Toward a Conscientious Restoration of the Whole Holy Christian Church

  Toward the end of the middle ages, the Church in western Europe was edging toward a totalitarian stance of controlling how people should think. This was not just apparent in matters of spirituality, but in matters of culture and science as well. We see this in the suppression of Galileo's telescope discoveries, and in Copernicus' wary reticence to have his planetary theory published before his death. Also, the recent history of internal crusades to suppress heresy, and the frequent expulsions of the Jews revealed how unwise it was to disagree with the doctrines of the Church. But unrest ever rises whenever the reigns of authority are tightened too much, and all it requires is a plausible alternative to the abuse of power. Thus, in 1517, Luther's dissatisfaction was a ready tinder for the sparks of protest to grow into flame. 

 Every effective protest requires a handful of good reasons to refrain from ordinary obedience. If a man is going to risk the disapproval of his peers, he needs a sense of conviction. But the heavy-handed reaction of violent suppression inevitably leads to revolt, which then pushes its views and demands further, even beyond the ability of reforms to ameliorate. And in the heat of thus repudiating authority, the expression of our views can overstate and oversimplify our position. Thus we see how in our day we get excessive personalization and an obstinate relativism of faith, which demands a hand-off aversion even to the preaching of the gospel, and especially to any hint of authority to impose right beliefs. 

 But there were good reasons to try and reform the Church, to allow valid expressions of faith, and also a few times when rejection went further than it had to.

  Positive aspects: Reforms 

*1. Sola Fide 

    - Salvation is by faith alone. 

    - Faith counts as righteousness. 

    - Works come after faith. 

    - Salvation is God's gift of grace. 

*2. Sola Scriptura 

    - Scripture is the only infallible Truth

    - Maintain the early simplicity. 

    - Tradition & Councils can be biased 

    - We must reject Papal infallibility. 

*3. Church discipline 

    - "Speak to your brother in love." 

    - Virtue is required for leadership. 

    - Confession & penance is optional. 

    - Repentance invokes forgiveness. 

*4. Priesthood of all believers 

    - God hears all our prayers.

    - Any may act as priest if needed. 

    - We need vernacular scriptures. 

    - All may preach the Gospel. 

*5. Married clergy 

    - Celibacy doesn't confer holiness. 

    - Permission prevents secret abuse.

    - It's an extra hurdle for vocations. 

    - Celibacy wasn't originally required.

 

*6. Rejects the doctrine of purgatory 

    - Restitution & charity, not indulgences. 

    - Purity & righteousness are imputed. 

    - There is no "treasury of merit." 

    - Christ meets us with mercy. 

*7. Seek personal relations with God

    - We can confess to Jesus directly. 

    - We can allow some variety of faith. 

    - Everyone can study Scripture. 

    - Works are a response of love. 

 If you're talking about purgatory, you are asserting that we can be saved, but still attached to old habits of sin. Yet, so long as we hold onto sin, resisting being cleansed, we cannot enter Heaven. In truth, we must question whether we will be given further opportunity to release them, or will we be relegated to walk through eternal flames. The time for us to be concerned for our sanctification, to bear the fruits of faith, is now. We must not presume on grace.

 When we stand before Jesus, on the day of our death, and bow to beg mercy for our souls, we must be willing to leave every sin behind and rise to follow Him without any hesitation. That is the day of our complete regeneration. If, instead, we cling to our old habits, we are choosing to be left behind in self-exile. Sadly, even those who should be saved retain the freedom to choose whether to wander and be lost or to follow the Good Shepherd. That is why we should seek to be sanctified as much as possible in this life. Jesus will not use force and drag us to follow. Rather, He calls us by name, and we know that we must follow his voice if we want the gift of eternal life.

 Our salvation, however, is separate from the evaluation of our heavenly rewards. Our works will be tested with fire, to burn away the chaff and reveal the treasure (I Cor. 3:13-15). But once the chaff of useless works is gone, then we can triumphantly join the saints and Jesus forever. The duration of this time of suffering is not described, however, but is likely to be as short as we allow it to be. We are not the ones who will declare the value of any of our works in Christ's service. Only his mercy will see whether our desires are primarily for Him or merely for the rewards of Heaven. 

