Catechesis on Mary, the Mother of God

This post comes from the Rosary Army webste (http://www.rosaryarmy.com/), a site that has some interesting catechetical postings.

http://www.rosaryarmy.com/2007/12/saturday
-morning-catechesis-mother-of.aspx

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Saturday Morning Catechesis: Mother of God

Posted by Mickey Addison @ 12:00 AM

On New Year's Day, the Church celebrates the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. As with all Marian pieties and dogmas, it is a celebration that points to something about Christ.

Non-Catholics sometimes have the most difficult time with the Marian dogmas, perhaps because they take them at face-value without looking at why these dogmas are part of Sacred Tradition in the first place. I have a friend, for example, who has no issues with the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but struggles mightily with Marian dogmas.

In a sense, acceptance of Marian dogmas makes belief in the Real Presence easier.

Our Blessed Lady has been addressed by the title, "Mother of God" since at least A.D. 407. St John Chrysostom wrote a Eucharistic Prayer that included the title of Mother of God, presumably in congruence with the popular piety of the time. This title was not without controversy, however, even in the 5th century.

The Nestorian Heresy, led by a man named Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople (A.D. 428-431) postulated that Our Lady only gave birth to Jesus' human nature, and therefore deserved only the title, "Mother of Jesus." Nestorius theorized that Jesus was "inhabited" by the Divine Word; essentially that the person of Jesus Christ was a sort of "possessed" body where the Word dwelt inside Jesus "as a temple."

Of course, this theory leads to all sorts of heretical ideas, not the least of which is that Jesus Christ was two people and that the flesh He sacrificed was not sanctified or elevated by union with the divine.

The Nestorian heresy was refuted initially by St. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria (d. 440), "It was not that an ordinary man was born first of the Holy Virgin, on whom afterwards the Word descended; what we say is that, being united with the flesh from the womb, (the Word) has undergone birth in the flesh, making the birth in the flesh His own..."

At the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 finally settled the matter, declaring: "If anyone does not confess that the Emmanuel is truly God and therefore that the holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Theotokos) (since she begot according to the flesh the Word of God made flesh), let them be anathema [despised]."

The Council declared once and for all that Jesus Christ is Lord, the Divine Second Person of the Trinity, true God and true Man united together. The Blessed Virgin gave birth to a single Person with two natures...not two persons with two natures. As the Catechism succinctly teaches, 'Mary is truly "Mother of God" since she is the mother of the eternal Son of God made man, who is God himself.' (#509)

The first day of the New Year is a splendid opportunity to reflect on the marvel of the Word Made Flesh, and the woman He took His flesh from when He came among us.
_______________________________________________
Mickey Addison is a career military officer, and has been a parish level catechist and Catholic Scripture Study, Int'l leader.

He and his wife have two children. He can be contacted at addisoncrew@gmail.com.

Time Magazine and Christianity Today Rethink the Bible on Divorce, Separation, and Remarriage

The American Papist blog has an interesting review of an article in the recent issue of Time magazine regarding a growing flexibility among evangelicals when it comes to interpreting the Bible on the subject of divorce. Check it out:

Time Magazine Rethinks Scripture on Divorce, Separation and Remarriage

The fact-pattern: Christianity Today publishes an article entitled "When to Separate What God has Joined: A Closer Reading on the Bible on Divorce" which attempted to revise the biblical teaching on these questions so that it could be reconciled to the modern prevalence of divorce in secular societies well as Evangelical circles.

David Van Biema covers the story for Time magazine, and it has become one of the most popular articles being read on the Internet.My take:A false assumption plagues this piece from the outset (all underlining mine):

Last month, the cover story of the monthly Christianity Today was titled "When to Separate What God has Joined: A Closer Reading on the Bible on Divorce." The heated controversy provoked by the story showed how Biblically flexible some Evangelicals can be — especially when God's word seems at odds not just with modern American behavior, but also with simple human kindness. Catch that? Jesus' teaching on marriage doesn't seem to square even with "simple human kindness." Jesus' historical teaching that husbands cannot put away their wives and thereby marginalize their subsistence was actually contrary not only to "modern American behavior" (the new normative guide to morality?), but also to "simple human kindness." You know, the stuff that's just darn evident to everyone. Cruel Jesus, making husbands keep their wives.

From the beginning the author operated upon the false premise that Jesus' teaching on marriage required all spouses to remain with their husbands no matter what. This false premise appears again in the second paragraph:
Finally, Instone-Brewer tallies four grounds for divorce he finds affirmed in both Old and New Testaments: adultery, emotional and sexual neglect, abandonment (by anyone) and abuse.

What is in fact allowed in these cases is separation (which no one would argue, if the grounds for separation are legitimate). Remarriage is an entirely different question, but don't expect Van Biema to present that consideration.Errors quickly compound as Van Biema's inability to distinguish separation from "divorce" play-out:

... the Instone-Brewer essay appeared to be its editors' attempt to offer Evangelicals an escape from a classic dilemma. The "plain sense" of Jesus's words without quotes seems clear enough, but also inhumane: how could a loving God forbid divorce, even by omission, in cases of wife-beating, or of abandonment by a Christian spouse?

See above. Jesus isn't teaching that women should stay in an abusive marriage. Perhaps the "plain sense" of scripture mentioned here isn't enough. That's no surprise. But it's wrong to conclude that a holistic reading of the biblical accounts contradicts the "plain sense" teaching of Jesus against divorce, when accurately understood.

Next it really gets good (by which I mean, of course, bad):

Each branch of Christianity deals with divorce in its own way: Catholicism bans it entirely, but many divorced and remarried couples nonetheless find that their conscience permits them to take Communion.

Error count rising. "Catholicism bans [divorce] entirely." False. Legal divorce which results in the de facto separation of spouses is allowed, and even suggested to spouses in an abusive relationship. Van Biema happily constructs a straw-man of the Church's teaching. And it's easy to destroy a straw-man. And it's rare to find anything but straw-men in this treatment.

Second error: "Many divorced and remarried couples nonetheless find that their conscience permits them to take Communion." Well, receiving Communion isn't only a matter of "finding oneself permitted." If one has remarried after a divorce, and has not received an annulment from their marriage, the Church presumes that they are committing fornication, which as a mortal sin, bars the communicant from receiving until they have confessed.

Amazingly, the article even quotes someone who brings up the significance of remarriage:

If a split itself is inescapable, notes Christianity Today editor Andy Crouch, "remarriage is where the rubber meets the road," and many remarried couples find themselves denied church membership.

It remains inextricable to me why Van Biema didn't claim something along the lines of "nonetheless, many Evangelicals find that their conscience permits them to remain part of their church." Such flawed ecclesiology evidently applies to Catholics - why don't Evangelicals get the same (false) primacy of conscience option?

Van Biema seems to have encountered at least one person who realized that he wasn't going to understand the problem, but incredibly, Van Biema takes this reticence to discuss the issue as some sort of "gotcha!":

Asked if he does [believe that an abused woman should leave the marriage], Moore demurred: "Let me think about that for a little bit. I could answer in a way that would be very easily misunderstood."

I don't think the interviewee was demurring because he thought his answer was incorrect, I think it is more likely the case that he didn't want his words twisted. Well, they were anyway.

Van Biema wraps it all up for us:

Still, the controversy suggests that even the country's most rule-bound Christians will search for a fresh understanding of scripture when it seems unjust to them. The implications? Flexibility on divorce may mean that evangelicals could also rethink their position on such things as gay marriage, as a generation of Christians far more accepting of homosexuality begins to move into power....It could also give heart to a certain twice-divorced former New York mayor who is running for President and seeking the conservative vote. But that may be pushing things a bit.

The message: when scripture doesn't square with a) your pre-conceived categories of justice, or b) the practice of individuals or c) could get in the way of your presidential-hopefuls candidacy then...Rethink scripture.

Oh! And hey, while we're at it, we can revise what the scriptures teach about homosexuality and "gay marriage". Isn't it amazing what new vistas of human self-fulfillment are available to those who ...Revise scripture.

(A note to Christianity Today: when Time Magazine starts agreeing with you, that's a warning sign.)

