Hey

I've retired this blog long ago. If you're interested in discussing the idea of independent catholicism, visit my Wordpress blog at http://diycatholicism.wordpress.com/

Ecclesiastical Discrepancy?

From allAfrica.com we read:

Bishop John Obokech has been dismissed from the Charismatic Episcopal Church Uganda for allegedly being disobedient and dishonest.

The dismissal from the Church means that Obokech, who has been the church's Parish Priest/Dean, can no longer perform any religious functions in its name.

"He [Obokech] has placed himself outside the spiritual coverage of apostolic authority as conferred by the International Communion of the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC)," reads a letter dated August 23.

It was written by the Head of CEC, The Most Rev. Austin Randolph Adler.

The letter says Obokech's dismissal was a result from his "refusal to submit to Godly admonition and discipline from those in apostolic authority over him. Thus he has been found in violation of his sacred vows." . . .

Obokech was given up to September 10, 2006 to repent to the patriarch (the head of the church) or be deposed after that date.

(link to whole article)

What are the implications when this is compared to the excommunication, by Pope Pius XII, of Bishop Duarte Costa, who then founded the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil, the communion from which the ICCEC procured its apostolic succession? I contend they are legion.

Our anti-Catholic controversialists, while admitting that the church of the parish or of the diocese needs its priest or bishop, its visible father, the human organ of the divine fatherhood, will hear nothing of a common father for the whole universal Church. The only head of the Church, they say, is Jesus Christ. And yet they see no reason why a parish or a diocese should not be governed by a visible minister; every Orthodox is ready to see in each bishop or priest a vicar of Jesus Christ, though he cries “Blasphemy!” when Catholics give this title to the first of the patriarchs, the successor of Peter. But do these Orthodox schismatics in fact recognize Jesus Christ as head of the Church? If he were really for them the sovereign head, they would obey his words. Is it obedience to the Master that drives them into rebellion against the steward that he has himself appointed? They are ready to allow Christ to act through this minister in any given part of his visible kingdom, but they appear to think that he exceeded the limits of his power and abused his rights in give to Peter the keys of the whole kingdom.
—Vladimir Soloviev, The Russian Church and the Papacy

One it is granted that such a center is necessary to the normal life of the Church, it cannot be supposed that the divine head and founder of the Church did not foresee this necessity, or that he left the indispensable basis of his work to chance circumstances or human caprice.
—Vladimir Soloviev, The Russian Church and the Papacy

I cast my eye over the history of mankind, and found that every association, from the most widely-spread kingdoms to the narrowest circle of friendship, was blessed with a head; that the very instincts of our nature seemed to lead to this everywhere as necessary to secure unity of purpose and action. I contemplated the Church of God; a society, not only make up of persons brought together out of all societies, but under the solemn necessity of being and remaining so perfectly joined together, as to “speak the same things, and to be of the same mind and same judgment;” thus “keeping the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.” And I asked myself, “If it be reasonable, that a society, whose unity is to be the closest in the world, should be composed of creatures of the world, and called to act in the world, and upon the world, and still be the only body in the world without a distinct, governing head?” The thing appeared to me inconsistent with the uniform wisdom and love of God, expressed in the order of His providence, and hence not to be admitted as a reality!
—L. Silliman Ives, LL. D., The Trials of a Mind In Its Progress to Catholicism

Whaddaya Think?

Pontificator, over at Pontifications, says (here) that non-Orthodox are not permitted to avail themselves of Orthodox apologetical arguments until they become Orthodox. I'm not sure this flies, logically speaking. What do you all think? (However, I think that "Pontificator's First Rule" is logically sound.)

Sorry

I have been neglecting the blog. I've been busy with life and with putting together another blog which addresses the idea of independent catholicism in general in lieu of one denomination within it. I'm pretty excited about it. Hopefully, I'll find time to get it up and running soon.

Hmmm...

I am curious as to the truthfulness of this factoid on Wikipedia which claims that the Orthodox churches, contrary to the Catholic Church, reject wholesale the belief that the independent catholic/orthodox churches (some of them at least) possess valid apostolic succession.

And, according to this factoid, does this mean that the Orthodox churches also reject the Catholic Church's claim to possess valid apostolic succession?

The East, the West, the Papacy, and the ICCEC: A Response to Fr. Matt Mirabile

This is a response to Fr. Matt Mirabile's comments to a previous post.

[I]n my mind while the East and West quibble about whose position holds the most water we, in the CEC, are under no obligation to settle the argument. When East and West [cannot] come to an understanding as to the nature of the Petrine office, who am I to settle the question? Until then I am Catholic/Orthodox “by participation in the catholic economy”. Until Rome and the East settle the issue of authority we are free, imho [in my humble opinion], to be an autocephalous church working towards intercommunion and evidencing deference to the Petrine office and the fullest participation possible in the catholic economy.

1. Why does it matter what East or West do? I think what matters is what is dictated by the ICCEC’s standard of orthodoxy...not what anyone else does—East, West, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, whatever. Imagine a Protestant settling the issues of apostolic succession and the Eucharist by saying, “In my mind, while all the various Christian denominations of the world quibble about whose position holds the most water I am under no obligation to settle the argument. When the rest of the world's Christians cannot come to an understanding as to the nature of apostolic succession and the Eucharist, who am I to settle the question? Until they settle those issues, I am free to be undecided about them.” How is the issue surrounding the papacy any different than that of apostolic succession or the Eucharist? The ICCEC’s claims to “stand squarely on the historic, undisputed teachings of orthodox Christianity as taught by Jesus, spread by the Apostles, defended by the Patriarchs of the Early Church, expressed in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, and exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first millennium of its existence.” If that’s your standard of orthodoxy—the standard of orthodoxy which compels your beliefs concerning apostolic succession and the Eucharist—shouldn’t that, and not East or West or anybody else, compel your beliefs concerning the papacy as well?