 Most, if not all, of these reforms would have been recognized as valid professions by the Fathers of the Early Church.

    Negative aspects: Protests 

-1. Believes in fewer sacraments 

    - Signs of grace, not means. 

    - Baptism & Eucharist recognized. 

    - Others are neglected or devalued.

    - Overlooks call to other ministries.

    - Doesn't recognize holy orders. 

-2. Disbelief in priestly miracles 

    - Doubts literal presence of Body & Blood. 

    - Questions ritual effectiveness. 

    - Miracles are the works of God. 

    - Leads to cessationist ecclesiology 

-3. Forgets the communion of saints 

    - Does not venerate, or pray to Mary 

    - Does not pray to saints for help 

    - Does not intercede for the dead 

    - Ignores angels as mythology 

-4. Disregards monastic tradition 

    - Does not pray for the world 

    - Does not withdraw from culture 

    - Rejects ascetic practices 

    - Disapproves of strenuous piety 

-5. No physical objects of devotion 

    - no veneration of relics or icons 

    - no personal sacramentals 

    - crosses worn as jewelry 

    - infrequent expressions of piety 

-6. Shorter OT canon 

    - abandons Septuagint early canon 

    - chooses Masoretic late canon 

    - limits scriptural pool of teaching 

    - anti-judaism relativizes ethics 

-7. Narrow Focus on Preaching & Worship 

    - neglects confession & penance 

    - preacher fails to act as mediator

    - idiosyncratic symbolic ceremonies 

    - ad hoc prayer services 

 In some ways, the Reformation went too far. It was, however, a necessary reaction to the abuse of authority and tradition to develop and extrapolate Church doctrines. Perhaps, some teachings should have been left to the individual's intellectual freedom. The Church needs only to offer guidance to limit the range of speculation so as to avoid heretical wandering. If Protestant reformers depart from Catholic conventions and yet remain faithful to the creeds, traditions and councils that were authoritative before the Great Schism of 1054, there should be no reason to scorn them. Then, if they do choose to follow some Catholic, or even Orthodox, teachings or practices, there can be no grounds for serious complaints. 

Catholic & Orthodox Sacraments: 

   1. Baptism - rebirth into kingdom 

   2. Confirmation - receive Holy Spirit 

   3. Eucharist - communion 

   4. Penance - reconciliation 

   5. Anointing Sick - healing

   6. Marriage - stability & family 

   7. Holy Orders - ordination & vows 

 As things continue to stand, however, it seems a shame that so many of the sacraments were left to atrophy from disuse, when an infusion of some flexibility might have kept them in currency. Moreover, there are a few other traditions and institutions that suffer summary excision for political reasons, or democratic ignorance. Some of these might be of real value if gently modified and respectfully preserved.

 For example: 

A. Confession and Penance - This could be a relief for souls tormented by guilt when private prayers seem too weak of faith to trust that we are not deceiving ourselves. Some valid conventions for confession should be instituted, as a parallel to the Catholic modes, for the recourse of those who would be sincerely faithful. Thus, we might seek reconciliation and a return to a state of purity and grace, without implying submission to the autocratic authority of the Roman Papacy. We could likewise assert the seal of confidentiality, so that the complete unburdening of conscience would be possible, without the risk of betrayal or forced disclosure. 

B. Communion of Saints - We need some kind of solace when bereft of our beloved relatives, when we might benefit ourselves and them through prayers, for their peaceful ascension and for our aid by their petitions. Moreover, we may gain confidence by our petitions to the saints, and to our Saviour's Mother, when we need extra help in our prayers to God. We may assume the efficacy of the prayers of those blessed in Heaven. Such a return to the visible prayers of saintly communion would allow the pious practices of unceasing prayer, and the Holy Rosary to become popular again, at least among the clergy. And perhaps it would bring the additional benefits of character formation, as well as the graces promised by Our Holy Mother. 

