[For “A Few Reasons Why I am a Catholic,” see here.]
[For “A Few Reasons I am No Longer a Oneness Pentecostal,” see here.]
[For why Brian is an E/evangelical, see here.] | [For the Introduction to this series, see here.]
Like Brian, I begin my portion of the series with Why I am a Catholic. A couple of years back, I laid out a few reasons why I am Catholic, which was a follow up to why I am no longer a Oneness Pentecostal (see links above) . This post seeks to expound on and augment that post. I do not intend in this post to respond necessarily to anything in Brian’s first post (see link above).
I should probably begin with some background. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I began my life in Christ as a charismatic Catholic; partly because of influences from friends, I became Oneness Pentecostal for a number of years and studied at a Oneness Bible college where Brian and I first became acquainted. I am thankful for my time as a Oneness Pentecostal. Through conversations and experiences with other Christians I had throughout those years, I began to question some of the tenets of Oneness theology and see their shortcomings. I began to move toward non-denominational groups and finally swung back full circle to Catholicism. I will now turn to why I moved that direction. As a disclaimer, the following is my perception of my Catholic faith—influenced by my studies, limited reading, and personal experiences—and might at times be expressed differently than usual; I think, however, that I arrive at the same place. I consider myself a charismatic Catholic with an evangelical slant, which I think is the direction Vatican II takes.
My journey back to Catholicism began as I studied early church history. As I began to read Ignatius of Antioch, a church father valued by some Oneness which got me interested in reading him, I read of concepts like the Eucharist being the medicine of immortality. In the line of the pastoral epistles, I found a continuing dialogue concerning the role of bishops and deacons in the early church fathers. In my own studies apart from class, I learned that worship in the early church consisted of hearing the Scripture, an expounding of or exhortation on it, and a celebration of the Eucharist. There was emphasis on the importance of baptism as Christian initiation. All of these sounded to me like what goes on in the Catholic church.
Next I encountered theosis: “God became human so that humanity might become as God” (St. Athanasius). Our church history class took a field trip to the local Byzantine Orthodox church. What I appreciated most about Orthodoxy was that theology was built into the liturgy. At that point, I had very little understanding of the Latin Catholic liturgy, but even now I think that the Byzantine churches meld theology and worship together in a unique way. What struck me was the theology of the icon where the icon was a window into the divine reality signified by what was portrayed. I began to attend Thursday evening vespers at the church and found Byzantine liturgy to have the quality of reverence that I had not before encountered.
I noticed that the walls of the Byzantine Orthodox church had many icons. At the local Byzantine Catholic church that I attend every so often, the walls themselves are as icons. I learned that this pointed back to the concept of the cloud of witnesses found in Hebrews 12:1. While from the standpoint of exegesis, I would agree that the cloud of witnesses refers to those mentioned in Hebrews 11, the imagery still represents a living assembly such as that found in crowds at a stadium. In other words, the Catholic and Orthodox church’s adoption of the imagery of heavenly living assemblies in Hebrews and Revelation was not bad hermeneutics.
I turned to this cloud of witnesses for understanding theosis, and in the Spirituality and the Mystics class that I took the year following the church history classes, I found those like St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Faustina Kowalska, Brother Lawrence, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and others. The underlying of the emphasis of the saints have always been holiness as progress in love: love of God and love of neighbor for God’s sake. The saints spoke of the divine union with God and of partaking of the life of the Trinity. Believers can by grace fight sin and live out the life of the Trinity. This was the treasure of the Catholic church for me.
I kept searching and reading and found that the union with God and living in and living out the life of the Trinity was not something that saints of old wrote. I found that people in this day were experiencing it. An excerpt from someone’s account of her understanding of what she understood is divine union is as so:
There were a lot of experiences that I think led up to the infused contemplation, but the time where I really mark it where I start calling it that in my mind is an experience where I felt a definite “this is the presence of God,” and what happened was I started experiencing intense bliss, and it happened in different ways, but the first time I felt this all-consuming bliss was in the spring of 1990 or 1991. I was working at the time, and the bliss grew over a period of about 4 or 5 days, and it became so intense that I really became a little bit overwhelmed by it, and I prayed to have it reduced a little bit. I really liked it, but it was overwhelming and a little frightening, I think. Not that there was anything in it that felt bad, but it was such an intense experience that it was a little frightening. But after I prayed, it went away entirely, and that made me very sad.
