Coming Clean

Revelation in Progess

Jesus, The Revelation

So, at the beginning of the year, I started a couple of studies. One was to read the Bible and the Catechism in a year. The other was a study of the Book of Revelation. And there’s one thing that has been beating me over the head in good, repetitive manner in those studies: Jesus is The Revelation.

Why is that important?

Well, when you look at other religions, you get one of two views: (1) revelation is not clear nor complete but snippets have been recorded and a path is more or less set or (2) revelation has been exhaustively recorded, the path is not in need of interpretation – it is what it is. In the former camp, you’ve got pretty much all of your eastern religions, and I’d throw Judaism in the mix. In the latter camp, you’ve basically got Islam (as I understand it, anyways … could be a bad perception). Christianity doesn’t really fit in either mix.

The reason why Christianity doesn’t fit is because Christ is The Revelation. The Old Testament is the record of God’s gradual revelation of His nature and mystery in preparation for The Revelation of Jesus, the Manifestation of God’s nature and mystery. The New Testament is the incomplete record of the life of Jesus – the record of the Revelation of Life and all that Life is about. So the fullness of Revelation has been revealed, but it is not exhaustively recorded or even necessarily perceived.

And any Christian more or less knows that what I’ve just said is true. The New Testament is not The Revelation. Jesus is. And so that means that while we can trust the New Testament, we cannot expect that the New Testament is communicating to us in a way that we can necessarily and unmistakably understand. In other words, we cannot in ourselves trust that we understand all that Scripture is saying to us nor that Scripture is even telling us all that we need or ought to know.

And this is why the Church and Apostolic Tradition are crucial in Christianity. The Church is The Witness of Christ, rooted in the 12 Apostles. Some of that witness is recorded in the New Testament, but by the New Testament’s own account, it is not to be mistaken as The Revelation nor the fullness of The Revelation that the Church has witnessed and is witness to.

And so continuity of witness is vital to the life of the Church. If there were a break in that witness, a break in the communion of Witness, then by and large there would be a full schism in what the Church is witness to and thus the authority by which the Church claims to be a witness. That’s pretty much the basis of the Church’s ecclesiology and authority. It’s the most solid and easily made argument for the authority of the Church.

And of course, just when I make sure I’ve made a valid argument, I go to the Catechism and find these paragraphs I’ve never read before:

874 Christ is himself the source of ministry in the Church. He instituted the Church. He gave her authority and mission, orientation and goal:


In order to shepherd the People of God and to increase its numbers without cease, Christ the Lord set up in his Church a variety of offices which aim at the good of the whole body. The holders of office, who are invested with a sacred power, are, in fact, dedicated to promoting the interests of their brethren, so that all who belong to the People of God . . . may attain to salvation.389

875 “How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent?”390 No one – no individual and no community – can proclaim the Gospel to himself: “Faith comes from what is heard.”391 No one can give himself the mandate and the mission to proclaim the Gospel. The one sent by the Lord does not speak and act on his own authority, but by virtue of Christ’s authority; not as a member of the community, but speaking to it in the name of Christ. No one can bestow grace on himself; it must be given and offered. This fact presupposes ministers of grace, authorized and empowered by Christ. From him, bishops and priests receive the mission and faculty (“the sacred power”) to act in persona Christi Capitis; deacons receive the strength to serve the people of God in the diaconia of liturgy, word and charity, in communion with the bishop and his presbyterate. The ministry in which Christ’s emissaries do and give by God’s grace what they cannot do and give by their own powers, is called a “sacrament” by the Church’s tradition. Indeed, the ministry of the Church is conferred by a special sacrament.

Understanding Penance a Little Bit More

So, following the notion that where there is no sin, is the idea that there now does not sit a void, and I find penance making a good deal of sense. If I make my Confession in earnest repentance, I cannot content myself to just moving on as if nothing will now occupy my time and energy where once stood a sin. Instead, I have to exercise that time and energy in some other way. More often than not, I have found that when I “conquer” a sin, another just fills in where the last left off. That doesn’t make much of a repentance.

Now, one of the common objections to Catholicism while I was among the Protestant fold was that Catholics have to “confess their sins”. I didn’t think that was a particularly bad idea, though some inexplicably do. But, even still, that was not the worst of it. Oh, no, it gets much worse. They have to perform penance!! They think that by doing good works, they will buy their way into heaven!

Mrmmm … no. Catholicism isn’t quite that shallow. The whole idea is that when I make a confession, I need to now occupy my time and energy on holy works instead of the sinful works I just confessed and had forgiven. And the Confessor, at this point serving as a spiritual director, will provide us with a direction on what kind of holy works we should think about doing.