Update: And of course, if we want to be cynical about it (not saying we don't), this article is handily presented by Time just as Rudy Giuliani begins to take increasing flack for his multiple remarriages (this claim is supported by the fact that the Christianity Today article is evidently over a month old already) . And who, you might ask, is dishing out the Giuliani criticism? *drum roll* ... that's right: evangelicals and social conservatives! So what better time than the present to paint them as hypocrites? And hey, if we can call into doubt the teaching of Scripture on homosexuality, then all the better. Forget rethinking or revising, let's just forget it."

http://www.americanpapist.com/2007/11/
time-magazine-rethinks-scripture-on.html

____________________________________

Some more background to the question of DIVORE & REMARRIAGE:

Jesus revealed that Moses allowed divorce in Dueteronomy 24:1-4 as a temporary provision because of "hardness of... heart" (Matt 19:7-9). But Jesus restored God's original plan of indissoluble marriage (Matt 19:3-9); therefore, the Catholic Church continues to teach that a valid marriage between a baptized man and woman cannot be dissolved for any reason except death. It can't be ended by a civil divorce (or even by an annulment, which is not "Catholic divorce" but rather the determination a marriage was not valid in the first place.) Some Protestants claim that Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 allow exceptions to Jesus' teaching on indissolubility: 'whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity [porneia in original Greek], and marries another, commits adultery" [Revised Standard Version]. Here, porneia is used in a technical senes to forbid incestuous marriages among close relatives (as in Acts 15:20 and 1 Cor 5:1). Those illicit unions are not valid marriages in the first place. Note that not a single Greek-speaking Church Father ever saw in Matthew 5 and 19 exceptions to Christ's law of indissolubility. Until Martin Luther declared that marriage was only a civil union in 1520, all Christians unanimously held that marriage is indissoluble and that divorce from a legitimate marriage cannot be followed by remarriage.

-Taken from The Bible Thumper - Vol. 2: Sacrament, Morality, Afterlife [pamphlet on the Scriptural basis for Catholic beliefs; Jim Burnham, Brian Butler, and Matthew Pinto authors; Ascension Press; www.TheBibleThumper.com - www.AscensionPress.com ]

Does AnGel Ministries Distort Catholic Teaching? (part 1)

The other day, a lovely woman came into our parish office and placed some fliers for AnGel Ministries' "Just Give Me Jesus", a "life-changing revival for women." http://www.annegrahamlotz.com/





After she left, I decided to look up their website and find out what they are all about. It is often the case that such evangelical ministries, never content with the Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed, have their own statements of faith. Unfortunately, as is the case with many Protestant groups, their invented creeds usually make semi-veiled attacks on Catholicism in order to demonstrate how these well-meaning Evangelicals, are true "Christians". In other words, so much of Protestant self-identity depends on the fact that THEY ARE NOT CATHOLIC! Sadly, they often present a simplified and false straw-man of Catholic beliefs that they easily knock down.


Previously, I wrote to an evangelical website called Dare2Share http://www.dare2share.org/ when I found some serious errors in their profile of a Catholic believer. This is becoming a little hobby of mine.


What follows is the AnGel Ministries Statement of Faith and then a link to their longer article on the pivotal Evangelical doctrine of eternal security entitled "You can be sure you will go to heaven when you die."


Finally, in the next couple links I will post my (rather lengthy, of course) emails to AnGel Ministries.





AnGel Ministries' Statement of Faith:
http://www.annegrahamlotz.com/
index.php/Statement-Of-Faith

• 
  Statement Of Faith
  
  We believe in God the Father, Creator of everything, Who loved the world He created and sent His only Son to be our Savior.
• We believe that God the Son is Jesus of Nazareth, the Savior sent by God, Israel’s Messiah, born of a virgin, fully man and fully God.
• We believe that God the Holy Spirit quickens us from death to life, indwells all those who receive Jesus Christ by faith as Lord and Savior and continuously conforms believers to the image of Jesus Christ.
• We believe the death of Jesus Christ on the cross is sufficient in itself to make atonement for the sin of the world--an atonement available to all who repent of their sin and believe in Him alone for forgiveness and salvation.
• We believe Jesus Christ died on the cross, was buried, and the third day He bodily arose from the dead guaranteeing the bodily resurrection of all those who have received eternal life through faith in Him.
• We believe salvation from judgment, forgiveness of sin and eternal life are free gifts of God’s grace and cannot be earned, deserved, inherited or bought.
• We believe only those who believe in Jesus Christ and receive Him into their inner being will escape eternal judgment and be accepted into heaven.
• We believe in the imminent, visible, bodily return of Jesus Christ to this earth to reign in righteousness and justice.
• We believe the true church is not an organization, but the Body of Christ made up of those who have personally trusted Jesus Christ as Savior and publicly confessed Him as Lord.
• We believe that the Bible is the Word of God, inspired by the Spirit of God, without error and thus the supreme and final authority for faith and practice.
• We believe that daily Bible reading and prayer are as necessary for the sustenance of spiritual life as food and water are necessary for physical life.
• We believe that all believers are commanded to be witnesses for Christ, sharing the Gospel to the whole world.

"You can be sure you will go to heaven when you die":
http://www.annegrahamlotz.com/index.php/
You-can-be-sure-you-will-go-to-heaven
-when-you-die

Does Angel Ministries Distort Catholic Teaching? (part 2: The Rosary)

TO: AVA ZETTEL, AnGel Ministries – I am sending you (via email) 3 letters regarding theological questions that stem from reading your website. Someone came to our parish requesting to leave fliers for the “Just Give Me Jesus” women’s rally on April 18 and 19 at Wells Fargo in Des Moines, Iowa. After reading information on your website I would like to comment on how a knowledgable, practicing Catholic would likely respond to your ministry. God bless-Chris
__________________________________________________
my original email:

Hello. I was reading your statement of faith and the section about being certain of going to heaven and I had a question. What did you mean when you said 'you don't have to count beads'?Thank you.

reply:

Dear Chris,

Thank you for your email and for your question regarding this section repeated below in the Know You Will Go To Heaven portion of our Statement of Faith. As Christians we believe that our advocate is Christ Himself and that we need no other go-between, method or practice to speak to our Heavenly Father.
Chris, I pray this answers your question satisfactorily. Please let us know if you require further information.
Trusting Jesus for every provision for you,
Ava Zettel AnGeL Ministries 5115 Hollyridge Drive Raleigh, NC 27612-3111
Tel: 919.787-6606 Fax: 919.782-3669 www.annegrahamlotz.com
________________________________________________

My second email:

Ava,
Thank you for your reply. However, you did not quite answer my question about what "counting beads" refers to.
You did write that "as Christians we believe that our advocate is Christ Himself and that we need no other go-between, method or practice to speak to our Heavenly Father."

1. What is the rosary?
By "method" in relation to "counting beads" I might guess that you are referring to praying the rosary, perhaps? Or am I off-base here? If this is the case, I would respectfully suggest that you learn a little more about this particular Catholic devotion.

For one thing, the rosary does not involve "counting beads." There are 5 "decades" of 10 beads on a rosary, to correspond to the 10 Hail Mary prayers and 1 bead for the Our Father. There are a total of 20 mysteries that trace the life of Christ. The one who prays does not "count" the beads. Originally, the 150 hail mary beads (the original 15 mysteries x 10 hail mary beads per mystery) was a number taken from the original monastic tradition of praying the 150 psalms in the desert.

However, the number of beads is more or less arbitrary. The objective is not to pray the Hail Mary 10 times as if the number really mattered… or as if it was some rigid formula or rite that was necessary to communicate with the Father (like a secret password). There are 10 beads simply to allow the one praying to enter into a rhythm of prayer and maintain focus, without the mind falling into distraction (like saying, "I am going to set the timer and pray for 30 minutes, and then once the timer goes off, I can finish my conversation with the Lord if I need to).

I must also point out that the Church does not anywhere teach that the rosary is a "method to speak to our Heavenly Father" that is necessary for salvation. Indeed, the Church teaches that the Rosary is one of the many ways of praying to God, in addition to Prayers such as the Jesus Prayer ("Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner"), and lectio divina ("sacred reading")--the use of imagination and contemplation in order to encounter our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Scriptures. In fact, although the Church recommends the rosary as a time-honored and fruitful devoion, technically, one could be a faithful Catholic “in good standing” even if they do not pray the rosary or if they do not even value it as a devotion. The rosary is simply a devotional prayer and not some go-between for talking to God.

Through repeating the prayers of the Hail Mary (which, for the most part, is taken right out of Luke Ch. 1), the Hail Mary prayers become a background rhythm that allows the prayer to meditate upon the individual mysteries of Jesus Christ:

• 
  The Joyful Mysteries [traditionally prayed on Monday, and Saturday]: the Annunciation, the Visitation, the Nativity, the Presentation, the Finding of Jesus in the Temple, the Finding of Jesus in the Temple
• The Luminous Mysteries [traditionally prayed on Thursday]: the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, the Wedding Feast at Cana, the proclamation of the kingdom and call to conversion, the transfiguration, and the Institution of the Eucharist (Last Supper)
• The Sorrowful Mysteries [traditionally prayed on Tuesday and Friday]: The agony in the garden, the scourging at the pillar, the crowning with thorns, the carrying of the cross, the crucifixion and death of our Lord
• The Glorious Mysteries [traditionally prayed on Wednesday and Sunday]: The resurrection, the ascension, the descent of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost), the Assumption of Mary, and the Coronation of Mary

Many people also pray “scriptural rosaries” that include short sentences from Scripture read between each Hail Mary to more deeply enter into contemplation. [see my article: http://swallowedscroll.blogspot.com/2006/10/
want-to-add-some-power-to-your-rosary.html

The Bible talks of how Mary witnessed the actions of Jesus and heard his words and “kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart” (Luke 2:19; 51). The rosary is a prayer form whereby we meditate and reflect upon the actions of deeds of Christ in our heart.