2. On what basis, either in reason or revelation, do you preclude (i) the possibility that either East or West is correct about the papacy, and (ii) the ability to know which side is correct? How does the mere fact that the papacy is a matter of dispute render you neither responsible nor able to know the truth about it?

To all such arguments against religious truth, it is sufficient to reply, that no one who does not seek the truth with all his heart and strength, can tell what is of importance and what is not; that to attempt carelessly to decide on points of faith or morals is a matter of serious presumption... “Seek, and ye shall find;” this is the Divine rule, “If thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God” (Prov. ii. 3-5).
—John Henry Cardinal Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, VIII, 13.

3. If, as you say, the fact of the division between East and West frees the ICCEC to be an autocephalous church, then it frees anyone to form an autocephalous church who is able procure apostolic succession for himself. So, let me understand...because there is one division, all manner of division is now permitted? Logically, this is a non-sequitur. It’s as if immigrants came to the United States during the Civil War and, seeing the division between North and South, declared themselves, by virtue of the original division, free to form additional and separate governing bodies within the borders of the U.S. Secondly, I cannot reconcile this with Scripture.

Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one... The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.
—Jesus Christ (Jn 17:11b, 22-23)

I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
—1 Cor 1:10

How does one division free us to ignore these and other Scriptures forbidding division? If we are to follow the dictates of Scripture (and Tradition), I think, when presented with a division, our course of action should be to join one of the already existing divisions and work for unity (and renewal), rather than create more divisions.

4. East and West disagree as to the nature of authority within the Church. That's obvious. However, East and West are in agreement as to the nature of the Church herself: she is permanently and indivisibly one. Both say that when there is a division, what you have leftover is not two churches, but the one Church and a schism. That’s why the Orthodox Churches, just as much as the Catholic Church, claim that the one Church subsists within them and that all who are not in full communion with them (such as the ICCEC) are in schism from the one Church. Now, how does the disagreement between East and West as to the nature of authority within the Church free you to disagree with both of them and to believe in a completely different kind of Church altogether?

And on aside, can the ICCEC responsibly claim fidelity to “the undivided Catholic Church during the first millennium of its existence” without dealing with the fact that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches’ view of the nature of the Church is irreconcilable with its own?

The Church is One

The ICCEC claims, by virtue of the apostolic succession upon which it established itself as an autocephalous patriarchate, that it is in full and licit communion with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church as delineated by the “undivided Catholic Church during the first millennium of its existence”.

However, do we find, in the early Church, the view that the one Church is composed of several, separate, autocephalous patriarchates, each with doctrines differing from the other—but each and all in full and licit communion with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church? If so, I am eager to see a case made for it from the Fathers. The Church I find delineated by the Fathers is a Church that is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic because her founder, Jesus Christ, imbued her permanently with these qualities, which, therefore, cannot be overturned by the sinfulness of capriciousness of man. The gates of hell shall not prevail. And hence the oneness of the Church today is the same as it was on the day of its founding at Pentecost. And the oneness of which the Fathers speak is not the so-called “oneness” purported to exist in a church composed of autocephalous patriarchates; I find the Fathers describing a Church that is permanently one in both government and doctrine.

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth... For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.
—St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses, 1:10 (A.D. 180)

Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed the Churches; which fact I have in the third book taken all pains to demonstrate. It follows, then, as a matter of course, that these heretics aforementioned, since they are blind to the truth, and deviate from the [right] way, will walk in various roads; and therefore the footsteps of their doctrine are scattered here and there without agreement or connection. But the path of those belonging to the Church circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition from the apostles, and gives unto us to see that the faith of all is one and the same ... And undoubtedly the preaching of the Church is true and steadfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughout the whole world. For to her is entrusted the light of God; and therefore the “wisdom” of God, by means of which she saves all men, “is declared in [its] going forth; it uttereth [its voice] faithfully in the streets, is preached on the tops of the walls, and speaks continually in the gates of the city.” For the Church preaches the truth everywhere, and she is the seven-branched candlestick which bears the light of Christ.
—St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses, 5:20 (A.D. 180)

Christ Jesus our Lord...had chosen the twelve chief ones to be at His side, and whom He destined to be the teachers of the nations. Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to “go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.” Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as “the sent.” Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judaea, and rounding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner rounded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (rounded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality—privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.
—Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, 20 (A.D. 200)

For it weighs me down and saddens me, and the intolerable grief of a smitten, almost prostrate, spirit seizes me, when I find that you there, contrary to ecclesiastical order, contrary to evangelical law, contrary to the unity of the Catholic institution, had consented that another bishop should be made. That is what is neither right nor allowable to be done; that another church should be set up; that Christ’s members should be torn asunder; that the one mind and body of the Lord’s flock should be lacerated by a divided emulation. I entreat that in you, at all events, that unlawful rending of our brotherhood may not continue; but remembering both your confession and the divine tradition, you may return to the Mother whence you have gone forth; whence you came to the glory of confession with the rejoicing of the same Mother. And think not that you are thus maintaining the Gospel of Christ when you separate yourselves from the flock of Christ, and from His peace and concord; since it is more fitting for glorious and good soldiers to sit down within their own camp, and so placed within to manage and provide for those things which are to be dealt with in common. For as our unanimity and concord ought by no means to be divided, and because we cannot forsake the Church and go outside her to come to you, we beg and entreat you with what exhortations we can, rather to return to the Church your Mother, and to our brotherhood.
—St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 43 (A.D. 250)

