Mark Shea's advice to converts

Read the rest of what I wrote. I believe the Church is simply right when it says that fullness of the deposit of Faith Christ gives subsists in her. I stay, not because one must be irrationally loyal at all costs for the sake of being loyal, but because of what the Catholic Church *is*: the fullness of the sacrament of salvation Christ has given to the world. I do not believe this is the case with ecclesial bodies such as the TEC or the various Anglican groups, nor (with all due respect) even with communions, such as the Orthodox, which retain valid sacraments of Holy Orders and Eucharist.

AAARGH! Possibly the silliest way to put things that I have done (at least recently). It is not for the sake of God that we pray and do penance, but for the sake of the whole world. Mea Culpa! And, I am afraid I did not make it clear that I do, indeed, believe and profess all that the Catholic Church teaches. If I did not, I would not be Catholic. Kudos to Mark, who frequently (usually) can express what I believe in a much better (and shorter) way. Hope one of these days you come to Wichita, Mark. I would truly love to meet you.

Well, it would seem to me that it somewhat depends on the question, How far off the path can the church go and still be bringing God into the world? What Mr. Shea seems to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you shouldn't expect everyone in the church to be perfect; I assume this would even be extended to the clergy, to some degree. But if the church's doctrine goes off the path of what one presumes to be the "right" path, or it becomes little more than group therapy with occasional discussions of how Jesus just wanted us to be "cool" with ourselves... God bless.

I can't even connect with the question. When I became a Catholic that was the end of all such considerations. I took my entry into the Church as I took my marriage vows: forsaking all others, for better or for worse, till death (and, please God, beyond). I have had some very dark times in my 25-plus years as a Catholic but have never seriously entertained leaving for another Christian body. The closest I've come is nostalgia for the Anglican liturgy. I can't conceptually separate the Church and Christ, and to leave one would be to leave the other, so I could only leave the Church for atheism.

Rod asked: "Is there a point, however, in any given church (Catholic, Orthodox, whatever) when to remain in place is in some real sense to risk losing Christ oneself?" Possibly. I know one person who believes that the RCC is the true Church ... but her disgust with the evil shenanigans of the hierarchs and the dissenters who control much of the structure in the US is causing her to flirt with atheism. The simple and awful logic she uses is that if the Church cannot be trusted in the (serious) areas of her concern, how can the Church's testimony for Christ be trusted? There is, of course, a way out of her self-created dilemma: to focus on Christ first, and to hear Him, and to listen to Him. He is greater than all man-made structures ... and yes, the splintered mess of denominations that comprise the body of Christian believers ARE man-made structures - all of them, including the RCC and the EOs. So if membership in one of these denominations leads to greater faith, hope, and love, and greater obedience (in conscience) to the two Great Commendments, then remain where you are ... despite the inevitable imperfections. And if staying where you are leads to (1) being led to say and do what you know/believe to be wrong, or (2) loss of faith, hope, and charity - then run ... and go where God leads. Because God will never lead someone to loss of faith, hope, and love. I am Uniate, and am aware that the foregoing may sound "Protestant". But that is inevitable in these times. There are many bodies with greater or lesser claims to orthodoxy and orthopraxy. All the Churches have erred, in various ways (I here use the term Church sociologically, to refer to the institutional bodies, not to the Mystical Body). Therefore, people must inevitably choose where to go, and where to stay. This is not - and has not been, since 1054 - a time when there is only one Institution that is the Church. Division is a reality, and a conscience-driven choice is inevitable. In making this choice, prayer and listening to the Holy Spirit is the best recourse. The assistance of the Holy Spirit has been given to all believers, and we have not been left as orphans, nor are we solely reliant upon following an (inevitably fallible) human authority. Lee

Nobody is Episcopalian today unless he or she really wants to be. They're not staying under the lash (i.e. they have not been taught that if they leave, they'll go to hell.) They either stay for the most part because they agree with ECUSA liberalization, or because they're more stubborn and refuse to budge. The quote from Lewis is nice, but not really apropos. He's talking about *styles* of liturgy ("high and hazy" vs. "low and lazy"); music that can irritate (hymns, organ, bad singing); squeaky boots and wet umbrellas, or that people might not be "perfect Christians." He is not talking about (to my knowledge) sermons that directly contradict his most deeply held religious tenets, or religious education programs that do the same to children.

