Two approaches to being a catholic church

I observe that my Christian tradition - Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); and The Catholic Church both attempt to be catholic churches. That is, they both attempt to represent the wholeness (catholicity) of the Church. They both have very divergent approaches to their catholicity.

Disciples attempt to represent the whole through openness. Christians can disagree and yet remain united. There are no creeds, because of the division they may cause. The closest thing Disciples come to a standardized affirmation of faith is “I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior.” If you can affirm this statement (whatever it means to you), you are welcome.

The Catholic Church (capital C), on the other hand have a focus on complete uniformity. Unity in belief, practice, and structure. To be united means to be uniform. Anything outside of the predefined boundaries is not unified.

Neither approach is entirely appropriate. Disciples may err on the side of allowing unorthodoxy. This is unity in word only. That we are not really united, but we will just say we are to make everyone happy.

The Catholic approach on the other hand ignores the biblical and historical testimony of diversity in the Church (in belief, practice, and structure). This unity is not challenging because it is easy to be united to others who are just like oneself.

Disciples often put forth the saying “In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity.” To a large extent I like this philosophy, except that essentials are never defined. It begs the question: to what point does liberty lead to heresy? Where are the boundaries of what is acceptable? And how far outside of the core can we venture until we are no longer preaching the Gospel?

Still, a certain level of diversity is absolutely necessary, lest we all become “hands, eyes, or ears.” Diversity is necessiary for the Body of Christ to operate.

How can we be the catholic (universal) church; unitied and yet diverse? What are the essentials which ought to unite us, and where is diversity acceptable?

The empty sacrament

I went to my church's regional (like a diocese or synod) gathering. There were several worship opportunities throughout the event in which communion was served. (We celebrate communion in every worship service)

There was no clear mark which signified an entrance into holy time - that worship was not set apart from our everyday lives. The worship leader just began to sing a song while everyone else continued their conversations. A sermon was given and someone came forward to introduce communion.

They emphasized how all are welcome, with no precondition. Neither sin, creed, nor status of baptism were reasons to separate one from the communion table. That it is a table of hospitality.

As the elements were passed I took and ate. I normally cross myself (as I learned from the Catholics) after I partake in order to mark the holy moment. But, I could not bring myself to do it this time because it felt so very profane. Not profane in the sense that it was irreverent or unholy, but simply ordinary. By the introduction to communion and a stress on symbolism, it was clear that this meal was only bread and juice. It tasted empty.

Do not misunderstand me. I believe communion is for all, invited by Christ. But it is not an ordinary meal like we eat in order to sustain our physical bodies. It is a spiritual food which nourishes the souls of those already united with Christ. It is certainly not a meal which one can approach on one's own terms - for it is Christ's table, not ours.

Emptier still.
Saturday morning we worshiped again. This time the communion elements included pretzels and gold fish crackers. I cannot recall the justification for this practice at this time because I remember feeling so empty at the thought.

Granted, nearly all Christians in this tradition believe communion to be symbolic only. But what happens when you tamper with the symbol? When I approached the communion plate and saw the pretzels and gold-fish crackers I did not think of Christ's last meal, but rather a children's party. For that is what those elements symbolize.

I did not partake. I had to leave the worship service at that point because I was so angry and I took a walk until lunch.

The church said "look how hip, cool, and open WE are that we can do this." I believe Christ was overshadowed by this novelty. It is a feat in mental acrobatics when we attempt to force a new symbol to mean what the bread and wine once meant.

Symbol or not, let us not profane (make ordinary) the Table of the Lord.

Details

It has been awhile since I have made a post here, mostly because nothing of much significance has happened in this area of my life since the summer.

However, I would like to give you some details about that summer discussion we had at chaplain school (as best as my memory will allow).

A bit of background
There was daily chapel for all students, held in the morning before classes began. One for Protestants and one for Roman Catholics. The Protestant chapel was the dominant one, attended by 90% (or more, in a class of 160). The Roman Catholic chapel was smaller with about 15. It was attended by Roman Catholics (of course), Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and myself. So, I was not the only non-Roman Catholic there. It was a small group which led to a greater sense of community.

I remember the first time I attended the chapel. Someone asked "Are you Catholic?" (because you can't tell by looking), and I answered "it depends on what you mean by catholic." He raised his eyebrow, and looked a bit confused, and possibly irritated. I continued "I am not Roman Catholic. But I am catholic, meaning I belong to Christ's universal church."

Occasionally there would be no official chapel on a given day for scheduling reasons, but the Catholics were insistent on having mass, especially on holy days and I would join them. The question eventually came up (knowing I was not Roman Catholic) "So, why do you join us for mass so often as opposed to the Protestant chapel?" And I told them a bit about my story and my struggles with the Protestant Church. This lead to the invitation to dinner and discussion with the priest, 2 seminarians and myself.

The dinner and discussion
We picked a night and went to dinner. We shared our stories. The 2 seminarians, as it turned out joined the Catholic church from Protestant traditions. The priest was a "cradle Catholic." We talked about a crazy man at the priest's church who wore a red collar and pretended to be a priest; our personal faith journey; how one of the seminarians worked for the state department prior to his call.

We were enjoying each others company so we decided to go over to one of the seminarian's room and have a theology-on-tap. Here we got more theological. And I found a great deal of agreement with them. We talked about the Eucharist and real presence, inter-church marriage, liturgy and the sacraments, and Vatican II.

There was disagreement concerning the nature of the church. I argued for a larger-than-structure, universal Christ-Church in which all Christians belonged. The two seminarians argued that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church, and Protestant Churches are only true in that they reflect the Roman Catholic Church. I brought up Ut Unum Sint, and Unitatis Redintegratio concerning the view of protestant churches and an eccumenism of convergence (not individual conversion). For inter-church marriages I brought up Familiaris Consorito, and how it says "The Eucharist is the very source of Christian marriage" (57) that if the Church does not allow a protestant husband and a Catholic wife to share together in the Eucharist we do harm to the foundation marriage. The Eucharist feeds a marriage.

So we were having a nice healthy discussion, finding points of agreement and were we differed. Enter the seminarian's (very) Protestant room-mate. He naturally joins the conversation but shows such cynicism toward the Catholics that it produced no useful discussion. He kept spouting things like "The Bible is the only source of authority, we shouldn't have a Pope." He challenged me once (indirectly) and asked "Why would a Protestant want to take Catholic communion?"