C. Monastic and Eremitical ideals - Not every believer is cut out for the competitive consumer culture of the world. Always, the Church has had a strained relationship with the outside world. We need to stand against the abuses of freedom and/or autocratic authority that drown the fallen world in vice, crime, violence and arbitrary oppression. It was not without good reasons that Christians retreated to the desert, or banded together in community, to attempt to live by the standards of God's Kingdom. Nor was it coincidence that such were more often successful to become saints than those who remained caught up in the values of the secular world. If the world can be transformed by prayer and faithful examples, why should we neglect our strongest practitioners?

D. The Canon of Scripture - The rejection of the long Catholic canon and slightly longer Orthodox canon, in favor of the Jewish Masoretic text, was probably a mistake. After the Roman diaspora, the Pharisaic Jews had reformed and redefined their faith as a reaction to Christianity so as to deny the validity of Jesus' mission and divinity. Why should we accept their limits? On at least one occasion, the Jews chose a corruption of the text to obscure an obvious reference to the Messiah (Psalm 22). Now, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can see what they originally said. 

E. Marriage Vows - The purposes of marriage being threefold, it seems our society is ill served by the ease of civil divorce. First, the sanctification of sexuality offers a subordination of our sexual desires into their proper relationship to the love of God. Sexual relations serve to promote the bonding of husband and wife as a family in accord with God's will that we need not live alone. Secondly, it follows that the family is the proper setting for procreation and the raising of children. A child who lacks loving relationships with two parents, who love each other, comes up with an emotional disadvantage, and may find it difficult to establish a right relationship with their own spouse. And third, the relationship between partners is meant for a commitment to aid each other's spiritual growth. The inevitable friction will rub off the rough edges of their personalities, and teach them the value of thinking of the partner's well-being as well as their own.This is learned most easily when both are oriented toward loving and serving God. We often fail to see how we fall short in our daily lives, but our partner has no such lack of clarity, and may feel our faults and shortcomings acutely. It is in the home that we need to practice the command to "speak to one another in love" when we perceive flaws, and to "first take the log out of your own eye, and you will see how to remove the speck from your friend's." We need to remember to rightly value marriage in this light. Then we will see why we should try to avoid quick entry into this covenant, as well as any angry or hasty dissolution by divorce. 

Conclusion: 

A Repudiation of Unnecessary Innovation. 

Convinced by the testimony and example of the Scriptures and by clear reason and humble conscience, I see no other choice than to repudiate the hubris of the Church in its accumulation of pseudo-traditional innovation and its failure of moral example and guidance. If a clear case for doctrine cannot be made from the Scriptures bound together by logic and reason, there can be no justice in compelling belief. Such stands squarely on the demand to submit to the authority of men. We grant too much flexibility when we allow the opinions of uneducated folk to dictate conformity by consensus, followed after the fact by the authorization of the Church to create doctrine, so that to demur on the basis of conscience is viewed as schism. 

If the Apostolic deposit is to be deemed insufficient, how can we be sure that our inspiration comes from the Holy Spirit, and not some foul impostor? We have but one infallible source of true authority and doctrine, and that is Scripture. We must depend on the documents the first century Apostles have left for us, and the wisdom of the Holy Fathers who agreed on the canon, to determine what the Church can declare as valid faith. 

So this is what I mean when I refer to the Whole Holy Christian Church, I believe in all of the credal statements and doctrines that the whole Church agreed upon up until the Great Schism of 1054, and after that time, I believe that the only infallible authority that can guide doctrine has been the Scriptures themselves. If we are to accept any developments of new teachings, they must be supported by the Scriptures and not in contradiction to Reason. We cannot let doctrine be dictated by popular traditions, nor led by private mystical experiences. Moreover, if there is development, we must demand that it stay secondary to Scripture, and not allow more development to stand on its shoulders rather than on the foundation of Scripture itself. 

Scripture and Reason, and then whatever traditions that have been kept from the Early Church Fathers which serve for worship and discipline, those are our foundations for the whole Church. If there have been changes, let them stand for the convenience of teaching, longstanding practice and statements of consensus, and not for the accumulation of doctrines placing unnecessary demands upon belief. 