When I pray the rosary, I try to meditate on the mysteries from Mary’s perspective, I use my imagination and visualize the mystery from what her vantage point would have been. As Mary reflects upon the mysteries of Christ eternally in heaven (as do all of the other saints), when we meditate on the life of Jesus we do this in the company of all the other saints. There is only one body of Christ—not two—the holy ones who have passed away are not “dead”, in deed, they are more fully alive than we are here on earth because they are in communion with God (though not complete yet, as they await the return of their glorified bodies at the final judgment).

The following is an article on the rosary that I wrote for my personal website. It might help you understand why many Christians pray the rosary, in addition to reading Holy Scripture, etc., as a way to keep the mysteries of Christ in their mind and heart and continually reflect upon them:

http://swallowedscroll.blogspot.com/2006/10/
how-rosary-draws-us-closer-to-jesus.html

Does AnGel Ministries Distort Catholic Teaching? (part 3: Communion of the Saints vs. Jesus 'the One Mediator'?

2. Are the saints mediators independent of Christ, the one true mediator between God and man?

It might help if I also explain some points about the communion of the saints.

In the Nicene Creed dating back to the 4th century we pray “I believe in the communion of the saints”. How would you define the communion of saints? Is it simply those living in this world that believe in Christ? Where are all those holy souls who have died? Are they somehow cut off from the Body of Christ that they once inhabited?

The Catholic understanding of the communion of saints is that the Church is the family of God. The saints are our “older brothers and sisters” who have gone before us. They are living examples of the Gospel and the “New Law” of Christ, they were so animated by the Holy Spirit and supernatural grace, they allowed Christ to live in them to such an extent that they become shining examples of Christian discipleship.

From the earliest times of the Church has honored (venerated—NOT worshipped!) the holy martyrs that lived out the grace of God to the extreme—dying for their faith. We see in graffiti on the ancient catacomb tombs through which Christians ask for these martyrs to pray for their brothers and sisters fighting the good fight here in this world. If you knew that your brother in Christ had died defending the Faith, and you know that Jesus has destroyed death and that your brother is somehow far more immediately in the presence of God then yourself, what would your attitude be? Would you forget about him? Would you think he was sleeping? Or, would you ask him to pray for the communion of saints that are still in this world.


Of course, asking for the saints' intercession does not mean that you are by-passing Jesus (“the one mediator between God and man”—1 Tim 2:5), or using another mediator. This is clear by the very fact that practically all Christians ask fellow Christians to pray for them (Rom 15:30; Col 4:3; 1 Thess 5:25; Eph 6:18-19; 2 Thess 3:1). Why do we do this if we could go “straight to Jesus”?

Why do we have this impulse to ask other Christians to pray for us when, at the same time, we have a very personal relationship with Christ and intercede to him directly all the time.

I think that the reason might be that God made us a communal people. We are meant to live in the Church as a communion of those who have one identity in Jesus Christ and preserve this bond in charity. In other words, being a Christian is not exclusively about “me and Jesus”. Being a Christian means being part of the Body of Christ—a communion, a family. Just as we do here in this life, it is natural to call upon our brothers and sisters. We are meant to be a tight family as Christians, so, of course we call upon the Lord directly,… but we also ask the saints to join us in our prayer (not because Jesus would not heed our prayer, otherwise, but simply because love impels us to call upon our brothers and sister).

It is true, however, that “the fervent prayer of a righteous man is very powerful.” James letter cites the power of Elijah’s prayer, and one could also give the unique power of Moses’ intercession, as well. Certainly, I will ask for the prayers of my brother and sister Christians in this world, but I will not neglect to ask for the prayers of my brothers and sisters who are fully perfected in charity (completely righteous and transformed by the grace of God), free from all sin, fully employed in the constant worship of God, with an immediate vision of the Lord (the beatific vision) and immediately in the presence of His heavenly throne. In other words, they are “expert prayers” at this point because they are oriented completely toward interceding and adoring the Lord (see Revelation 5:8; 8:3-4; etc.). Flooded with God’s love, they care more about us now than they did while on earth (they are concerned with events in this world—see Rev. 6:9-11). St. Paul asked his fellow Christians to pray for his ministry… do you think that he would disapprove of us asking him to now pray for us while we remain in the race? We only ask him to pray FOR US and WITH US to the Holy Trinity.

Some points to keep in mind:

1. 
   All Christians are members of Christ’s body and one another (Rom 12:5 and many others).
2. Jesus has only one body (Eph 4:4; Col 3;15)
3. Death cannot separate Christians from Christ or from one another (Rom 8:35-39). Death cannot cut us off from one another. In fact, the saints are not “dead” but, rather, are more fully alive than we are! God is the God of the living not the dead (see Mk 12:26-27).
4. Christians are bound in mutual love (Rom 12:10; 1 Thess 5:11; Gal 6:2).
   We are members of Christ’s body, united in His divine life even beyond the grave, and concerned with each other’s salvation and growth in God’s family. There are no 2 bodies of Christ—those “alive” and those who are “dead”.

Does “praying to the saints” mean that we are treating the saints as if they were gods? No, the term “praying to the saints” stems from the old meaning of the English word “to pray”—which used to also mean, “to ask”, i.e. “pray thee bring the letters here”… eventually shortened to “prithy”). We ask the saints to pray for us. We ask the Virgin Mary to pray for us because she is the highest of saints. Of course she is a creature (so it is false when non-Catholics charge Catholics with “worshipping” Mary), and as the most beautiful masterpiece of God’s grace (the one closest to Jesus—his own Mother) she is given the highest honor (veneration) among all the saints. However, we can ask for the prayers of Mary just as we do for any other saint.

Does asking for the prayers of the saints violate 1 Tim 2:5—the fact that there is one mediator between God and man? The answer is no. Jesus is our one mediator with regards to our salvation. However, Jesus employed the apostles and disciples to be his authorized mediators by preaching the Gospel and baptizing (Mt 28), working miracles (see Acts), forgiving sins (Jn 20:23), binding and loosing with the power of the keys (Mt 16:19), celebrating the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23-24), being “ambassadors of Christ” exercising the “ministry of reconciliation”, laborers and co-workers in the vineyard, working in the “ministry of the Spirit “and the “ministry of righteousness” (2 Cor 3:8-9).

Jesus shared his many unique roles with the members of his Church: creator—parents are co-creators; Shepherd—Peter is chief shepherd (Jn 10:11-16 +Jn 21:15-16; and Eph 4:11); his one priesthood and mediation (see below).

All of these examples of ministry were commanded and commissioned by Jesus to the authority of his Church. They are all ways that he graciously allows his sinful human disciples to mediate his grace to the world. This does not mean that Jesus or the Holy Spirit does not, at the same time, work directly in the hearts of people. Of course He does. But Jesus also intended that the large body of Christ together mediate His truth and grace both before and especially after His ascension to the right hand of the Father.

Lastly, all of the saints are baptized into the very person of Christ. Jesus Christ is the only high priest (Heb 3:1; 7:24; 9:12; 10:12), the one mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5). However, with baptism, we are baptized into the one priesthood of Christ. We can offer sacrifices, sufferings, prayers of intercession, praises, etc. to God the Father by exercising our common baptismal priesthood of all believers. We exercise our priesthood in and through the one priesthood of Jesus. This is why we are not seeking out other mediators when we ask for the prayers of Mary and the other saints. We are simply exercising the priesthood of Christ together as His unified body bound in charity.

You must read 1 Tim 2:5 in the context of 1 Pet 2:5:

“let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.’

To share in Christ’s priesthood is to share in his one unique mediatorship, both in heaven and on earth. This is a wonderful grace of God and speaks the amazing dignity that he gives us through baptism.

In fact, if you read the wider context of 1 Tim 2:1-7, you see that Paul is asking Christians to offer prayers and intercession for all men—in other words, to participate in Christ’s unique mediation.

Jesus said, ‘I am the vine, you are the branches’, and it is true that, apart from Jesus, the saints would never be able to exercise any of these roles to any effect. It is only in virtue of Jesus that we can ask the saints for prayers and that they can intercede to the Triune God.

The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church: an explanation

I am trying to catch up on some posts, so this is rather an old issue by now, but it is still worth a post. I found this article in "The Link" newsletter of the Archdiocesan Council of Catholic Women (Archdiocese of Dubuque, Iowa) [vol. 50 no. 3, Summer issue 2007]. I find this explanation by Fr. Jerry Kopacek of St. Edward parish in Waterloo, IA. to be a good one.
_________________________________________________________

"The new document goes on to explain how the Catholic Church uses the word 'church' in a rather technical or theological sense to refer to a Christian community that has preserved apostolic succession and all seven sacraments (in particular, the Eucharist and the ordained priesthood)."

In July of this year, the Vatican (specifically, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a statement having to do with the Catholic Church's understanding of herself as Church and her relationship with other Christian churches and communities. The document's lengthy title is "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church" [http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/
cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_
responsa-quaestiones_en.html ]
and it was released with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI. From the reports of the secular media and from the reaction of some of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters, you might get the impression that the Church is saying that all non-Catholisc are unimportant or cannot be saved.