Unfortunately, I have found many of my penances shallow, save one, which I find myself continually thinking about because, well, it’s so good and I’m so bitter with regards to it (God help me!) that I often doubt I’ve actually performed it. But at the same time, even the shallow ones are just shallows leading into deeper waters. I suppose if I should actually make those shallow waters my home, my penance may actually challenge me to go deeper.

More often than not, my real problem is thinking I’m better than I am. Working with those in need, for some reason, helps remind me I’m not … probably because they always remind me I’m just God’s will away from their situation.

Blog Dreams, Beautiful People

I had my first blog dream last night. I dreamt I was at Mass, I think. And across the way I saw Rachel and her family and Matt and crew.

I got so excited to go across and finally meet them face-to-face.

And then I woke up.

And then I was sad.

I really like Matt and Rachel’s blog because they (on the surface of their blogs) seem like genuinely beautiful people … not in the sense that they are attractive in their physical features but in the sense that they exude Beauty in their writings about their thoughts and daily lives.

****

Last night in the parish parking lot, I saw my friend Tony, the grandfather of one of Lisa’s best friends. He is perhaps one of the most beautiful people I know. We talked for a bit, and he was telling me the joy he had found in working with the teens again: teens were receiving his love and finding love in him, the Church, and our Savior and reassuring his love. Some had adopted him as a grandparent figure as their own grandparents had passed on.

I told him that it wasn’t hard to believe – he’s one of the most beautiful people I know. For me, at the moment, that’s a pretty big compliment.

Maybe it was a lack of context of the thoughts I’ve had lately … maybe it was because of self-doubt … but it seemed to me that he drew back from my statement. And I saw, for a moment, a mirror of my own self-doubt.

****

I’ve been thinking a lot about my last post lately. Mainly wondering how willing I am to accept the call to Love and Beauty. And while I think I’m an alright guy, I have a real difficult time looking at myself as Beautiful.

I have never really thought of myself as having a problem loving myself, loving my being … but when I want to go so far as to say that I can see, in myself, Beauty … I honestly can’t do it. I don’t see it. I know my wife sees … something. I know others do, too. But me … I can’t see it.

Maybe I’m scared to see it. Regardless, there’s a lot that remains un-Beautiful in me … maybe seeing myself as Christ sees me is the first step towards solving all these questions and doubt. And for once, I can see a real need for prayer beyond a sense of duty from the exhortations to pray. If I am to see as Christ sees, it will only be through prayer.

U2, be my muse, one more time:

I’ve seen you walk unafraid
I’ve seen you in the clothes you made
Can you see the beauty inside of me?
What happened to the beauty I had inside of me?

Thanks for saying it, Bono.

Limbo in Limbo?

So, apparently, there’s talk that the Pope will be issuing some kind of instruction with regards to Limbo soon-ish. The Pope, before he was Pope, more or less stated his more than unfavorable view of Limbo, so, I’m guessing he’s not really going to come out in any more favor for Limbo than already exists.

Limbo’s one of those teachings that are technically possible given the definition of things but more than likely is not real due to the nature of things. And, though it be a valid teaching that has existed in the Church for some time, it’s not a dogmatic teaching – you’re free to think someone who believes in Limbo is stupid … you just can’t tell them with any kind of authoritative weight that they’re wrong (right now, anyways).

So, what is Limbo? Well, Limbo’s that place where people who have not been baptized yet committed no sin spend eternity. They don’t go to heaven because they haven’t entered the life of grace that baptism inaugarates an individual into, and they don’t go to hell because they have not committed a sin. Remember, Catholics don’t believe that Original Sin makes people proper sinners – it makes them inevitable sinners … assuming that they get far enough into life to commit a real sin. So, since they technically can’t go either place, they go to Limbo – an in between state. Some imagine Limbo to be a place of utter contentment and happiness but no share God’s divine life and love. It sounds warm and fuzzy; I just don’t think it plays out theologically.

Now, this is a pretty medieval way of looking at things. It’s simple; it’s direct; and it instructs people on what they ought to do – get you and your babies baptized! If you’re medieval, you don’t have the time, the energy, and most of all the education to understand the why’s … it’s knowing WHAT to do that is the most important thing for you because, well, everyone around you is dying, and you need something to hope for and trust in. Persist the teaching beyond that time, though, and it arguably begins to miss and mislead the whole point of baptism and what and why God does therein.

See, Limbo assumes that God’s grace is limited to the Sacraments. If you want to go to heaven, you’ve got to get baptized. True enough, in the general sense of things. But what if you don’t have the opportunity to get baptized, what then? Well, assuming you desired to be baptized, then you’re covered by a “Baptism of Desire”. There’s a few other Baptisms as well. Still, that doesn’t quite resolve the issue of babies.

