It's inconceivable that the Eastern Orthodox
Church would ever ask to be received into the Roman Catholic Church, for a large number of historical and theological reasons. It's almost equally difficult to imagine them merging.

I'm not sure that I would sign on to such a movement or not. It is not an issue that really matters greatly to me. I believe that my relationship with Christ is a personal one. I have attended many churches beloning to different denominations(and several that belonged to none) and have met wonderful and dedicated people in all of them that have helped me to learn more about God and helped me to expand my relationship with Him. I have also met a great number of them that believed in things that I disagreed with, sometimes causing me to research further to support my position better.

I suppose I see all Christians already as part of "The Church", though I know that many others do not. I see us as united in our desire to follow God, and to accept redemption through Jesus Christ. So I would certainly support the idea of such a recognition being adopted, but the fact that other people do not already see it that way does not compell me to want to change their minds.

It's unworkable - not only on a theological basis, but also on a practical basis.

There are significant differences between the denominations that are irreconcilable. They are things too important to allow them to be a mere matter of conscience. For instance; gay marriage, abortion, adult baptism, etc.

From a practical standpoint, the administration of many of the churches is very different. The Catholic Church is hierarchical in nature with ultimate power resting with the pope. The Lutheran church has a board that controls the Synod and a much more distributed power network. Some churches don't have any structure whatsoever. It is next to impossible to take such disparate structures with centuries of tradition and history and merge them.

Finally, what's the point? I don't see any benefit at all in creating one giant Christian church. I suppose if the pope offered what you suggest, some smaller denominations may sign up to get access to the Vatican's coffers, but they would always be scorned by the "true" Catholics. It's just human nature. As a member of a more established denomination, I'd rather keep the pope out of my church's business, thank you very much.

Hoo boy! Ecumenism and the ecumenical movement-- that's a mighty broad topic.

Would I, as a Presbyterian, enter into the sort of deal you describe? Not as part of any formal merger with the Roman Catholic Church. Like Aaron Pohle, I already see all Christians as part of the Church. And my experience in the pastorate has been that these days, local churches of many different denominations work together just fine on an informal basis.

A generation or two back, there was much more of an emphasis on the prospect of organic mergers between different denominations. And some mergers did take place: today's Presbyterian Church (USA) is a result of two mergers within my lifetime. In 1958 the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America merged with the much smaller United Presbyterian Church of North America to form the United Presbyterian in the United States of America, and in 1983 the UPCUSA merged with the Presbyterian Church in the United States to form the Presbyterian Church (USA). Likewise denominations such as the United Church of Christ, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, are the result of denominational mergers over the past few generations.

I can remember a time when there was a loose expectation in some quarters that all this was tending toward an eventual church union of much broader proportions. An outfit called COCU (Consultation on Church Union) was often in the mix here-- the acronym was supposed to hold the potential for eventual double-duty as the "Church of Christ Uniting." I guess they're still around, though under some new acronym such as CUIC, "Churches Uniting in Christ"-- note the significant change from the singular, Church, to the plural, Churches. But I'll be honest, I had to Google them to find out, as I just haven't heard that much about COCU in recent years.

I think what's greatly retarded the impetus toward a formal broader "umbrella" union among denominations, is precisely the fact that in recent decades so many Christians of different denominations find themselves working side-by-side so well on the local level informally. Or at least, that's how it looks from the perspective of the small-town and rural American Midwest, where I live. The question frequently asked is, "Why add yet another layer of church bureaucracy, when the churches in my home town are already working together just fine as is?"

As for the theological differences, one ecumenical approach has been to hold dialogues with the aim of clarifying areas of agreement or disagreement. A classic fruit of such dialogue would be the Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (BEM) text which was finalized in Lima, Peru, in 1982, under the auspices of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. Not as exciting as drawing swords. Not as easy as sweeping the theological differences under the rug. And it doesn't necessarily result in agreement. But step by step, it does helps to "unmuddy" the waters, by making clearer how and where and why different Christian traditions agree or disagree.

I think there's an even chance that the majority of Lutherans would come aboard. We essentially define ourselves as a correction of the Catholic church in the first place. Vatican II brought us much closer to the kind of alignment you describe here. But some doctrines like Papal Infallibility are quite completely insane and would pretty much have to go.

I think we would probably go for some sort of intercommunion relationship of the kind we have with the Episcopalians. We still believe that we are saved through Word Alone, Grace Alone, Faith Alone and regard their hierarchy as silly and misguided, but not to the point of heresy. And they have very elegant and beautiful services.

Oops! Typo in my post above. The result of the 1958 Presbyterian merger was known as the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.

In a way this is already being done. Roman Catholicism continues to evolve into an all encompassing mega religion of which the only requirement is that you call yourself a catholic. That's good news for satanists!

Honestly, there are people who are self acclaimed witches and pagans, and yet paradoxically see themselves as practicing catholics.