The truth, of course, is something entirely different. This new statement simply restates and clarifies a document from the same Congregation in the year 2000 on the same subject-[ Dominus Iesus, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/
cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html ] that document in turn was based largely on the documents of the Second Vatican Council. The issue at hand is the Catholic Church's doctrine and understanding of herself as Church. This new document reminds us that Jesus established only one church when He lived on this earth, the one Church of which He is head. And to that one Church Jesus entrusted the various elements, teachings and practices that were to be taught to and lived by His followers. These elements include all the seven sacraments Jesus instituted and which are transmitted and carried on through the Church's life and history by means of apostolic succession--through the apostles and their successors (the bishops) in a constant and unbroken line up to our own time. Because of that apostolic succession, the Catholic Church has been able to preserve the faith and the sacramental life in their fullness.

The new document goes on to explain how the Catholic Church uses the word "church" in a rather technical or theological sense to refer to a Christian community that has preserved apostolic succession and all seven sacraments (in particular, the Eucharist and the ordained priesthood). Thus, the various eastern Orthodox Churches (Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc.) are true 'churches' in this sense since they have that succession and thus have preserved all the sacraments. We are unable, however, to share full communion with the Orthodox churches since they do not accept the role and authority of the pope as the successor of St. Peter as we do. The various Protestant communities, on the other hand, do not have and do not claim apostolic succession and thus do not have the priesthood or the Eucharist as the Catholic Church understands and lives out those sacraments. Because of those circumstances, those communities are not 'churches'--again, using the techinical or theological definition of the term. They certainly are, however, our brothers and sisters in Christ with whom we share belief in Jesus as lord and Savior and with whom we rejoice in our common baptism and reverence for the Sacred Scriptures as a vitally important element of the word of God. As the document says: "...these separated churches and communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact, the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation".

We need to thank God daily for the gift of our Catholic faith and Church; we need to thank God daily for the fact that Jesus loved us enough to establish the one Church as the means by which His truth and His gospel could be preserved, known, taught and transmitted throughout the world and throughout history. How blessed and privileged we are to be members of the Body of Christ!
-Rev. Father Jerry Kopacek, St. Edward, Waterloo, IA

Catholic Q&A: Does baptism bring justification?

One reader left an anonymous comment in an old post regarding the "Have You Been Saved" question?

Here is the original post:
http://swallowedscroll.blogspot.com/2007/02/
catholic-q-have-you-been-saved.html

He or she wrote:

"You are justified by the Blood of Jesus (Romans 5:9), not by baptism. In the Scriptures their are 7 different types of Baptisms. I assure you that their is 1 baptism that you dont want to recieve. FIRE (Matthew 3:11)."

This individual quotes from Romans 5:9 for the fact that we are justified by the Blood of Christ, but does not give a scriptural citation for the explicit belief that baptism does not justify. To say that we are justified by the blood of Christ is the same as saying that we are justified by the death of Christ (jn 3:16ff), and, to put it more fully, the entire paschal mystery (the life, passion, death, and resurrection of Christ). The question then is how do we appropriate the salvfic paschal mystery of Jesus? If one reads further into Romans Chapter 6, we discover that the answer is faith AND BAPTISM:

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:3-4).

Of course we are saved by the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross! No Catholic denies that it is the Blood of Jesus that saves us. Indeed, the Precious Body and Blood is the very lifeblood of the Christian soul. Our Lord promised that if we eat his body and drink his blood we abide in him as he abides in us (Jn 6:56); we have eternal life and will be raised up on the last day (Jn 6:54). On the contrary, if we do not eat His body and drink His blood we have no life within us (Jn 6:53). This is why Catholics enter the body of Christ the Church and are incorporated into the life, passion, death, and resurrection of Christ through baptism (Rom 6:3-7) and confirmation [or, in the East, "chrismation"] (Acts 8:14-17), and then obey the Lord's command to 'do this in memory of me'--celebrating the Holy Eucharist (Lk 22:14-23; Mk 14:22-25; Mt 26:26-29; 1 Cor 11:23-26; Acts 2:46-47; Lk 24:13-35--the structure of the Eucharistic celebration). When approaching the mystical supper, of course, we must do so worthily, "for any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself" (1 Cor 11:29).

Baptism is not a mere symbol. Jesus said that "no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is first born of "water and the Spirit" (Jn 3:5). This is an obvious reference to water baptism.
St. Paul says that we are washed in the bath of rebirth (Titus 3:5) and the First Letter of St. Peter states that "baptism now saves you" (1 Pet 3:21). In his grand preaching immediately after Penetcost, St. Peter roared, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Notice that the Holy Spirit was not given to disciples until the full rite of baptism was completed, with water, the laying on of hands, and anointing [the Church sees confirmation as a separate sacrament, though the completion of baptism]:

"Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them to receive the Holy Spirit; for the Spirit had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 8:14-17).

One is justified by Christ because one receives gift of the Holy Spirit that Our Lord freely gives us. This passage makes it very clear that baptism is not simply an external symbolic act of a profession of faith (as baptists would have you believe). Rather, it actually matters how you administer baptism (in the Trinitarian formula [Mt 28:18-20] and not simply "in the name of Jesus"; complete with the laying on of hands; etc.). It says that "then they laid their hands on them" and what immediately follows is "they received the Holy Spirit." We are justified by faith and water baptism. The act of faith is intimately tied to the reception of the sacrament through Jesus' commissioned Church.

The teaching of the Holy Scriptures and Sacred Tradition (as seen in the ancient liturgy, church councils, and church fathers) are clear that we are justified through faith in Jesus Christ and Trinitarian baptism.

More detailed apologetics from the Scripture Catholic apologetics website:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-I
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-II

But don't trust my interpretation of Scripture, trust the early Church fathers who were much closer to the time of Jesus, his apostles, and their successors the bishops of the ancient Church:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#tradition-I

Incidentally, the individual who left the comment on the original post never refuted or challenged the argument made therein. They do not even address the scriptural evidence given, they simply take one verse of Scripture out of context and use it to assert something that the text does not teach. They use the one scriptural passage to try to back-up a false Protestant tradition.

How to Answer the Anti-Catholic Question Barage

• I found this Protestant-Catholic exchange interesting. The following is from "Apologetics for the Masses", Issue 64; the electronic newsletter of John Martignoni's Bible Christiam Society [ www.biblechristiansociety.org ] (As usual, I highlight some points in bold, this is my emphasis not the author's)
  ____________________________________
  In the last issue, I gave you an email that Russell D., a Catholic radio listener, had sent to Doug S. at one of the Catholic radio stations, and I asked you to think about how you would respond to that email. I received a number of emails from folks with their responses, which I cannot respond to individually, but about which I will say were, for the most part, spot on.
  
  ...below is his email followed by my response to his email. I do not claim that my response is the absolute best response one could make, but I think it is an example of how you could respond to any email that has a number of arguments in it which go in all different directions…even if the writer of the email is more coherent than the example we have here. So, this is not so much an example of a response to someone who isn’t making much sense, as it is an example of a response to someone who comes at you from a number of different directions all at the same time.
  
  I will reproduce Russel’s email below and then follow it with my response and the thinking (strategies) behind my response.
  
  Challenge/Response/Strategy
  From: Russell D.
  To: Doug S.
  Subject: Re: [Fwd: spiritual warfare, 2006-09-16]
  
  Dear Doug:
  Sorry for the VERY late reply, almost a year later, and thank you for it, but as to not knowing what Catholics believe, having God’s Word that the Vatican has replaced with its own teaching like the Pharaisees did and for which Jesus condemned them, by the grace of God, I know far more about the TRUTH, that is Jesus, than Vaticanism and its adherants (since Rome is now officially secular one can no longer call it Romanism), also having John Paul II’s official Catechism and various other websites intelligently exposing the various errors of Vaticanism comparable and successor to the similarly erroneous Pharaisees and their sacerdotal system of Jesus’s day that the apostles abolished in the power of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, understanding what Jesus meant in John 19:30 when He said “It is finished!” meaning, as Hebrews makes clear the total fulfillment and termination of the Old Covenant i n Himself upon the tree, as the butterfly terminates the caterpillar, one of the earliest Christian symbols of the resurrection, including the Ten Commandments that no longer apply to the Christian as far too lacking compared to the infinitely higher standard demanded by the abiding resurrected Christ (e.g. Matthew 5, especially 21-44 and His replacing the Old Covenant with His own:
  1. enlarging/replacing commandment 6 (don’t murder) with love, 5:21-26,
  2. enlarging/replacing no committing adultery with no looking/thinking about it 5:27-30,
  3. enlarging/replacing unlimited divorce with its qualified abolition, 5:31-32,
  4. enlarging/replacing permitting oaths with their abolition, 5:33-37,
  5. enlarging/replacing revenge with grace, 5:38-42 and
  6. enlarging/replacing love of neighbor to love of enemy, 5:43-44).