If a baby dies, is not baptized, and has committed no sin … what’s God gonna do?

Well, it’s really not a matter of heaven, hell, Limbo, yet. God’s grace is the foremost important thing in the human experience. It’s not limited to the Sacraments; though, the Sacraments are the most consistent place where we receive grace and one of the foremost places we are encouraged to go commune with God. But God’s grace is His to give as He will, and His grace is something that He showers upon us with overflowing abundance, both in the Sacraments and in our daily lives. So, that being true, why would we think that God would withold the grace He offers us everyday, in the ordinary and mundane of our lives and in the Sacraments, from infants who had no opportunity to live for themselves, as themselves, and without opportunity to the Sacraments?

I’m inclined to think that children are at the very least brought into an enlightenment upon death, and that God then offers them the life of His grace to accept or reject. I’m also inclined to think that children would take to God’s grace like they take to their mother’s breast. But as to all that, I’m happy and comfortable leaving it all a mystery, trusting in God’s grace and mercy, that all is right, fair, and just beyond any measure I can know in this life. Call me presumptous and perhaps a wee bit arrogant, but I imagine that Pope Benedict will come down somewhere in this area. It certainly seems to be what Pope John Paul believed. And I’m comfortable with it. It keeps Christianity focused on what it ought to be – the relationship, not just some of the prescribed and promised ways and means that so many get caught up in systemizing.

Total Depravity: Sin vs Original Sin

In my last post concerning original sin, I compared the effects of Adam’s sin to being like Adam breaking his leg and giving himself a black eye, doing so against the commands of God. Because of that, we are all now born with broken legs and black eyes. It’s not our fault; it’s really nothing that God did; it’s just the way we are because of what Adam and Eve did.

The baseline confusion / addition to the theology of original sin that was developed by the Protestants during the Reformation was changing original sin from a state of no fault into a proper, personal sin. Before the Reformation, it was taught that we just showed up in this world with black eyes and broken legs because of Adam’s sin and the consequent disgrace of mankind. The Protestants during the Reformation, however, said that isn’t quite right. The Protestants said that we are properly responsible for our blackeyes and broken legs. Essentially, it’s like saying that as soon as our little fetal bodies develop arms in the womb, then we start beating away at our eyes and our legs so that by the time we have arrived in the world we have done the damage to ourselves – we each have personally gone against God, we each have sinned.

This is an important development because it says that sin dominates our nature whereas before sin was an inevitability of our nature.

Consider the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Question 25: Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?

Answer: The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.

Compare that to the current Catechism of the Catholic Church:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin – an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

The real difference between these two visions of original sin is the role of concupiscience – the inclination towards evil. Prior to the Reformation, concupiscience was not held to be sinful in itself though certainly a product of sin – mankind’s corporate sin, Original Sin, to be precise. Nor was concupiscience’s dominion over the indivual considered total. Rather it was considered inevitable and ever present and the arena of all spiritual warfare. The Reformers then added that concupiscience is not only of sin but is properly a contracted sin in all men. In other words, Protestants believe that each man is guilty of sin because of his inclination towards sin – that wayward desires, regardless of how fleeting they may be and how they are responded to, are proper moral faults in each man. And in all things, in all times, man is always inclined to sin – and thus are sinning.

The simplest illustration I can think of to describe these two competing visions of human nature is through the idea of reconciliation. I’ve read elsewhere that:

The word “Reconciliation” is split up into: “Re / con / cilia / tion” which means literally: “again / together / hair / act of”. The reference to hair is a reference to eye lashes. Reconciliation is the act of bringing your eye lashes back together with the eye lashes of God, that is, to see eye-to-eye with God.

I pulled it from this website, though I’ve heard it elsewhere before.

In the Catholic understanding, mankind has turned its back on God and in doing so lost the eye-to-eye relationship that it needs for proper living though God’s position as far as His commitment and desire for mankind and each individual man has not changed. In the Protestant understanding, God in effect also turns His back on mankind because in each and every man He sees not a lost soul but the sin of Adam.

The sum effect is to produce two different economies of salvation. Both economies agree that God’s grace is in short demand. But one economy says that God’s grace is in abundant supply and the other says that God’s grace is in an as-needed supply. And that’s a topic for a later post.

The Communion of Saints

wrestling with how to explain the communion of saints to protestants … and needing to do better after this first pass, I think

In my experience, Protestants have absolutely nothing to say to a Catholic who is grounded in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It is the genuine empasse between the Reformed churches and the Catholic Church. Sola Fide … Sola Scriptura … small change in comparison. For a Catholic who understands and believes in the Eucharist, to deny it is equivalent to denying Christ.

