of necessity in order to survive (both as churches and as people) in the face of military dictatorships with elements of both racism and religion as part of their ideology. So Christian unity is often a pragmatic need rather than a theological imperative. We have Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Orthodox, Copts, Pentecostals, and various types of evangelical churches, all not only working together but also praying and discerning together. As you say, theology rarely comes up. We respect our differences but we celebrate the amount we have in common.

I could give many examples, but let me give one quote by a former Executive Secretary of our council of churches during the last civil war (1983-2005):

I was struck by the ecumenical nature of the council. The different churches respected each other, and keenly felt their responsibility to the people of Sudan. There were no theological differences; they had a sense of unity without anybody being asked to compromise their theology. Indeed it was when I travelled oversease to Europe and north America that theological issues were raised, or questions about denominations. I would reply, "Theological debate is your luxury, not ours. You went through the Reformation, not us. We are not fighting theology, we are fighting for our survival!"

>2 madpoet: I kind of think it's good and healthy to have different denominations

Unity does not have to mean uniformity, or a single monolithic institution. I think it should be possible for us to have different denominations to suit the taste of different people and peoples, but somehow to see ourselves as one.

More generally, I think the narrative of unity through working together for a common cause, as experienced by the Sudanese churches, can also apply to inter-faith relations. I have seen Catholic and Buddhist monks doing meditation together, saying, "When we speak about theology, we have nothing in common. When we meditate together, we have everything in common" (or words to that effect). I have worked on peace and reconciliation with a progressive Muslim imam who told me, "Let's not even talk about theology, as we will disagree. Let's work together for peace and human rights".

>4 John5918:

I've tried to correct the typos in my last message, but these days the "edit" function doesn't seem to work for me.

The word "degree" is missing after "nth" right at the beginning, and then there are a few spelling typos.

>5 John5918: I don't care about any typos you may made. I care for the insights you bring, which are always worth reading.

My concern and post about the Protestant/Catholic divide was spurred by Peter Kreeft's book. He made a lot of points that I agree with, but one (that stuck with me) I disagree with. He spoke of the Church saying, essentially, that the Church = the Catholic Church. I don't recall if he made the same point when speaking about the body of Christ. It was as if all the other denominations and groups could not be part of the Church until they reconciled with Rome. Whereas, when I say, "the Church", I mean all of Christendom.

The book made me sad on that point.

On the other hand, hearing >2 madpoet: and you make the point of how the churches and believers work and worship together is very encouraging. God bless you all. It's the same on a smaller scale in my local area. But as you said, we in the West have the luxury of debating theological points.

Funnily enough just a few days after I pontificated on uniformity v unity, Pope Francis used similar language, unity in diversity. Admittedly he was referring only to unity between the Roman Catholic and Coptic Orthodox churches, which is a lot simpler than the protestant churches, but it's a good start.

Catholics, Orthodox must work toward unity in diversity, pope says (CNS)

>7 John5918: It saddens me to see the divide between all the denominations, but particularly between Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans. While there's a lot on the horizon that concerns me such as the politicization of religion in the United States, I'm hopeful we may be entering a new era in Christendom where we work together to help bring the Kingdom of God to fruition.

The marginalization of Christianity in Western culture could (maybe) turn out to be a blessing in disguise. We've gotten so lazy in the West and expect our privileged position to continue. But if it ends, we may have to stop getting distracted by society's pretty lights and toys, and once again focus on what it means to be Christian, which IMO is working to peacefully bring the whole world and all people into harmony with God as intended from creation.

>3 pmackey: I agree with you that a church should share some basic beliefs, including of course the resurrection of Christ and the understanding that Jesus was both fully God and fully human. Those doctrines are essential. It's when Christians quibble about post- or pre-millennialism, or whether to use the King James version or the NIV, that I roll my eyes. Can't we just agree to disagree about such things?

>9 madpoet:

I have to confess I had never even heard of post- or pre-millennialism until a few years ago when I started reading LT talk. It didn't feature in a Catholic theological education!

IMO, the non-negotiables are the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. Years ago I read that to be an Episcopalian one only needed to be able to believe in the Creeds. That gives a lot of room to disagree, but does provide the essence of Christianity. There are variations, of course, Catholics say one holy Catholic church and other denominations say one holy catholic church; Catholics say "He descended to hell..." We say, "He descended to the dead...." And then there's the filioque that divides the Orthodox and Catholics. Dare I say it, those are minor disagreements.

My dream is that Christians would be less focused on dogmatic adherence to one's set of beliefs and more concerned to living out the love of God in this world. There would be a rebirth of Christendom if the world saw Christians focused on faithfully loving and serving others instead of turf wars.

When I've come across seekers, I've described what I think are the essentials: find a church that lives out the love of God and where one can grow. There's probably more but that's the nutshell.

>11 pmackey: Catholics say one holy Catholic church and other denominations say one holy catholic church

No, actually we don't. It is printed with a small c in our missals.

Catholics say "He descended to hell..." We say, "He descended to the dead...."