Since Jesus wrote the Decalog and gave them to Moses as pre-Incarnate Christ, He has every right to rewrite them according to His perfect understanding of man’s further development in obeying Him more fully than previously. Those who still would hearken to the Ten Commandments are like the Judaizers Paul constantly fought who rejected His Lord Jesus and whom he finally anathemized in order to protect his converts from the Pharaisees’ evil ungodly religious sacerdotal system exalting man above God via cleverly disguised salvation by works, like the Reformers anathemized various doctrines of Rome to protect their converts to Christ from a similar evil ungodly religious sacerdotal system exalting man above God via cleverly disguised salvation by works.

As antidotes to this poison I recommend you visit http://www.aomin.org/ and http://www.monergism.com/ and especially http://www.desiringgod.org/ to see the true Christian faith presented versus Vaticanism’s illiterate sacerdotal system that depends on ignorance to sustain it, sadly including even the ignorance of its clergy, as the above websites prove.

You prayed God would bless my journey to “Truth,” but His Word in John, both 8:32 and 14:6, says that that is Jesus Himself versus an abstraction of modern philosophy, and the book of Hebrews further rejects the toleration of any other mediator than Christ, like Mary or the saints who, knowing both Hebrews and its divine author would condemn Vaticanism for the corrupt antiChrist system, even though there are many godly Catholics justified by faith alone as God and His Word require, though in their ignorance they fail to understand, like Sam Brownback, that in the eyes of Vaticanism, bound by Trent, they are anathema. Everyone who asks a saint for help has turned his back on Jesus and turned his back on and violated Hebrews, the very Word of God they claim to worship. 1 Timothy 2:5 “For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” and Hebrews, chapters 8, 9 & 12.

That anyone would turn to a mere saint for help, according to popular error and Vatican false teaching, instead of Jesus, as God commands in the Scriptures above, even if the saints could hear and act (which Abraham declares by the chasm fixed in Luke16 they cannot (meaning Catholics use Church teaching to reject God’s Word and Abraham’s, making them no children of Abraham, like it was with the Pharisees). One can only wonder how satan has led the Vatican astray with his various Marian apparitions the gullible who reject Christ accept without discernment: 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore [it is] no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance but judge righteous judgment.

1 Corinthians 2:14-16 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is discerned by no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he shall instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
God bless you and may He move you to a blessed journey to Jesus Who is The Way, The Truth and The Life.
Russ D.
________________________________________________________

Response by John Martignoni:

"...If, however, you are capable of making an error when interpreting Scripture, then please give me a reason why I should believe your intepretation of Scripture vs. my interpretation of Scripture?

In other words, why should I believe what you say if you could indeed be wrong? ..."

Dear Russell,

Doug S. forwarded your email to me and asked me to respond. Forgive the delay in replying, but I’ve been doing a lot of traveling in the last several weeks and that always gets me behind.
Anyway, back to your email. You’ll have to forgive me, but I’m from Alabama and we’re not all that smart, so I had a bit of a time trying to follow what you were saying. So, what I would like to do, if you don’t mind, is just simplify the discussion a bit, assuming you’re open to discussing these matters.

Strategy/Comments: In other words, I’m going to “shift the paradigm,” so to speak. Instead of spending hours responding point-by-point to his rambling email, I’m going to basically ignore what he said and start off the argument where I choose to start it from. You can do this with pretty much anyone. You set the tone and let them follow.

If you are open to a discussion about Christ and truth and so forth, then I would like to start off by simply asking if you are infallible in what you teach? In other words, are you 100% certain that your interpretations of Scripture – from which you have derived everything you wrote below – are 100% accurate? Again, are you infallible in what you teach? Is it impossible for you to make an error in what you teach?

Strategy/Comments: I have never met a non-Catholic Christian who believes in the Catholic doctrine of infallibility. In other words, no man – the Pope or anyone else – is infallible in their view. If they believed the Pope was infallible, then the logical thing for them to do, would be to become Catholic. So, I think we can assume most, if not all, non-Catholic Christians do not believe in the doctrine of infallibility. Which means, when you ask someone if they are infallible, then you should get “No,” as an answer. Which means, that it is possible that they can make an error when it comes to matters of faith and morals. So, if there is the possibility that they can err in these areas, then it is possible that anything and everything they have said to you is in error. Make sure to point that out to them and do your best to get them to at least acknowledge the reasonability of that premise. Oh, one other thing – if you use a comm ent like, “If you’re really serious about finding truth,” or “If you’re really open to a discussion about Christ,” or something along those lines, then those who are serious about it, will more than likely respond. Those who aren’t, probably won’t.

I start there because you are asking us to believe what you have taught below. And, in what you have taught below in your email, there are a lot of words and thoughts that do not appear in Scripture. Which means you are interpreting Scripture, and asking us to believe in your interpretation for our salvation. I believe every single verse of Scripture that you quoted; however, I do not necessarily believe in your interpretation of those Scripture verses. So, it is very important to me to know if you are capable of making an error when interpreting Scripture or not.

Strategy/Comments: If you read Russel’s email, you will notice that the majority of it is composed of his words, not Scripture’s words. Which means that most of his email is either his interpretation of Scripture or his commentary on Scripture or on the Catholic Faith, but not Scripture itself. So, it is very important to let the other guy know that you agree 100% with every passage of Scripture that he quotes, but that you do not necessarily agree with his fallible, man-made, non-authoritative interpretation of Scripture…after all, he’s not infallible. He’s trying to set the rules for the discussion – what he claims is true and by golly you have to just accept it as being true – but you will have none of that.

And, if you are not capable of making an error when you interpret Scripture, if you are indeed infallible in your interpretation of Scripture, then please give me some evidence that I may believe such is the case. If, however, you are capable of making an error when interpreting Scripture, then please give me a reason why I should believe your intepretation of Scripture vs. my interpretation of Scripture? In other words, why should I believe what you say if you could indeed be wrong?

Strategy/Comments: In other words, show me where your name is in the Bible that I may believe that you are indeed infallible in your teaching. This paragraph contains one of the 4 main apologetics strategies that I teach: “But That’s My Interpretation!” Under Protestant theology, every person has not only the right, but the duty, to pick up the Bible and read it for themselves to decide what is true and what is false. What is true doctrine and what is false doctrine. So, under their theology, you have the right to read the Bible and decide for yourself what it means. When someone tells you that you, as a Catholic, are wrong in your interpretation of the Bible, all you have to do is point out that their theology gives you the right to interpret the Bible for yourself; therefore, they cannot tell you that you are wrong. They can, at best, tell you that they disagree with your interpretation. But, they have to admit, since they are not infallib le, that your interpretation could possibly be right, and that their interpretation could possibly be wrong. Which, if they think about it, will hopefully plant some seeds in their minds about the need for an infallible authority.

Basically, I’m asking if you believe your interpretation of Scripture to be more valid than my interpretation of Scripture, and, if so, why? By what authority do you teach?

Strategy/Comments: A good question to always ask someone is: Are you an authoritative interpreter of the Scriptures? If yes, how so? Who gave you such authority? If no, then why should I believe your interpretation?

If you could answer those few simple questions, I think we might be able to have a very good discussion here.

Strategy/Comments: I have not heard back from Russell, and I probably never will. Or, if I do hear back from him, I can almost guarantee that he will not respond to my questions and will simply give me another rambling email full of sentence run ons. In which case I can simply respond, “Russell, I asked you a simple question: Are you infallible or not. If you cannot answer that simple question, there’s no reason to continue this discussion.” But, for those who are a bit more rational than Russell appears to be, a response like the one I gave to Russell could lead to some very interesting dialogue – dialogue in which you are setting the pace and in which you are asking a lot of questions. At the very least, it will keep you from wasting your time with those who simply want to talk at you, rather than those who want to talk with you.

God bless!
John Martignoni
Founder/President
Bible Christian Society
http://www.biblechristiansociety.org/

Prayer Request UPDATE: Holy Spirit at work in high school abortion debate

My friend sent me this update from Sr. Raffaella, thanks for the prayers all! (note: editorial packaging: I put the email into an article format and emphasized some points in bold print):

[above, from left to right: pictures of gestation at 8 weeks, 6 weeks, and 16 weeks]
____________________________________________________

A High School Abortion Debate:
A report by Sr. Raffaella of the Apostles of the Interior Life
[ http://www.apostlesofil.org/AilIndex.htm ]

"I had ONE goal in mind upon entering the debate:

drilling in the students' mind

that we're talking about a child

and not a piece of tissue."

"Dear friends,
Thank you so much for your support this past week of preparation and for today's debate.
After I left the High School I drove to the 40 days for life vigil at PP, where I prayed and thanked the thousands of little babies that have been aborted there for their support from heaven!

"Both sessions of the debate went very well (for the pro-life!). I had ONE goal in mind upon entering the debate: drilling in the students' mind that we're talking about a child and not a piece of tissue. I felt that if the kids could leave the debate at least having that thing clear, I'd consider it a victory.

"Well, the Lord went FAR BEYOND that.