. . . .
Then it was early in October that the bliss came back. I felt it day and night, and was going on while I was going to work and relating to people, and going to lunch, doing the normal things that I did, but it kept getting stronger and stronger. I was a little disconcerted again, but remembering what had happened the last time, I made a conscious choice that I wasn’t going to allow myself to close the door to it because of how much I had regretted when it went away the time before. I let it happen, and there came a point where in the course of my job I became aware that the Lord was inside me, looking out of my eyes. It wasn’t like I became the Lord. It wasn’t like that at all. It was like the Lord was at the center of this blissful experience, and was at that moment inside me looking out to the world through my eyes, and the way that I became aware of that was that I was reading a letter (I answered correspondence from consumers in those days), and the name of the person who had written was “Finchpaw” or something like that. Of course, this bliss had been building for days, and I read that name, and for some reason was delighted by that name, but at the same moment became just emphatically aware of how the Lord was utterly delighted with that name. But it was more than just a name. It was like the Lord was delighted in our ability to name, and that we had made up this wonderful name that was so delightful.
. . . .
It was very shortly after that that it was my lunch time. I went out into the city and still had this sense of union with God looking out at the world through my eyes, and everything that I saw was different than I had ever seen it. The physical reality looked exactly the same, but things that to me had been ugly before, or incongruent together, were absolutely gorgeous, and the reason that they were gorgeous was because the Lord was absolutely in love with us for being able to make things, and to have ideas, and to put things in places, so whereas before I might have looked at “oh, here’s a Spanish-style building, why did they put that modern atrocity next to it? ” but the way the Lord looked at everything was: This is what they have made, and I love them, and I love this because they made it. It was such a sense of the Lord being just absolutely, utterly, emphatically in love with us, and in love with what we make and do. It completely changed the way that I looked at things.
(entire account here)
I learned that the people with these types of experiences are Catholics and so I concluded that if saints throughout the ages had been experiencing and moderns today were still experiencing this today then the Catholic church was a safe place to enter into this journey.
From all this, the Mass and sacraments became important to me. For one, the Mass and sacraments are what unites the diverse expressions of the Catholic church; one can find the Roman rite, the Dominican rite, the Byzantine rite, the Maronite rite, the Melkite rite, etc.—in fact, at one point the Catholic church had as many as twenty-two distinct expressions. I also highly value the Catholic church’s teaching that God communicates His grace through the material realm. So grace is conferred in baptism through the water, in confirmation through the chrismation, in confession through the priesthood, in marriage through the joining of two separate lives into one, in the hierarchical priesthood through the priests, and in the Eucharist the very presence of Jesus through the bread and wine. The Mass involves all the senses: sight, sound, touch and bodily movements like kneeling and standing, scent (incense), and taste. I tend toward the traditional (i.e., Latin) forms of the Mass and sacraments because I value the tradition throughout the centuries of that particular Mass. Of course, as a charismatic, I also believe that God confers grace through the supranatural; the Catholic church’s acceptance of the charismatic is another bonus for me.
If I could summarize why I am a Catholic, I would say that I find the Catholic church to be a place that fosters progress and growth in love of God and love of neighbor. Such love has always been the tradition of the church and it is therefore my tradition as well. Some might point to all the atrocities committed by the Catholic church and I say yes there have been and it is unfortunate that the Catholic church has at times strayed from its ultimate tradition. However, I have found that in delving deeper into the Catholic church, the very center is the God who is the Father, the Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, who loves humanity and creation with a love so deep that He gave His life so that whoever believes in Him can avail of His very own life, be loved by Him, and empowered by His love and grace, live His life out as a witness to the world of this God.
the archives near Emmaus 
Waw! It’s the first time I’ve heard about the “Eucharist being the medicine of immortality”. Thank you for sharing this.
I super agree on the part where you said, “Believers can by grace fight sin and live out the life of the Trinity. This was the treasure of the Catholic church for me.”
Bravo for noticing that the people with these types of experiences (a union with God and living in and living out the life of the Trinity) are Catholics.
And thank you for mentioning to the world that the Catholic church is a safe place to enter when on a journey to getting closer with God – for it is true: John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
Honestly, I envy you for being able to write about just about anything and especially why you are Catholic.
