http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=612

My sentiments exactly.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), January 07, 2004

Answers

Mine, too.

Well, not exactly. We agree,in a broad sense, on the problem. We just differ on the solution.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 07, 2004.

Yup!

Here is one of the things that gets me: we took down all the beautiful art in our churches then replaced it with those felt banners. No offense meant to the lovely people who make them or to the person who came up with the idea. I'm sure their heart was in the right place, but, frankly, they are tacky and ugly. Oh, what I would do for some well done devotional art.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), January 07, 2004.

I was in a strange parish for Jan 1st Mass; and frankly disliked just about all of it. Yet, the priest was clearly devout, the people were participating in high spirits.

As the moments wore on, my feeling of disenchantment passed. I recalled to myself who these good folks all were, and why they were there, together. They are the holy people of God. There is no better way to see it. He lives in every soul there. Why am I free to disparage any of them? The external aspect is irrelevant to God as long as our souls are in Communion with Him and one another. Yes, aesthetics also count. But not so much any more. It's love that counts the most, IMHO.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 07, 2004.

Amen, Eugene!

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), January 07, 2004.

"A second place of encounter with Jesus is the sacred Liturgy.25 Thanks to the Second Vatican Council, we have a very rich account of the manifold presence of Christ in the Liturgy, the importance of which should lead to it being a theme of constant preaching. Christ is present in the celebrant who renews at the altar the one and only Sacrifice of the Cross; he is present in the Sacraments through which he exercises his efficacious power. When his word is proclaimed, it is he himself who speaks to us. He is also present in the community, by virtue of his promise that "where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Mt 18:20). He is present "especially under the Eucharistic species".26 My Predecessor Paul VI deemed it necessary to explain the uniqueness of Christ's real presence in the Eucharist, which "is called 'real' not to exclude the idea that the others are 'real' too, but rather to indicate presence par excellence, because it is substantial".27 Under the species of bread and wine, "Christ is present, whole and entire in his physical 'reality', corporally present".28"

http://www.usccb.org/pope messeng.htm In Christ
Bill Nelson

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 07, 2004.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 07, 2004.

Hugh:
You ask me a leading question. What I say is, I am gathering in communion; what some now call ''fellowship''; with the people of God. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a call to communion with Him in the Church. It's the main reason for His founding of a Church. Just as in the Old Testament all the Israelites were called to be His chosen people, in Christ's New Covenant, all His followers are called to be His own; a Communion of Saints.

We worship the Father Almighty together with our High Priest Jesus and our brethren; a royal priesthood, a ''people set apart'' which is actually a good definition of HOLY people. We are holy because we are in Communion with the Son of our eternal Father; He is our Lamb of God. We truly partake of Him and become one with Him, according to His Will. Naturally without Him there's not much. Only prayer. With Him, there's ALL; He is united with us in the great sacrament of LOVE. The Holy Eucharist! We are His HOLY PEOPLE when we come together with Jesus Christ as one.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 07, 2004.

Dear Folks Happy New Year!

I read the noted article. That simile has been around for a long time. However, it is usually used by my Protestant brethren regarding the value of the various traditions in the worldwide Christian community. They also bring up the caution that a forced combination of all those flavors in a single vat would take away from the uniqueness and value of the particular flavors. (Imagine rum raisin, pistachio, strawberry, rocky road, and tomato (tastes like tomato aspic – its interesting) blended as a single flavor?)

As with most similes and metaphors, they tend to break down when taken to extremes. No doubt you will question the base ingredients of our ice cream and we (the other half of ice cream makers) will question the value of your desired monopoly on ice cream production.

Actually, for the first time since I stumbled upon this site, I am encouraged by the nature of the discussions (more light, less heat). Gene, your descriptions of worship (Ugly Churches) and the Eucharist in this thread are wonderful… more common ground than you imagine.

My new year’s wish for you is one of God’s blessings of good health, happiness and peace in your lives.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 08, 2004.

Welcome Pastor! You are quie correct, we do have a lot in common. You see, we Catholics like "old stone churches" as well.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), January 08, 2004.

The problem is, various flavors of ice cream CAN easily be blended, regardless of the unpalatability the resulting concoction, whereas the thousands of conflicting and contradictory doctrinal beliefs found in Protestantism CANNOT possibly be blended. That would be like blending oil and water, not ice cream. Which is why the fullness of truth cannot exist unless there is unity of belief. Which is why Jesus founded only ONE Church with ONE set of beliefs, and never authorized the founding of any other churches. He said the truth would set us free. It necessarily folows then that denominationalism will hold people in bondage, keeping the fullness of truth out of the grasp of its proponents.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 08, 2004.

Bravo, Paul! How well you expressed it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 08, 2004.