"All the questions that the students addressed always referred to the unborn as a child and never to anything different. Also, it made all the difference when in the final part of the debate I explained the surgical procedure of abortion, as well as showed the pictures of aborted babies. That brought it home for most of the kids. They had NO IDEA what abortion does to a child.

Even starting from a theoretical level many of them were moving towards agreeing with the pro-life position; some were still arguing the validity of abortion for rape or incest or danger for the mother's health and life; yet none were defending abortion for reasons other than those. (It was funny to see how some of the kids made "pro-life rebuttals" to their classmates in between questions!!) Yet, when I got concrete and explained the abominable procedure of abortion (and even before some of them chose to look at the images), the questions on abortion stopped. They then started asking about birth control and the last 5 minutes of the conversation pretty much shifted towards sex and hormones.

"So, upon entering the classroom I could tell that most students had confused ideas on the topic, and a couple were strong either on the pro-life or on the pro-choice side. By the time the debate was over, the "middle-grounder" had mostly shifted towards opposing abortion in all cases (except a couple who still saw it doable in extreme situations). As for the birth control aspect, there was really too little time to seriously tackle the issue, so I used all my bullets on abortion, thus leaving most of them clueless on why pro-lifers are against birth control (although they got the part that some forms of birth control are actually abortifacents).

"All in all I consider it a very positive experience. The teacher was very pleased with the debate (very fair on both sides), and she invited me back for her next class in the Spring. I thought that that was a positive thing, although I don't know how to read it necessarily.
I don't know if the students will stick in the future to what they felt the truth was during the debate. But with all the prayers that you along with thousands of people have been sending up for the past 4 days, I'm pretty confident that the Lord is not done with this job!
We planted the seeds, He'll take care of the growth.

"One regret that I have is that I did not have pro-life gadgets with me (I honestly didn't think I was allowed to bring any). The pro-choice person brought pins and pens and bumper stickers, which a good number of students picked up on their way out. I offered them the Project Rachel and Rachel Vineyards brochures, which some students picked up. So, for the future, we should make gadgets available. Honestly, I think that if today I had t-shirts and bumper stickers to offer, several students would have taken them.

"Once again, thank you so much for your support, for the suggestions and the material that you offered. I really feel that this is a team victory and it couldn't have been otherwise, regardless of who the person on the debate ended up being.

"God bless and keep you
Sister Raffaella"

Sr. Raffaella - St. Paul's University Catholic Center - University of Wisconsin - Madison, WI

prayer request

This comes from a friend's email:

Please see Sr. Raffaella's prayer request below. Sr. Raffaella is one of the Apostles
of the Interior Life who is evangelizing the campus of UW-Madison. She has spoken
at the Martha & Mary Women's Conference in the past. Thanks for your prayers.

Keep your eyes on Christ

----- Original Message -----

Per gli amici Italiani: troverete la traduzione dell'e-mail piu' sotto!

Dear friends,
Hope all is well with you. I am sending out this general e-mail
because I'm looking for powerful prayers.

This Wednesday I will be part of a debate on abortion in a local
public High School in Madison, WI. They were looking for a pro-life speaker to debate on abortion, while there will be someone from
NARAL (National Abortion Right Alliance League)/PP arguing
on the opposite side. There will be 2 debates, each of which will
last 90 minutes, and it will be with juniors and seniors in High
School.

Apparently there is much to know about public debates, many ins
and outs, many tricks and stuff. I honestly won't spend much time
looking into that. I will rather spend the next 2 days in prayer and
in preparation for the topic, for questions that will be posed or
thrown at me. The best thing though about this debate is that I
won't be alone, because there will be hundreds and hundreds of
people praying for me and for the spiritual success of the debate.
I invite you to ask the Lord to open the hearts and minds of the
students as they hear the debate; as I have come to realize
throughout the years, it is not a matter of winning an argument
but of winning hearts. So, let us pray that the success will be a
spiritual one, one of those that touches the depth of the lives of
the students.

Thank you very much for your help. May the Lord reward you all abundantly.
Peace and prayers,

Sister Raffaella
St. Paul's University Catholic Center
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI

--
Just because something is common doesn't make it normal!
Il fatto che qualcosa sia comune non lo rende normale!
Learn more about us at www.apostlesofil.org

Mother Theresa's spiritual darkness: faith is about TRUST,... not certitude and clarity

This is an interesting article about the current talk of Mother Theresa's spiritual darkness as revealed in a new publication of letters to her spiritual director entitled Come Be My Light.
[ Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light ]

Jesuit Fr. John Kavanaugh is a gifted theologian (for an example of his work see entitled
Following Christ in a Consumer Society:
The Spirituality of Cultural Resistance
_______________________________________
Godforsakenness
'Finding one's heart's desire'
By John F. Kavanaugh OCTOBER 1, 2007 AMERICA
[http://www.americamagazine.org/
content/article.cfm?article_id=10235

There has been much written about Mother Teresa of Calcutta these days. Not only has the 10th anniversary of her death been observed; depths of her interior life have been inspected as well. The publication of her letters to spiritual directors in Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, edited by Brian Kolodiejchuk, M.C., has revealed that the founder of the Missionaries of Charity herself lived in profound spiritual darkness for nearly 50 years.

The public revelation of Mother Teresa’s interior crisis (much of the documentation appeared on the Internet news site zenit.org in 2002, while the cause for her canonization was moving forward) has struck some as a cruel betrayal of her desire not to have her letters published. Others were shaken by what seemed to be her loss of faith or by God’s harshness with her. Some have linked her experience with the harrowing purifications of high mystical prayer.

The most voluble response has likely been that of Christopher Hitchens. An often brilliant polemicist and eminently readable essayist, Hitchens is perhaps the most prominent of nonbelievers to have recently published an anti-theist manifesto. His best-seller is titled God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. But over a decade ago he wrote The Missionary Position, a searing and often mean indictment of Mother Teresa, whom he dubbed the "Ghoul of Calcutta."

There is a puzzling zeal in Hitchens’s fascination with Mother Teresa and his seizure of every media opportunity to disparage her. He opined in the Time magazine cover story (a remarkably balanced article) that she was like a die-hard, disillusioned Communist carrying on even though things were falling apart. On television news shows he attributed her perseverance to the fact that "advisors egged her on because she was a great marketing tool."
Apparently the only good thing he can see in her life is what he thinks was her loss of faith. Thus, from his two-page opinion piece in Newsweek one gets the sense that Hitchens has discovered a strange sympathy for "this troubled and miserable lady." But first he must convince himself that she has really lost her faith. Thus he moves from his first paragraph’s guarded "all but lost her own faith" and "for all practical purposes ceased to believe," to his ringing conclusive indictment of "a blind faith in which she herself had long ceased to believe."

Hitchens gave a much more accurate description of Mother Teresa’s crisis during a three-hour interview on C-Span’s "Book TV." Correcting himself after asserting her loss of faith he said, "If not a loss of faith, a great loss of certainty." Precisely.
The problem (and Hitchens could not have suspected it) is that Mother Teresa never had certainty. At least that’s what she told me.

In Calcutta during December 1975 and for a few days in the following March, I was doing the "long experiment of humble ministry" that Jesuits undertake during their last year of formation. On those days when I celebrated the Eucharist at the Missionaries of Charity motherhouse and worked at the House of the Dying, I had a number of conversations with Mother Teresa.

Two of them still inhabit my life. Our first talk concerned my worry that I should not go back to the comfort and riches of being a university professor in the United States. She told me to go back. "There is far greater poverty there. The greatest poverty is the absence of love."
Much more puzzling was a comment she made shortly before I left Calcutta. I had asked her to pray for me. She said "for what?" "For clarity," I pled. And she immediately said no, she would not pray for that. I complained that she seemed always to have clarity and certitude. "I’ve never had clarity and certitude," she said. "I only have trust. I’ll pray that you trust."
So Hitchens is correct on at least one count. Mother Teresa was living with a "great loss of certainty"—about herself, about her relationship to Christ, about her fate, about her very God. The feeling of not having faith is quite different from not having faith. Otherwise it would not be so harrowing to the believer, who cries out with nothing but trust.

It would be good if all of us, believer and nonbeliever alike, could learn once and for all that whatever faith is, it is not a crutch. Sometimes in faith, you have nothing to lean on. Nor is the "feeling" or consolation of faith something we can conjure up on our own. If anyone had such powers of conjuring it would be Mother Teresa. So much for feel-good religion—that "opiate of the masses." Morphine is much more effective.

The real story, the deepest subtext, in Mother Teresa’s "dark night" is not that God was purifying her. God was actually giving her her heart’s desire.

Every Missionaries of Charity community I have visited has a large crucifix with the words "I thirst" over it. It is that broken man on the cross that Mother Teresa most wanted to identify with, the same Jesus she could see in the most bereft and seemingly unloved of her brothers and sisters on earth. In one of her desperate cries to Jesus she wrote, "Lord my God, who am I that you should forsake me?" Is it possible that she could not see that her very words were the same as those uttered by the man on the cross she so longed to be with? Could she not realize that she had finally found union with the man who cried, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Perhaps it is best that she did not appreciate the intensity with which her prayers were answered. Freed from her darkness, she would have left him to his cross. Such can be the paradox of finding one’s heart’s desire.