Later he offered an "analogy" of the Catholic Church saying it was like an exclusive club in which you have to jump through many hoops and learn the secret handshake in order to be "in." I offered another (more productive analogy) saying I see Protestants as similar to the Samaritans - separated from the temple with some strange beliefs according to the Jews, and yet Jesus said the Kingdom of God was for the Samaritans too. Protestants might act goofy and deny some pretty important beliefs, but we are like crazy unlce Frank at the family reunion - Still part of the family.

At this point it was fairly late and it was a "school night," so we all went home. I appreciated there time and being able to dig deep in some theology with some fellow seminarians and Christians.

A priest, 2 Roman Catholic seminarians and me

I am at US Army Chaplain School and I had a great opportunity to meet with a priest and two seminarians over dinner last night. We also meet later in their room for some discussion.

Here are just a few things I discovered from the conversation:

• You will end up where God wants you.
• Be patient in discernment.
  
• I am better able to have theological discussions with the Catholics here than I am with most Baptists.

I might dive into some more details of the discussion later, but right now it is lunch time.

How can I share communion with my wife?

The biggest spiritual hindrance to our marriage is that we are not able to share communion at the same table. My wife is Roman Catholic and I am not.

I have approached our pastor and asked to receive and was told that if I want to commune with my wife I would have to become Roman Catholic.

So that means, even though we are united in the sacrament of matrimony and we both have faith in Jesus, we cannot share that faith together at the table - the source and summit of our spiritual lives.

A proposed solution:

I could take some bread from the communion table at my Protestant Church with me to mass. And then my wife could take her communion at Catholic Church back to the pew with her, and then both her and I could communion together.

Or maybe I could just eat the "bread" as she goes forward. As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, I'm just having a snack. While of course, I do understand the bread to be the essence of Christ and is thus communion for me.


What do you think?
What do you think? Good idea, bad idea, got a better idea? What are some theological implications of this solution? What are the theological implications of a husband and wife who do/can not share the Eucharist?

Infant Baptism

My Christian tradition, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) practices exclusively believers baptism, that is adult baptism. The Roman Catholic Church baptizes infants of believers.

This is a particularly difficult issue for us, being in an inter-church family. We had to decide what to do with our children regarding baptism. Admittedly at first, I agreed with my wife to baptize our infant children (when the time comes along) because I thought the Catholic Church was more stubborn on this issue than my church. With some further thought and examination I have come to the conclusion that infant baptism should be the preferred method for children of believers.

I anticipate that this decision may cause some controversy within my church, but I hope to spell out here how we arrived at this decision.

Objection 1: Not scriptural.

The number one objection I hear, or read, regarding infant baptism is that there is no example of it found in scripture. And I would have to admit this fact. Some proponents of infant baptism will point to the household baptisms found in Acts. However, this is not an explicit example of infant baptism. As many say in the Disciples of Christ Church: "Where the scriptures speak, we speak. Where the scriptures are silent, we are silent." In other words: if it isn't in scripture, don't do it.

However, there is also not a single example in scripture of a child of Christian parents who receives baptism as an adult. In fact, there is no example of a 2nd generation Christian baptism.

All baptisms in scripture are adult individuals who come to faith from no faith. If we do our job as Christian parents, this is not the pattern that our children will follow. When we postpone baptism for our children, we are saying that they don't belong to the faithful community, that they don't have faith. This is simply not true.

Scripture provides no instruction on what to do with children of the faithful regarding baptism.

Baptism should mark one's entrance into the faith. For adults this happens when they accept Jesus, repent of their sins, and are baptized. But children of Christian parents are trained in the faith from a very young age, maybe even the day they are born.

Objection 2: Faith is necessary for baptism, infants are incapable of faith, therefore infant baptism is invalid.

How much faith is required for one to be baptized? Should we administer a test? Is faith in the head, or in the heart, and how do you measure it? Also, whose faith matters?

I received baptism as an "adult" at the age of 13. (coincidently, everyone else in my church came to faith at the age 13 also) My faith has certainly grown significantly in the past 10 years. I would say that my faith was insufficient at that age, and thats okay. Our faith will never be perfect, and thats why we cannot rely on it. We need to rely on the faith of God. How little control we have on when and how God chooses us to be part of his family.

The Instruction on Infant Baptism By the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith helps explain this question (14):

The fact that infants cannot yet profess personal faith does not prevent the Church from conferring this sacrament on them, since in reality it is in her own faith that she baptizes them. This point of doctrine was clearly defined by Saint Augustine: "When children are presented to be given spiritual grace," he wrote, "it is not so much those holding them in their arms who present them—although, if these people are good Christians, they are included among those who present the children—as the whole company of saints and faithful Christians.... It is done by the whole of Mother Church which is in the saints, since it is as a whole that she gives birth to each and every one of them."[24] This teaching is repeated by St. Thomas Aquinas and all the theologians after him: the child who is baptized believes not on its own account, by a personal act, but through others, "through the Church's faith communicated to it."[25] This same teaching is also expressed in the new Rite of Baptism, when the celebrant asks the parents and godparents to profess the Faith of the Church, the Faith in which the children are baptized.[26]

What do you think? When should children of Christian parents be baptized? Did I miss anything?

Marriage, Eucharist and Unity

Some say that unity must proceed the Eucharist; others say that the Eucharist leads to unity.

We can look at Marriage to serve as an analogy for this question. When a couple first mets, there is little unity. As they learn more about one another that unity grows until one day they may express a desire to be as united in the sacrament of matrimony. That sacrament actually unites the two, and while they are still individuals they continue to grow in love and unity.

Unity is on both sides of that sacrament. A marriage does not actually take place unless both parties truly desire unity prior to the sacrament. At the same time, unity is fulfilled as a result of the sacrament.

So, both statements are true: unity must proceed the Eucharist and the Eucharist leads to unity. However, the unity preceding the sacrament will be incomplete.

I believe the unity which precedes is largely absent from both parties (Catholics and Protestants). With out the desire for unity (again, on both sides), the act unifying us is not possible.

