Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[xzins]

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years?

Wednesday, 11 July 2007

Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.

The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.

It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.

One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.

First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.

The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.

The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.

All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.

Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.

How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.

[stfassisi]

“Not a single one of those dogmatically teaches transubstantiation as dogmatically defined by Rome.”

There is no way you could have came to that conclusion by reading the writings I posted.

I feel you need an exorcism! I mean that sincerely

I will be praying for you.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

There is no way anyone could conclude those citations teach dogmatically the false doctrine of transubstantiation as is defined by Rome unless under the influence of demonic spirits, who influence you to see things that do not exist.

I'll see if I can arrange a meeting with you and Bob Larsen to have those demons exorcised.

[stfassisi]

unless under the influence of demonic spirits, who influence you to see things that do not exist.”

Here is Jesus..
http://www.dsanford.com/miraclehost.html

Eucharist Miracles of the world
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

Jesus is there in the Eucharist-Body,Blood Soul and Divinity.

Every single Early Church Father believed this!

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

Wrong!

I'll fast and pray for you to be delivered of demonic influence.

[jo kus]

To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (1Cor.5:5). That individual was a saved man, who was going to suffer the 'sin unto death' (1Jn.5:20), but he would still go to heaven since Christ died for all of his sins.

Paul does not say what you try to get him to say. He says the man is turned over to satan to wrack the flesh so that the man MIGHT or MAY return. There is no guarantee that he will. Other Scriptures say that some do not return, such as Hebrews 10:26-27. God allows chastizement for the purpose of discipline, again, in Hebrews. That is what Paul is refering to. Again, what is the purpose of threatening someone with "death of the body" but maintaining that they will attain eternal life? The threat has meaning only within the context of losing our inheritance to eternal life, as Paul mentions in Gal 5, 1 Cor 6, Heb 10, Heb 3-4, and so forth. I haven't even covered Peter or Jesus yet, and they say a lot more about this subject.

That individual was a saved man, who was going to suffer the 'sin unto death' (1Jn.5:20), but he would still go to heaven since Christ died for all of his sins.

Then no one will be in hell, correct?

Anyone who comes to the knowledge of the truth and then sins willfully will lose their inheritance. Peter says they will be worse off than if they had NEVER KNEW Jesus! Clearly, sins are only forgiven of those who ask for it. Unrepentant sinners do not ask forgiveness. Former believers who sin again and do not repent will not be granted any special favors. It will be as if they had never been "saved" to begin with.

When the Holy Spirit seals you, you are sealed forever.

yes, and I am sure it will be even more frustrating for a person to spend eternity in hell DESPITE receiving the seal of the Spirit.

A son remains a son no matter what that son does.

Children are disowned or disinherited all the time because of the child's intransigence. The OT gives allowable reasons to kill one such child.

And a Christian is adopted into the family of God (Rom.8:15)

And a few chapters later, Paul says that the branches can be loped off, just as the original branches of the olive tree were lopped off...

Gee, you sound like an Arminian, not a Catholic.

What's the difference, so I can tell you if that is correct?

I am not claiming any authority. My authority is the word of God.

That is not what you are "claiming". We agree that the Bible is the Word of God. What your "authority" claims is that YOU properly interpret God's Word and that the Church is incorrect. You opinion is just as good as any other Protestant's opinion. God granted that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, not the individual cells APART from the Church. It would behoove you to remember and heed that, if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God and are not merely giving lip service to the idea of being a servant to the Word of God.

Regards

[Kolokotronis]

"While they give insight into great theological truths their writings are not and never were considered "inspired" by the Church.

HD, where did you get that idea? The Church proclaims the inspiration of the Fathers throughout the liturgical year in Apolytikia and Kontakia. For example, this Kontakion from the feast of +Cyril of Jerusalem:

"With your lips, O wise Cyril,
And through divine inspiration
You enlightened your people
To the worship of the one Trinity,
Undivided in essence, yet divided in Hypostases.
Wherefore rejoicing, we celebrate your all-holy memory,
Offering you as our intercessor before God.

[stfassisi]

For you.

Saint Michael the Archangel,defend us in battle.Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -by the Divine Power of God -cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Amen.

[D-fendr]

I’d be curious to know how loosey-goosey your preachers are allowed to be with their personal interpretations.

[blue-duncan]

"Paul(1Cor.5:5) does not say what you try to get him to say. He says the man is turned over to satan to wrack the flesh so that the man MIGHT or MAY return. There is no guarantee that he will. Other Scriptures say that some do not return, such as Hebrews 10:26-27. God allows chastizement for the purpose of discipline, again, in Hebrews. That is what Paul is refering to"

What Paul is referring to is the same thing the writer of Hebrews (Hebrews 10:26-27) is referring to, the danger of falling into the hands of the living God. However, the writer of Hebrews does not say he loses his salvation since in verse 30 he says "For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

If they had lost their salvation they would not be "his people". This is similar to what happened to Job when God permitted Job to be turned over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh to test Job, and like Job, the fellow in 1 Corinthians, faith was sure and he repented of his sin. The other scriptures you cite have nothing to do with the saved. Hebrews 3-4 deals with unbelievers; 1 Corinthians 6 deals with the unrighteous; Galatians 5 deals with those who are trusting the law (circumcision) for their salvation.