Is this something I'd want to be a part of? let me think about this...

No. :-)

Well, there are some "indeeependant" fundamentalist churches in this neck of the woods that think the pope is the antichrist, or satan's emissary, so ... no, I imagine that won't be happening any time soon.

And, as someone mentioned earlier, there are at least three different methods of church governance that would have to be reconciled: episcopal (like the pope); presbytery (like the presbyterians) and congregational (like the baptists).

The episcopal and presbytery forms wouldn't have as much problem as the congregationalists would.

I'm not for big government, I'm not for big hierarchy. As far as agreeing theologically, I have no problem with the Creed. I just don't see the need for Pope/Bishops/etc. Not to be hostile, but it seems a little burecratic. I have a Bible (KingJamesVersion but open to other versions like Living and Study) and I have a personal relationship with God. I see a minister as someone that can help me learn and offer support when things get tough, but I don't see an actual need for him in my relationship with God. This is not to say that I think Catholics are going to Hell. I think that Christians believing on Christ and therefore trying to lead a Christ-like life of all denominations are going to Heaven. I just don't see how becoming a Catholic would help me be more Christ-like, so I'd probably stay a Southern Baptist. It just seems simpler that way. Less in-between stuff. I keep thinking about all those saints, and I find them all worthy of respecting, but I just don't see the benefit in praying to them. I keep thinking about Jesus and the way he taught his followers to pray: "Our father who art in Heaven ... ". If Jesus tells you its OK to pray directly to God, why bother with saints? It doesn't seem efficient. Will God listen to them more than me? I just don't think God is like that because he loved me enough to sacrifice his son for me, so he must love me enough to listen to me. Admittedly, Catholic services are lovely. And the music is beautiful. And I love the candles. But the idea of layers of people getting between me and God kinda doesn't really sit well with me. But thats just me. There are lots of happy Catholics, and if its working for them more power to 'em.

Almost certainly, I would. My main concern would be being in a congregation whose doctrine I agree with -- but if we could have something like "communions" within the Church (called something like the Lutheran Communion, the Presbyterian Communion or whatever. There'd probably have to be several and fairly autonomous. You don't want to be supporting missionaries that have wishy-washy (to you) theology so missions boards, etc. would be at the communion level.

I think it's insane how many denominations we have. I belong to the Christian Reformed Church, which was founded by Dutch immigrants in Michigan and Iowa who thought the Reformed Church in America was too liberal -- they sang hymns and allowed members to be Freemasons! We've had several splinters on the right as we've liberalized, over fairly trivial matters. We conservative Protestants just have no sense of loyalty to the greater church; I for one admire the Catholics' commitment to both orthodoxy and flexibility.

Actually, I believe that the primacy of the Pope is not the really big issue for the Catholic Church; its a gigantic issue for a lot of Protestand sects, but for The Church its more important that you believe the really vital things: transubstantiation, the Trinity; that sort of things. Various Protestant sects have various problems with a lot of these things. We could not meld, as Catholics, which a church that said Christ is not present in the Host, even if they asked to be within the Church.

Probably wouldn't affect me--I'm only a former Christian. No, I'm a current non believer. But I'd be surprised if my former church, which I still hold dear to my heart, would join such an agreement.

Not on the grounds of Papal infallability or any actual issue, but I think they would feel that it might somehow take away from their independance.

Also, I see no need for such a merger. The churches are currently getting along just fine, in the US at least.

What brought this up? If it was a way toward building peace in places like Northern Ireland, I doubt it would make much difference there. As Owen already said, I think people would still know the difference between the 'true' catholics and the 'false' ones.

Another thing to take into account is the idea of reversing the reformation. [sp?] It's true: it took place a long time ago, and it's currently old and moldy. But it still is, I think, a reminder to the Catholic Church about what pitfalls there are to fall into. Martin Luther had good reasons for splitting with the Catholic Church, and it needs to be (and I think, is) mindful of those reasons.

Northern Ireland? Oh hell no. That isn't even a religious conflict, although people portray it as one. Atheists like to point to it as an example of a "religious war," but few of the combatants are regular churchgoers, many are avowed atheists, and both the Protestand and Catholic churches in that place have condemned the violence. The Pope has explicitely condemned it, in fact.

The "Protestant" and "Catholic" designations are ethnic, not truly religious, in that part of the world.

As for why I ask this question: honestly I'm just curious. Protestants are, for the most part, called "protestant" in the first place because they stand in protest against Rome. Yes, it's a centuries-done argument. Although I note that the current pontiff has made noises about trying to reunite with both the Orthdoxy and with the Anglicans, but of course such noises don't go very far when there are certain major doctrinal issues that the Vatican won't bend on.

I'm just honestly curious about it. I expected a variety of answers to the question.