The wide-spread sharing of the Eucharist is certainly the end goal, but this is "putting the carriage before the horse." Its like proposing on the second date. Even statements of common faith produced by high-level Church officials is a bit too soon.

Unity must begin on the lowest level; between congregations and individuals. We must know each other before we can express our unity with one another. Let us participate in ministry together, have fellowship, and study the Bible together. Through this our unity may grow to a point when we may be able to express it more fully.

Denominational Shift

I wonder what reasons are given for people who decide to switch denominations. A Lutheran becoming Methodist for example.

Just off the top of my head I would imagine that theological reasons rank fairly low on the list, excluding certain fundamentalist denomination of course.

Here is just a quick brainstorm:

1. I moved and my previous denomination does not have a church where I now live.
2. I married and we choose to go to my spouse's church for simplicity.
3. I liked the liturgy/pastor/preaching/music/amenities/etc. of this particular church in my town, so I started going there.
4. Many of my friends go to this new denomination.
5. So-and-so offended me at my previous church, so I left.
6. I wanted to get involved in a particular ministry of this new church.
7. I just wanted to try something new.
8. I believe my new denomination is more theologically correct/Biblical than my previous one.

Can you think of any other reasons why someone would change Christian denominations (non-Catholic)? If you have "made a switch" could you tell me why?

I wonder if this has ever been studied, or if its feasible to gather this information.

Sinning to Receive Christ

This post is in response to a comment left by "against heterodoxy." The comment was made on my previous post about my perceived invitation to communion. The commenter says what I did was a sin.

I have never been confronted with this issue in quite this way. I have been told that it is inappropriate or wrong but not a sin.

Sin, as defined in the Catechism:

is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight." (Ps 51:4) Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods," (Gen 3:5) knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God." (St Augustine De civ. Die 14, 28: PL 41, 436) In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation. (Phil 2:6-9)

If sin is something that separates us from God, "and sets our hearts against Him," how can receiving Christ in the Eucharist (by a baptized, repentant Christian) ever be understood as sin? My heart was completely with Christ as I received him. If sin is something that separates us from God, then isn't not receiving Eucharist at mass a sin?

Certainly one can receive in an unworthy matter (1 Cor 11:27-29) I believe that "unworthy manner" refers to the reception of those who would not identify themselves with Christ - receiving him is a lie, and Christians who approach with an unrepentant heart. Does this warning apply to baptized non-Catholic Christians who are repentant of their sins?

A few more questions came to me as I read the comment:

When non-Catholic Christians celebrate the Eucharist in their own churches, is this a sin? If it is, why? If not, why is Roman Catholic Eucharist a sin for Protestants? How do the meals which Jesus shared with sinners relate to the Lord's Supper? (Mt 9)

How does one atone for the "sin" of receiving Christ? Does the Eucharist belong to the Church or does it belong to Christ?

Mt 9:9-13 and an Invitation

Sunday's Gospel reading was form Matthew 9:9-13. It is about Matthew's call to follow Jesus. Following the call Jesus has a meal with tax collectors as sinners, much to the disapproval of the Pharisees.

Our pastor preached a message of inclusion. He said that Jesus came specifically for sinners; he came to heal. Jesus did not ask for any membership cards in order to share a meal.

But then he started preaching a message I did not expect. He spoke of Jesus' inclusion at table with sinners and tax collectors. He then turned and pointed to the altar and said that this Eucharistic table is also an open one. He said that it is inclusive, not exclusive. Jesus invites everyone to his table.

I felt a certain conviction to approach the altar. Not only because I believe it is something that I ought to do; but now also because I perceived the homily as a direct invitation. And so I received.

I still felt a bit awkward; that it was "sneaky." It certainly was not guilt, but rather a social stigma. I was torn. To follow my conscience and participate because I believe Christ commanded this of all of his followers, and now the priest suggesting an open table. At the same time I know the institutional structures of the Roman Catholic Church forbid Eucharistic sharing.

The priest is aware that I am a Protestant Christian, and I was in the line next to his at the Eucharist. Following mass I did not feel any animosity from him. He asked how I was doing in school, and our anniversary plans. He didn't draw me aside and tell me I was wrong. One cannot preach an inclusive sermon, without willing to accept the consequences that radical inclusion entails.

The message was not quite as explicit as I would have liked, but the message was clear. Still, I wonder why I feel the need to "get permission" to receive from anyone other than Christ?

The Crucifix and The Cross

In the National Guard I am given a "chaplains field kit" which is used to conduct field services. If you look closely you can see a cross in the middle. This kit is given to both Protestant and Catholic chaplains.

The cross you can see in the middle of the picture is two sided. If you are Catholic you show the crucifix side. If you are Protestant you simply show the reverse which is a blank cross.

Protestants are not "hiding Jesus" or have any aversion to Christ Crucified. I find that the different use of symbols stems from a different focus each community has on Christ's action on the cross.

Roman Catholics tend to emphasize Christ's death on the cross. The mass itself is a re-enactment of the Last Supper. Help me with the word, is it anamesis...? Meaning more than a memory, a renewed participation in the past event.

Protestant Christians tend to emphasize Christ as risen. It is not only because Christ died that we are saved, but because Christ is the Son of God and has power over death that we find salvation in his work on the Cross.

Christ remains on the cross in Roman Catholic settings as we remember the sacrifice he provided for us. The cross is empty, like the empty tomb, in Protestant Churches to recall the power of Christ over death and Satan.

The chaplain kit has both cross and crucifix, which I think it a helpful way of thinking of Christ's work on the cross. It is not an either/or view. Rather we need to have both the crucifix and the cross in order to have a full understanding of what happened through the Passion and Resurrection of the Lord.

Sin and Liturgy: Post Script

After a bit more reflection I realized that we do have a part of the liturgy that deals with sin.

In most Disciples congregations The Lord's Prayer is recited in every worship service. "And forgive us our trespasses..." simply assumes a sinful human nature that requires forgiveness.

Still, it lacks the potency of "I confess to almighty God...that I have sinned through my own fault in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do..."

The Lord's prayer loses more of its bite when certain congregations use "debts/debtors" as opposed to "trespass/those who trespass against us." I will save this issue for another post.