[D-fendr]

BTW, I’m a convert so I can have it both ways.

And then some.

[irishtenor]

As long as you do not denigrate my God and my beliefs. Valid questions, concerns, input are fine. Opinions can be ok, as long as the opinions do not denigrate; IE, I believe Calvin to be in error because the scripture says such and such. Not- Calvin and everybody who believe his tripe are stupid because my church says differently.

***There are many people here who seem to refer to their own personal god made in their own personal image while making up their own personal theologies.***

This is an example of what I consider going near the edge. When you use words like “seem” you are putting your own slant on what they are saying, in some cases totally misconstruing the context of their post.

[irishtenor]

Exactly. If Jesus paid for it, who do you think owns it? It is not our salvation to lose.

[Forest Keeper]

As I posted somewhere here today, the Larger Confession makes it abundantly clear that the Lord’s Prayer is petition - that is, asking for things.

Sure. It said that petition was one of three parts in the Lord's Prayer, for example.

You do not ask for things if you know that they are going to come about for sure. You only ask for things if you know that they are not going to come about.

What? How do you come to that conclusion? First, this would make all the prayers of Jesus a farce, neither of your statements apply to Him. In addition, that would have the Bible contradicting the Lord's Prayer. "Give us this day our daily bread". Do you say this because you are certain that God has no intention of seeing to it that you have food today? Are you sure that God will not provide for your needs, or do you follow this instead?:

Phil 4:19 : And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.

You ask for things hoping they are in God's will, not because you are sure you won't get them:

1 John 5:14-15 : 14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us — whatever we ask — we know that we have what we asked of him.

------------------

Therefore, the theology of a Creation set in stone is completely incompatible with petition.

No. God is strong, not weak and unable to make up His mind. His will always governs. When we pray for something in accordance with that will, then we get it. If the prayer isn't, then we don't. Even Jesus recognized that WHAT we pray for is irrelevant as compared to the will of God:

Luke 22:42 : "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

[Forest Keeper]

Thank you for the insight into how Catholics see Mary. We honor her too, but of course in a different way.

[Forest Keeper]

And there we have it. The Reformed god does not want men (all men) to live in Heaven forever. He only wants a portion thereof.

Yes. We've been saying that from the beginning. :)

That is not love whatsoever.

It is saving love for some but not all.

Saving only the few means that His Sacrifice was not good enough for all of Creation; Saving only the few means that He is not omnipotent.

That does not follow at all. It would be like saying God is not omnipotent because He didn't just snap His fingers instead of sending His Son. You presume to know God's intentions directly, when you cannot. Besides, your logic would also apply to your faith since you agree that NOT all are saved, yet you claim that is His wish.

His sacrifice WAS "good enough" for all mankind, but it was only efficacious, only made FOR, the elect.

[Forest Keeper]

It is the very existence of these monastics which is able to restore creation around them to its true created nature, FK. The Fathers tell us why. It is because by attaining a state of theosis, we become like God. But none of that happens without God’s grace, FK. That’s God’s “role” in the stories.

Thanks for your answer and for the quotes of the Fathers. I even recognize the first one, so that's good. :) I think I understand that quote better now. It is still a difficult teaching, though. :) For example, this part from the second quote from +Symeon really threw me:

“The Son of God has become Son of Man in order to make us...sons of God, raising our race by grace to what He is Himself by nature ..." (emphasis added)

[fortheDeclaration]

[To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (1Cor.5:5). That individual was a saved man, who was going to suffer the 'sin unto death' (1Jn.5:20), but he would still go to heaven since Christ died for all of his sins.]

Paul does not say what you try to get him to say. He says the man is turned over to satan to wrack the flesh so that the man MIGHT or MAY return. There is no guarantee that he will. Other Scriptures say that some do not return, such as Hebrews 10:26-27. God allows chastizement for the purpose of discipline, again, in Hebrews. That is what Paul is refering to. Again, what is the purpose of threatening someone with "death of the body" but maintaining that they will attain eternal life? The threat has meaning only within the context of losing our inheritance to eternal life, as Paul mentions in Gal 5, 1 Cor 6, Heb 10, Heb 3-4, and so forth. I haven't even covered Peter or Jesus yet, and they say a lot more about this subject.

What you didn't mention was 1Jn.5:20, which is the 'sin unto death' for believers.

Now, a believer can lose many things if he continues to sin, including his health, his eternal rewards (crowns), assurance of salvation, witness, and finally his life.

What he cannot lose is his salvation since God has sealed him until the day of Redemption, he has been born into the family of God (and you can't be unborn) and for the Christian, is now part of Christ's very body (Eph.5:30) being His bride.

Those verses you raise deal with losing those things, or they are dealing with an unsaved man.

That individual was a saved man, who was going to suffer the 'sin unto death' (1Jn.5:20), but he would still go to heaven since Christ died for all of his sins. ]

Then no one will be in hell, correct?

Only those who reject the free gift of salvation.