Make Straight the Way of the Lord!

Prepare ye the Way of the Lord!
Make his path straight in the wilderness!
But how do we do this? First, by proclaiming the Kingdom of God, and then explaining it to those who ask what that means. This is an outline of the project for evangelists.

A. Why we believe in God as good creator.
B. What the concept of Messiah means.
C. God always wanted to be Israel's king.
D. Who is Jesus of Nazareth?
E. Why Israel failed to accept Him.
F. Jesus asks us to be merciful and holy.
G. Jesus died for us and resurrected.
H. He really IS coming back very soon.

We tell them:
1. Listen long enough to Understand.
2. Suspend your Disbelief.
3. Hold back your Skeptical Arguments.
4. Consider the Reasons & Evidence.
5. Observe your own Life Honestly.
6. Open your Heart to Truth.
7. Accept the Lord's Gift.
8. Respond with Gratitude & Obedience.
9. Love One Another.
10. Receive the Holy Spirit.
11. Pray without Ceasing.
12. Trust God to Do All Things Well.
13. Reconcile your Life to the Truth.

Know this, and do not be complacent:
1. This is the Laodicean Age, neither hot nor cold. Get off the fence! Wake up!
2. Satan is real, personal and powerful, and he wants to deceive and destroy you.
3. You must live out the Way, the Truth and the Life. Walk the walk, not just talk.
4. The time is near. Today is like the time of Noah, seeking only wealth and pleasure.
5. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is manifest by zeal for God and reform in your life.

Jesus asks us to be merciful, just as our Father in Heaven is merciful, so we try to perform the corporal works of mercy whenever we see a need. But even so, we still have to depend on the mercy of Jesus. Our own works are nothing. Only his cross can grant us forgiveness and righteousness. What we do "for the Lord" or "in his Name" is only a fraction of our due gratitude for what He has done for us. Without Jesus to speak for us, we still carry our sin. Works are not enough for salvation.

Twelve Corporal Works of Mercy:
(Matthew 25:34-40)
1. Feed the hungry.
2. Give drink to the thirsty.
3. Welcome the stranger.
4. Clothe the naked.
5. Care for the sick.
6. Visit the prisoner.
(Isaiah 58)
7. Pay a fair wage.
8. Hold back your wrath.
9. Shelter the homeless.
10. Ransom the captive.
(Tobit 1)
11. Give alms to the poor.
12. Bury the dead.

When Jesus described the Last Judgment,  He gave us this example: To those who came to Jesus for mercy, He said: "What you have done for the least of my brothers and sisters, you did also for me." But to those who thought they were good enough to list good works, He replied: "What you failed to do for the least of my brothers and sisters, you failed to do to me." It's all or nothing. We only have Jesus.

When the young man who was called asked leave to go first to bury his father and return, why would Jesus have said, "Let the dead bury their dead"? Because he was letting his family stand between him and Jesus, as if that was more important than the Kingdom. It is how we care for our brothers and sisters in Christ that reveals our place in Heaven. Those who put anything else first may as well have rejected Him. They have already excluded themselves.

Meanwhile, as the opportunity to serve the physical needs of others may not often arise, we should not pass up the chance to care for their spiritual needs as well. We begin with preaching the Gospel and recounting the life of Jesus and his deeds. But for some, their need involves spiritual care and healing.

Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy:
1. Counseling the doubtful.
2. Instructing the ignorant.
3. Admonishing the sinner.
4. Comforting the sorrowful.
5. Forgiving injuries.
6. Bearing wrongs patiently.
7. Praying for those in need.

So we know how to apply the works of mercy among each other, but what about holiness? Mercy is only one side of the coin Jesus asks of us. Isn't there more? Indeed, the concept of sin itself is tied to the need to obey the Law handed down by Moses. To obey the commandments is to imitate God's holiness.

