Ariel, why not make a list of questions or concerns and start a new thread on "discussing Catholicism" or something like that?

Jacques, I'm not sure what you mean about your original question being unanswered. Maybe you could repeat it so we'd know what question you mean. It seemed that one of your points concerned metaphysics and ontology -- that we already ARE in a new situation with regard to the divine, and that explicit faith and Baptism serve more to affirm and reveal this rather than to actually effect the situation. I noted that I could go along with that, only we do need to acknowledge that this conscious, intentional affirmation, especially in community, makes a huge difference.

By way of analogy, it's sort of like me being in love with someone but saying nothing about it to the other. The love is there, and I could lovingly admire and even serve this person and benefit from some growth in love and the fruits of the loving. The open profession of my love would bring about a whole new level of relationship, and if the other responds in kind (as we know God will do), then we are more deeply and intensely involved with each other. This would correspond analagously to what happens with explicit faith and Baptism, I believe.

Jacques and All,

Here’s what I see: 3 posts from you, Jacques.

In one: Redefinition of man made in God’s image: You post of a subject that lit you up in which the topic The End of Human Uniqueness was propounded: “ it is God's election that makes us image bearers and not something unique within us (like a spiritual dimension).”

In a second: Redefinition of Baptism and Universal Indwelling of the Spirit.

In a third: Relook at Adam & Eve and the creation story. You want to fix it up.

Interesting. What is going on in you, Jacques? What is operative at this time in your life that this intellectual storming is occurring? Why the thirst for novelty? Why the discontent with established theology in these areas? Why the need to change and not accept?

Perhaps you are not at all unusual, and indeed you may typify many in the ‘emerging’ church I’ve been learning about here at SP (not that the ‘emerging’ church is promulgated here per se – just that many topics arise here, and that I had been unaware of .. ignorant of .. while nevertheless happy and content with my faith and all it demands of me in order to practice it)?

Is this attributable to the rationalistic thought of so many Christians these days and which might well stem from society at large? Must new slants be generated? What motivates all this? Why is the emerging church bored with Christian theology as it has been lived for two millennia? Secular society too is moving to change thought on the reality of marriage after six millennia.

Just because God has been around since infinity, does that make Him and His revealed word boring? Is there not sufficient mystery in established Christian doctrine?

It seems man wants to judge it, not live by it.

Moving on then to your proposal on Baptism: You post (26 June 9:44 PM)
____________________________________________________________________
“it also doesn't help to therefore throw all ideas of justice and fairness out the window. So taking that to baptism, here's my thought.”…….. “If God is fair, it seems to me that He would be working equally in all people from birth.”
**********************************************************************************
Jacques, correct my reading here, but to me it seems you are saying that existing teachings on Baptism indicate that God is not fair or just. And therefore you are proposing teaching that corrects existing teaching. Christendom hasn’t enough slants on all this?

Since teachings interrelate, your ‘unfairness’ complaint would also apply to ‘covenant’ doctrine, both old and new. God did not enter into a covenant relationship ‘equally with all people from birth’ (as you indicate fairness demands) – fairness per your way of thinking.

(A reading of Job as well as other wisdom books might be worthwhile).

And other doctrines as well would be affected.

And then there’s the scripture “You haven’t chosen Me, I have chosen you”. Does God have the right to choose? Does He have the right to be selective?

I get a kick at the goings on at the end of the gospel of John … wherein Peter questions what about John? And the Lord replies essentially that it’s none of Peter’s business what He wants John to do. Peter’s business is to do what the Lord asks of Peter. Is that fair?

The kingdom of God is like tenant workers some of whom worked all day for the same pay as those who worked but an hour --- is that fair?

You post:
“I fully understand that this isn't what any Christian church tradition teaches, but it just seems to be the only fair thing if infant baptism can result in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit without the child's consent.”

But do you not see that thereby you assert your opinion over Christian church tradition? In so doing you essentially reject Christian church tradition. (If you think about it, you thereby put your intellect and your sense of ‘fairness’ above that of two millennia’s worth of intellects – many quite holy people). In all this, you move along as do many in the ‘emerging’ church. You protest (essentially). Protesters are many as are denominations.