Reading several of the threads on this blog over the past few days, it seems clear that plenty of people, including our host, "shop around" to find the church that works best for them. What's the harm in admitting that is what people do? The "we're right and everyone else is wrong" shtick sounds pretty meaningless coming from people who are actively switching between Catholic, Orthodox, or various subsets within.

In answer to your question, Rod, yes, there is such a point. Christ says that He is the vine, and we are to abide in Him. If we instead abide in a dead branch, we won't be able to draw sustenance from Christ. (OT re Wichita -- some of the best barbecue I've ever had is served in the back of a gift shop called B & C Creations, on the east side of Wichita's Old Town.)

Shea's point is that the Church is filled with humans and sinners just trying to get through this journey in Christ by dint of His Grace and the Holy Spirit. Our common bond is trying to overcome our sins and frailties every day by following Christ's example in a daily commitment. If your criteria for the church you want to belong to is perfect himan beings belonging to and leading it, you're going to have to wait for the next world. And what ever misgivings and failures we are subjected to by the leadership(for lack of a better word) in the American Church, our daily commitment to follow Christ's example transcends that. That matters more than dolts like Eagan or Mahony.

I really relate to what Mark wrote about making the decision to "stay" once I became Catholic. I would not for one minute minimze the damage that the abuse scandals have done but that is not the history of the Catholic Church in toto. Like Mark and others I am not shocked by the scandals because the Mystical Bride *is* made up of sinful human beings like myself, even in her leaders and must undergo purification at times like these. That is a part of Catholic "sensibility" that non-Catholics often cannot grasp easily. The Catholic Church makes room for people at all levels in their spiritual walk with the hope that at some point the journey will blossom into that joyful and deep relationship with the Lord that is the fruit of walking faithfully, so she will always be a church of saints and sinners.

"I became convinced that my salvation did not depend on my being in communion with Peter, and that for reasons particular to me and my own personal history, probably depended on me severing that communion." I would certainly never judge your own faith journey Rod, the integrity of which is between you and God. Although I would disagree with you regarding the role of Peter and agree with Mark's view I have no doubts about the sincerity of the move you made to Orthodoxy. Regarding the following: though the churches have the Myths that point in the general direction of God... each in their own absurd way... it's not about church... it's "God"... For catholic Christians, its very much about the Incarnation -- God With Us, in the flesh. We place our hope in a person whom we believe to be true God and true Man and who formed a body of disciples, the Church, to carry on his mission until he returns.

I never was a Catholic, but I would understand that those kind of attitudes could undermine your faith and confidence in that church. "Threatened" was probably to strong of a word, since I was quite firm in my belief the priest statement was one-sided.

Once I went to a Catholic Church for Mass and the priest said in his homily that since the Vatican II reforms people have gained a better understanding of the meaning of the Holy Eucharist. Mark, since you state that you are not Catholic I would have to wonder what the context of the priest's statement was. Catechesis since Vatican II has reemphasized the very Biblical view that in the Eucharist we are not merely passive spectators waiting to receive Holy Communion but that Christ joins us to his once for all perfect offering as living sacrifices to the Father, ready to do his will in our daily lives as Jesus did.

I would say that I lost my Catholic faith principally when I ceased to believe the Catholic claim to exclusivity, which was in part (but not entirely) a function of the Christianity I experienced at St. Seraphim's. I think that you would start to think more about the claims of the Orthodox & Roman Catholics if you walked into my church and hung out for a little.

Christine, I think that the size and activity of many Protestant churches does depend on the leadership of the minister. Often it's "the preaching" that sets the overall tone and direction of the congregation. It's true for all organizations-including the Catholic church. The direction, objectives, tone, and everything else starts at the top with the leadership. What happens when that leadership falters or changes depends on the leadership and spiritual strength of those in lower positions. I'm glad that you found what you needed through Catholicism. I believe that many could/have found spiritual health through Catholicism. I became spiritually alive when I left organized religion, and once I found it, I was able to experience it within organized religion. Just because that worked for me doesn't mean that I'd tell everyone that it's *the best* way or *the only* way to know the Holy Spirit. I hear you when you say that you aren't confining God to Catholicism. But I hear so much elitism from the Orthodox and Catholics on these boards. I don't take it personally. I just think that it makes God pretty small.

Christine, My point was not that I completely disagreed with the priests assessment of the meaning of the Holy Eucharist, but the fact that he said that he/they NOW have a better understanding of it. I guess all the saints and Fathers must have not completely understood. That attitude was my disagreement.