FYI, I consider myself an agnostic.
that said, I go to a school founded by the founder of this school, so...yeah. Anyway, I don't think that you're right in pointing to atheists and agnostics as one and the same category. To any 'believer,' they would appear the same at the outset, but the two are quite different: Atheists believe that there is no god, whereas agnostics are undecided, or at least pragmatic about the situation. I, obviously, have more information about agnostics: I believe, simply, that I don't know whether god exists or not, and for the time being, it's not important.

something of a question of symantics... [sp?]

Personally, I would look into it, and I would have no problem swearing to the Nicene Creed; I tend to like the whole concept of statements of belief. That being said, I would most likely reject the idea due to significant doctrinal differences between my understanding of God's teachings and the Catholic church's understanding of God's teachings.

Also, I attend a Baptist church, and many Baptists hold their independence as their highest ideal. Witness the whole "you can't tell me what to do!!" reaction to recent Southern Baptist Convention ideas for evidence of this. Because of this, I doubt any Baptists would ever sign on to such an idea.

Dean, I actually believe the root of "protestant" comes from "pro-" (in favor of) and "test[suffix]" (the Word), which is to say we believe more strongly in the Bible than we do the popes' attempts to ammend it. The essential character of the movement is to cling to the Bible, not to reject the existing church. If the critics of the Vatican tended to remain at room temperature after pointing out Catholic doctrinal deficiencies, the 95 Theses and subsequent schisms might have been avoidable.

Mark: if you don't think the primacy of the Pope is a big issue for Catholics, can we agree to get rid of the office? Certainly the most recent revelations about Papal directives to conceal (and perpetuate) priests' transgressions should be enough for any rational person to agree the office simply doesn't have enough accountability as currently configured, and its unaccountable office-holders cannot be depended upon to consistently advance Christ's mission.

Kit: the reason for wanting to unify the churches is to fulfill Christ's command that we be "one body" and to represent a positive example to unbelievers. It's hard to persuade a non-Christian to come aboard when we can't even agree with one another. Absence of violent conflict is not enough.

Mark specified one of the key issues--transubstantiation:

We could not meld, as Catholics, which a church that said Christ is not present in the Host, even if they asked to be within the Church.

As one who believes Reformed doctrine, I could not meld with a church that taught transubstantiation. I believe Christ's one-time sacrifice was a finished work that makes perfect forever those who are being made holy. Catholics believe that you can participate in the eucharist (read "Christ's sacrifice") and still fail to be saved in the future. Those positions can not be reconciled.

I do want to clarify one thing: I can disagree on many issues and still accept someone as a fellow Christian, part of the invisible body of Christ, without uniting with them in a formal way. For example, I believe Mac is a fellow Christian even though we've vigorously debated some doctrinal issues that are quite significant. I believe there will be plenty of Protestants in hell, and plenty of Catholics in heaven. Church affiliation has no saving efficacy, whether you've been baptized, confirmed, paid tithes, or whatever. Salvation is a matter of trusting in Jesus Christ and his sacrificial death to atone for your sins, not a matter of our works (Ephesians 2:8-9), but of God's gift.

Randy,

Thats about it - so, of course, as Christians we essentially agree to disagree and, if we're smart, still make common-cause on matter effecting faith and morals in the larger sense.

Diversity is a good thing. The main problem is getting the leadership of the various denominations to talk to each other and treat each other as fellow believers. The earthly governance structures are there for our benefit, not God's, so I don't see that as important.

I agree generally with Paul on whether that's happening, but I will note that things are not as good as they could be, having seen some denominational partisanship firsthand.

The Catholic Church's slow trend away from treating the rest of us as heretics is a good thing, though, and I'd encourage it to continue.

I think the doctrine of predestination would keep the Calvinist denominations from ever making an alliance with the Catholics or Episcipalians.

Adam:

Ya think? Couldn't they just go ahead and make the alliance, and claimed that they were predestined to do it?

Mark,

if we're smart, still make common-cause on matter effecting faith and morals in the larger sense.

Agreed!

Hey Adam-
I'm Calvinist and I would be willing to join the Catholics as long as my congregation were Calvinist. I could be wrong (I'm no expert on Catholicism) but isn't there a minority Augustinian tradition within the RCC? I feel more connexion with conservative Catholics than liberal Protestants, in many ways.

Before I answer, let me stipulate that I know many Catholics and believe them when they testify to their sincerity and devotion to Christ.

Now, to answer the question. I have always thought of the Catholic Church historically as an extension of the power of the Roman Empire. When the power of the Christian faith began to challenge the political power of Rome, the initial response was to suppress Christians. Hence, the stories of Christians being eaten by lions in the Colesium.

When that didn't quell the expansion of Christianity, Rome "adopted" Christianity as the official religion. The created a Pope, who was invested with Divine authority (no difference here from Ceaser, Csar, Kaiser, King, etc.) and fabricated a link to Peter. Then Rome began dictating acceptable beliefs which concidentally favored local potentates who swore allegiance to Rome.