It is not very hard to read the Torah and find the Ten Commandments in the Decalogue and the two "Greatest Commandments" in the Shema. Jesus gave us two long sermons about how we should pray and treat others the way we would want to be treated, that we should share with the needy and love our enemies, and how we should give for the sake of charity. He released us from the demands of only eating kosher, but scolded us for using foul language, swearing and curses. And, He said that if we would do this, we need not worry about whether our efforts would be blessed. If we seek first of all the Kingdom of God, we will be given everything we need. Then, at the very end before He returned to the Father, He gave us one more thing we must do because we love Him. He said, "Love one another as I have loved you."

Jesus asked us to be the light of the world, to spread his message far and wide, and to try to resist the corruption that is ruining society. We do that by remembering and obeying the moral commandments and setting the best example we can for others to follow. Of course, we don't always do this, but when we fall short, we can come to Jesus to confess our sins and ask forgiveness and strength to keep trying. We need to resolve to grow in understanding and in obedience, reminding ourselves to remain humble and trusting, like little children, for of such is the Kingdom of God.
.

Why does Mother Mary pray for us?

Let me begin with a disclaimer, as this is going to sound like I am denying a central tenet of the faith. I'm not, and indeed this is not all that critical an issue to determine whether we are to be saved. And yet, let me say, I love Mother Mary, and I pray the Rosary frequently. I have even written an expanded set of daily mysteries that I call the Wildflower Rosary, to make it more useful for teaching about Jesus. I think it would be edifying for Protestants also to pray the Rosary, even if they feel they would need to alter it somewhat. They can say decades of the "Jesus prayer" that Orthodox Christians say, in place of the "Hail Mary," if they want. But here, I begin my rant.

The Catholic Church has gone too far in its teaching about Mary. This is a case where the "traditions of men" have grown into accretions on the faith. We need to discern, instead, the earliest teachings of the Church, and fortunately, those are clear. Yes, she is certainly the Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven, whom we love as the Mother of the Church. That much can be supported from the Scriptures. Thus, we can reverence her, and speak to her in prayer, but we must not worship her. She is only human, like us. She can indeed pray to God, in the person of her Son, on our behalf, but that is the same intercessory prayer that we can do for others. 

The Early Church Fathers have always taught that we can pray to Mary and the Saints. In the creeds, we call it the "Communion of Saints," and that's why we keep track of canonized saints, to know whose prayers are most effective. The Saints can hear us, and like the Angels, they observe the living and see how we behave here on Earth. They can pray for us, but they do not act as mediators for us. Mother Mary, too, can pray for us, and her prayers are often quite effective, but she is not the royally authorized "Mediatrix" pleading our case to Jesus that the Catholic Church has lately promoted her to be.

Only Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, can stand as our Mediator before the Father. It is sure and certain what He said: "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except by Me." 

There is only one person who can act as Mediator between you and God the Father, and that is Jesus, the uniquely divine and human Son of God. He is the one who paid the penalty for our sins on the cross, and He died so that we might live. Only Jesus will stand beside us on the Day of Judgment, and He can declare that we are covered by his blood and our sins are forgiven. Jesus knows the quality of our faith, and whether we love Him. He does not need anyone to stand for us, to speak for us. We stand before Him all by ourselves, and He will either commend or deny the way we have lived our faith for Him. 

But Jesus can also hear how many voices speak to ask Him to grant us mercy, just as we have prayed for others. He hears his Mother asking Him to overlook our sins and see only our faith, to be generous with his mercy. It's just like the day He heard her ask Him to do something when the wedding at Cana ran out of wine. There is no sense of compulsion, but how can He refuse his beloved Mother? And has she not asked us to "do whatever He tells you"? Of course, Mary will pray for us because we are also her children. It's her natural response to our request. That is not mediation. It's petition and supplication, and it's what we too are supposed to do for those who need our prayers. 

Creation or Evolution?

Not only atheists are stupid enough to believe that they have all the answers without actually having investigated the truth. If you think that God (or Darwin) is pleased to know that you don't want to hear the whole argument because you have already made up your mind... think again. The Bible only says "why" God did this or that, not "how." God's idea of creation in "six days" really means "six eons." The time frame is fluid for an eternal Being. 