Of course one should understand the shortcomings of individual priests and remain to fight it out. However, if one consistently feels uncomfortable with some heterodox beliefs or practises one should consider following one's conscience instead of letting certain heterodox attitudes influence you negatively. It could after all affect your salvation.

Christine, I think that if your concern is that Christ will not come to you because of the words that are coming from a minister's mouth when you're at church for the purpose of seeking Christ, then a Catholic or Orthodox church would be the best for you. If Christ's coming depends soley on the words that come from your lips during a service and what you believe to be true about his being, and not the intent that's in your heart, then saying the same liturgy week after week is the safe thing to do. To some extent, I think that there is a greater chance that poor leadership within Protestantism can cause spiritual harm to those weak in spiritual understanding because they are more likely to believe things that can't be true of God. They pray the most on those with a poor concept of self & love of self. I see the most evidence of this within fundamentalist Protestant Christianity. I haven't witnessed as much of that within Orthodoxy or Catholicism. But I don't think that it's free of that. I know of people who've married outside of Catholicism & haven't received the Eucharist since but continue to attend weekly Mass. I would say that Church teaching on that matter does spiritual harm & it's not of God. I wish that those people would leave the Church. I can't believe in God and then ignore what he said and did. God started a church (on Peter) and the Catholic Church is that church. I don't buy that the Catholic church looks today as it did when Peter walked the earth. I don't believe that the decisions that the Catholic church leaders have always made would have been approved by Jesus. I believe that the Reformation was as much of God's will as the decision to start with Peter. The Reformation was about the Holy Spirit directing men to act and lead in a way that would ultimately bring more people to the ways of the Lord.

Truth in advertising means something to some people. If a parish has "Catholic" on the sign out front, people should have a reasonable expectation that it will be authentically Catholic, not a Catholicized version of Protestantism.

Just read my post to Christine. I don't, usually, correct my mistakes because it would keep me too busy, and I find it annoying when others make silly little corrections. Couldn't let this one slide: They pray the most on those with a poor concept of self & love of self. Of course, I meant "prey" and not "pray." Although, praying over a person is quite often the means of preying.

I'm all for truth in advertising. The consumers shouldn't be ashamed to admit that's what they are - consumers, who are shopping around for the right "product", in this case a place to practice their chosen form of spirituality. Some people will end up at a Walmart-style megachurch, some at a little neighborhood grocery, and others at a tony boutique. It really is a marketplace of ideas, but one where the customers mostly deny they are shopping.

I'm all for truth in advertising. The consumers shouldn't be ashamed to admit that's what they are - consumers, who are shopping around for the right "product", in this case a place to practice their chosen form of spirituality. Some people will end up at a Walmart-style megachurch, some at a little neighborhood grocery, and others at a tony boutique. It really is a marketplace of ideas, but one where the customers mostly deny they are shopping. I hear you, and you really do have a point. But surely you would be dismayed to walk into your Episcopal parish and find that they were teaching Islam. A Catholic parish shouldn't be a place where people who call themselves Catholic come together to do and say whatever they like, and call it "Catholic" just because they happen to like the label. People are free to take or leave what the Catholic Church teaches, but they ought to be able to count on a Catholic parish teaching the Catholic faith. When I first entered RCIA in Baton Rouge back in 1991, I ended up dropping out of the program I was in because Father Freebird and Sister Stretchpants were emphatically not teaching anything about Catholic doctrine; they were leading us on guided meditations and the like. After several months of this, I realized that if I stuck with it, I was going to have to make a decision about whether or not to become Catholic without having much idea what the Catholic Church taught, and would demand of me. So I quit, and on the advice of a traditionalist RC friend, found an old Irish priest locally who took me on as a catechumen. He told me that first day, "By the time I get through with you, you might not want to be a Catholic, but you'll know what a Catholic is." I was very grateful for his integrity. I wondered from time to time about my fellow catechumens in that first RCIA class. How many of them became Catholic that Easter, not knowing what the Church taught, and more crucially, not realizing that it was important as to whether or not they accepted it?

I'm with you on that, Christine. I strongly believe in the sacraments as vessels of grace, and of the need for all Christians to have recourse to them. Therefore, for me, the only options are Catholicism or Orthodoxy -- though of course I would never deny the fruits of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Protestants.

though of course I would never deny the fruits of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Protestants. Nor would I Rod, nor would I. But I think that church history clearly shows the lines along which the ancient Church's practices developed.