[T]he Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.
—St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 68, 8 (A.D. 254)

Now then let me finish what still remains to be said for the Article, “In one Holy Catholic Church,” on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge...
—St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:22-23 (A.D. 350)

“Paul, called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ, through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the Church of God which is at Corinth”... “Unto the Church of God.” Not “of this or of that man,” but of God. “Which is at Corinth.” Seest thou how at each word he puts down their swelling pride; training their thoughts in every way for heaven? He calls it, too, the Church “of God;” shewing that it ought to be united. For if it be “of God,” it is united, and it is one, not in Corinth only, but also in all the world: for the Church”s name (ecclesia: properly an assembly) is not a name of separation, but of unity and concord.
—St. John Chrysostom, Homily One on First Corinthians (A.D 392)

The ICCEC claims, on its website, to have “a high view of the Church in affirming Cyprian’s claim that, ‘he who has not the Church for his mother, has not God for his Father.’” That statement of St. Cyprian’s comes from his first treatise, On the Unity of the Church. Below are excerpts from that same document which I find to indicate that the ICCEC’s high view of the Church is irreconcilable with that of the author it quotes.

4. Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?”

5. And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source.

Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree,--when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. Her fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole world. She broadly expands her rivers, liberally flowing, yet her head is one, her source one; and she is one mother, plentiful in the results of fruitfulness: from her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated.

6. The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.” He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

7. This sacrament of unity, this bond of a concord inseparably cohering, is set forth where in the Gospel the coat of the Lord Jesus Christ is not at all divided nor cut, but is received as an entire garment, and is possessed as an uninjured and undivided robe by those who cast lots concerning Christ’s garment, who should rather put on Christ. Holy Scripture speaks, saying, “But of the coat, because it was not sewed, but woven from the top throughout, they said one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots whose it shall be.” That coat bore with it an unity that came down from the top, that is, that came from heaven and the Father, which was not to be at all rent by the receiver and the possessor, but without separation we obtain a whole and substantial entireness. He cannot possess the garment of Christ who parts and divides the Church of Christ. But because Christ’s people cannot be rent, His robe, woven and united throughout, is not divided by those who possess it; undivided, united, connected, it shows the coherent concord of our people who put on Christ. By the sacrament and sign of His garment, He has declared the unity of the Church.

8. Who, then, is so wicked and faithless, who is so insane with the madness of discord, that either he should believe that the unity of God can be divided, or should dare to rend it--the garment of the Lord--the Church of Christ? He Himself in His Gospel warns us, and teaches, saying, “And there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” And does any one believe that in one place there can be either many shepherds or many flocks? The Apostle Paul, moreover, urging upon us this same unity, beseeches and exhorts, saving, “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that ye be joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” And again, he says, “Forbearing one another in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Do you think that you can stand and live if you withdraw from the Church, building for yourself other homes and a different dwelling, when it is said to Rahab, in whom was prefigured the Church, “Thy father, and thy mother, and thy brethren, and all the house of thy father, thou shalt gather unto thee into thine house; and it shall come to pass, whosoever shall go abroad beyond the door of thine house, his blood shall be upon his own head?” Also, the sacrament of the passover contains nothing else in the law of the Exodus than that the lamb which is slain in the figure of Christ should be eaten in one house. God speaks, saying, “In one house shall ye eat it; ye shall not send its flesh abroad from the house.” The flesh of Christ, and the holy of the Lord, cannot be sent abroad, nor is there any other home to believers but the one Church. This home, this household of unanimity, the Holy Spirit designates and points out in the Psalms, saying, “God, who maketh men to dwell with one mind in a house.” in the house of God, in the Church of Christ, men dwell with one mind, and continue in concord and simplicity.

23. God is one, and Christ is one, and His Church is one, and the faith is one, and the people is joined into a substantial unity of body by the cement of concord. Unity cannot be severed; nor can one body be separated by a division of its structure, nor torn into pieces, with its entrails wrenched asunder by laceration. Whatever has proceeded from the womb cannot live and breathe in its detached condition, but loses the substance of health.

—St. Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1 (On the Unity of the Church) (A.D. 251)

Guidelines for Discussion

The aim of this blog is to examine the International Communion of the Charismatic Episcopal Church’s claim (as found on its website) to stand:

squarely on the historic, undisputed teachings of orthodox Christianity as taught by Jesus, spread by the Apostles, defended by the Patriarchs of the Early Church, expressed in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first millennium of its existence.

Anyone is welcome to participate in the discussion along those lines. As a Catholic and former member of the ICCEC, I am especially interested in those areas where these churches’ claims intersect—i.e. the Catholic Church’s claim to be the true Church and the ICCEC’s claim to be a valid and licit apostolic church, not in schism, but fully integrated into the one, holy, and catholic Church as delineated by the ICCEC’s own standard of orthodoxy (quoted above). So, that is the train of thought that I will be pursuing. Any other discussion is welcome, permitted that it pertains to the ICCEC’s claims or its doctrines, and not to the people making those claims. Any comments that stray from this focus and into naming specific people in the ICCEC in a negative light, describing moral failings in the ICCEC, or, are, in general, not animated by a basic spirit of charity beholden to all men and women who claim allegiance to Christ, will either be edited or deleted.