Sin and liturgy

From here on out I will be writing from the perspective of my own Christian tradition. The diversity of Protestant Christianity is simply too great to make statements like "Protests do x, and they believe y."

Even within the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), my own tradition, there is great diversity. I will be writing from my experience and reflection. If your experience differs from my own feel free to comment or send me an email.

---

Near the beginning of the Roman Catholic liturgy is the Penitential Rite. Here worshipers admit that they are sinners and ask for forgiveness before entering into worship.

I have attended about a dozen different Disciples congregations and found them all to have a unique liturgy. One thing they all have in common, however, is that they do not have anything which resembles a Penitential Rite.

It is rare for me to hear much mention of sin in the liturgy of a Disciples Church. This is not to say that we don't take sin seriously, but it is largely a personal matter. I have seen sin wrestled with outside the context of worship such as in the Sunday School classes, at church camp, in Bible studies, and occasionally in sermons. I wonder out loud here: Why isn't sin acknowledged in the liturgy itself?

The Disciples of Christ Church does not recognize the sacrament of reconciliation (confession) either. So if we don't have confession and we don't confront sin in the liturgy how do we respond to the sin we find in our lives? The simple answer is...we don't.

When sin is not addressed in worship or sacrament we are left with a few possible responses.

1. I have a blank check to sin because of Jesus Christ:

No matter what I do, sins past and future are redeemed by the power of the cross. I don't need to worry myself too much with my own sin because Christ paid that price for me. I will try to be a good person, but its no big deal if I mess up.

or...

2. Sin is completely my personal responsibility to deal with:

I must repent and pray to God directly when I realize my own sin. I'm pretty sure he will forgive me if I pray for it. I have to do this in the privacy of my own home (or head) because surely my Christian brothers and sisters are not as great of sinners as I am. How embarrassing to confess to them that I am not a good enough Christian.

or...

3. Disciples congregations need to deal with sin in liturgy and sacrament:

Sin is not a personal matter and must be dealt with communally. Our expression of Christian community is in the congregation. I am a sinner and so is the man and woman on either side of me as we gather to worship. When we do not acknowledge our failures within worship we deceive ourselves and lie to God. We must come before God in our worship with repentance.

A Limited Priesthood

I have a difficult time understanding why the priesthood is limited to only celibate men in the Roman Catholic Church.

The Bible seems to suggested married life is a requirement for the clergy (see 1 Tim 3:2ff) and Paul makes several references in his letters to deaconesses.

I do not mean to question or belittle the discipline of celibacy; it is a high calling. But, it is not a lifestyle which everyone is meant to pursue. Does that mean that this is the only way one is to become a priest?

If we are to suggest that Christianity is the universal religion, should we not also have a universal priesthood? One that is made up of all peoples regardless of race, ethnicity, political party, gender and marital status?

The priesthood will fail to be universal so long as it excludes women and married people from its ranks. Without a universal priesthood, can we have a universal church?

The Physical and Spiritual Aspects of the Eucharist

I notice in the Roman Catholic Church the heavy focus on the physical (material) part of the Eucharist; that it really becomes Christ's physical body and blood. I have wondered if there is any spiritual aspect to the Eucharist as well; that it hosts the spirit of Christ.

There is more to Christ than just his physical body. Humans are made up of both body and spirit. Jesus, being born a man, also has a body and a spirit.

I believe that when we consume the Eucharist there is more to it that putting Christ's body and blood into our mouths and down to our stomachs. We not only consume Christ physically, but we also consume him spiritually.

Consuming the bread and wine is a physical act, but consuming the spirit entails much more. It is a putting on of Christ. One's spirit must be open to receiving him.

Is it possible to consume the bread and wine and yet fail to consume the spirit of Christ? If this happens does one receive the Eucharist at all?

Is it possible to receive Christ's spirit at the Eucharist, without receiving the physical elements?

Which aspect should we focus on?

It is me.

I have decided that it is not wise to continue on this struggle without telling someone from my home denomination so I emailed my regional minister (comparable to a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church) this weekend.

He called me this morning to discuss some of my difficulties as well as what attracts me to the Catholic Church. We spoke for about half an hour. He assured me that I still have a home in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and that our church welcomes - and encourages - personal theological struggle.

Honestly, he didn't tell me anything I wasn't expecting. And I found comfort in the phone call. He didn't tell me to "get out" or that I wasn't fit for the ministry.

I have been worried about people from back home finding out that "gasp!" I am having questions about the church, so I have been using a pseudonym on my blog. My regional minister assured me however that I can be true to myself and my struggles within our church.

So, I'm dropping my pseudonym and I'm going to own this struggle. This is who I am.

Take a right at Canterbury and straight on to Rome

It has been suggested to me by several individuals that the solution to my present dilemma is to join the Episcopal Church and become a priest because they allow for a married priesthood. After about 5 years or so I could request a "pastoral provision" to enter the Roman Catholic Church as a married priest.

I have never really considered this path before. I might be more personally comfortable within an Episcopal Church, but there is a great deal of controversy within that tradition which I am decidedly uncomfortable with.

Beside that, this path is very sneaky, underhanded, and dishonest. I cannot use the church to achieve a particular ends.

From the Roman Catholic perspective this would mean that the path to the priesthood is through receiving an invalid sacrament and serving in an unrecognized ministry for sometime in order to be considered a candidate for the priesthood. That is inherently contradictory.

The trouble is in the timing. If God had allowed me to fully recognize this call earlier in life, before I was married, there would be no problem. If God called me later in life, after I was ordained, it would still be a challenge, but at least the road to priesthood would be open to me.

But it is precisely because God, in his providence, choose to give me this knowledge (that the fullness of faith is found in the catholic church) at this particular station in life that presents the problem. That I am a married man, outside of the Roman Catholic Church, not ordained but undergoing theological training. The end result of a earlier call or a later call is the same (priesthood), but not so for a "middle call."

I wonder if there is greater meaning to God's particular timing here.

My visit to an Eastern Catholic Church

A few people have informed me that Eastern Catholic Churches allow for a married priesthood. I had never considered looking at any of these churches, but I am at least open to any path which God may be calling me on. So, I visited an Eastern Catholic Church yesterday.