That, Mark, is the thing I never could figure out as a practicing Catholic: why so many priests hid the Church's light under a bushel. Coming to Catholicism from a nominal Protestant background, I couldn't believe the amazing treasury of theology and spirituality the Catholic Church can draw upon. And it's all being kept hidden from the congregations! It's like God filled the Church's larders with the finest meats, cheeses, vegetables, sauces, puddings, breads, wines, and so forth ... and week after week, at homily time, the people get fed microwaved burritos. But then we go back to the question of whether religion is supposed to be primarily prophetic, or therapeutic. That is, is religion there to proclaim a standard and call us to live up to it, or is it pretty much there to impart a feeling of well-being.

Mark, Protestants are finding the same problem. The Lutheran Church used to be a solidly confessional body with some very highly defined doctrines. Recently my niece asked her mom, my sister, whe she remained Lutheran. She was totally stumped. As far as Catholic learning "theology" at Mass that really isn't the point of it. Catholics gather to offer praise and thanks to God through Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit and to be nourished by his risen life in the Eucharist. The Church is huge but always models herself on the Father of the Prodigal, always waiting with open arms for those who stray. Just because a Catholic is not learned in all the nuances of Catholic theology does not mean they cannot be devout and loving no matter what stage of their pilgrim journey they are on. Faith, hope and love, right? And the greatest of these is love. I nowise deny, however, that Catholic catechesis over the last few decades has been very deficient and needs strong attention.

Well, I'm beginning to understand. Yes, if my Episcopal church started preaching Islam, I would not approve. And my wife and I would then start looking for another church. And we'd readily admit that's what we were doing. We don't need to believe that wherever we are is "the one true faith". The whole point of a phrase like that is to exclude those who don't belong. I guess it's the exclusivity business that does not reconcile, for me, with the shopping around business.

If your criteria for the church you want to belong to is perfect himan beings belonging to and leading it, you're going to have to wait for the next world. And what ever misgivings and failures we are subjected to by the leadership(for lack of a better word) in the American Church, our daily commitment to follow Christ's example transcends that. That matters more than dolts like Eagan or Mahony. But what if the Church is governed by isolated hierarchs whose whole system of training for governance is designed to produce "dolts like Egan or Mahony"? What if that Church, which claims the fullness of the Gospel, throws away that committment for more secular considerations? What if laity and lower clergy that Church cannot hold their superiors accountable because no legitimate means to redress grievances exist and Canon Law is routinely ignored? That's goes far beyond the daily problems and difficulties in following Christ that most of us have.

If the Church is getting in your way, then leave. John 6:66-68 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?" Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

Right on, watsy!

The Church itself is a sacrament. It's interesting that there seems to be a parallel in the orthodoxy of belief in the Body of Christ in the eucharistic sense with that of the ecclesial sense. Those with a more relaxed sense of "communion" don't believe in the Real Presence or the One Church.

By the way Watsy, it is not Catholic teaching that Christ is present *only* in the Eucharist but that it is the "prime" mode of his being for the Church, the way he fulfilled his promise to be with his people until the end of time. The Reformation churches that ceased to celebrate the Eucharist as both sacrifice and meal for the most part jettisoned weekly Communion. By the way awlsdad, I'm glad you would object to the Episcopal Church teaching Islam, but maybe you ought to give them a nudge to deal with John Shelby Spong's post-Christian beliefs?

The Reformation churches that ceased to celebrate the Eucharist as both sacrifice and meal for the most part jettisoned weekly Communion. I could be missing something here. I know that when we take Communion that we acknowledge the sacrifice and think of it as a meal.

"I could be missing something here. I know that when we take Communion that we acknowledge the sacrifice and think of it as a meal." Very true, Watsy but in Catholic and Orthodox sacramental theology the concept of anemnesis means not simply "remembering" the sacrifice but the "re-presentation" of that one, same sacrifice in the present moment. It's a hard concept, I know. It was for those who fell away from Jesus after he had given them the teaching.

What happened to my post? What I said was this: Yes, yes, Protestants are so lacking in spiritual understanding of the teachings and words of Jesus. It's good that we have our mother to guide us back to the Truth.