The many miracles and answered prayers in my life are testimonies of God’s existence and HIS greatest gift – LOVE. Someday, I will be able to write about it.
You are truly an inspiration. God bless you more and your loved ones and all those who have been a part of your life, even for just a few seconds.
And may you write more about our Faith and that it serves as a light to brighten up the lives of those who’s gone astray.
JohnDave, thanks for sharing on your journey back to Rome. I understand the attraction. I do like your summary,and this in particular: “However, I have found that in delving deeper into the Catholic church, the very center is the God who is the Father, the Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, who loves humanity and creation with a love so deep that He gave His life so that whoever believes in Him can avail of His very own life, be loved by Him, and empowered by His love and grace, live His life out as a witness to the world of this God.”
Question: As a Baptist, Why can’t I experience this too?
JohnDavid,
The “errors” of the Catholic church would have been done by anyone who had that level of power in society. The greater error was when Constantine, following pagan tradition, tried to make Christianity the state religion. Once that happened, bad stuff had to come forth. I wish it had never happened.
I am not Catholic myself, but, think Aquinas most likely is the best theologian accessible to us. I think what you see in the Catholic church is what I see in the church universal as far as God’s intent for us. Love Him, Love mankind and demonstrate it.
@Angie: Thanks, I’m glad you read something new and I hope you can write about your journey one day.
@TC: There’s no doubt in my mind that you or any other believer could experience the same. When I approach this with an evangelical slant, I recognize the broader church and the life we share together and the mission we have. For me as a Catholic, I like being part of the tradition of saints who have walked that road with perhaps different or unique particulars than those of a Baptist/Pentecostal/Quaker/Methodist/etc., but because our faith goes back to the cornerstone the experience is for everyone who believes.
@Patrick: Thanks for mentioning the power dynamic. In one sense, I’m thankful for Constantine because the growth of the church in political and social power (in the negative sense) brought forth the monastics who strived to live out the gospel, albeit in perhaps an extreme way. Still, the monastic precept of changing the world through prayer resonates with me. I unfortunately haven’t read much Aquinas, except for a few portions of the Summa. I should pick up his commentary on the Gospel of John, which I have lying around somewhere. Anything in particular about Aquinas that stands out to you? Yes, the life of the Catholic church and the catholic church is the same and in my view it seems that both are growing in unity together.
JohnD, thanks. Just thought I needed a few clarifications to properly understand where you were coming and the points you were making. Yes, yours is a worthy tradition in many ways.
JohnDave,
Thanks for sharing why you have become a Catholic, once again!
My question has to do with ecclesiology; so, why do you believe in Apostolic succession (i.e. in its genetic form), and why do you believe in the primacy of the Western church and the papacy therein? Why do you believe that the Pope is the human vicar of Christ on earth (absolutized in his office) instead of viewing the body of Christ in general as Christ’s ambassadors and witness to The Vicar of God who is Christ Himself (in whom we participate and thus do not prolongate) in the earth?
JohnDave, thanks for this well written post!
You wrote “I consider myself a charismatic Catholic with an evangelical slant, which I think is the direction Vatican II takes.”
Also, in response to TC’s question above, you also recognize the ‘broader’ church as in an evangelical slant. Kudos. Do you think recent Popes have been backing away (a bit) from Vatican II? I’ve long affirmed that Vatican II was all but a reformation within the Catholic church, which is why traditionalists have found much of it unpalatable.
Regardless, calling yourself a ‘Catholic’ even one with an evangelical slant who recognizes the broader church comes with some baggage. I’m not talking about the Inquisition our the counter-reformation or anything like that. All people, all faith groups, have their skeletons, as do atheists … however if you could only choose 1 label, would it be ‘Catholic’ or ‘Christian’? Of course this is false dichotomy, strictly speaking, but it nuances how you approach faith, since there is a difference between a Catholic who worships Christ, and a Christian who worships as a Catholic. I’m curious which of those two you more identify with.
I accepts one can be both Catholic and Christian, but simply being Catholic doesn’t make one a Christian, any more than being a Calvinist makes one a Christian. I don’t know much about Oneness pentecostalism, but I assume it brings with it the typical ‘Protestant’ protestations against Catholicism. I’m talking about things such as ‘Theology of Mary’, ‘Theology of Ecclesiastical authority (all authority vested in an infallible pope)’ etc. Many of these things stem from ‘tradition’ rather than the bible, and you yourself seem to recognize this by describing Catholicism as the ‘tradition of saints’.