Anyone who comes to the knowledge of the truth and then sins willfully will lose their inheritance. Peter says they will be worse off than if they had NEVER KNEW Jesus! Clearly, sins are only forgiven of those who ask for it. Unrepentant sinners do not ask forgiveness. Former believers who sin again and do not repent will not be granted any special favors. It will be as if they had never been "saved" to begin with.

If someone comes to the knowledge of truth and then rejects that truth, they cannot be saved since they have hardened themselves to the truth, much like the Pharissee's of the Lords day, who committed the 'unpardionable sin' of attributing Christ's miracles to the power of Satan and not to God.

[ When the Holy Spirit seals you, you are sealed forever. yes, and I am sure it will be even more frustrating for a person to spend eternity in hell DESPITE receiving the seal of the Spirit. ]

Now, why would the Holy Spirit seal an unsaved man, when that unsaved man is going to hell anyway being a child of the Devil (Eph.2)

The Holy Spirit seals those who are the Lords, He puts a special mark on them that can never be removed until they make it home to heaven, a mark that even they cannot remove (see Ezek.8)

[ A son remains a son no matter what that son does. ]

Children are disowned or disinherited all the time because of the child's intransigence. The OT gives allowable reasons to kill one such child.

Yes, but that child always remains your child (the prodigial son-Lk.15).

Once you receive your DNA, it never changes.

Children of wrath go to hell, not the children of God.

When you are 'born again' you receive a new DNA code and go from being in Adam's family,(dead) to being in Christ's family line (alive) (Rom.5)

[ And a Christian is adopted into the family of God (Rom.8:15) ]

And a few chapters later, Paul says that the branches can be loped off, just as the original branches of the olive tree were lopped off...

And if you would actually read the passage it is discussing the issue of Jews and Gentiles as peoples, not individual salvation.

The Gentiles were getting in on the salvation that the Jew had rejected (salvation is of the Jew) and Paul warns them of getting arrogrant and forgetting that they are receiving what the Jew had rejected.

[ Gee, you sound like an Arminian, not a Catholic. ]

What's the difference, so I can tell you if that is correct?

An Arminian believes that someone is saved by grace by faith, but since he made a choice to believe, he can still lose his salvation under extreme circumstances, like rejecting Christ.

A Roman Catholic never believes he is saved, but that he is being saved (process) and if he stops doing the 'process' he will lose his salvation.

Now, since we are talking about a saved man in 1Cor.5, you are saying that someone could get unsaved after being saved, not stop the process of being saved.

That is why the modern versions have changed 1Cor.1:18 from 'perish' to 'perishing' and 'saved' to 'being saved'

[ I am not claiming any authority. My authority is the word of God. ]

That is not what you are "claiming". We agree that the Bible is the Word of God. What your "authority" claims is that YOU properly interpret God's Word and that the Church is incorrect. You opinion is just as good as any other Protestant's opinion. God granted that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, not the individual cells APART from the Church. It would behoove you to remember and heed that, if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God and are not merely giving lip service to the idea of being a servant to the Word of God.

My authority is the word of God and my understanding of scripture comes from having what God has provided to understand it (1) a perfect English translation-the King James.

(2) the Holy Spirit.

(3) Teachers and Preachers.

(4) a correct methodology of comparing scripture with scriptures and rightly dividing the word of truth.

The word of God is the final authority, not any church or group of churches.

That is why you asked to see scripture for my views, you didn't ask what my church taught on them.

Regards

Likewise.

One final point, you say that a person must be faced with the loss of eternal salvation as the ultimate source of fear.

Yet, in the Roman Catholic act of Contritation it says,

O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven, and the pains of hell; but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who are all good and deserving of all my love.

You will note it isn't the loss of heaven or the pains of hell, but the love for God that moves one to repentence.

And that is the purpose of God's discipline (Heb.13)

[HarleyD]

He gave us a Church to interpret the scriptures correctly.

No, He gave us the Holy Spirit to lead us to all truths, He gave us His word so we would know what the truth is, and He gave us the church so that we would have fellowship with one another.

Scripture is not that hard to interpret unless one keeps adding all sorts of things to it. Man makes it difficult.

[HarleyD]

The Church proclaims the inspiration of the Fathers throughout the liturgical year in Apolytikia and Kontakia.

I don't doubt that the Orthodox believe this. This was never the view of the early church of which the Orthodox was suppose to be a part of. The church had a very set criteria for determining what should go into scripture and what shouldn't.

But your comment intrigues me. You don't believe St. Paul's or St. Peter's works to be any more or less inspiring than St. Cyril of Jerusalem? Is this correct?

[MarkBsnr]

I am concerned that I am misusing or misdefining terms used by the Church.

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I do not consider any of the hundreds of Reformed Churches part of the Catholic Church; not by the Catholic Church’s choice but by the Protestants.

Now, with each Protestant church having its own set of rules, definitions, confessions and doctrines, I do ask pardon when I don’t get them right. And if I inadvertently insert traditional Christianity’s terms and beliefs into an essay on some modern day religion, I do ask pardon for that as well.

There are many more Protestant beliefs than the collection of Reformed, Dr. E. and sometimes the clamour makes things a little difficult to follow.