So, many questions or opinions are in-process within you. But your three posts all attest in some way it seems (imo) to non-acceptance of long established theological thought -- much of it incorporated into doctrine. Think about it; and why you are where you are?

You post (29 June 2:51 AM)
___________________________________________________________________
“Now even though I'm suggesting a universal regeneration and indwelling, I'm not arguing for universal salvation. I'm just suggesting that this model puts everybody on equal footing in preparation for their choice to submit or reject God's offer of relationship and True Life”.
*******************************************************************

Your thoughts on Baptism and a universal already-existent indwelling of the Holy Spirit across all mankind really are untenable because they contradict gospel teaching. That’s not merely my opinion.

St. Paul’s thought on the age of the Gentiles and the re-grafting in of the Jews also comes into contradiction were there a universal already-existent indwelling. What will you come up with to explain that?

You want the gospel …your way – ‘Equal footing for all!’ American politicians would run on such a platform, for sure. But it wouldn’t be the Gospel of Our Lord.

And I don’t believe that inclusivist / exclusivist thought has any real bearing on this per se – but another post for that subject.

Pop-pop

Phil --

You said

quote:

Jacques, I'm not sure what you mean about your original question being unanswered. Maybe you could repeat it so we'd know what question you mean. It seemed that one of your points concerned metaphysics and ontology -- that we already ARE in a new situation with regard to the divine, and that explicit faith and Baptism serve more to affirm and reveal this rather than to actually effect the situation. I noted that I could go along with that, only we do need to acknowledge that this conscious, intentional affirmation, especially in community, makes a huge difference.

Yes, this was my main point. The only reason I said that the statements of inclusive soteriology vs. exclusive soteriology don’t address this is that one can hold to an inclusive soteriology without holding to my suggested ontology/metaphysics. One can hold that Christ can save people in other religions (or no religion) but that regeneration and indwelling occur when the person consciously/subconsciously assents to some kind of internal call to faith. But if it requires conscious or even subconscious assent then it stands in stark contrast to baptismal regeneration which occurs without any assent on the part of the baby.

I know that you had originally said that you could go along with my suggested metaphysic but I had been concerned that I hadn’t communicated my point clearly and that perhaps you were agreeing with me based on miscommunication. But from your restatement of my position above I can see that you did clearly understand me and so I apologize for dragging out the point. I also completely agree with your own point that explicit faith is superior to implicit for many reasons.

I really haven’t thought any of this through enough and still want to take this hypothesis and test it against the relevant scriptures. At the moment I’m playing with ideas based on past research, intuition and my personal sense of some incongruence with more exclusive theology. But I’m in no way saying that I know this to be true, or that I am going around trying to convince people that it is. I’m just throwing out ideas amongst friends and appreciate any and all feedback - even when my musings are criticized by some of those friends (pop pop ).

 
Pop Pop --

you say

quote:

Interesting. What is going on in you, Jacques? What is operative at this time in your life that this intellectual storming is occurring?

This actually made me laugh Pop Pop. My honest response would be “welcome to pretty much every day of my life”. I’ve been wrestling with God for 15 years now, 11 of those years as a Christian, and my mind seldom rests as I reflect, question, consider, pursue, and engage, with my God and with my thoughts on my faith and the faith of other people.

Sometimes this leads me down dead-ends and sometimes it opens up new avenues of Life and sometimes it falls somewhere in between.

Your post deserves far more of a response than this of course and I will respond again as time permits.

Much Love in the Lord Jesus
Jacques.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
Ariel, why not make a list of questions or concerns and start a new thread on "discussing Catholicism" or something like that?

Okay, I will. Thanks, Phil.

Pop-pop---You said something about posting on inclusivist/exclusivist thought...would your thoughts on that be something that could start off a "Discussing Catholicism" thread, or not? I've been so busy with farm work that I'm really low on "thread starting energy", but it's up to you if/where you want to post that.