So my question to you is this – ‘What are we to make of this? If people have sincere objections to core Catholic doctrines as being corrupt extra-biblical additions, traditions perhaps not only extraneous to true faith, but in some cases contrary to the bible (such as Mary worship) what do you say? You profess alignment with Vatican II, did Vatican II go far enough? Given’s Christ claim to be the mediator of faith, and the introduction of the Holy Spirit after his ascension, does the believer have direct access to God by way of the Spirit, or does is access to God restricted to the proxy of the priesthood?’
Whether or not one believes in Christ, the Reformation raises valid questions about Catholic worship – and I’m wondering how you’ve reconciled them.
Bobby: Thanks for the questions. They’re very good questions and ones that I haven’t thought as deeply about because to me they’re matters of faith, just like my belief that the presence of Jesus is in the bread and the wine. I believe the Pope is successor to Peter and acts and speaks authoritatively in regard to matters of Catholic church doctrine and faith. At the same time, I believe in the common priesthood of believers and believe that every Christian’s mission is to live out the life of the Trinity. Most homilies I’ve heard focus on love of God, love of neighbor, and God’s love toward us and others. One thing I appreciate about the current Pope is his emphasis on individual, personal relationship with Christ.
Andrew T.: Thanks for another set of great questions. By the way, I read some of your comments in the introductory post and appreciate the good words you had of Catholics. In my view, Pope Francis is more Vatican II than Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I think Benedict sought to hold both pre-Vatican II and Vatican II in tension; I find myself similarly doing the same. Although I consider my home parish to be a non-schismatic traditional Latin parish and I follow the way of life fairly closely, I have to align myself with Vatican II in regard to the broader body of Christ. I haven’t actually heard any of the traditional Latin priests ever disagree with Vatican II, but many of the lay traditionalists that I’ve encountered have been somewhat adverse to it.
I’ve always described myself as a Catholic Christian. Between the two choices, it would be a both-and. Does that make sense? The way I’ve approached the Catholic faith is this way: I value the traditions of the Catholic/Orthodox church and believe they reflect the beliefs of the early Christian communities in the early centuries and thus are valuable, but a Catholic need not incorporate or avail of them. So, for instance, with regard to Mary, many Catholics give her due veneration, based on our understanding of the Magnificat (and unfortunately some do take it too far into Mary worship but clergy do their best to make sure that doesn’t happen), but a Catholic need not ever in her or his lifetime recite a hail Mary or ask for her intercession. There are only a couple of things one need to believe about Mary, but if a Catholic wishes to forego asking Mary (or any saint) for their help then that is perfectly fine.
Yes, I believe that all believers have direct access to God by way of the Spirit. The excerpt of the account I posted was an illustration of that. I see the priesthood as a unique ministry, similar to a pastor at the local non-Catholic Christian church. The ministry and function of the hierarchical priesthood and the common priesthood of believers are something that I think I hold in tension more than I have reconciled them. Let me know if this is helpful or not.
TC: Thanks, and thanks for asking for the clarifications.
JohnDave,
Thanks for an excellent post. It is very interesting to hear of the role of the Orthodox in your story. My greater family has a Catholic background, by my parents raised us in the Baptist environment, with all the fierce anti-Catholic ‘whore of Babylon’ nonsense that you might hear of from those circles sometimes.
For a while, after reading much Christian history and Scripture, I strongly considered reversing what my parents had done and going back to the Catholic Church, but as it were I am now a catachumen in the Eastern Orthodox Church and have found a home there.
Now both church traditions as I understand it claim apostolic succession and to be the Church founded by the Apostles. The claim to apostolic succession is strong in both cases I think. But what does the existence of the other side of the schism mean for the claim of being the true Church (for Roman Catholicism)? I want to ask the reverse question to my priest, as since I have many extended family who remained or returned to Rome, Catholic-Orthodox relations are very important and interesting to me. Surely, the schism between the East and West is different than the Protestant break-off, since they severed themselves with the existing and church and created something new. In the case of the East and West, it was a schism within the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I’d be interested if you have any thoughts on the matter.
If I can comment on the priesthood thing that Bobby Grow mentioned, the idea of the priesthood of all believers is accepted by both Catholic and Orthodox. There are ministers in Protestant Churches who have a priestly role to the Church and husbands all have a priestly role to their families – this does not diminish the priesthood of all of those served. The idea of this servant priesthood also has Biblical roots.