John F. Kavanaugh, S.J., is a professor of philosophy at St. Louis University in St. Louis, Mo.

Never Stop Learning, Especially About Your Faith!

from author, talk-show host, media specialist Teresa Tomeo's monthly newsletter, 9/03/07 http://www.teresatomeo.com/ [sentences in bold represent my emphasis]

It's that time of year again. Labor Day holiday marks the unofficial end of summer break and it's time to go back to school. When we think of school days or getting an education many of us tend to think of kids in grade school or those earning a high school or college degree. I've now come to realize that "education" should never stop. I am not speaking of earning an advanced degree or certificate that will add some alphabet soup to your name. That's all fine and good. What I'm talking about is the willingness to learn more, especially about our faith.

If I've learned anything since coming home to the Catholic Church nearly 15 years ago, it's that I have a lot more to learn. I could spend my entire life studying the lives and the writings of the saints, reading the countless and beautiful Church documents, going over the Catechism, but given the vast volume of material available, I would only be scratching the surface.

I was thinking and praying a lot about this recently after I had a discussion, well more of a debate, with a woman at my local gym. We entered into an exchange after she made some vary disparaging comments about Christians and other conservative politicians who don't practice what they preach. She was referring to the controversy involving the senator who was arrested in June for lewd conduct in a men's bathroom at the Minneapolis airport. I suggested that while this case was certainly disturbing, there are plenty of politicians both conservative and liberal who fall under that category and it wasn't fair of her to claim that it only happens to conservative leaders.

I learned this woman had a lot of disdain for Christians, especially Catholic Christians. She was a fallen away Catholic who also expressed a lot of bitterness about the Church and what she thought the Church taught. She claimed she was "educated" and well read but when I pressed her on whether she was getting her information from Catholic sources or the secular media, she admitted she had not cracked open the Catechism or accessed even one article written by a reputable Catholic outlet. Nor had she taken the time to access on-line some of the documents or statements she had problems with. In addition she was angry at the Vatican for reiterating the statement regarding the "one true Church", but had never bothered to read the short and very clear item, "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church". We all know that Church documents are easily available from a number of free sources. When I offered her my business card and the opportunity to send her some information so she could read the documents and "educate" herself she threw up her hands and said emphatically "no I am never coming back to the Catholic Church and I don't want any information." So much for being well-read and "educated."

I went away feeling very sad for this woman who claimed to be informed but had built up such resentment without allowing herself to be open to learning the truth. Speaking of learning however, I also walked away with a few valuable lessons. Her initial comments are a stark reminder that we all need to practice what we preach, especially Christians who hold ourselves to a higher standard. Obviously she has been impacted by bad examples of those who claim to be God-fearing. I was also grateful that I had the opportunity to maybe give her at least a little food for thought because I know enough about my faith to explain why I am Catholic and she had little to say after admitting her lack of research.

So as we enter into the school season, let's not leave the learning to only those in the uniforms carrying the books and the backpacks. Instead we should all continue learning how to be better witnesses by learning more about our faith. As a matter of fact, I think I hear a school bell ringing. So let the education continue.

Protestant professor converts to the apostolic Faith, Protestants' jaws drop

Evangelical Leader Returns To Catholicism
Move Reflects Narrowing Gap Between Denominations
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 12, 2007; Page B09

The president of the Evangelical Theological Society, an association of 4,300 Protestant theologians, resigned this month because he has joined the Roman Catholic Church.
The May 5 announcement by Francis J. Beckwith, a tenured associate professor at Baptist-affiliated Baylor University in Waco, Tex., has left colleagues gasping for breath and commentators grasping for analogies.

Excerpt From "Truth And Tolerance"
This is the excerpt from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's book, "Truth and Tolerance," that Francis J. Beckwith read to a prominent evangelical philosopher and asked him to guess who wrote it.
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life": this saying of Jesus from the Gospel of John (14:6) expresses the basic claim of the Christian faith. The missionary tendency of this faith is based on that claim: Only if the Christian faith is truth does it concern all men; if it is merely a cultural variant of the religious experience of mankind that is locked up in symbols and can never be deciphered, then it has to remain within its own culture and leave others in theirs. That, however, means that the question about the truth is the essential question of the Christian faith as such, and in that sense it inevitably has to do with philosophy.
--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "Truth And Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions," trans. Henry Taylor (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), 184.

One blogger likened it to Hulk Hogan's defection from the World Wrestling Federation to the rival World Championship Wrestling league.
"This is a sad day for all true sons and daughters of the Protestant Reformation, for all who lived and died for its truths," Douglas Groothuis, a professor at the evangelical Denver Seminary, said in a posting on Beckwith's own blog, adding sternly: " . . . you are embracing serious theological error."

Beckwith, 46, said in a telephone interview that he had expected some repercussions in academic circles but was stunned by the public response. He said strangers have called him at home to berate him, and that his Internet server was overwhelmed by 2,000 e-mails a day to his personal Web site, which in the past seldom generated more than 90 a day.
"It's beyond anything I've ever experienced," he said.

Beckwith is not the first, or even the most prominent, evangelical to switch to Catholicism in recent years. Others include Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), theologian Scott Hahn and the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the journal First Things. On the other side of the equation, the Catholic Church has been losing droves of ordinary worshipers to the Pentecostal form of evangelicalism, particularly in Latin America.

Beckwith said his decision reflects how dramatically the divisions between evangelicals and Catholics have narrowed in recent decades, as they have stood shoulder to shoulder on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and school vouchers.

The stormy reaction, however, is a reminder of the gaps that remain, particularly on such theological questions as whether to baptize infants and how human beings gain "justification," or righteousness in the eyes of God.

Beckwith said he was raised as a Catholic in Las Vegas and was "born again" as an evangelical during his teens, at the height of the countercultural "Jesus movement" in the 1970s. He earned a master's degree and a doctorate in philosophy from Fordham University, a Jesuit institution, but then taught at Protestant schools, including Trinity International University and Baylor.
He said that for many years he agreed with the criticisms of the Catholic Church made by Martin Luther and other leaders of the 16th-century Reformation, who emphasized the authority of the Bible alone -- rather than the pronouncements of church leaders -- and who argued that justification resulted from the grace of God, not from good deeds.

But his thinking began to change, he said, as he read more deeply into Catholic theology, including works by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. After studying Ratzinger's book "Truth and Tolerance" last year, he said, he called a prominent evangelical philosopher, read him a passage about whether theology is really knowledge, and asked him to guess the author.

"He reeled off the names of a bunch of evangelical theologians," Beckwith recalled. "I said, 'No, it's Ratzinger!' And he said, 'So he's one of us!' " Beckwith said he was also deeply affected by a joint declaration in 1999 by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church on the doctrine of justification, which he said went a long way toward eliminating this historical source of division.

"I do agree with Protestants that there is no good I can do, no work I can perform, that would justify me," Beckwith said. "But there are many places in scripture that say there's an obligation Christians have to take on the character of Christ, and that contributes to their justification. The Catholic solution is: I am required to take on the character of Christ, but it is not my power that does it, but God's grace."

Chuckling gently, Beckwith said that in discussions with fellow theologians over the past year, he suddenly found himself making "Catholic-type arguments" about natural law and truth, arguing that everything found in the Bible is true, but not everything that is true is found in the Bible.
"At the end of the day, the reason for the Reformation was the debate over justification. If that is no longer an issue, I have to be Catholic," Beckwith said. "It seems to me that if there is not a very strong reason to be Protestant, then the default position should be to belong to the historic church."

On his blog last week, he said he wrestled with whether to inform the Evangelical Theological Society immediately of his intention to return to Catholicism, or to wait until the end of his term in November. He said he and his wife prayed for guidance and received an answer when a 16-year-old nephew asked him to take part in his Catholic confirmation ceremony tomorrow. "I could not do that unless I was in full communion with the church," Beckwith said.

Because Baylor does not require its faculty to sign any statement of beliefs, a university spokeswoman said, Beckwith's change of heart will not affect his teaching post. And because he was baptized and confirmed as a Catholic in his youth, he did not have to undergo conversion -- he simply had to go to confession and receive Holy Communion. He did so in a quiet ceremony April 29 at a small church in Bellmead, Tex.

Do You Trust the Church?: A Conversation on Women's Ordination and the Role of the Magisterium (part 5.5)

NOTE: This is part 5 of a series on the question of whether the Catholic Church has the authority to ordain women priests. This continued conversation is between myself and Luis Guttierez, Phd., editor of a journal entitled Solidarity, Sustainability, and Non-Violence. The initial post concerning this matter was from February 14 and can be found in the archives for February or by clicking on the following link:
http://swallowedscroll.blogspot.com/2007/02/do-you-trust-church-conversation-on.html . Part 4 was posted on Feb 19. You may also click on the label at the end of this post entitled “Women Priests?” to access these and other related posts. I will again place Luis’ remarks in red, and my responses in blue. I paraphrase previous remarks and statements for the sake of greater brevity. If you would like to see the full context of previous quotations see the earlier posts.