I do think you're being too hard on Jacques for his musings. They just can across to me as ideas to explore and re-evaluate things---maybe digging deeper into what's already there in the Bible, or maybe getting off track--but not a hardened dismissal of standard Christian teaching.

Pop Pop --

You say

quote:

Why the thirst for novelty? Why the discontent with established theology in these areas? Why the need to change and not accept?

I was raised in a nominal Christian home in a Methodist church. Baptized as a baby and taught the central tenets of the Christian faith at Sunday School. At about the age of sixteen my faith was challenged in various ways and I set out to take my childhood faith from infancy to adulthood. I blogged about the experience of some of it here and here.

For four years I looked for God in many unconventional ways, drugs and Rastafarianism, Spiritism and Hinduism, Occultism and Buddhism. God eventually saved me from myself and I returned to Jesus as Lord and Savior. Very early on (within the first 6 months) of my return to Christianity I was indoctrinated by fundamentalists who taught me that Roman Catholicism, Charismatic Christianity, Evolutionary Science and even Modern Bible versions were all part of the Anti-christ apostasy initiating the world into the great delusion and eventual damnation. It has taken me the rest of my Christian walk to try to undo this. It’s been a constant struggle knowing whether I’m even supposed to undo it, but yet here I am trying to undo it anyway.

To simply accept my established theology, to accept and not to change, is to retain the fundamentalist programing. It still happens from time to time and I come very close to throwing away everything I’ve worked to change over the years. Some of my biggest challenges are trying to integrate the theology of Kundalini and Roman Catholic mysticism within the rest of my theology.

Many years ago Phil helped convince me that evolutionary science is true, at the time I had held to a strict 7 day creationism. Since Kundalini seems to be biological I’m interested in evolution to help understand what it is. My own theological background in Protestantism, along with my research into Eastern Orthodoxy leaves me unable to accept the entire theology and tradition of the Roman Catholic church and yet I’m trying hard to integrate those parts that I do experience as true and good.

Unlike you I’m not Roman Catholic and so as you see my tradition is not the same as yours. I noted on another thread that I think it would be easier if I were R.C.. But I cannot simply adopt a position because it seems easier to me, I must stay true to my own convictions and follow the Holy Spirit where I feel I’m led. I don’t claim to KNOW anything accept that Jesus Christ has saved me and brought me into relationship with God and I am eternally grateful. Beyond that I just don’t know very much. I believe some things and I hold more strongly to some than to others, but I have too many unanswered (and perhaps ultimately unanswerable) questions to simply adopt the entirety of any one tradition, including Protestantism. Though I remain open to God changing that at any time.

I don’t think the emergent church is bored with Christian theology. I think many of them suffer from the same problem I do. How to integrate a world in which nothing is as it was 2000 years ago and yet in a more fundamental way everything is as it always has been. How do we speak authentically about Christianity in a postmodern world. How do we address things like inclusive understandings of soteriology, mystical experiences, kundalini awakenings, psychological individuation and a plethora of other relevant realities. Do we make mistakes in our attempts, of course we do, but should we stop trying, I don’t think so. Christian theology hasn’t become boring, but how do we include new information within the old categories? - this is one of the driving forces behind the ‘Emergent’ conversation.

Roman Catholics have the benefit of a teaching authority and Pope that allow growth and evolution in doctrine but set strict boundaries on the change and development. The Eastern Orthodox don’t have this and so they simply demonize change in any and every form. Mainline Protestants fall somewhere in between with some allowing change and others not. Those that allow change hold to their various Reformational heros as their pseudo-Pope and only allow change that can still be reconciled with their “Pope’s” doctrine. Those that don’t allow change follow the Eastern Orthodox in demonizing everybody else with different ideas. Emergents are trying to step outside of all of these categories and integrate EVERYTHING - talk about a God complex . Right now I identify with the emergents, but as I said, I’m open to change (duh...of course I'm open to change, I’m emergent lol).