True, in the Apostles' Creed we say, "he descended in to hell", but not in the Nicene Creed, where it simply says, "he suffered death and was buried".

But I agree with you that the Nicene and Apostles' creeds are probably the basic statements of faith, and even within them there is room for interpretation.

My dream is that Christians would be less focused on dogmatic adherence to one's set of beliefs and more concerned to living out the love of God in this world.

Likewise. How on earth did we get so focused on intellectual assertions as opposed to living out our faith in practice?

>12 John5918: Likewise. How on earth did we get so focused on intellectual assertions as opposed to living out our faith in practice?

Because the Devil is a sneaky bastard and he doesn't have to "win" to win. He just gets us to distort the importance of right-thinking (on doctrine) rather than right praxis (living God's love). Literally, God have mercy on Christians because we're irrelevant unless we wake up. In my current melancholic state, I see a parallel between ancient Israel and the modern West. As a whole, we've forgotten WHY we're God's family and WHAT we're supposed to do: Love, Justice, and Charity.

I see flickers of hope: The literature and sermons I'm hearing in the Episcopal church/Anglican Communion focus on restoring God's Kingdom (through love, justice and charity). I see the same in the Catholic church when I hear Pope Francis and read Catholic authors. I don't know enough to voice an opinion on where Fundamentalists and Evangelicals are coming from. But if the folks that come door-to-door are anything to go by, they're focused on whether I'm "saved" or where I would go if I died tonight. There isn't anything wrong with that except that shouldn't be the focus. The focus should be on bringing the world into harmony as God intended from the beginning because believers are actively partners with God. I fear too often we're satisfied raiding each other's ranks to bring a few people to the Truth, while people continue to worship the idols they've erected, such as pleasure, success, fame....

I just feel like a Jeremiah today and want to shout Wake up! Wake up! Wake up!

Whew, I'll climb down from my soapbox today. Maybe have a cup of chamomile tea to calm myself....

The challenge, obviously, is to have unity among Christians-- and passionate faith-- without sacrificing core beliefs or principles. That was a problem with the United Church in Canada, which was a union of the Methodist and Presbyterian churches. It worked well at first, but later it became so compromising (and compromised) that many Christians gave up on it. There was a minister in a United Church who recently declared herself an atheist, then refused to resign! She said she didn't see any contradiction... One wonders what exactly she was preaching, and who she was praying to.

>14 madpoet: There was a minister in a United Church who recently declared herself an atheist, then refused to resign! She said she didn't see any contradiction... One wonders what exactly she was preaching, and who she was praying to.

Yeah, I'd have to draw a line with the atheist minister. I'm not a theologian, but Christianity is not a club to raise social conscience or make people feel good (though I hope those are by-products). The core of Christianity is the Trinity and being in relationship with God. It's about seeing the Love of God, accepting and sharing it, and working to bring the Kingdom of God to full fruitfulness.

The challenge, obviously, is to have unity among Christians-- and passionate faith-- without sacrificing core beliefs or principles.

That is the challenge. While not diminishing the importance of being faithful to one's conscience and beliefs, I think there's so much common ground between the different Christian churches, and even Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu brothers and sisters, for us to work to make this world a better place with love, justice and hope. Once the world sees we make a difference, the people will say, "I want that, too."

Re different churches or faiths, to use an example (thanks to J.K. Rowling), when we arrive at school, the sorting hat places each of us into a house where we'll do best -- but always taking our desires into consideration. No matter the house, though, we're all in Hogworts. And who doesn't want to go to Hogworts?

>15 pmackey: And who doesn't want to go to Hogworts?

For me, the word "go" is the operative word, as in I want to go on the steaam train to Hogwarts (indeed I'd like to be driving it) more than I want actually to arrive there!

>16 John5918: Eventually we all must graduate from Hogworts. Obviously you became a driver for the Hogworts Express. I love the train scenes in the movies. Me? I'd like to go back and teach Defence Against the Dark Arts. :-)

>12 John5918:, >13 pmackey: How on earth did we get so focused on intellectual assertions as opposed to living out our faith in practice?

Richard Rohr's offering for today strikes me as helpful in this context, and I quote it extensively:

The Franciscan Tradition in which I’ve been formed is an “alternative orthodoxy” or heterodoxy. While we are part of the Roman Catholic faith and embrace the great Christian Tradition, we are not mainstream. Francis (c. 1181-1226) and Clare (1194-1253) of Assisi paid attention to and emphasized different things than the Church’s leaders and theologians of their time. Franciscans don’t throw out the mainline tradition; we simply place our effort and our energy on overlooked or misunderstood aspects of the tradition. We all do that in our own ways. There’s something honest about the Franciscan experience in naming it.

Francis didn’t bother questioning doctrines and dogmas of the Church. He just took the imitation of Christ seriously and tried to live the way that Jesus lived!...

You may be wondering, “How can Franciscanism be an alternative and still be called orthodox (right and true)?” Heterodoxy is precisely a third something in between orthodoxy and heresy!...