It was my local Melkite Greek Catholic Church. A brief history of the church can be found on their website:

The Melkites, or Byzantine rite Catholics of Middle Eastern origin, are the descendants of the early Christians of Antioch (Syria). Christianity was established in this area of the Middle East by St. Peter before he traveled on to the imperial city of Rome. In the 5th century, there arose some teachers who said that Christ was not truly God and truly man as well. They would not accept the teaching of the Catholic Church as defined by the Council of Chalcedon (451A.D.) Those in the Middle East who did accept the decision of Chalcedon followed the lead of the Byzantine emperor and were dubbed Melkites or King's Men from the Aramaic word "melek" meaning King. (link)

It was foreign to me, and yet very beautiful. The church building was covered from floor to ceiling with icons. They were primarily tile mosaics which surrounded hand-drawn paintings. Each set of icons illustrated a piece of scripture or history. The words of scripture themselves were as important as the images in the display.

The priest walked around the sanctuary carrying incense with him as he went. This actually happened several times and the icons were also "incensed."

Nearly the entire liturgy was chanted, and there was a high degree of participation required of the laity present. The faithful were not merely spectators at this celebration.

I am not sure if they use the same calendar as the Western Churches. The Easter declaration was proclaimed within the service: "he is risen," which suggests they too are in the season of Easter. The lectionary is certainly different however. They used Jn 9:1-38 which is typically a Lenten scripture in the West. (USCCB)

It was simply nothing like anything I had seen before. It certainly was not Roman Catholic. And yet, they are a church which is in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. There is a great deal of diversity which can be found within the realm of the Catholic Church, both in practice and theology (to some extent). These Eastern Catholic Churches are self governing, have their own liturgy, practices, and canon law.

Unity is not the same as uniformity.

Ever since that experience I have wondered if the Eastern Catholic Churches might serve as a model for the unity of the Protestant Christian Churches with Rome. Could the Protestant denominations one day be in communion with Rome and yet be self governed with their own liturgy, practices, and law?

Why is a return to the Roman Rite necessary for Christian unity (in the Protestant/Catholic question)? There are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches which while different remain in communion with Rome. Maybe this type of unity could some day be offered to Protestant churches.

Someday we might see church marquees that read Lutheran Catholic Church, Episcopal Catholic Church, Disciples of Christ Catholic Church, Pentecostal Catholic Church, and so on. I understand the high degree of simplicity I express here, but I am still young enough to be an optimist.

I am called

I continue to struggle with this dual call I have discovered: To enter into full communion with Christ's Church, and also to enter into the ordained ministry.

Normally this would not be a problem, but married men are not normally considered as candidates for the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church.

My pastor has shared with me many other, quite worthy, ministries which are open to the laity. I could be a pastoral assistant, youth minister, cathecetical instructor, and some day a deacon. As I discern each of these calls I feel a certain hole in my being. That I would be falling short somehow of the call God has placed on my life.

My specific call is realized in the Army National Guard where I currently serve as a chaplain candidate. The chaplain candidate program is for seminary students who are preparing for the ordained ministry in their respective faith traditions. Chaplains must be ordained ministers within their own tradition. I would not be able to serve my brothers and sisters in uniform unless I am on a track that leads to ordination.

I shutter as I contemplate the thought of abandoning this call, especially as I see the great need for ministry in the armed forces. The workers are few as it is.

I believe my call to the ministry is stronger than my call to any particular church. I am seeking a path which will allow me to do both: to lay down the "protest" (i.e. enter into full communion with the Church) and to be God's priest. I do not know if any such path exists.

God is above the brokenness of his visible Church on Earth. I will serve him, and submit to his call for me.

I have resolved to cling to my call to the ordained ministry. If I must choose between the two (ministry or communion), I will choose to serve the Lord - even within a separated ecclesial community.

It's not about me.

Someone gave me a very humbling comment to my last post. You can read it here.

In the Protestant Church, worship often feels very much like a show which is preformed for the congregation. Church members feel justified to complain to the preacher if a sermon was not to their liking, or to the music director if they didn't choose enough hymns/praise choruses.

In the Protestant Church, we often judge the quality of worship based on our emotions following the service. Did the music speak to me? Did the sermon inspire me? Did I get a good feeling out of the worship?

This is so backward. Worship is all about God, focused on him and his word. By secondary benefit we are fulfilled by our worship of him. Worshiping God completes us, but this is not our primary concern.

That is one more thing I love about the Catholic Church - is her proper focus in worship. Even as I have been contemplating entering into full communion I still need to constantly refocus. I am not entering the church for any comfort I might find. I enter because I believe it is what God desires of me.

So, I need to rethink my previous post. So long as I am concerned with my own feelings during the mass, my focus is not where it should be. I will worship God on his terms, not mine.

My faith tradition

I grew up in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), DOC for short. I thought it might be helpful to attempt to explain the main tenets of this tradition.

In short

• Unity is of primary importance.
• Christians can disagree on matters of faith and remain unified.
• Creeds are not to be used as a test for fellowship.
• Strangely enough, it would be possible to hold Roman Catholic faith about many matters and yet find a welcoming home in a DOC congregation.
  
• Personal interpretation of scripture is encouraged if not required.
• Celebration of the Lord's Supper is central to worship and practiced every Sunday.
• We practice believer's baptism (as opposed to infant baptism).
  
• The church government is focused on the congregation. Individual congregations own their own property and call their own pastors. The diocese (we call them regions) exercises little authoritative control over churches. The bishop (we call them regional ministers) serves needs that cannot be covered by a local church and provides counsel to local pastors.
  

One of the catch-phrases of this tradition is "unity is our polar star." Our founder, Alexander Campbell sought to bring all Christians together in line with Jesus' prayer "that they might be one."

Campbell sought to boil faith down to what he called essentials. I have labored to find a definition (i.e. a list) of these essentials to faith, but any such list does not appear to exist. I believe this is intentional so that the broadest possible definition of Christian can be held.

Another favorite DOC quote is "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity." This basically means that we will agree upon the essentials of faith but allow personal freedom in other beliefs. My best guess at the essentials is the affirmation that "Jesus is my Lord and Savior" because this is all that is required for a believer to be baptized.

Campbell believed that disagreement among fellow Christians was not grounds for division. That we could disagree with one another and yet call each other Christians and maintain our communion.