The creation is just too impossibly unlikely to exist by accident. The fine-tuned universe is obviously a creation, not a single instance out of a million attempts in a multiverse. One God creating time, matter and the laws of physics is the simplest explanation, as long as you don't insist that "supernatural" is ruled out before you do the logic. 

If you don't want to know the truth, don't claim to have all the answers.

Imagine... every time a scientist says, "something happened" that made the Earth habitable, something that made it possible for life to evolve, something that would eventually lead to the rise of humanity... we should hear... "God did something amazing!" It wasn't just random luck. It was all planned, step by step.

So what caused the Big Bang? The tiny flicker of a quantum. But quanta require space and time in order to exist, and before the Big Bang, there was no space or time. So where did the quantum come from? "Something happened."

All of the physical constants that we need in order for this Cosmos to exist had to come from a Mind setting them just right. There are too many of them, and their values are so specific, that there is no way for them to just happen all together at once so that everything would just happen to come into existence. "Something happened!"

Nothing (not even "nothing") just "happened" to exist. Everything was created by God, who designed us.

Adamant skepticism is not a valid worldview. Science must be open to the discovery of patterns and confirmation of theory. If a theory that posits its foundation on the existence of Mind hasn't been disproven, but it explains a plethora of questions, then it should be accepted, at least provisionally.

Still, the adamantly literal interpretation of a book of stories, even a spritually inspired infallible Bible, is equally invalid. The Bible was written thousands of years ago for people who did not share our modern world view, and didn't speak our language. When we try to insist that the words on the page are unquestionable, we are trying to make God fit into our own tiny box. God doesn't have to explain Himself in a fashion that pleases you. It's up to you to try to grasp how God works within the Laws that He created for our physical world to follow.

I absolutely believe in every word of the Bible, but I humbly request the option to interpret it in accord with reason and evidence. Genesis is not a literal story, but it is an explanation meant for people who would never understand the "scientific" facts on the ground. By reason, they grasped the story, but they didn't have any knowledge of the evidence, like we have. 

We talk about metaphors in the Bible when we want to interpret what it says in obscure language and apply it to modern times. If you can read the book of Revelations and say that "Babylon" is a metaphor, why can't you admit that the "six days" creation in Genesis is also a metaphor? God is eternal. His idea of time is totally different from ours. He was telling the story to men who could never understand the idea of millions of years, much less billions. He created the heavens and the Earth perfectly for us, and then He created us "from the dust" of the Earth. Nowhere does it say how He did either. 

We believe because it's his story. When we investigate his laws of nature, we begin to see how magnificent and wise his works were to bring us this far. Just because the story is a metaphor, that doesn't mean it isn't true. If God wasn't so much more amazing than we can think, we wouldn't be here to debate the literal-ness of his Bible.

The Story is impeccable, even without the evidence, if you have faith. And it is the same today, you can believe by faith alone, and ignore the glorious evidence of how our Almighty God created the entire Cosmos out of nothing, then made life and humanity from the dust, and saved us by his Cross. 

The Bible has never been contradicted by evidence, but only by men who refused to see the Truth. Reason was given by God, and He left the evidence for us to find, but we will ALWAYS need faith to find our Creator, and to make our peace with Him through Jesus, is uniquely begotten Son.

Faith in the Last Supper

The Church seems to be divided over the Lord's Last Supper, trying to discern what Jesus was asking us to do in his memory. But in the early centuries of the Church, there was no disagreement. Partaking in this communal meal was an act of faith. Belief in the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ has been essential to the sharing of the Eucharist. And yet, we debate how this Presence comes to be with us. Why does it matter if it occurs by "trans-substantiation" or by becoming "consubstantial" with the bread and wine? There is no practical difference. In either case, it's still a miracle and a mystery. The laws of chemistry in the spiritual realm are not something we can investigate.