Thank you for getting me back on topic, Scrappy. I agree with you. When people commit to something that they believe to be true, then they should stick around through the good and bad and work and work to make it right. This becomes most important when our leaders falter. When the chips are down is when the committed need to bite the bullet and work the hardest to keep their eye on the goal. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Maybe things could have been different. Maybe had the Church said, "We need to change" during the Reformation then the outcome would have been different. I would have to go back and read my history a lot more closely and ask these kinds of questions: How hard did the reformers try to work within the system for change before they said enough is enough? How much voice were those outside of the hierarchy given? What was the underlying motivation of the reformers? Was it a power trip or did they want to bring people to Christ? Commitment is important, but it doesn't mean that we can never look for alternatives when the power players aren't doing what's right. Serious people try to make things work before jumping ship, but that doesn't mean that there aren't times to leave. The good news is that we are all one body, and it's my hope, that someday we will see ourselves as one in Spirit with religion being the vehicle to know that Spirit. It's the Spirit that's Truth and not the vehicle that we use to get there.

Joe- It is a concern that American RC spits out guys like Eagan and Mahony.There was a atime we had leaders who were warrior poets, teachers, basketball coaches, and it has changed for the worse. I'm not sure how you address that(married, mature priests, perhaps? another day, another thread), and I wish it were otherwise. Still, my faith has more to do with my relationship with Christ than whether Eagan is closing schools in East Harlem again, as awful a "leader" as he may be, my leader is still Christ. This thread provokes me in this sense- one thing as a Catholic that has always bothered me is the way Protesants denigrate the Sacraments and especially the Eucharist.Part of it is likley jealousy over the history and tradition that they don't have. I know that sometimes epsecially weak priests fall back on the power and mystery of the the Eucahrist without explaining it very well, and I could see how that's offputting. But the Sacraments don't subsitute for prayer, the daily coversation that we all as Christians have each day with God. Protestants have to understand that Catholics do have real personal prayerful relationships with God, and the Sacraments are only part of out spiritual lives. Being Catholic doesn't preclude prayer. Again, I could understand when you see lousy unfocused homilies centering on the Eucharist you could see it other wise.

Bugg, I, sincerely, apologize for the times that I've denigrated the Eucharist. I say to stop putting Christ into your little man-made boxes(or wafers) and go inside of yourself and find Him. That wasn't nice. I know that, in my case, it has nothing to do with jealousy. Things that Catholics say about the Eucharist make me mad. I remember, when Rod announced his conversion, he said something like(paraphrasing), "It's not like I became an Evangelical. I'm still with a tradition that has a valid Eucharist." I don't really get mad, but I roll my eyes. I can appreciate that Catholics believe the Eucharist to be very important because I know how important taking the bread and wine has always been to me. Even if what Catholics say is true-that Christ is present in the Eucharist and isn't present in the bread, I have always experienced a peace when taking the bread and wine. So, in my case, it has little(perhaps nothing) to do with the Eucharist, and is a hostile reaction to the disrespect that my bread has received. I know that Protestants can be very disrespectful of Catholicism, and I'm sure that you can give me tons of examples that you've experienced. What Christine said is true. We don't get it. The thing about it is that I don't think that Jesus was being literal when he said those words. But, then again, I don't think that Luke or John were being literal when they wrote a good part of their gospel. That's not a Protestant thing, but it's the main reason why I stopped calling myself a Christian. I liked how you ended this thread. It was a good ending.

I like Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware statement that we can't say that God isn't working with people in whatever denomination or religion they're affiliated with right now. Even though I'm a Byzantine Catholic catechumen and I know that is where I belong and where I will grow into Christ, the two saints in this world that I've met were both Protestants. And God is definitely in and with them.They demonstrate in speech and action. My point is that we get so used to the way our faith or denomination sees the world that we assume everything else is invalid and untrue. Perhaps for you it is but not for everyone.It is not for us to judge another faith or denomination. It isn't. There are saints and holy people in every denomination and faith. God determines the best place for us to grow into his likeness and image, and not man.Even in our congregations and parishes,shoot, even in our own families, few of us really know what is taking place in one another's hearts as far as their spiritual growth. They may believe with all their heart and soul,be obedient to the teachings, know their faith inside out, attend all the services, etc. and haven't grown an inch spiritually in 15 years, but by God they are (fill in the blank) through and through.Maybe they aren't making an effort but then again maybe it isn't the place for them to best draw nearer to God.How can we presume to know that of strangers ? anon

"The Catholic Church is and always has been the vessel of salvation for the *world*." GUFFAAWWWWW!!!!!