Today the DOC church is a mainline Protestant denomination. While many congregations, and the general church, are involved in ecumenical ministries I wouldn't define it as a "movement" anymore.

Because decisions are made at the congregational level, there may be huge differences from church to church in the DOC tradition. Anything from architecture and worship style to teaching and theology can differ greatly.

The DOC church has been a safe and affirming place for me to wrestle with my faith. And while I have some concern about the lose theological structure which exists, I'm certain that I wouldn't have been able to explore my faith as deeply anywhere else.

2nd Class Christian

Externally there are no tell-tale signs that I am not in full communion with the Church - Except that I stay behind in the pew during the service of the Eucharist. Only sinners, nonbelievers, and Protestants stay in the pews.

I am very hurt to be lumped into this group. Granted, I am a sinner for sure. But my sins have been forgiven through the sacrament of baptism. Granted, I have sinned since then and I believe I need to confess. see, 1 John 1:9.

The Catholic Church teaches that Protestants are members of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church by virtue of our baptism. I am in communion with the Catholic church, imperfect though it may be. Apparently our communion is broken enough to declare that this Christian brother is in the same class as sinners and nonbelievers.

I often see 1 Cor. 11:29 cited as justification for barring Protestants from the communion table. Quote: "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." (NIV)

Catholics will point to this scripture and say something like "if you don't believe that the Eucharist is truly Christ you eat judgment on yourself. Protestants don't believe this, therefore we are just looking out for your own good by keeping you from it."

The problem is that there are many Protestants that do affirm this belief. Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc. and me for example.

Lets put that matter aside for a moment and look at the text at hand. We need to take a step back and look at the larger context of this passage, 1 Cor 11:17-34, in its entirety.

Paul is condemning the the Corinthians' practices concerning the Lord's Supper (aka Eucharist).

"In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!"(NIV, vv. 17-22)

Paul condemns the Corinthian Church for not sharing the Lord's Supper with all of the Christian faithful who are present.

Next we find the words of institution for the Lord's Supper. vv. 23-26

Following the words of institution we find the text normally used to justify closed communion within the Catholic church:

"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world." (NIV, vv 27-32)

But, what does Paul mean by "recognizing the body of the Lord?" I will agree that he is speaking of the elements themselves, but it is clear from the context that Paul is also speaking about the Body of Christ as the community of Christians.

Let us understand the condemnation in this way: Whoever fails to recognize his brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Paul concludes this passage with one final plead: "So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other." (NIV, v. 33)

"Paul criticizes Christians who use sacramental acts like the Eucharist to distinguish themselves from other Christians." (Communion with Non-Catholic Christians Jeffrey VanderWilt, p.154)

I fear that when large parts of the Body of Christ (i.e. baptized, non-Catholic Christians, aka Protestants) are denied access to the Eucharist, "it is not the Lord's Supper [we] eat."

I can discern the Roman Catholic Church as part of the Body of Christ, can you discern me as a part of the Body as well?

Paths to unity?

Roman Catholics call it "full communion." Protestants call it "Christian unity." Whatever it is, what does this look like? How will we know when we have achieved a truly one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church?

I wonder about some of the possibilities that a united Church might look like:

1) A return to Rome.
Catholics: We are right and you (Protestants) are wrong. The brokenness of the Church is solely your fault. Repent and submit to the authority of the Church. Abandon your belief in x, y and z and start believing a, b and c (just like we do.)

2) A change in Rome.
Protestants: We are right and you (Catholics) are wrong. The brokenness of the Church is solely your fault. Repent and recognize that our reformations were necessary. Abandon your belief in x, y and z and start believing a, b and c (just like we do.)

3) Unity in words alone.
Protestants and Catholics (to each other): We will believe what we want to believe and you believe what you want to believe. There is no need for us to agree because I am comfortable where I am. Let's just agree to disagree. If we just say we are united, that is good enough for me.

4) Reconciliation.
Protestants and Catholics (to each other): I am sorry for the brokenness of our relationship, it is not acceptable. You were wrong and I was wrong. The division was really no one's fault. I can recognize you as part of the Body of Christ. Let's sit together and grieve about what we have lost. We need to define what our relationship looks like together. I am willing to work hard at this if you are. It is going to be a long and difficult path, with many small steps. Only with Christ's help can we truly, visibly be one.

Protestant Worship Revisited

For the first time in a very long time, I sat in the congregation of a Protestant church (of my own tradition). I began to ponder several things during my time in worship.

First, I want to spell out some of my presuppositions concerning worship. Not in any particular order:

• We (the congregation) are the actors; God is the audience.
• It is the duty of the Christian assembly to worship God. Participation is required. This is not an "spectator sport."
• Music is worship.
• The liturgy should be built upon scripture.
• All churches have a liturgy. It is possible that it is not written out, or that it changes from week to week, but the liturgy does exist.
  

Here are some of my observations as I revisited Protestant worship. These are made in light of my long acquaintance with the Roman Catholic liturgy.

1) Audience/Performer. There was no silence to begin the worship. Nearly all members of the assembly were talking with one another, catching up on one another's lives. The music began to signal that worship was about to begin. The members of the congregation continued to converse until a minister rose to give a statement of welcome.

I found myself a bit uncomfortable with the level of informality given to the act of worship. It felt very much more like a lodge meeting rather than a performance for the pleasure of our Lord.

Suppose you were a member in an orchestra just prior to a performance. The orchestra doesn't spend this time socializing. They are ensuring that their instruments are in tune. They wouldn't dream of disrupting the audience as they prepare for the show.

In line with my presuppositions I believe that we need to prepare for worship. Get our "instruments in tune" as it were - examine our conscience, focus on God, pray for his help, and give thanks for his intercession.

We must not lose our focus in worship, and we certainly don't want God to feel left out at a performance meant for him in the first place!

1b) Special music. The congregation clapped following the special music. For those of you who might not be familiar with the term "special music," it refers to music that is performed by an individual, small group, or choir during the worship service. Generally the congregation is not invited to participate.

This can be done very well - as a gift given by the individual, group, or choir to God on behalf of the congregation. Unfortunately this distinction is sometimes lost and the congregation treats the act as if it were for a performance to be enjoyed by the congregation. Let us be careful to point out that we can clap along with God in thanksgiving to the performer - much like a choir might clap for a soloist in a performance.