What is a Catholic required to believe?....

"There is no precondition that a magisterial teaching needs to meet any member of the laity’s standards for rationality or logic in order to demand assent. Nor is it required that a teaching result from consultation with the entire church."--CPDT

Regarding the force of the language in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and whether it has settled the matter definitively, Luis wrote:

This means you and I will never see it in our lifetime, but this is not a definition that provides "certainty of faith." Take a look at the dogma of the assumption or any other dogma. It must state that this document is a *definition* that such as such is *revealed truth.* Usually, these definitions are published as "apostolic constitutions" (the highest level of papal teaching), not as "apostolic letters" (the lowest level of papal teaching). This is not simply a matter of terminology. Remember that the Second Vatican Council deliberately refrained from proclaiming any new dogma. Can you find any "apostolic constitution" among the council documents" Can you find any new "definition" in any of the council texts?

I replied:
Even if he was not exercising papal infallibility (see above argument), the Pope may not have felt the need to issue an apostolic constitution because he stated that this conclusion about the Church’s authority to ordain women already “has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium” (Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Ad Dubium).

In any case, are we to adhere definitively to a church teaching only if it is formally defined as a dogma in an apostolic constitution?

Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium are “dogmatic constitutions” in that they make statements regarding dogmatic matters. Would it be in the spirit of one in communion with the Church to refute and reject those teaching just because they are not apostolic constitutions or council canons?

The Second Vatican Council did not deliberately proclaim a new dogma, does that mean I do not have to adhere to its nuanced teaching on religious liberty (the Declaration on Religious Liberty)? Was that teaching just some unimportant pastoral statement? (In deed, it was such an important teaching that it was one of the predominant reasons for the schism of Archbishop Lefevbre [note: it was the only document that he voted against in the whole Council!]).

Yes, I am aware that Pius XII issued Munificentissimus Deus (defining the Assumption) as an apostolic constitution (as did Pius IX with Ineffabilis Deus--defining the Immaculate Conception).

I am looking at a list of some of the apostolic constitutions that Pope John Paul II issued: Universi Dominici Gregis: On the Vacancy of the Apostolic See and the Election of the Roman Pontiff; Ex Corde Ecclesiae (On Catholic Universities) and Sapientia Christiana (On Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties) both concern Catholic education; Pastor Bonus deals with the curia organization; Sacrae Disciplinae Leges was issued for the promulgation of the new Code of Canon Law. Do these apostolic constitutions have any new dogmas in them?

On the contrary, it is in his encyclicals that Pope John Paul II dealt with more dogmatic matters: the Eucharist and the Church, Faith and Reason, Mariology (Redemptoris Mater), Christology (redemptor hominis), the Holy Spirit, God’s mercy and Confession, social teaching (re labor, etc.), missionary activity of the Church, the dignity of human life (Evangelium Vitae), and Ecumenism.

It is true that many apostolic letters also, like Apostolic Constitutions, deal with non-dogmatic issues or issues of significance to very specific localities (nations, etc.). Browsing through JPII’s apostolic letters we see that he uses them for the beginnings of thematic years (the Marian year, Jubilee year 2000, year of Eucharist), to commemorate anniversaries of Councils, key documents (Sacrosanctum Concilium/Orientalium Dignitas), Church movements, saints, world events, etc (often reasserting previous Church teaching—some of which is dogmatic in nature). He addresses current events (Lebanon in ’89). He promulgates the Catechism; writes of the proclamation of a doctor of the Church (Therese), etc.

Some apostolic letters address the dignity of women, anniversaries of bedrock ecumenical councils, the Christian meaning of human suffering, etc.

I do not know exactly what circumstances lead the Pope to use an apostolic letter, apostolic constitution, or an encyclical—since all of these forms are used for a variety of topics and for a variety of teaching purposes. I have always thought that perhaps letters are issued for teaching that is not as lengthy or detailed (as compared with encyclicals—which are also geared to the entire Church). Of course, apostolic letters can also be addressed to the entire church as well (the letter on the Rosary [announcing new mysteries], Dies Domini, the letters on the thematic years, etc.). Are the apostolic letters used more often to deal with current issues of important in the Church? Dies Domini (On the Keeping of the Lord’s Day) was a response to a current neglect of a traditional moral dogma. Misericordia Dei (on certain aspects of the celebration of the sacrament of penance) was issued to revitalize the practice of the sacrament.

Perhaps JPII wrote on the authority of the church to ordain men only [also an issue addressed to the entire Church] in the form of an apostolic letter because: the treatment did not need to be lengthy enough for an encyclical,… and because the letter was issued in response to a recent controversy. I do not know for sure, that is just a guess.

What I do know is that, regardless of which forms of teaching the pope customarily uses to expound on doctrinal matters, he is not obligated to restrict his teaching function (or even his infallible teaching function) to one form (such as an apostolic constitution).

The dogmatic definition of papal infallibility does not specify the vehicle (type of writing, or a specific formula for definition) through which the Pope teaches ex cathedra. The dogma only states: “when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

Neither does Lumen Gentium mention any specific vehicles for the exercise of ex cathedra teaching (LG#25). The Pope has no such restrictions: he can teach infallibly in any means he choses—he only needs to meet the specifications stated from Vatican I above.

--------------------------------------------------
Regarding what Magisterial teachings require the assent of the faithful, Luis wrote:

Unless I have certainty of faith, I can and should doubt, especially
regarding any pronouncements which are irrational and imposed by force
without consultation with the entire church. Are you old enough to
remember the worldwide consultation, down to the level of people in the
pews, preceding the dogma of the assumption? I was a boy (born 1942),
but I still remember, in my parish in Cuba (San Juan de Letrán, Vedado,
Havana, Cuba) the priests urging everyone to sign under either "yes" or
"no" a petition as to whether or not the dogma should be defined.
Believe me, when Pope Pius XII went into St Peter's basilica on 1
November 1950, there was *no doubt" as to what he intended to do.

I replied:

There is no precondition that a magisterial teaching needs to meet any member of the laity’s standards for rationality or logic in order to demand assent. Nor is it required that a teaching result from consultation with the entire church. Just because a teaching is an exercise of God-given authority does not mean that it is “imposed by force.” You are free to believe or not… but being in communion with the Church requires believing—that is the nature of any authority (whether we are talking about the authority of Scripture, of the Magisterium, etc.). Regarding doctrines taught through papal infallibility, Lumen Gentium states: “his [the pope’s] definitions are …irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church…they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal” (LG#25).

I was born in 1977, so I did not live through this extraordinary time. I have, however, read Pius XII’s definition so I am familiar with the process (Munificentissimus Deus #8-11). This was a case where many of the laity petitioned their bishops and the Holy See to proclaim this dogma. Unlike the case with the divine maternity (Ephesus) the pronouncement was not made by the Holy See as a result of some controversy about Mary, the Church, or the Last Things, etc. …it was a traditional belief and there was a genuine groundswell of demand that the teaching be explicitly defined.

Of course you know that it is not true that a pope necessarily MUST consult with the bishops or the laity before exercising papal infallibility or teaching at any level. Bishops are infallible when they teach in an ecumenical council—and they usually do not consult the lay faithful in such cases.

Besides, the Assumption is a completely different matter because there was a record of belief in the Assumption stretching back centuries (Tradition—writings of the Fathers)… there was a practical display of the Church’s belief in Tradition (a liturgical feast day in both the East and the West)… and the dogma can be supported through Scripture. None of these can be said of women priests.

In addition, the Pope was asking the bishops if they themselves and their people believed this. Actually, he asked whether the bishops “judged that the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin could be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith” and he added “do you, with your clergy and people, desire it?." In order to assess the matter, your bishop “polled” the parishes. That is fine, however, I do not think he had to do that… he could have just gauged what his people believed/desired and told the Pope. I wouldn’t interpret what your bishop did as some kind of democratic vote by the people as to whether they thought this dogma should be proclaimed.

-------------------------------------------
Regarding who interprets the sign of the times, Luis wrote:

No, the entire church (everybody, everywhere) must be involved in the
discernment process.

I replied:

I agree, but see my comments above [post 5.3?] regarding the slippery topic of determining what the sense of the faithful is. Also, the entire Church needs to step up its knowledge of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and be able to sufficiently think with the mind of Christ and not just the mind of secular society (seeing everything as politics).
By the way, the entire church (everybody, everywhere) would include places like Africa, which would not be too open to the idea of women’s ordination. I am not sure if this discernment process would ever transcend stand-offs and come to any conclusions (once again, see the Anglican Communion where you now have some primates who will not share communion with other primates, and bishops of the Episcopal Church in America saying that if conservative members do not like their policies, then they should be the ones to leave and vice versa). Yes, the entire Church is needed, but at the end of the day, I also want a Pope.

-----------------------------------------