Some Redirection

I was away yesterday and when I returned to check the blog I was very uncomfortable with several of the comments made to my post about the rift in the ICCEC.

My intentions for this blog are to discuss the general claims of the ICCEC according to the standard of orthodoxy which the ICCEC claims for itself; specifically, where these claims intersect with other bodies who claim the same standard of orthodoxy, namely, the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church.

As such, I now realize that I never should have posted news about the ICCEC’s internal conflicts, for such matters are not within the scope of my objectives for this blog. My intentions for posting the news was to merely make note of some hugely significant news pertaining to the subject matter of this blog, not to point out the failings of any people or group of people within the ICCEC. However, the comments to my post soon turned in that direction.

Are there sinners in the ICCEC? I’m sure there are; just as there are sinners in every church. But that brings nothing to bear upon the aforementioned objectives of this blog. As I find myself saying repeatedly, the Church is composed of sinners; therefore, there will be sin in the Church—both in the clergy and in the laity—and this fundamental fact does not affect any church’s claim to be the true Church (as is the case with the Catholic Church) or a true and licit apostolic church (as is the case with the ICCEC). These claims are separate from the failings of individual people or groups of people; and it is these claims which are the topic of this blog—not the failings of the people who make those claims.

I will, though, go on record saying that I, personally, have no reason to suppose that the clergy of the ICCEC are anything but men of good will and honorable intentions, who, like me and many of my fellow Catholics, are “working out their salvation with fear and trembling.” That is my experience, and that is what I will go on believing until I experience otherwise.

I have deleted my post about the rift in the ICCEC and the comments attached to it. And I will add that no member of the ICCEC—lay or clergy—has even suggested that I do so.

A Response to Collin Nunis

My friend, focus and concern yourself more with the substance and the teachings of the Church. Why do political clouts bother you? What about the spirit and truth? What about the Gospel? I think its time you shift the focus of this blog and go for the Gospel.

Hey Collin...

You voice a common Protestant complaint...and one which assumes what it is trying to prove.

The bystanders, most of them, will judge the matter according to the views which they already hold, and go on about their business. A few may be bemused enough to undertake some scrutiny of the their own notions.
—Thomas Howard, Lead Kindy Light: My Journey to Rome

Your view of the Gospel assumes that the papacy is superfluous at best. It is precisely this view which I am attempting to challenge with my blog by asserting that obedience to the Gospel includes obedience to the pope, because Christ set up St. Peter and his successors to be the head of His Church; and since Christ established it, it is, therefore, essential to the Gospel.

I assume that you are a member of the ICCEC. The ICCEC believes that valid apostolic succession and the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, are coterminous with the Gospel, because Christ established these things; and, therefore, we have no right to exclude them. (Christ says in Jn 6 that if we don't eat His flesh, we have no life!) Now, how would you respond to a Protestant Fundamentalist who chided your devotion to and defense of apostolic succession and the Eucharist by telling you to "shift focus and go for the Gospel"?

So, when you tell me to "go for the Gospel," I would reply by saying that that is exactly what I am doing! Remember, your notion of the Gospel is a Protestant one and it is not mine; and the whole aim of my blog is to point out that the Gospel that excludes the papacy is a novel and deficient one because it has set aside that which Christ established, and that which is delineated in Scripture and upheld by the early Church, the Fathers, the councils, and the saints.

Besides, what seemed to me to be the great concern of the Christian, was, to honor God, by due submission to all that He has revealed. And finally, the thought struck me, that there might perhaps be more danger in believing too little than too much.
-L. Silliman Ives, LL. D., The Trials of a Mind in its Progress to Catholicism

Finally, consider how odd your words would sound to the English Martyrs: St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher, St. Edmund Campion, and the hundreds of other men and women who, "suffered the extreme penalty for maintaining the unity of the Church and the Supremacy of the Apostolic See, the doctrines most impugned by the reformation in all lands, and at all times."

Coming Home Where He Belongs

Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue and former member of the ICCEC, has converted to the Catholic Church. Here's some excerpts from a couple of interview/articles from the National Catholic Register:

What took me so long was that I was a cultural Protestant, trained in Protestant theology. I had to look at the parts of my training that were inaccurate or deficient. For the past six years, I have been in the Charismatic Episcopal Church. My conversion began with my friendships with clergy in this Church. They told me that the farther you go in Reformation theology, the more you end up in Catholicism and liturgy.

-----

In my conversations with Father Mikalajunas, he would tell me that I belonged in Rome, and I would jokingly tell him that he would make a great Baptist preacher. I knew I was being pulled into Rome. At the beginning of Lent, he told me something that made a lightbulb go on. He said that he would receive me into the Church. He knew what I knew — he knew that I knew the dogmas of the Church. He was offering to receive us in the event that I could say, “Yes, I believe.”

I thought, “Oh my goodness,” and felt like the Holy Spirit was showing us a plan for our lives. Father Mikalajunas concurred.

Over Holy Thursday we were received and confirmed at St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church in Binghamton. Father Mikalajunas brought in two witnesses.

When I was confirmed, I had this overwhelming sense that I had just walked into a cathedral that was packed with people — namely, the heroes and martyrs and saints who had gone before us. I felt they were rejoicing and calling us on in our journey. I felt as if I was with these people.