The early Franciscan friars and Poor Clares wanted to be Gospel practitioners instead of merely “word police,” “inspectors,” or “museum curators” as Pope Francis calls some clergy. Both Francis and Clare offered their rules as a forma vitae, or form of life. They saw orthopraxy (correct practice) as a necessary parallel, and maybe even precedent, to verbal orthodoxy (correct teaching). History has shown that many Christians never get to the practical implications of their beliefs! “Why aren’t you doing what you say you believe?” the prophet invariably asks. As the popular paraphrase of Francis’ Rule goes, “Preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary, use words.”

And from today's offering:

Metanoia, Jesus’ first message upon beginning his ministry (Mark 1:15, Matthew 4:17), is unfortunately translated with the moralistic word repent. Metanoia literally means change... So it is strange that the religion founded in Jesus’ name has been resistant to change and has tended to love and protect the past and the status quo much more than the positive and hopeful futures that could be brought about by people open to change. Maybe that is why our earth is so depleted and our politics are so pathetic. We have not taught a spirituality of actual change or growth, which is what an alternative orthodoxy always asks of us...

“We do not think ourselves into a new way of living, but we live ourselves into a new way of thinking.” However, much of religion doesn’t demand changes to our lifestyle or habits. The best way to avoid actually changing is to go into one’s head and endlessly argue about what “changing” means. Human minds love to argue, oppose, critique, judge, evaluate, and adjust... Academics, politicians, and seminary professors love to stay right where they are and rarely hit the streets of the incarnate or suffering world as Jesus clearly did.

Franciscan alternative orthodoxy doesn’t bother fighting popes, bishops, Scriptures, or dogmas... “The best criticism of the bad is the practice of the better. Oppositional energy only creates more of the same”...

>19 John5918: I finished reading Richard Rohr's The Divine Dance and saw bits and pieces of the Franciscan stream of Catholicism. The book was actually very Zen, I thought. Which relates to your quotes above... They saw orthopraxy (correct practice) as a necessary parallel, and maybe even precedent, to verbal orthodoxy (correct teaching).

It is extremely important, I think, to balance right practice with right thought. One extreme is as bad as the other. Something I took away from my Buddhist phase is "Be" and "Do". Be who you are meant to be in the moment being true to God and yourself, then Do what you are meant to do. Dwell (Be) in the Love of God; Love others (Do) as God Loves them. If one must emphasize one over the other -- Be and Do/Right thought and Right practice -- I think it better to err on right practice as long as it's done in Love because, as the Bible says, "Love covers a multitude of sins...."

Ecumenical leaders call for context, nuance in Catholic-Lutheran dialogue (NCR)

>21 John5918:, Good article. It echoes some of my comments in the OP: Church or church? Words do matter.

For my part, I believe strongly that I am saved through faith by the grace of Christ. Actions, though, are equally important. I don't do good works to become acceptable to God; I do good works because I am in relationship with God. Actions should be done on behalf of Christ to bring the world in harmony with him. And as the letter of James says, "Faith without works is dead."

I want so badly for Christians to be together in spirit even if our specific theologies won't allow full union.

>22 pmackey: I don't do good works to become acceptable to God; I do good works because I am in relationship with God

Richard Rohr says somewhere words to the effect of God does not love us because we are good; God loves us because God is good

MEDIEVAL CATHOLIC CHURCH TO BLAME FOR LUTHERAN SPLIT, CARDINAL KOCH TELLS ECUMENICAL LEADERS (The Tablet)

During his address Cardinal Koch pointed out that the reforms Luther called for were not extraordinary in their time

>24 John5918: I was almost gob smacked to read that. I think he's right, though. It's very hard for the establishment to react other to maintain the status quo. Christendom needed Luther, but not necessarily the split that came. I think the Anglican church is a similar situation. The reforms that came with it's establishment were good in many ways, but I regret the split between the Catholic church and the Anglican Communion. Two reforms I'm thinking of that are healthy: the ability of the clergy to marry and the ordination of women.

14 madpoet wrote: "There was a minister in a United Church who recently declared herself an atheist, then refused to resign! She said she didn't see any contradiction ... One wonders what exactly she was preaching, and who she was praying to."

My paternal grandmother, who was born in the late 1800's and raised by her Norwegian-Lutheran parents, immigrants to the USA, was throughout her long life almost violently anti-Catholic. Suffice it to say that if I'm not exactly an atheist, but I question the need for an organized church.

Now I'm delighted to discover, through genealogical research at www.geni.com, that Norway's Catholic, King Olaf II ("Saint Olaf"), whose tomb was engulfed beneath a medieval cathedral erected in his name, is apparently a 29th Great Grandfather through the lineage of her family.

Not only that, but ... ! A 55th Great Grandfather (Coellyn ap Caradog) later of Wales, was born in Rome, Italy circa 35 CE. His brother, our 56th Great Uncle, Linus I (Linus the Martyr, died 76 CE) is listed as the 2nd Pope, the first Pope after Saint Peter! He's even named in the Bible .... See 2 Timothy 4:19-21.

Grandmother would have kittens if she knew.