Now that you understand a little more about me I will try to address my thoughts on the Holy Spirit.

to be continued...

That's very generous sharing, Jacques. Thank you. It helps to know where you're coming from.

You wrote:

quote:

I don’t think the emergent church is bored with Christian theology. I think many of them suffer from the same problem I do. How to integrate a world in which nothing is as it was 2000 years ago and yet in a more fundamental way everything is as it always has been. How do we speak authentically about Christianity in a postmodern world. How do we address things like inclusive understandings of soteriology, mystical experiences, kundalini awakenings, psychological individuation and a plethora of other relevant realities. Do we make mistakes in our attempts, of course we do, but should we stop trying, I don’t think so. Christian theology hasn’t become boring, but how do we include new information within the old categories? - this is one of the driving forces behind the ‘Emergent’ conversation.

We're still very early in working out the outlines of an authentic postmodern expression of Christianity, and that will take time. In many ways, postmodernity draws from values that have long been affirmed in Christianity: social justice, tolerance, inclusivity, etc. But it also shuns a number of traditional values and claims as well: e.g., hierarchical organization, authority vested in ecclesiastical offices, Jesus as definitive revelation of God, etc. So there's a real tension, there, as postmodernity would tend to view a universalist approach to salvation as being most fair, tolerant and inclusive. These three values are not tantamount in Christianity, however, although they are important.

Jacques,

Your explanation and sharing has been excellent. Thanks.

My dibs (fwiw) in regard to one of your questions:

“How do we speak authentically about Christianity in a postmodern world”.

To my mind, folk are too caught up in, and unnecessarily confused by, theological concepts; and by the labels of the boxes we put ourselves and each other in. We needn’t do that. There is an unnecessary distinction-making in play because of this. It’s almost (if not, IS) a pride thing. As if, today’s folk are different and special and unique versus the humanity of the past. Moderns have it harder? Moderns have it different?

In early days, Christianity was small and fledgling and had to deal with the state (Roman Empire) that persecuted it. Christians gave blood testimony to their beliefs. In later times Christians were no longer persecuted by the state (secular society); for a time (under Constantine) secular society endorsed Christianity (not mandated though, as far as I understand); and later, secular society while not endorsing did adopt much Christian ethics in its behavior and law. These days our secular society is (imo) commencing a moving away from tolerating Christianity. Our grandchildren and perhaps we ourselves may be called to give blood testimony. (Nothing new under the sun).

As an example of what I mean by concepts and labeling: the conceptualizing of the “postmodern world”. Today’s world is not distinct relative to man’s nature (world, flesh, devil, concupiscence etc). It is no more distinct today than it has been since the beginning of time. God is no different either. Men and women in today’s world face the same interior struggles regarding purification and sanctity that previous generations had to deal with. We today, need to be transformed by the renewal of our minds just as those in generations past. The gospel that details that transformation is the same (and must remain the same) gospel that transformed the minds of all previous generations since Christ.

Interiorly, the path to holiness and sanctity is in no way different --- though many would like to believe otherwise. Free will today is what free will was forever. Obedience to God’s commandments entails nothing different from what it always entailed. ‘I will not serve’ means today what it always did. Divine Revelation is today what it has been since Christ. God’s grace today is as available as it has been.

Exteriorly, the forces that tempt and undermine us are significant and perhaps (perhaps) different in force and style. Nevertheless, God does not allow us (whatever label one feels one needs to give oneself – cromodern, premodern, postmodern, emergent, or stinker) to be tested beyond our strength. Postmodern – smodern! Simplistic? No.

“Unless you have the faith of little children you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven” Christ said. He didn’t say – “that is, except for postmoderns and emergents”. All this ‘postmodern world’ and ‘third millennia’ jargon is spin-doctoring essentially.

Way back, John wrote (2 Jn 9): “Anyone who is so ‘progressive’ that he does not remain rooted in the teachings of Christ does not possess God, while anyone who remains rooted in the teaching possesses both the Father and the Son.”