Jesus is consubstantial with the Father in his human form, and this transforms his humanity. Two natures become one person. In the Eucharist, we are reenacting Jesus' sacrifice in his memory. According to his Word, the Body and Blood become fully present, and they are God's body and blood. The only question comes with the faith of the believer, whether one sees the bread as a container with invisible contents or as an imperceptibly transformed product. For example, is it a donut with cinnamon, or cinnamon that looks like a donut? Either way, it's made with cinnamon, and it's not just a plain donut. If this still seems confusing, we can accept that it's a mystery. To divide the Church over terminology is nitpicking. 

We all see the "accidents" of bread and wine, and they appear unchanged, but we should believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present. In the liturgy, the presbyter (pastor or priest) performs a real "miracle" to call forth the emergence of faith. That is the definition of a miracle: an action or event that serves to draw out our faith. This is where many, if not most, Protestants fail the test. You need to ask yourself whether you believe that Christ's Body and Blood are actually present in the bread and wine of communion, and if not, why not? Jesus plainly said, "this is my body," and "this is my blood" given for you. It is not just a symbol or metaphor. It is the invocation of the Presence of God. The failure to presuppose this is the main reason why there is no unity in the Church as Christ's body. We pretend to call ourselves evangelists, but we don't really share the whole message of Jesus.

Jesus said, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you." It so offended his audience then that many in the crowd, even some of his followers, began to walk away. This sounds like a contradiction to the Law of Moses. We are not supposed to drink blood, ever! So many were leaving that He turned to his twelve disciples and asked if they wanted to go also. But Peter answered, "To whom should we go? You have the words of eternal life." Today, apparently, many of us are still offended by the thought of a man giving us his blood to drink and his flesh to eat. But Jesus is not just a man. He is God, and He has the words of eternal life. He told us to do this, and we have to believe Him. His words are more than powerful enough to change bread and wine. We just need to have a little faith.

If you believe that the sacraments are a means of grace, and you come in a state of grace, or in repentance, then you can be certain that receiving them does benefit you by opening you to the action of the Holy Spirit in your heart and soul. But if you come to the sacraments unworthily... Don't. Your sin is repugnant to God, and you will harm your own soul by further offense. The same goes for the priest or pastor who presents the bread and wine before God and his people. The miracle doesn't work for those without faith or who come without repenting their sin, and pretending that it doesn't matter is another offense. We need to be humble, and approach Him with contrition and repentance. He is quick to understand and forgive. 

However, you can't unintentionally profane the bread and wine if you receive them reverently, even if you only believe that they are symbols of communion among the faithful. A failure to understand is not the same as the rebellion of disbelief. You are obeying Jesus' commands to remember Him and to love one another. If you treat the bread and wine with respect, your reverence and holy intentions are sufficient to please the Lord. He can see your faith and add to it, imparting his grace by opening you to the effects of the Holy Spirit. Hopefully, you may understand later. Not everyone who was present when Jesus fed 5,000 men with only a few loaves and fishes understood the miracle that day.

Everyone is invited to Christ's eucharistic supper. Jesus invited sinners, yes, but all would have been welcome if they could have recognized their need for forgiveness. He called drunkards, prostitutes, tax collectors, money changers, pharisees, rebels, cheats, and thieves. He even called gentiles who practiced idolatry and homosexuality, among other sins that a Jew of his time would have been ashamed to admit. I love Jesus' version of radical inclusivity. We must love all of the sinners who come asking for forgiveness and guidance. But we can't condone the sins and tell sinners that they are okay as they are. If you want the true righteousness of Christ, you can't hang on to the sins that have kept you apart from God. When Jesus granted forgiveness, He would say, "Now go, and sin no more." We have to let his sacrifice begin to change us.

The Eucharist is also our sacrament of unification. We come seeking forgiveness for our sins and reconciliation with the God who created us. Every one of us is faced with the record of our deeds and the condition of our hearts, and we must acknowledge that we need a Saviour lest we be lost for eternity. We come just as we are, but we go forth as the Body of Christ, in the process of becoming regenerated and cleansed from sin. The Eucharist is one of the most important means by which we open our hearts in faith to receive the grace of God, so that his will can be done in us. Some day soon, we will all be brothers and sisters, together in the Kingdom of God, on Earth as it is in Heaven.