1c) This distinction appeared to be completely lost in the congregation I was attending. A speaker, making an announcement about an upcoming event referred to the congregation as "the audience."

Language plays a very important role in everything we do. The words we use in conjunction with the physical actions we use during worship says a lot about who we are as the people of God. It also says a great deal about our view of God, Christ and the Church.

2) Communion. The children's message was quite good. The teacher mentioned all of the good things given to children in church, snacks as one example. But, she said, we must also give at church. The main message was that God expects us to use our gifts to build his church. A nice and neat message.

Later in the service another member of the church stood to give a prayer prior to communion. She was attempting to be relevant to the service, and recalled the children's message in her introduction to communion. She referred to the bread and wine of communion as God's snack for us!

The intimate meal shared with Jesus and his closest companions, the night before his death was a mere snack? The bread and wine which Jesus calls "my body" and "my blood" is just a casual snack to be enjoyed?

Again, language is powerful. I imagine the statement was simply not very carefully thought out. But why not? Why is it so difficult for many congregational Protestants to seriously consider the words they use to describe what is going on as we worship?

2b) The process of communion. Communion came from a common loaf and was offered to everyone in the congregation. It was divided among several plates, along with a separate plate with tiny cups of grape juice (the wine). These plates were passed through the congregation. I imagine the rationale behind this is "the priesthood of all believers" found in 1 peter 2:9. Understanding that all Christians are priests, all Christians necessarily are able to offer communion to one another in the congregation.

What if there are non-believers in congregation, however? Then that non-believer must handle the elements, and a believer would receive the body of Christ from a non-Christian. There is something unsettling about that.

Also, it does not really provide the option not to receive. There are reasons even for baptized Christians not to receive the Eucharist - for reasons I will address in another post. Going about communion in this way makes the act expected, and without an examination of conscience.


There was a lot of good which I saw in the worship. There was a great concern for the community, members were encouraged to share their personal prayer requests with one another in the context of worship. No one left after the communion service, and there was plenty of food and fellowship after the service.

Perhaps I may be called to help Protestant churches realize the importance of language and actions within the context of worship.

Imperfect Communion

Kevin wrote, in a comment on my post about intercommunion:

I will pray for you and that God will guide you in discerning where he is calling you to be! Just a reminder too-only Catholics who are in a state of grace can receive our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament. Until/unless you enter the Church, please refrain from physically receiving our Lord. Instead, you can do like I do when I am not in a state of grace, and gaze upon our Lord in the Eucharist, praying that He comes to you in a spiritual communion.

Peace, and God bless!

First, I want to say thank you Kevin for your comment and for reading my post. That is very useful guidance - to pray for a spiritual communion during the Service of the Eucharist. I pray quite fervently both for the unity of the broken visible Church and for my the possibility of my individual reception of the Lord in the Eucharist.

I do need to make one point of clarification however. Particularly the view "Until/unless you enter the Church." This is not a question of all or nothing. One is not either in the Church or against the church. The Church recognizes the fact that Protestants are in an imperfect communion with her; not completely outside.

"For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect."(unitatis redintegratio, 3)

And in the Catechism, "Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church." (1271)

So, Protestants like myself are necessarily already members of the Church, though not as full as we could be. It is our job to increase our communion so that one day we might be one.

Wherever my path takes me, my individual decision about which Church to call home will not solve the larger fundamental problem of the (partial) brokenness of the Church.

Intercommunion

My wife and I attend our local Catholic Church exclusively. I do not attend a Protestant church of my own tradition. We have been worshiping there since we got married, so for about 9 months. For those 9 months I have received communion exactly twice.

Twice! In 9 months! Now, some protestants who are reading this might be saying "so?"

I come from a Christian tradition which celebrates The Lord's Supper every Sunday. It is hard for me to consider a typical Protestant "service" worship, unless communion is part of it.

I believe that as baptized Christians we are commanded to The Lord's Supper, and called to it regularly. The words of institution simply say "Do this..." And in the Gospel according to John, Jesus explains that "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." (Jn 6:53 NIV)

The Catholic Church articulates it quite well when they say that the Eucharist "is the fount and apex of the whole Christian life." (Lumen Gentium, 11) The Catechism translates this as "the source and summit" (Catechism, 1324) To put it another way, the Eucharist is as essential for our spiritual lives as food is for our physical health.

Not receiving the Eucharist for me is tantamount to starvation.

Being hungry for Christ, I approached our (Catholic) pastor and asked to receive the Eucharist when I attend mass. We scheduled a meeting and discussed the possibility.

He suggested that I was perhaps being called by God to join the Roman Catholic Church, and for that reason the Eucharist would be withheld from me until I am able to make that decision. He was interested in my journey and offered to continue our meeting at another time and discuss the possibility of joining the Church.

I went into the meeting from a different perspective. I understand myself to be called to the ordained ministry. I am not prepared to abandon God's calling. (the priesthood is not an option for me because I am married) I was hoping to be admitted to the Eucharist, while recognizing our imperfect communion. That Jesus commanded celebration of his Eucharist not within one particular manifestation of his Church but simply as his Body of believers.

Protestants and Catholics hold quite a paradoxical view of how the Eucharist can be shared. Protestants believe that we will not be united until we are able to share the Eucharist together. Catholics believe we cannot share the Eucharist together until we are united.

And so I stand in this paradox, praying for God's intercession to bring his broken Church on Earth into a visible unity.

God's Choosen People

I have always found it difficult to think of God as playing favorites. He loves everyone equally after all doesn't he? I grew up with this presupposition largely due to the Protestant church's ignorance of the Old Testament. It was a rare Sunday for me to hear the Word of God from the law and the prophets, much less hear anyone preach on it.

I took my first Old Testament class this past quarter - on the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Bible. (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy)

Primarily it is the story of God's chosen people, the Israelites. God picks them, by grace, to be his people. The relationship between God and Israel is sealed in the Covenant. God promises that "out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." (Ex. 19:5-6 NIV) This promise was not unconditional, it required the strict obedience of Israel under the leadership of Moses.