And he continues: “If anyone comes to you who does NOT bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, do not even greet him.” (2 Jn 10).

To me, it seems many folk get too far away from scripture (and too far away from prayer). They conceptualize and discuss Christianity and religion using terminology that leads to obfuscation and confusion. They get lost in, and blinded by, meringue and never get to the cool and tasty lemon and flaky crust.

As I go through my day, (living Here Now in Love, as Phil writes) I need no recourse to labels – to labeling myself as postmodern, emergent, inclusivist or exclusivist. Nor do I have recourse relative to being concerned with whether or not so and so is any of those. Correct?

I need only be: loving God and others in obedience to the gospel, and rejecting all thoughts and actions that would be contrary to that.

BUT, there is one label that I definitely need to maintain (alas, some Christians today are drifting away from this): CHRISTIAN!

And why is that? Why is that really? So many religions and ethical folk exist too. Correct?

BECAUSE it is written that Christ said: “He who is ashamed of ME on this earth, I will be ashamed of before my Father in heaven”!!!

Pop-pop

Ariel,

I don’t think my thoughts on inclusivist / exclusivist requires a separate thread. They are only my thoughts after all. (I present them below – a few paragraphs down).

As for a “Discussing Catholicism” thread, I love the RC church, but am not a qualified apologeticist and am therefore reluctant to take on a teaching role. The Catechism of the Catholic Church can do that. I take it that the CAF website – which I really never go to, though you do, has supplied you with sufficient bile to remain a staunch protester. Lol. I’m sorry for that, as I really believe that there is nothing so rich for a Christian as reception of Eucharist and Eucharistic adoration, and therefore “wish you were here” so to speak.

For 12 years, having married outside the church, I was unable to receive communion though I remained faithful to going to mass every Sunday and occasionally on weekdays. And so, I lived like a Protestant, so to speak, all those years. That was a deprivation for me. Mass without Eucharistic reception is flat. Almost all of that whole time period was disenchanting to say the least; my prayer life diminished significantly because I was disillusioned / embarrassed by my stance before the Lord. (I need to be able to look Him in the eye). It has all since been rectified, and I am now able to receive and do.

Regarding inclusivist / exclusivist thought: I went to the link Phil posted for me and read the article by Michael Vlach.

In truth, I spent a while reading and rereading his definitions of inclusivist and exclusivist. I was endeavoring to see where I ‘fit in”. And, in the end, I just didn’t see that I agreed with my being in either category as he defined them. There were qualifying thoughts that needed to be considered.

The first thought that came to my mind and is my typical way of thinking, was the scripture from Acts wherein Peter states: “I begin to see that any man who fears God and acts uprightly will be saved.” That certainly isn’t exclusivist -- to my way of thinking.

But by the same token, I couldn’t accept some of the other thoughts from the inclusivist paragraph. Nor can I agree in total with the exclusivist position as therein written. Vlach writes that Exclusivists maintain there is only one way to God (implying no salvation for others outside the church). The CoCC states otherwise relative to the possibility for salvation outside the church; though it does state that that possibility has been effected via Christ’s salvific death and resurrection and by that alone. I understand and agree with the latter clause – that Christ alone was/is the instrument by which mankind is redeemed and salvation available. Phil’s posting of the applicable passages from the CoCC explain this, i.e. 847 “Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience –m those too may achieve eternal salvation.” and 848 wherein the CoCC states that the church “has the obligation and right to evangelize all men”.

Phil’s having mentioned Rahner, tripped my memory of something I had read in Truth and Tolerance by Pope Ratzinger, written while then Cardinal. Going there, I found that he had addressed both Barth and Rahner, proponents of exclusivism and inclusivism respectively. See p 49 and following (if you have the book). On p.17 he had already stated that he does not agree with Rahner and gets into his reasoning for why he doesn’t.

Yet, he isn’t in Barth’s camp either.

Personally, I like what the Pope writes on p53, where he says: “Do we necessarily have to invent a theory about how God can save people without abandoning the uniqueness of Christ?”