This has been the teaching of the Church from the earliest centuries, even from the beginning of the Great Commission. If you would call yourself a Christian, you must in good conscience follow the teachings of the Apostles and the early Church Fathers, and not divide over personal interpretations. Do not insist on peculiarities, nor stand with the heretics. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. All of the Ecumenical Councils before the 1054 Schism are valid, and they believed in the real Presence.

The Scriptures are our Constitution

If you rest the authority of the Church on the Scriptures (1 Timothy 3:15) to say that the Scriptures must be interpreted by the Church, then you have a circular tautology. It's not logical. If, on the other hand, you begin the question of authority with Scriptures and they say to listen to the interpretation of the Church, it's okay, because that sets the authority of the Church in second place. You can't have two authorities in first place.  Church authority needs the backing of Scripture, but the Scriptures can stand alone, because a believer can come up with a valid interpretation just by cross-referencing the Scriptures with each other. You might get it wrong sometimes, but so does the Church. The Scriptures are never wrong.

The most unattractive aspect of the Catholic Church is its smug self-assurance and presumption of authority and claims to infallible teaching. Pride is nothing other than a lack of humility, and that is the real problem here. The Catholic Church is not humble enough to admit that they should not be the boss of everyone. "First among equals" does not make them the final arbiter who gets to decide everything. The rest of the Church, as the Body of Christ, also gets a say and can choose how they understand things, so long as they don't contradict the Scriptures. 

"First among equals" means that everyone has to listen to their opinions and consider them. It does not mean they have to adopt them. If you want an authority other than Scripture that we all have to adopt, you need a world-wide ecumenical council to come to a consensus decision. But why do that unless you have a major problem with heresy? 

The foundation that Jesus built his Church on was the declaration of faith. "I say you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God!" He was not founding the Church on the man Simon bar Jonah, who 15 minutes later tried to contradict Him and was told, "Get thee behind me, Satan, you are thinking as Man does, not as God does." The faithful recognition and proclamation of the Gospel is the foundation of the Church. Nothing, and no one else. And, just in case you haven't noticed, foundation and authority are not the same thing. 

If you want to bring up the question of the "keys of the kingdom" and the authority to "bind and loose," those were given to all of the Apostles. Once they went out to preach the Gospel to the ends of the Earth, on the Great Commission, they would have had full independence from centralized authority. Having one or two Apostles in any place is enough authority to found a Church. If they had needed consultation with Peter, they would have been ineffective. Any corrections they might have needed would have had to wait for epistles in any case.

I recognize that there isn't quite as firm a foundation for Sola Scriptura as I would like. The Church did manage to muddle along until they solidified their choices of which writings to include or exclude. But lacking a Canon left them wide open to heresy, until they could point to written authority to counter it. Later, with the Scriptures in place, they set an irrefutable standard. The only question comes with interpreting some points that seem obscure. Yet, the obligation to base all doctrines firmly on Scriptures has a salutary effect to keep the accumulation of unnecessary doctrines at bay. 

Once we have a Canon, the authorities of the Church should feel the need to obey it, and not claim a right to use it as they wish. The Scriptures are our Constitution, and the Church's leadership has no more authority than the royal house under a Constitutional Monarchy. The Pope can't declare a chapter of the Gospels to be no longer valid, and he can't add another chapter to the book of Revelations. The claim to Infallibility, and the additions to dogma, do exactly that, add and subtract to the content of belief. I can't go along with that. So, while I hear the useful argument that the Canon was at first dependent on the Church, I insist today that the Church must be dependent on the Canon. We should no longer have to debate what is the core of true belief. 

I truly believe what the Church teaches in every case where there is consensus. Yet, I balk at the claims to dogmatic authority and the accretions. It would be so much better to just make it "recommended piety" and not obligated obedience. There is a necessary core, of course, and some heresies to avoid, but let's not build fortresses on hills that we don't need to die on.