There was a tremendous sense of joy realizing that it was the end of my ongoing struggles.

(Drake, Tim, "Inpersion Interview: From Operation Rescue to Operation Convert," National Catholic Register. 21-27 May 2006 http://www.ncregister.com/articulo4.php?artkod=NDY0)

joining the Catholic Church, came unexpectedly this Lent after what Terry describes as a 20-year search for Truth. That journey is evident from the mementos and books found in the home. A copy of Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma sits on the bathroom counter. Luther, Aquinas, Chesterton, Belloc and the early Church Fathers line the bookshelves. A photograph of Terry with Pope John Paul II sits in the home’s entryway, as well as in his library.

Terry is as surprised as anyone by where his journey has led.

-----

Terry founded Operation Rescue — a group that nonviolently blocked abortion clinic entrances until police physically removed them. Terry was first arrested with the movement in 1986.

While in prison, Terry met Father John Mikalajunas, a prison chaplain working in the Diocese of Syracuse.

“I would come in once a week for those who were incarcerated,” said Father Mikalajunas. “Although Randall wasn’t Catholic, when I had Mass, he would be present.”

That was the start of a 20-year relationship which would ultimately bring Terry into the fullness of the Christian faith.

After that, the two kept in contact through pro-life work, conferences, and luncheons.

“He was always very Catholic, but he kept fighting it,” said Father Mikalajunas.

-----

Terry and Andrea had independently joined the Charismatic Episcopal Church, a liturgical denomination not in union with Rome.

“I would challenge him, but he was anti-papal,” says Father Mikalajunas. “I would tell him, you are going to other churches to be liturgically Catholic, instead of coming home where you belong.”

(Drake, Tim, "Still Slaying Dragons After All These Years," National Catholic Register. 21-27 May 2006 http://www.ncregister.com/articulo4.php?artkod=NDY1)

"...does not even know that he has never thought of it..."

Whatever positive or negative reasons one has for or against embracing the Catholic Church and becoming Catholic, the matter is only settled by dealing with one question: Is it true? In other words, is what the Catholic Church claims about herself reconcilable with the facts—with the facts as found in “the historic, undisputed teachings of orthodox Christianity as taught by Jesus, spread by the Apostles, defended by the Patriarchs of the Early Church, expressed in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first millenium of its existence.” When we look at the facts here, do we find what the Catholic Church claims—that is, that she is the only church established by Christ and commanded by Him to teach in His name and with His very (infallible) authority until the end of time; the only church to which Christ bequeathed “the fullness of the means of salvation”; the only church established by Christ as the true home of all Christians?

But why does it even matter? Does it even matter if the Catholic Church is what it claims to be? Well, yes, it does. If the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ as the true home of all Christians, then to be outside of full submission to the Catholic Church is contrary to the will of Jesus Christ.

OK, so lots of groups claim things, why should the ICCEC bother with this clam? Well, for one thing, because the ICCEC draws so much from the Catholic Church, her Tradition, her theology, and from the writings of her faithful children, the saints. If the Catholic Church gets so much right in the eyes of the ICCEC, is it reasonable for the ICCEC to merely dismiss the central and consequential claim of the Catholic Church to be the true Church? If the ICCEC credits the Catholic Church so much on so many points, is it reasonable for the ICCEC to dismiss this colossal claim without a reason at all?

Consider also that the ICCEC, by claiming to follow the same standards of orthodoxy as the Catholic Church, i.e. Scripture and Tradition as “exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first millennium of its existence,” it places itself along side the Catholic Church. Shouldn’t the ICCEC therefore at least have some reasons for not believing the claim of the Catholic Church to be the true Church—a claim that the Catholic Church finds all over “the undivided Catholic Church during the first millennium of its existence”?

I’ve witnessed a persistent resistance—almost an inability—of those in the ICCEC to even consider, much less engage, the Catholic Church’s claim to be the true Church, and to state why they believe, according to Scripture and Tradition, this claim be false. It reminds me of what G.K. Chesterton said about the slavery of the mind.

What I mean by the slavery of the mind is that state in which men do not know of the alternative. It is something which clogs the imagination, like a drug or a mesmeric sleep, so that a person cannot possibly think of certain things at all. It is not the state in which he says, “I see what you mean; but I cannot think that because I sincerely think this” (which is simply rational): it is one in which he has never thought of the other view; and therefore does not even know that he has never thought of it… The thing I mean is man’s inability to state his opponent’s view; and often his inability even to state his own.
—G.K. Chesterton, “The Slavery of the Mind,” The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic

Ancient vs. Protestant View of the Church

We...believe that the ICCEC has been raised by God to be a new jurisdiction.... It was a unique work of God borne into the hearts of dedicated and faithful clergy from a number of denominations.
—http://www.iccec.org/whowerare/index.html