Dear Folks,

That’s the problem with metaphors, they tend to get silly when stretched beyond the original intent, unless you really like bad tasting ice cream.

Paul, you seem to confuse denominational entities with theological conflict. No doubt some divisions among the original Reformation traditions (Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist – with Anglicans who kept Catholic form with modified Reformed Theology) were doctrinal. But, even during the Reformation, particular ‘denominations’ were created to reflect national, cultural, or language needs (the various flavors).

While those particularities were not so obvious in the homogenous countries of origin, they became more apparent within the open society of the United States. Many of the denominations that have their formation within the Americas were started over polity, historical events, or ethical issues, i.e., Northern and Southern Baptists and Presbyterians (slavery), Amish orders (cultural accommodation), Pentecostal Churches (a particular sacred event). Sometimes those particular events are benign, others are much more serious. (Remember your friend from the LCWS – she doesn’t think any of us are Christian)

The question is (another metaphor), are we to be bridge builders or wall builders? Walls tend to be static and intended to limit access. Bridge builders on the other hand have a vision of crossing divides. The challenge to bridge builders is to recognize that sometimes, original assumptions need to be assessed and perhaps a few steps back can give a clearer view as to how to get across the divide. It does happen… even in the Catholic Church. http://www.georgiabulletin.org/world/2003/10/29/US-3/

We as Christians need to take seriously our mutual and particular needs. And regardless of whether we are more comfortable with phases such as “Real Presence,” “Preservation of the Saints,” or “Baptism of the Holy Spirit,” we need to decide if our priority is to maintain our walls or build new bridges. You might be interested that cooperation with out hegemony can take place among Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox confessions. Its not a conclusion, but it is a start for all of us who proclaim Christ as Lord and Savior. http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2002/02-074.htm

Peace.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 09, 2004.

Dear Robert:
It is NOT a start for the Catholic faith; we haven't abandoned it. It might help you re-unite, if Catholics concede in external ways. Catholic doctrine cannot be made into a homogenous concoction of ifs and buts; only what seems counter-productive (the vernacular, church design, real ecumenism) has changed.

There will be NO concession made to Sola Scriptura, for instance, or loss of veneration to the saints. There are concessions for protestants to make as well. Many sects whose faith once gave us hope for a reunion have recently taken steps backward. When will your denominations take a forward step? Surely God is expecting more faith of you all than continuing indifference to Catholic tenets and authority?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 09, 2004.

Dear Gene,

You missed my point. This is not a contest. We start from where we are and move forward - together. It is not about concessions or control. It is about mutual respect and common interests with our particular responses to Jesus Christ. As for my denomination’s involvement with Christian Churches Together in the USA, http://www.christianchurchestogether.org/ The Rev. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, (General Secretary of the General Synod of the Reformed Church in America) is the chairman of the steering committee for CCTUSA.

As for Catholic intentions, I doubt the various Catholic bishops and priests who participated would have signed the Chicago statement if they didn’t mean it. And I really doubt the event and statement would have made it onto their web site: http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2002/02-074.htm if there wasn’t significant agreement with the intent as well as the content.

Walls or bridges, Gene… Walls or bridges?

Peace

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 09, 2004.

Read this for a better understanding of what the Church has taught regarding ecumenism.

You'll find its language unambiguous, its language precise, clear, and exact.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 09, 2004.

Dear Jake;

We've all built some very strong walls in the past. The question is, are we willing to create some bridges. I realize that leaving the security of a wall for a bridge can be difficult (ever been stuck in rush hour on the George Washington Bridge? It bounces). But a wall won't get us to the other side of the divide.

Peace (and good night - I'm heading home)

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 09, 2004.

Dear Robert:
With due respect, you're mistaken. ''We all'' have NOT built walls, in the past or any time. It is always the non-apostolic sects that build walls. The Church has no walls to build or support. The Holy Spirit gives her all authority to teach; and no other. Is that what some consider a strong ''wall''--? She always welcomes back her lost children.

Sola Scriptura is a strong wall, undoubtedly built by men. It is built to withstand apostolic teachings and keep them out. The only defense against this wall is TRUTH. The Catholic Church upholds all the truth we have from the apostles and Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 12, 2004.

Dear Robert:
With due respect, you're mistaken. ''We all'' have NOT built walls, in the past or any time. It is always the non-apostolic sects that build walls. The Church has no walls to build or support. The Holy Spirit gives her all authority to teach; and no other. Is that what some consider a strong ''wall''--? She always welcomes back her lost children.

Sola Scriptura is a strong wall, undoubtedly built by men. It is built to resist apostolic teachings and keep them out. The only power given the faithful is TRUTH. The Catholic Church upholds all the truth we have from the apostles and Christ. I'm afraid Sola Scriptura is a bulwark against the truth.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 12, 2004.