Home

Christian Unity

________________

NOTE ABOUT BIBLICAL CITATIONS. Citations to the Bible are to The Revised English Bible, Oxford University Press, 1997. This version of the Bible is an interesting effort in ecumenism, having been crafted by representatives of 13 different Christian organizations in England, Ireland and Scotland. This effort shows that Christians can come together for common good.

__________________

Pope John Paul, II has indicated many times that he would like to see movement towards Christian unity, most recently again in a statement made at the beginning of 2005. There have been some gradual steps in this direction over the last several decades. Catholics and Episcopalians have frequent dialogue. In 1999 Catholics and Lutherans signed a statement indicating points of common belief regarding justification. Yet some communications and acceptance of some practices tend to take us farther apart. I have heard some Catholic priests speak against fundamentalist Christians and make fun of the idea of being born again and being saved. I do not know why priests speak against these statements, since they come directly from John's Gospel, Chapter 3 where, in verses 3 through 7 Christ talks about the need to be born again, and in verse 18 Christ says that "[n]o one who puts his faith in [Christ] comes under judgment." Thus, all true Christians must be born again, and all true Christians are saved. The question then really is only one of what it means to be a true Christian, which requires proper action flowing from true faith. However, if faith is true, the proper actions will follow.

I have also heard some fundamentalist preachers, when talking about their journey to becoming a Christian, speak of trying different religions and stating that Catholicism was one of those different religions. This statement either ignores or downplays the fact that Catholics are Christians, as are Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians and members of various fundamentalist groups.

I often wonder why there is not a greater effort to follow the words of Paul when he reminded us many times that we are all followers of Christ and not followers of various apostles or disciples. See, e.g., First Corinthians, Chapter 1, verses 12 and 13. I am not a theologian, but merely a layman who was raised a Catholic. I still consider myself a Catholic, but I am first concerned about the teachings of Christ and their importance in today's world. Looking at Christian unity as a layman, it seems to me that there are three principal matters with which we must deal in order to achieve Christian unity, the supremacy of the Pope, the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist and morality.

Papal Supremacy. Papal supremacy is a real stumbling block to Christian unity. With the excommunication of Martin Luther, those who agreed with Luther had to denounce the supremacy of the Pope. When there were other breaks which followed, such as King Henry VIII's founding of the Church of England, denial of the supremacy of the Pope was essential. The sad truth is that the two examples given arose because of clerical abuses within the Church and political differences more than from true disagreement over the teachings of Christ. Luther's 95 Theses deal mostly with abuses of priests in selling indulgences. The disagreement with the Pope was in the acceptance of this practice. Luther's effort was to bring the Church back to its roots and to stress faith of the members of the Church rather than the granting of clerical indulgences which were sold without any regard to the faith of the person seeking indulgences. Though the Church needed to be reformed in this regard, the immediate response was to "kill the messenger" rather than to reform the inappropriate practice. In this case the "killing" was spiritual since Luther was excommunicated.

With King Henry VIII, the big problem was the Pope's denial of an annulment. Apparently the main reason for the denial was concern over the political importance of maintaining the relationships between the French and the English.

I would suggest that there are two things which need to be done to overcome divisions because of the doctrine of papal supremacy. First, those who are not Catholics would accept that the Pope has a preeminent role to play in focusing upon matters of morality and human dignity, and that all Christians should accept the moral teachings of the Pope when he makes such proclamations based upon the teachings of Christ. Second, the Catholic Church needs to accept that proclamations of the Pope which are deemed to be binding should be restricted to those circumstances when teachings flow from the words of and about Christ as recorded in writings which are accepted as being inspired by God, namely the New Testament. With respect to the first statement about respecting the teachings of the Pope on matters of morality, I would point to abortion and homosexual practices, both of which are discussed in more detail below with regard to morality. With respect to the second statement about effectively restricting some of the circumstances in which the Pope is viewed as speaking with divine authority, I would point the teachings of the Catholic Church concerning women as ministers and married clergy.

Paul talks often of various female ministers in the early Church, though it is not necessarily clear from Paul's letters what roles were played by such ministers. In some regards, they may have been the same as male ministers, since a female minister is often mentioned in the same manner as a male minister. See, e.g., Romans, Chapter 16, verses 1 and 2. In fact, some of the history of the Catholic Church up until the Third Century would indicate that women frequently presided at Eucharistic worship. As regards married clergy, I would look first at the words of Paul in 1 Timothy, Chapter 3, verses 2 through 12 where he says that bishops and deacons are to be the "husband of one wife." Note that in this same passage women are accepted as deacons. It was not until the Council Laodicea in 352 AD that the Church formally declared that women could not be ordained. Apparently, as indicated in 1 Timothy, women were accepted as ministers until that time. The practice of not having married clergy had a gradual history which does not appear to have been complete until about the 16th Century. The Council of Nicea declared that a priest could not marry after being ordained, apparently accepting that priests who were married before ordination could continue to be married. It was not until the 12th Century that priests marriages were declared to be invalid, but marriage by priests apparently continued as a regular practice until the 16th Century.