The testimony, they say, and interior persuasion of the Holy Spirit... They offer us something that passes in the interior of the soul, which no one sees, nobody knows save the soul itself and its Creator! (1.) Show me clearly that when you tell me that such and such an inspiration exists in your conscience, you are not telling a lie. You say that you feel this persuasion within you... I am willing to hold you as good people enough, but when there is question of the foundations of my faith...I find neither your ideas nor your words steady enough to serve me as a base. (2.) Show me clearly that these inspirations and persuasions that you pretend to have are of the Holy Spirit. Who knows not that the spirit of darkness very often appears in clothing of light? (3.) Does this spirit grant his persuasions indifferently to every one, or only to some particular persons? If to every one, how does it happen that so many millions of Catholics have never perceived them, nor so many women, working-people, and others among yourselves? If it is to some in particular, show them me, I beg you—and why to these rather than to others? What mark will you give me to know them and to pick them out from the crowd of the rest of men? Must I believe in the first you shall say: here you are? This would be to put ourselves too much at a venture and at the mercy of deceivers. Show me then some infallible rule to recognise these inspired ones, these persuaded ones, or else permit me to credit none of them... (4.)... Try to harmonise, I pray you, this spirit and his persuasions, who persuades the one to reject what he persuades the other to receive... So this spirit, divided against himself, will leave you no other conclusion except to grow thoroughly obstinate, each in his own opinion. (5.)... In a word, it is to the Church General that the Holy Spirit immediately addresses his inspirations and persuasions, then, by the preaching of the Church, he communicates them to private persons. It is the Spouse in whom the milk is produced, then the children suck it from her breasts. But you would have it, on the contrary, that God inspires private persons, and by these means the Church, that the children receive the milk and the mother is nourished at their breasts—an absurdity.
—St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy

Point five lays finger on the ICCEC's fundamentally Protestant view of the Church as something which man builds and rebuilds up from revelation, using revelation as a blueprint. Different individuals are inspired by God to build different churches according to their own private interpretations of Scripture and Tradition. (See point four above.)

The Catholic/Orthodox, i.e. traditional/ancient, view holds that Jesus gave us a Church and not the Scriptures or Tradition. It is through the Church, "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tm 3:15), that we (i) receive revelation, and (ii) know it as such. Accordingly, is is through Holy Mother Church that we know the voice of God.

When we grow up under one of these views, taking it in with our mother's milk as if it were the only view, we tend to presume its truth without examination. This, I think, is the reason that many in the ICCEC fail to understand the Catholic Church's position in regards to the ICCEC.

The bystanders, most of them, will judge the matter according to the views which they already hold, and go on about their business. A Few may be bemused enough to undertake some scrutiny of the their own notions.
—Thomas Howard, Lead Kindy Light: My Journey to Rome

The Church, then, in the order of worship, does not come between Christ and the individual soul. But in the order of intellectual conviction, the Church does, if you will, come between Christ and the individual mind. It is through the Church that the Catholic finds out what he is to believe and why he is to believe it.
—Ronald Knox, The Belief of Catholics

They do not, as a rule, want authority in matters of belief for the right reason—i.e., that the whole notion of revealed religion becomes logically impossible without it. They do not understand that the whole edifice of non-Catholic theology has always been doomed to wreck, because it never had any foundation in reason. But they do see that, here and now, there is no tradition so long established that it cannot be questioned, no doctrine so venerable that it cannot be controverted; they do see that the leaders of Protestant thought are desperately guessing at the truth, and covering up their uncertainties with equivocal phrases and sentimental white-wash. Really, the sight of it would almost make you want to be a Roman Catholic, if the Roman Catholics did not believe such impossible things...
—Ronald Knox, The Belief of Catholics

The Original Convergence Movement

One reason it’s great to be Catholic is that the Catholic Church is so catholic—she embraces the many facets and expressions of the Faith. In the Catholic Church there is both the Little Flower and the Angelic Doctor as saints and doctors of the Church; there is the vocation of fatherhood and motherhood lifted up as holy and high ideals, equal to that of “the ministry”; there is both the glory and pomp and artistic splendor of Vatican City and the simplicity of St. Francis; there is both the asceticism of cloistered Carmelites and the jolly, beer-drinking, tobacco-smoking sons of the Church like Tolkien and Chesterton.

What makes this possible? It is the charism of infallibility given by Christ to the Apostles united under the leadership of St. Peter (Mt 16:18-19; Jn 16:13), which is the living principle of truth that enables the Church to recognize and embrace all that is true and good, and to reject what is not, in the varied expressions of the Faith. As such, all the different expressions of the Faith have their home in the Catholic Church where they find their highest potential realized through the Church’s living and infallible teaching authority. Karl Adam puts it this way in his classic work of 1924, The Spirit of Catholicism:

The individual life of men and peoples—the most precious thing in the world and unique in character—flows with its rich and sparkling waters in all the innumerable courses and channels dug by missionaries in far lands; and those countless tributaries flow into the Church, and purified in the Holy Spirit by its infallible teaching, merge into a single mighty stream, into one great flood which flows through all humanity, fertilizing and purifying as it goes. That is the true conception of the Catholic Church. It is a great, supranational tidal wave of faith in God and love of Christ, nourished and supported by the special powers of every individual nation and of every individual man, purified and inspired by the divine spirit of truth and love.
—Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism, (New York: Crossroad, 1997), 146-147.