Many Romans and those peoples dominated by Rome "converted" to Christianity to avoid punishment from Rome, and in all other respects, continued to practice their own religions, which conveniently were merged into Catholicism.

The official language of Catholicism became Latin, a dead language which, conveniently, noone but the priests spoke. Translation of the Bible into other "non-holy" languages was forbidden.

So the people were utterly dependent upon priests to interpret the Scriptures. But even priests spent precious little time actually studying the Bible. Pagan rituals specifically banned in the Bible, idolatry, worship of and prayer to humans other than God (Mary & the saints) were all incorporated into Catholicism.

Even the privilege to sin, something God never grants, was sold in the form of indulgences. Priests, who at first were allowed wives, at some point had their marriages dissolved by Roman (Papal) decree, their estates were confiscated, and their families left destitute in a great property grab by Rome.

The unnatural, abnormal, repulsive, oppressive cult of celibacy was born in the Catholic church which specifically avoids the facts that 1) God created sex and called it good, and 2) the very first commandment of God recorded in the Bible is when he tells Adam and Eve to get busy. Genesis 1:28 Sometime in the early second millenium, marriages, which previously had been the domain of family government, were subjugated to the authority of Rome, so that even your very private choice of a life partner was subject to Roman approval. To this day, the Catholic church considers all who refuse to ask Roman blessing on their marriages to be living as adulterers.

Catholicism became just one more governmental tool of opression and suppression. Those who did study the Bible, and publicly disagreed with Rome were punished and killed as heretics. No area of society was left unaffected. Education and scientific exploration and study had to conform to Roman dogmatism.

The real issue of Catholicism was not religion and worship of the true God - it was fealty to Rome. At some point, kings and kingdoms could be overthrown due to disagreement with the Pope. The Pope was de facto emporer of the civilized world. He commanded troops (the Crusades), awarded power and prestige, blessed or cursed kingdoms, and ruled Europe with an iron fist.

Roman Catholicism was more about power and politics than true worship. Even to this day, the Catholic church owns and controls a vast portfolio of land and wealth, and is the ONLY religion with a DIPLOMATIC CORPS - underscoring the point I am making.

Fortunately, even within this structure, the truth leaks through, and some Catholics have grasped a bit of the truth and come to know Christ. But I ask you practicing (or not) Catholics, how often do you actually study the text - the Bible - that is supposed to be the base of your beliefs? Do you question doctrinal positions of Rome based on disagreement with scripture, or just personal preference?

My neighbor (68 yrs old) is a practicing Catholic, and for THE FIRST TIME IN HER LIFE, she went through a two year study of the Bible a couple of years ago. Was this Bible study sponsored by her local Catholic Church? No. It was a interdenomination home-based study (Bible Study Fellowship). And she is devout and wants to please God with her life.

What about all those Catholics who benignly depend on the so-called blessing of the church, and live their lives without ever seriously considering their eternal status with God - those who mouth some memorized platitudes once or twice a year on Christmas and Easter, if then, and spend the rest of their lives living no different than the heathens around them?

Yes, the Catholic church has mellowed in recent times. But if the Pope truly speaks for God, how do you reconcile that mellowing with the historical record of past Popes?

Dean, what you are really asking is would I or those in my church, swear fealty to Rome, out of some misguided desire for unity. The answer, as you must have guessed by now, is an uncategorical no.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not hostile to catholics personally, not even the Pope. Catholics are as good or bad as the rest of the population. But Catholicism, as a religion, is repugnant to me.

Politically, it is no different than Islam as it seeks to dominate the world through political means. It is a religion that will always be married to state power, and as such is anethema to the American way of life. It is no surprise to me that so many American Catholics find themselves conflicted.

It is this very conflict of loyalties that caused some to question JFK's fitness for President. Contrary to some beliefs, this concern was more about politics than religion, because to many Americans, the Catholic church has always been more about politics than religion.

Frankly, because the Roman Catholic Church is so power hungry and "chamelion-like," I wouldn't be surprised to see such a move on the part of Rome within the next couple of hundred years. In any case, I would hope that principled Protestants - who take Reformation history and development seriously - will not be duped into such a union.

Frankly, because the Roman Catholic Church is so power hungry and "chamelion-like," I wouldn't be surprised to see such a move on the part of Rome within the next couple of hundred years. In any case, I would hope that principled Protestants - who take Reformation history and development seriously - will not be duped into such a union.

Frankly, because the Roman Catholic Church is so power hungry and "chamelion-like," I wouldn't be surprised to see such a move on the part of Rome within the next couple of hundred years. In any case, I would hope that principled Protestants - who take Reformation history and development seriously - will not be duped into such a union.