John M: I appreciate the comment and the contribution to Bobby’s question. I love the Orthodox church and in my Oneness Pentecostal circles I also heard some of same anti-Catholic rhetoric. It sounds like we have a similar background because it looks like our readings and studies helped inform us regarding the directions we went. Yes, both our traditions claim apostolic succession and I think they are both right. I think of them as two lungs of the same faith and that both lungs testify that we have the same Head. Just as each parish individually is catholic so both lungs constitute the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. The primacy of Rome is something that I believe I will wrestle with as more appealing to me is the Orthodox idea of equality among bishops. However, I don’t think that Rome’s first-ness takes anything away from Orthodoxy’s claim. One thing that is interesting to me is how Patriarch Bartholomew is considered the leader of the Orthodox. Would you say this a place of primacy or is it more in line with the idea of first among equals? I’m not familiar with the Orthodox hierarchy but I’d like to hear your thoughts on that and anything in this comment.
JohnDave,
As I understand it (and bear in mind that I am a catachumen still – but I think I have a grasp of this), it is in line with the ‘first among equals’ thing. As I’m sure you know, it is the Eastern position that because of Petrine succession, Rome occupie(d/s) a special place as first among equals, just as Peter did within the Apostles. It must be remembered of course, that the Jerusalem Council addressed the issue of circumcising gentiles, not a declaration from Peter on his own. Due to the schism, the Patriarch of Constantinople (head of one of the original five sees: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem) is the de facto ‘first among equals’ of the Eastern Orthodox Church. But the Church is for us a group of autocephalous churches, I am in the OCA (Orthodox Church in America), an American-English speaking Church that is independent (but was originally a missionary effort under the Patriarch of Moscow). Bartholomew I is administratively not over my parish, the Archbishop of America and Canada is. But we humans tend to look for a unifying figure and we look to Bartholomew as a leader.
Thanks for your post JohnDave! I appreciate the gracious Catholicism you represent. Next week when I respond we’ll begin to discuss differences, but at this point it is interesting to note than neither of us presented reasons that cohere well with what makes Evangelical what it is or Catholicism what it is. No defense of the Papacy from you. No defense of sola Scripture from me. Should be interesting!
JohnDave,
I see the merit in some of of your experiences, but for a guy leaving an OP environment for a tradition that actually believes the sacraments are salvic in and of themselves apart from faith, I don’t get it.
For me the whole sensory experience is fine up to a point, but the nature of Spiritual vibrancy rooted in the New Covenant (true reality) as compared to the Old (icons being a shadow) is a clincher. The book of Hebrews does a good job reinforcing this idea, Christ (reality) is better than the sensory led/foundation of the Temple/Sacrificial System (shadow/type).
Keith
John M: Thank you for that explanation. It makes a lot of sense. What is meant by “autocelaphous”? I’ve run across that term a number of times.
Brian: Thank you, too. That’s a keen observation. I’m looking forward to our next set!
Keith McCann: Thanks for chiming in from the Oneness side. I think you misunderstood something. The sacraments are not understood to be salvific in and of themselves but to be a unique medium for God’s grace. One can’t simply live a life contrary to the gospel for a year and then expect to take communion, for instance, and think that saves them. The vibrancy of the Spirit you mentioned is part of the Catholic experience. As I’ve mentioned, the Catholic church embraces the charismata so there are tongues-speaking Catholics, Catholics who operate in words of knowledge and wisdom, etc. We believe that the Spirit enlivens our liturgy and through the liturgy our lives; the Feast of Pentecost comes in a few weeks where we celebrate the power of the Spirit in our lives. We also believe in encounters with the Almighty God in personal prayer and spiritual disciplines. So life in the Catholic church is more than the sensory of the liturgy, although that is an important part as God works on us holistically, which includes the senses; however, the account of the unitive experience in the post, as well as accounts of all the saints, is testimony to the Catholic tradition going beyond the sensory experience of the liturgy. I don’t know what your experience and knowledge is of Catholicism, but I think you might have been going off what non-Catholics or former Catholics who didn’t understand their faith (I was one of them and I know there are plenty) have said. Does that help you understand where I’m coming from?