Money Quote: Rick Conason

Although the Catholic saints were very different from each other in temperament, learning, and spirituality, they had one thing in common. All were utterly convinced that the Catholic Church was the only true Church. I reasoned that if these great Christian men and women believed this, it very likely was true.
—Rick Conason, “Oy!” from Surprised by Truth by Patrick Madrid

A Catholic's Motive for Evangelization

Catholics cannot pretend not to believe that the great gift of truth that God intends for his Church is, in fact, less than it is. So what does the Catholic Church claim? That, as the much-misunderstood and much-debated document Dominus Iesus ("Jesus the Lord") said, “There can properly speaking be only one church of Jesus Christ because there is only one Christ.” There is only one head; therefore, there can be only one body, in the full theological and ecclesiological understanding of the Church. And what does the Catholic Church say about itself? The Second Vatican Council very deliberately and after much debate said that the church of Jesus Christ subsists in the Catholic Church in a singular way, in a way that is not true of others, except, as we shall see, with respect to the Orthodox. It did not say, “The church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church” or, obversely, that “the Catholic Church is the church of Jesus Christ” but that the church of Jesus Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. Do you want to know where the church of Jesus Christ, as Christ intended it, apostolically ordered, and so understood from the beginning, from the first and second and third centuries, from the very constituting and self-defining moments—do you want to know where that is to be found? It is to be found in the Catholic Church. To put it differently, what does the Catholic Church claim? That it is the church of Jesus Christ most fully and rightly ordered through time. So says the great constitution on the church, Lumen Gentium (“Light to the Nations”). It follows that if one believes what the Catholic church says of itself to be true, then he is obliged to enter into and remain in communion with the Catholic Church.
—Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, “That They May Be One: Prospects for Unity in the Twenty-First Century,” Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity, July/August, 2003

Did He Die in Vain?

King Henry VIII “requested” the English bishops to secede from under the authority of the pope and to adopt the “branch theory” theory of the Church, which is essentially the theory of the Church adopted by the ICCEC, and which holds that the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is made up of separate, autonomous patriarchates.

St. John Fisher was a bishop who refused to grant the king’s request; and he spoke these words at a convocation of English bishops:

“We cannot grant this unto the king [unless] we renounce our unity with the See of Rome. And if there were no further matter in it than of renouncing of Clement VII Pope thereof, then the matter were not so great; but in this we do forsake the first four General Councils, which none ever forsook; we renounce all canonical and ecclesiastical laws of the Church of Christ, we renounce all other Christian princes, we renounce the unity of the Christian world, and so leap out of Peter’s ship to be drowned in the wave of all heresies, sects, schisms, and divisions... All general councils of the world ever acknowledged the Pope of Rome only to be the supreme Head of the Church; and now, shall we acknowledge another Head, or one Head to be in England and another in Rome?... If this thing be, farewell to all unity with Christendom; for as that holy and blessed martyr, St. Cyprian, saith, ‘All unity depends upon the authority of that Holy See, as upon the authority of Peter’s successors.’ For, saith the same holy father, all heresies, sects, and schisms have no other use but this, that men will not be obedient to the chief bishop.”
- Msgr. Capel, D.D., “Catholic”: An Essential and Exclusive Attribute of the True Church

It might be apropos here to point out that this same St. Cyprian is quoted on the “who we are” page of the ICCEC’s website: "Among those beliefs we would underscore and commend the following... A high view of the Church in affirming Cyprian's claim that, 'he who has not the Church for his mother, has not God for his Father'"

But, so confident was St. John Fisher that St. Cyprian and the other Church Fathers--as well as the first four Ecumenical Councils--taught that by repudiating the authority of the pope that one somehow repudiates the the Church as his mother, that he sacrificed his life rather than grant the king's wish.

“[He] met death with a calm dignified courage which profoundly impressed all present. His headless body was stripped and left on the scaffold till evening, when it was thrown naked into a grave in the churchyard of Allhallows, Barking... His head was stuck upon a pole on London Bridge, but its ruddy and lifelike appearance excited so much attention that, after a fortnight, it was thrown into the Thames, its place being taken by that of Sir Thomas More, whose martyrdom occurred on 6 July next following.”

Who Should We Believe?

Let’s make a list of some of our favorite saints whose writings have greatly helped our spiritual walks. John of the Cross? Therese of Lisieux? Catherine of Siena? Augustine? Thomas Aquinas? Francis of Assisi? Faustina? Teresa of Avila? Josemaria Escriva? Padre Pio? Now, let’s ask ourselves if any of these saints were led by God to seperate from the corruption in the Church by spearheading a movement to procure apostolic succession and form a seperate "pure" church (which would then be more catholic than the Catholics)? Weren't they, instead, in full communion with the Roman Pontiff (in spite of all the corruption and confusion that existed in the Catholic Church during their day)? Now, if we’ve come to recognize (and experience) the wisdom of these saints, what good reason do we have to mistrust their judgment when it comes to this matter? Furthermore, beyond that of dismissing the view of these holy, wise people, what is the motive of credibility for trusting someone else's view instead?

Testing the Test

Like many in the ICCEC, it was my involvement with the ICCEC that first exposed me to tradition: the Church Fathers, the early Church councils, the writings and overall witness of the saints, etc. Naturally, I took the ICCEC’s view of tradition, largely unexamined and in good faith, assuming that it was true. It was not until I began to survey the contents of tradition on my own that I was confronted with other views—just as, or maybe more—plausible than the ICCEC’s. It was then that I was even made aware of my assumptions, and then had them challenged. I often wonder how many of the good people in the ICCEC simply dismiss the papacy, assuming that it must not be true because, well, the Orthodox don’t believe it, or, more likely, simply because they trust their leaders in the ICCEC. (See the quote from Chesterton in the previous post.)

Consider the English martyrs who thought it better to sacrifice their lives than to deny the doctrine of the papacy. If the papacy were dispensable—something merely optional for the Christian seeking true obedience to Christ—then why would these men and women willingly suffer the supreme penalty for upholding it?