God's holy people make the habit of getting into trouble and not trusting God nor his appointed leader. In Numbers 12 Miriam and Aaron speak against Moses because he had a Cushite wife. God is furious that anyone would dare "speak against [his] servant" (Num. 12:8 NIV) God struck Miriam with leprosy and sent her to sit outside of the camp for a week.

Apparently God does have favorites and apparently God does care about our actions. Perhaps I ought to be careful about questioning the authorities which God puts in place.

This Biblical insight has challenged me to consider the possibility that perhaps God has a chosen manifestation of his Church in the modern day. That perhaps it does matter how and what we do within our churches. Perhaps God has a chosen leader (the Pope?) set in place to guide and lead his chosen people today.

Roman Catholics often point to Mt 16:18-20 as a rationale for the office of the Pope. It basically says that Jesus gave the "keys to heaven" to Peter. That whatever he decided would be bound both on Earth and in heaven.

Now many Protestant leaders will challenge this verse for a number of reasons, but I at least must consider the possibility that God's character has not been altered; That he may have a chosen people, and he may have an appointed leader. What if all of that is found in the Roman Catholic Church? Who am I to question the great authority of God?

The Cost of Conversion

For me this decision it not simply one of which church I will attend on Sunday mornings.

This decision will change my life.

For the past 5 years I have not even entertained the notion that I was called to be anything other than an ordained minister. However, if I were to decide to today to join the Roman Catholic Church, I would have to give up my vocation.

I have also be called to family life and I am married. For this reason the priesthood is not an option for me, because the Roman Catholic Church practices priestly celibacy. This is probably the biggest deterrent to my decision to join the Catholic Church. I cannot see doing anything other than preaching, counseling, administering the sacraments, and leading a congregation when I imagine my future self. The possibility that I may not be called to the clergy has just recently creep into my head.

I would be facing a serious career change. I suppose with my seminary education I would be qualified to teach, be a youth minister, or pastoral assistant of some kind, and one day be able to enter the diaconate. The latter option would not be available to me for about 10 years do to age requirements.

I currently serve as in the Army National Guard as a chaplain candidate. (Chaplain candidates are soldiers who are preparing for the ordained minister. The expectation is that they will become "real" chaplains following completion of their education/church requirements) Chaplains are ordained members of the clergy. Again, this not being an option for me in the Roman Catholic Church I would have a choice to make. I would have to select another army job and attend O.C.S. because my direct commission would no long be recognized; or I would have to resign.

Beyond the career change I would be facing many financial costs if I were to join the Catholic Church. Many of my scholarships were given with the assumption that I would become an ordained member of the protestant clergy. All of which automatically become loans if I do not fulfill this obligation

• Scholarship #1 $6,000
  
• Scholarship #2 $9,000
  
• Home Congregation Support $7,200
• Regional Church Support $4,000
• Total scholarships needing to be paid back: $26,200

I also imagine my home congregation, family (who are all protestant), my school, friends, etc. would all be less than understanding in this matter; especially those who have invested a great deal of time into my development for Christian ministry.

So, this is not just a simple choosing of which church best suits me. This is a decision which would cause a great deal of turmoil in my life. But again, I feel a bit like the rich young ruler who turned from Jesus because of his worldly affairs.

In my next post I will share some of the reflections that lead me to this turning point.

Thanks for reading.

Intro and background

At this point I feel quite overwhelmed with all of the deep theological thinkings going on in my little head. For fear that I may explode someday in the not too distant future, I need to get these thoughts out into words.

My story:

I grew up in a small "main-line" (protestant) Christian church. I was called to the ministry early in my life. At some point in high school a pastor drew me aside during summer church camp and suggested I consider God's calling for me. With some guidance I went off to college, and find myself presently in seminary with one year to go.

At about the same time as I was encouraged to consider my calling I was introduced to the Roman Catholic Church by a classmate. She invited me to mass, and I remember feeling dreadfully uncomfortable and out of place. That's not the way we do it at my church after all.

As some time passed and the initial culture shock wore off I began to examine Roman Catholic theology a bit deeper. I certainly hadn't even scratched the surface yet, but I was at least intrigued. My interest grew until one arbitrary day I called the priest at the local Catholic church and asked to speak with him about conversion. I didn't know where I stood to be honest, but what is the harm in gathering some information?

I met with the priest and he gave me a catechism, and some other reading material. I gave him my phone number so that he could follow up on my study. Without fail, a few days later the priest called my house. My father was the first to pick up the phone, and he did not share my same curiosities.

It was my senior year and I had some solid scholarships at one of our denominationally affiliated colleges. My father warned that I would lose these scholarships if I even thought about conversion. I was considerably discouraged and decided not to met with the priest for a follow up meeting. I felt a bit like the rich young ruler who chose his wealth rather than become a disciple.

My college was situated in the smallest town I could ever imagine. There were no traffic lights, only 3 or 4 businesses including the college, and a mere 2 churches. One was protestant (of my particular tradition) and the other Roman Catholic.

I, of course, attended my denomination's church because I was preparing for ministry after all. I found the church to be someone lacking for various reasons. Having no other alternative (but honestly looking forward to opportunity) I tried out the Roman Catholic Church. I was at least familiar enough to follow along in the Sunday missal. I have found some very true long-lasting friends from that church. In fact of the few people I stay in contact with from college, they all attended that church. I even began a one-on-one impromptu class with the pastoral assistant to explore the Catholic faith deeper than I had before.

My preparation for ministry again seemed to get in the way of my exploration of the Catholic Church. I accepted an internship at a church, which would of course mean I needed to go to worship services there. Luckily, however, I met my wife through this internship in a round-about way.

Through that internship I was offered a summer job from one of the parishioners. At this summer job I met my wife, who (wouldn't you know it) just so happens to be Roman Catholic.

We married about three years after we met, and the role that religion plays in our lives has been a constant struggle.

Currently I remain committed to my calling to become a minister (in the protestant tradition). But I feel a calling to the Catholic Church as well.

Why I began this blog:

I began writing this blog partly to aid my own spiritual journey. At the same time however, I hope to find others that may be (or have been) on a similar journey as myself. I hope to share my struggles, discoveries, epiphanies, and questions here.

Thanks for taking the time to read my story. I am uncertain where this journey will lead.