That seems to me to be wise. The Spirit can be followed without having to make labels and boxes to put ourselves in. That is similar to me (imo) to not needing to declare oneself a premodern, postmodern, emergent etc. The Spirit is a spirit of freedom, but man always wants to define the mystery. It’s kind of like the OT Jews wanting a king (imo) when all that is necessary is following God in daily obedience to His commandments in general and to whatever He is calling you to do in particular.

I am somewhat uncomfortable with inclusivistic thought though, because:
• It can (I believe often enough does) undermine the motivation / force for evangelizing and spreading the Christian gospel.
• It can (I believe does) undermine certitude regarding the truths of our Christian faith and their value, as opposed to the beliefs and values of other religions. This promotes confusion among the people of God.
• In the above two regards, it can promote mediocrity and lukewarmness and thereby play into the devil’s hands. Confusion does too.
• It thereby dilutes belief in and the practice of intercessory prayer, since other religions do not attest to belief in intercessory prayer, nor does secular man – even though he be ethical.
• Too, it undermines piety and religious practices (here I wax Catholic) like Eucharistic adoration and the reception of the sacraments.

Ariel, as for your mention of EENS, SSPX, and sedevacantists (in your other post) – I am totally cold on all of that and what it might mean. And to tell the truth -- in keeping with what God has called me to be concerned with in my life to date -- I could care less. Don’t tell me. (I even imagine that there have been saints who wouldn’t know WTH that all means and who too, would care less).

So, Ariel, there you have it. No need to start a new thread. You have found me out.

Pop-pop

Good posts, Pop. Thanks.

I think you point out some of the pitfalls of inclusivist Christology, especially as articulated by Rahner and, most especially, by some of the theological trends that developed after him. I've held close to Vatican II on this one, however. Salvation for those who've never heard the Gospels is clearly affirmed in the Council, and it was Rahner's theology that enabled them to move away from a strict, exclusivist interpretation of "outside the Church there is no salvation." Since you mentioned the possible negative consequences to a very liberal Christological inclusivism, I'm wondering if you also see the negative side to the alternatives: Christological exclusivism and universalism? The latter, especially, is a growing conviction in the West (it's pretty much been the Hindu position all along).

Re. worldviews: I completely agree that human nature is human nature is human nature and the dynamics of sin and grace are now as they have been since the Fall. The closer we stay to this, the better. The complicating factor is that we are people of a culture who engage with other people who belong to a culture, and every culture does have its prevailing paradigms/worldviews that shape how individuals both perceive and process information. Missionaries have long appreciated the importance of finding the right language with which to proclaim the Gospel to the peoples they evangelized, and that's why I believe it is important to understand the different worldviews that shape the perception and understanding of people today.

We are living in a time of clashing worlviews, especially in the West; witness the culture wars played out between conservatives and liberals in both the political and religious scene, for example. These are different ways of perceiving and valuing, with different priorities emerging from deeply-held premises about how things are and ought to be. Furthermore, it's not as though these worldviews, even at a strictly secular level, are completely disconnected from the working of the Holy Spirit. There is a "holy ferment" in all of it. There is a way of naming the realities without "having to make labels and boxes to put ourselves in." Concepts and conceptualizing are an inevitable aspect of human understanding and communicating, without which no meaningful culture is developed. We can do this without defining people and judgmentally putting them in boxes, imo. In fact, if one cannot put words to describe one's reality, one does not yet fully own one's experience. Terms like "premodern, modern and postmodern" help us to name the megatrends at work in the world today that we might be able to assess how these systems of valuing have laid claim to us individually, and what we might want to choose to do about that. Until one does such work, the worldview pretty much determines how one's consciousness will operate -- part of the auto-pilot, "monkey-mind" system we all find ourselves in the grip of, to some degree.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
Until one does such work, the worldview pretty much determines how one's consciousness will operate -- part of the auto-pilot, "monkey-mind" system we all find ourselves in the grip of, to some degree.