By the way, I should add that faith is necessary in the sacramental life. A prime example of this is that believing that the presence of Jesus is in the bread and wine is about faith. I’m not talking of mere mental assent here because like in the example above one could have a mental affirmation that Jesus is present in the bread and wine but live a life contrary to the gospel. Faith that Jesus is present in the bread and wine also means seeking to cooperate with God’s grace and letting the sacrament have its hold to help transform the person so that she or he is more like Christ in word and in deed.
Thanks for your response, JohnDave. How can I argue with faith 😉 … I won’t try.
‘Autocephalous’ means ‘self-headed.’ Our head bishop, Metropolitan Tikhon Mollard, is bishop of the Orthodox Church in America. He does not answer to any higher ranking bishop, such as Patriarch Bartholomew. Many Orthodox groups are autocephalous and do not answer to any of the Patriarchs. The first example of autocephaly comes from the First Council of Ephesus, which granted the Church of Cyprus administrative independence from any of the Patriarchal sees. Autocephaly should, in my opinion, be granted as soon as there is a well-organized church in a new area. The OCA was under the Patriarch of Moscow for a while, but once they got on their feet, so to speak, Moscow relinquished its administrative authority.
Despite autocephaly, the OCA is in full communion with other Orthodox groups and we are still part of the same Church.
JD,
Concerning Aquinas, I particularly like his method of accepting objections to an insight, then answering them with generally excellent logic. I haven’t read Summa myself, my pastor uses lots of Aquinas’ insights in his messages though, so I feel like I have read some of it!
Bobby: Yeah, I think we all have our areas where things are more a matter of faith. Not that faith is meant as a wildcard to cover the gaps, but in some areas faith does come more to the forefront.
John M: The concept of autocelaphy is interesting. I believe that in the Catholic administration bishops cannot interfere with other bishop’s territory/territories. So, for instance, there are two dioceses in Oregon and the bishop from western Oregon can’t go to the bishop of eastern Oregon and tell him how to run his diocese. I don’t know much more than that and this isn’t an area that I’ve really studied so I could be wrong even in what I said. Here’s a question for you: once you become fully Orthodox (I’m assuming you’re still a catechumen), how do you feel about receiving communion in the Catholic church? My perception is that many Orthodox pastors understandably tend to discourage it but let’s say you were traveling and the area you were at on Sunday had no Orthodox churches but only Catholic churches.
Patrick: That method is signature Aquinas form right there. I was brought up in the Catholic faith by Dominicans and many of them love Aquinas. I must have failed them because I have yet to read Aquinas in any meaningful measure. If you ever get to read some Aquinas, you’ll know more than I do!
JohnDave,
Yes, that makes sense about the Oregon bishops, but if I am correct they both answer to the cardinals or an archbishop or the Pope?
Your other question is very interesting. I have many Catholic extended family, many Catholic friends, and the utmost respect for the Catholic Church generally. I would love nothing more than to ‘sit at the communion table’ with some of these friends. I actually have no idea if the Catholic Church offers communion to Orthodox, but it looks like you’re telling me that you do. If I were to be travelling or were invited after Chrismation (read ‘confirmation’), this is something I would definite consult my priest about.
Hi John Dave,
I too was a former OP, went to an OP bible college, and am now RC! It is encouraging to read about your journey to Rome and I only hope more OP will make the same journey. My comment is a response to what you said about Pope Benedict XVI as holding VCI and VCII “in tension” vs Pope Francis being “more Vatican II”. I’m confused as to what you mean. Pope Benedict used the term “hermeneutics of continuity” to describe the hermeneutical key to interpreting VCII, as I’m sure by continuity he meant continuity with the conciliar statements of the past, including VCI.
Also, I’m curious as what you meant when you said Pope Francis was “more Vatican II”. Are you referring to liturgical issues or ecclesiology? Pope Benedict, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also when he was a peritus at VCII, made significant contributions to Protestant-Catholic dialogue and CDF definitions of communion ecclesiology, particularly the definition of Protestant denominations as “ecclesial communions”. I, personally, do not know anything about Pope Francis’ personal theology nor his encyclicals as archbishop of Buenos Aires, so maybe you can help me, brother.
Maybe we can meet sometime and talk theology!
I am blessed by my Roman Catholicis. I don’t know how I would survive without the Sacraments. That’s reason enough for me.
Alan: Good conversation we had last week.
David: Well said.