I would suggest that this history shows that the firm practice of not having ordained women and not having married priests is not something which flows of necessity from the teachings of Christ, but is something which is idiosyncratic to the evolution of the Catholic Church. Thus, it might be well for furthering Christian unity to have teachings such as these not being a necessity for full Christian unity, only something which those who worship under the Roman Catholic tradition may wish to follow.

Christ in the Eucharist. There are some Christian denominations which question the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In some discussions with Catholic friends, I find that there are many Catholics who do not believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist actually are the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. I find this problem to be rather easy to deal with. On this point the Catholic Church and non-catholic Christians who accept the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist are absolutely right.

Christ told us that anyone who eats His flesh will have eternal life. John, Chapter 6, verse 51. Christ at the last super showed how this would be accomplished when he told his disciples to take and eat because the bread He had broken and blessed was His body, and he told his disciples to take and drink because the wine He had blessed was his blood. Christ then instructed his disciples to do this in memory of Him. Luke, Chapter 22, footnote to verses 19 and 20.

For those who doubt that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus Christ because it seems totally implausible that such could be the case, I would merely ask, do you believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, the second person of the Triune God? If He is God, He can truly come to us in any form He wishes, including in the appearance of bread and wine.

Morality. I am amazed that there are such divergent attitudes among Christians towards morality. There are three practices in particular I wish to highlight, homosexual acts, abortion and marital dissolutions.

Homosexual acts have been condemned throughout history by all major religions. Yet we now have some supposedly Christian groups blessing homosexual unions and even have the Episcopal Church in America installing a bishop who is openly involved in an intimate homosexual relationship. Yet Christ himself defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Matthew, Chapter 19. This alone should be enough to settle the question. (See Homosexual Marriage for a more detailed treatment of this topic.) People with homosexual tendencies should not be treated as pariahs. Indulging in homosexual acts is sinful. Having tendencies towards homosexuality, if not indulged, is no worse than having tendencies towards alcohol abuse, violence or other improper acts. Is indulging in a consensual homosexual act worse than lying or adultery?

Abortion is nothing but murder, something which may in very unique circumstances be accepted or at least forgiven. However, accepting abortion as nothing more than removal of an undesirable cellular mass, similar to removing a cancerous tumor, is absurd. All one needs to do is read about an accepted procedure for late term abortion, that which is called partial birth abortion, to understand that this practice in fact is murder. The child is turned around in the birth canal so that the feet come out first, is partially delivered and then has its brains sucked out. If the child were not turned, the doctor would have an obligation to save the child as soon as its head appeared. Having the feet come out first does not change the human nature of the baby. Many - in fact probably most - doctors and scientists now agree that the cellular progression which occurs when an egg is fertilized is so unique that the existence of a human being begins either at conception or at implantation. Thus, all abortion involves destruction of a human life. A person who accepts the teachings of Christ must acknowledge that abortion involves taking a human life.

Marital dissolutions are all to readily accepted. The homosexual Episcopal Bishop was not only involved in an openly intimate homosexual relationship, he left his wife and three children to enter into the relationship. Divorce is condemned in the same passage cited above concerning homosexual acts, Matthew, Chapter 19. In verse 9 it is stated that a man who divorces his wife and marries another for any reason other than unchastity commits adultery. Yet divorce is regularly accepted, even in the Catholic Church though we call it annulment. Often annulment is granted because of the statement by one of the parties to the marriage that there was an impediment, that is, the marriage did not involve a perfect commitment from the start. Why is a statement to this effect after 12 or even 25 years to be regarded as any more truthful than the vows given at the time? Who could really believe that any marriage is perfect?

When looking at how Christians now accept some of these questionable practices, I believe too many of us have fallen into the trap foretold by Paul in Second Timothy, Chapter 4, verses 3 and 4: "For the time will come when people will not stand sound teaching, but each will follow his own whim and gather a crowd of teachers to tickle his fancy. They will stop their ears to truth and turn to fables."

Ironically, the two groups of Christians who are closest on moral values are practicing Catholics and fundamentalist Christians. Yet those in positions of leadership in these two groups seem to have the hardest time accepting each others positions.

Summary. Hopefully, these three major areas of difference - as well as various other ones - can be overcome. Christians need to work together to confront some of the problems facing our world today. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist may be the easiest to deal with as just a matter of individual faith. Protestant groups can merely say that Christ is truly present if the person receiving the Eucharist believes so. Many Catholics follow this position anyway, even though Catholic doctrine is that Christ truly is present in the Eucharist.

Morality and the position of the Pope may be the two hardest to deal with. However, I believe that, with some softening of positions on papal supremacy and when it should apply, this area will be easier to deal with than morality. The main reason that morality will be more difficult to deal with is that there cannot be any compromise on questions of basic morality. There can be a softening of rhetoric in some instances, but sin is sin.