I think that's a primary motivation, in my experience, to stand back and work at putting a name on some of my assumptions and observations. I remember reading as a teenager that C.S. Lewis warned of being trapped in the Zeitgeist (spirit of the age) of own's own generation, in his essay "On the Reading of Old Books".

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:
Ariel,

I take it that the CAF website – which I really never go to, though you do, has supplied you with sufficient bile to remain a staunch protester. Lol. I’m sorry for that, as I really believe that there is nothing so rich for a Christian as reception of Eucharist and Eucharistic adoration, and therefore “wish you were here” so to speak.

No, not really--about the bile at CAF. As you said to me in a PM when I briefly said EENS had thrown me, there are ugly Catholics, but CAF has helped me to see the other side of the story---that some Catholics have experienced ugliness from Protestants, too, though my personal experience with pastors, teachers, and your average Protestant in Pennsylvania has been a positive, friendly, laissez faire interaction with Catholics. I really thought that was all behind us.

...have to run, I'll be back.

Adding this later...Pop-pop, I do appreciate your "wish you were here" caring. But, at the same time, I have to say a couple of things.

One, is that on my mom's side I'm from a long line of Lutherans, who do fully believe in Real Presence (though in a way that has more in common with the Orthodox; and, yes, I know the CC doesn't believe that Lutherans have valid apostolic succession, so therefore they are deceived in believing Christ is really present in a Lutheran celebration of the Eucharist)...so anyway, the idea of becoming Catholic because of a belief in Real Presence isn't a central issue for me.

And also, well, I believe Christ is as fully present in Protestant services as in Catholic or Orthodox ones. I know you must differ with me on that, though.

Another addition...not to mislead---At this point, I don't believe in Real Presence as do Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans and some Anglicans. I'm open to changing that, certainly, but, after much study, reading, and open-hearted, teachable prayer, I still have a major reason for believing that almost can't be what John 6 is about. I'm open to change, of course, though...and I'll take this topic to the thread Shasha started.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ariel Jaffe,

One more addition to my post above...Pop-pop, I want to be very clear that I don't come across as seeming in any way to dismiss the Eucharist. My reasons for doing a hard, soul-searching re-think and re-study re: Catholicism aren't at all to do with believing I need to get more benefit personally (such as the Eucharist) out of church. As I tried to express above, if I came to believe in Real Bodily Presence, I'd probably go to a Lutheran church.

Rather, for me, it has to be about doing my part to fulfill Christ's prayer for our unity. That is where I still have pretty big problems in believing "everyone should become Catholic" is the way to that.

Ariel,

As I’d earlier said a while back, I accept your Protestantism and apologize for my comments regarding receiving Eucharist from your hand.

I accept where you are and that like many others, including professed Catholics, you don’t believe in the Real Presence.

I have renounced trying to entice as well as convince you (though I don’t recall having attempted the latter as it’s not my typical style). So, when I wrote “wish you were here” in the above post, I was not trying to move you – just trying to share me (i.e. where I am at and why). In previous posts that was not the case, but this time it was different. I realize that this was hard to evaluate given my past manner.

And I accept that you are not dismissing Eucharist, just sharing where you are at and why.

I guess we are well poised to be at peace with each other as discussion proceeds.

Pop-pop

This makes things easier, and you perhaps won’t have to go to the freezer for a reload.

Pop-pop---

I genuinely meant the thank you for your "wish you were here" caring...I took that in the spirit in which you meant it, I believe.

I really am struggling over the issue of Christ's prayer for unity, quite on my own, as I was before you ever brought anything up. Maybe it's partly due to living in PA, and my personal experiences, but I genuinely believed all types of Christians were getting along in brotherly love much better than is reality, apparently. But then again, the internet is where I had my rude awakening about that, and people sure seem to be nastier on the web than they'd dare to be in real life.

I lost a post earlier this evening, but in it I said there's been a lot of good stuff at CAF, not just bile and rudeness. There are some Catholic, Orthodox, Protestants, and Jews that are both very knowledgeable, charitable, and mature. And sometimes even funny.