“I have by the Grace of God, been always a Catholic, never out of Communion with the Roman Pontiff, but I have heard it said at times that the authority of the Roman Pontiff was certainly lawful and to be respected, but still an authority derived from human law, and not standing on a Divine prescription. Then when I observed that public affairs were so ordered that the sources of the power of the Roman Pontiff would necessarily be examined, I gave myself up to a most diligent examination of that question for the space of seven years, and found that the authority of the Roman Pontiff which you rashly—I will not use stronger language—have set aside, is not only lawful, to be respected, and necessary, but also grounded on the Divine law and prescription. That is my opinion, that is the belief in which by the grace of God I shall die.”
--St. Thomas More, quoted in Luke Rivington, Authority: A Plain Reason For Joining the Church of Rome

Money Quote: Chesterton

"Man is always influenced by thought of some kind, his own or somebody else's; that of somebody he trusts or that of somebody he never heard of, thought at first, second or third hand; thought from exploded legends or unverified rumours; but always something with the shadow of a system of values and a reason for preference. A man does test everything by something. The question here is whether he has ever tested the test."
--G.K. Chesterton, "The Revival of Philosophy - Why?"

Thinking About Apostolic Succession

The ICCEC claims that tradition is an authoritative rule of faith.

The ICCEC stands squarely on the historic, undisputed teachings of orthodox Christianity as taught by Jesus, spread by the Apostles, defended by the Patriarchs of the Early Church, expressed in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first millenium of its existence.

Hearkening back to this authoritative rule do we ever find it deemed licit for men to: (i) procure apostolic succession for themselves, (ii) and then go out and establish their own, separate and autonomous patriarchates?

We know what the Catholic Church would have to say about this, but what about the Orthodox churches?

If both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches condemn this use of apostolic succession (through an appeal to tradition), what evidence do we have that they are wrong and that this use of apostolic succession is, indeed, in line with "the historic, undisputed teachings of orthodox Christianity as taught by Jesus, spread by the Apostles, defended by the Patriarchs of the Early Church, expressed in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first millennium of its existence"?

The logical conclusion of this use of apostolic succession is that any man or group of men who feels burdened or inspired by the Holy Spirit to be "raised by God to be a new jurisdiction", can go and procure apostolic succession for themselves and form their own separate, autonomous patriarch; and hence the Church will be composed of an untold number of separate, autonomous patriarchates, each essentially acting as its own church.

1. What, then, do we make of the Apostles' and the Fathers' universal condemnation of schism and sectarianism? If this use of apostolic succession does not constitute schism and sectarianism, then what kind of schism and sectarianism were the Apostles and the Fathers addressing?
2. What, then, do we make of that part in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds where we--echoing the Fathers and the Councils--declare the Church to be both apostolic and one?

Finally, if this use of apostolic succession is licit, then why does it not occur to the hundreds of Protestant clergy who, every year, sacrifice their ministries and livelihoods to convert to the Catholic Church? If it really would be in perfect harmony with the faith handed down to us from the Apostles for these men to procure apostolic succession and begin their own autonomous patriarchates, why don't we see more of them doing it? It certainly would be a much less painful route. Why does it not occur to them? Are they just ignorant of this option? But if it really is part and parcel with the faith handed down to us from the Apostles, why doesn't everybody know about it?

An Episcopal History of the ICCEC in Less than One Minute

The ICCEC was formed in 1992 by a group of folks who came to recognize the value and necessity of tradition and the stuff of tradition: sacraments, liturgy, apostolic succession:

[The ICCEC] was a unique work of God borne into the hearts of dedicated and faithful clergy from a number of denominations (Pentecostals, Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Independent Charismatics, Wesleyans, etc.) who studied, prayed over, and witnessed this need for a house of convergence. They were burdened for a church that not only exercised apostolic authority within a liturgical framework but operated under the inspiration and anointing of the Holy Spirit.

We believe that a valid, apostolic episcopacy is not an option but rather an essential part of the New Testament definition of the Church.

The ICCEC received apostolic succession through Anglican lines of succession whereupon it established its own autonomous patriarchate. Eventually, the ICCEC lost faith in the validity of Anglican lines of succession and ultimately procured apostolic succession from the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil, a denomination founded by a former Catholic bishop, Carlos Duarte Costa, immediately after being excommunicated by Pope Pius XII in 1945.

Today the ICCEC has almost 1000 churches in 20 countries.

Here Goes...

The aim of this blog is to examine the International Communion of the Charismatic Episcopal Church's claim to stand:

squarely on the historic, undisputed teachings of orthodox Christianity as taught by Jesus, spread by the Apostles, defended by the Patriarchs of the Early Church, expressed in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first millenium of its existence.

I'm a convert to the Catholic Church via the ICCEC; I believe the Catholic Church's claim to be founded by Christ as the fullness of the means of salvation; and I have a burden to see my friends and family in the ICCEC come into the fullness that Christ has for them. As such, I have spent much time and energy over the past few years examining where the Catholic Church and ICCEC's claims meet, and I have decided to air my thoughts in this regard on this here blog. I hope to have charitable discussion and argument (as opposed to quarrelling) with others interested in this topic.

To the medieval mind, debate was a fine art, a serious science, and a fascinating entertainment, much more than it is to the modern mind, because the medievals believed, like Socrates, that dialectic could uncover truth. Thus a ‘scholastic disputation’ was not a personal contest in cleverness, nor was it ‘sharing opinions’; it was a shared journey of discovery. —Peter Kreeft, "The Summa and Its Parts," Christian History, Winter 2002

We'll see how it goes...