The Eucharist generally does not get a lot of discussion from evangelicals, particularly those looking to convert Catholics. Evangelicals are not prepared to discuss it … and if they do have something to say, it’s usually a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the teaching of the Church. Always reminds me of the Collective Soul album cover … big mouth dude carrying the sign, “Hints, Allegations, and Things Left Unsaid.” I’d tack on a line, too, to read, “if not outright lies.” A lot of it is honest ignorance by today’s evangelicals, but someone somewhere along the way had to know what they were doing when pushing some of the garbage I hear, and I imagine there is a hefty burden for such an individual. But as it is, most of the time Evangelicals try to nab Catholics on faith and works, unbiblical hierarchy, unscriptural teaching, blah blah blah. Not that I can’t engage in this discussion, but it’s such small change when stood next to the Eucharist. And so, that’s where I try to point my story.

In Vatican 2 and again in the Catechism, the Eucharist is summarily described as the source and summit of Church life. And so it should be summarized because the Eucharist is Christ, the head of the Church. It’s in the Sacrament of the Eucharist that we take the body of our Lord into our own bodies to be united to Him and, in that, find forgiveness of sins, strengthening of the faith, and establish our communion with the whole Church – both those alive on earth and those alive after death – among other graces.

And it’s on this last point, the communion of the Church or the communion of saints, I really want to talk about for this post, though it’s taken me some time to get here. Specifically, I want to deal with the communion of the Church with regards to how the Catholic Church believes and lives it out in comparison to the Protestant churches.

Growing up, I was raised between 3 different Protestant churches. Now, perhaps it was just me as a kid growing up, but I never felt or really thought that I belonged to a church beyond the 4 walls I visited every Sunday, and even that, I learned – first through observation and then through experience – was subject to change. And in public discourse, there was some camaraderie to be shared between folks who claimed the name Christ, but things, even as a child, would quickly become muddled once we moved beyond that – defintely if the name Catholic came up. And by the time I was in highschool and later had moved on to college, I realized that there was something distinctly lacking about the notion of the body of Christ that churches were suppose to be presenting to the world. Intra-denomational recognition of churches was at times difficult enough; Inter-denominational recognition was generally not much to hope for and a happy thing to have while you had it. The only thing that ever held “communion” between churches together was intellectual assent to the other’s teachings … not a good foundation for something that should be Christ rooted, and certainly a shifty foundation as we’ve seen time and again through the politics of various denominations and theological conferences.

Now when I learned in highschool that my best friend was Catholic, I was to some degree disturbed but at the same time curious. He was my first insight into Catholicism, and so far not too bad. Taking me to Mass though was an experience that certainly seemed to validate everything I had ever heard. But that’s not to say that I didn’t come away with some positives … such as I was distinctly impressed that communion was held weekly (oh, ignorant me). But when we attended a different Mass, one that my friend thought was a little more inline with my Charismatic upbringing, I immediately latched onto something I really hadn’t seen or thought about before.

What I saw at this second, livelier parish was … the same service with different tunes and an arguably better preacher. …but I realized that… this was more than just a Service. This was something tantamount to an Event. I had had my first taste of not just liturgy but more importantly started to perceive Sacrament, and I was liking it.

It wasn’t until some time later that I started studying Catholicism for Catholicism, but two of the first things that should ever come out of such a study is that (1) the Eucharist is, perhaps, the most important thing in the life of faith and (2) liturgy is the foremost if not only place the Eucharist has ever been celebrated and consecrated since the earliest days of the Church. The form of the liturgy of the Mass follows that of the Last Supper, which is an instance of the Passover Seder with Jesus’ own flair, and has grown through variation from this core into the liturgy we have today. All time in Christian history has texts that concern themselves with the proper exercise of Christian liturgy and exhortations that the Eucharist is truly, really Christ and should be so revered.

Now, perhaps not everyone thinks this an important detail, but for me, who was and is vastly curious about where the Church came from, I found this point intriguing. Catholics do things, more or less, the same … day in, day out, since the time of Christ. Add to the notion that the Eucharist, where all the faithful are drawn into the one, final, perfect sacrifice on the cross, and you’ve got yourself more than just a powerful sign of belief but, for believers and unwitting participants, a powerful reality … Something no Protestant church can come near to touch or express in its beliefs, except to say that such things are heresy. And I, for one, cannot believe something so obviously foundational to the praxis and beliefs of the Church throughout history, especially so strongly present in the early Church, to be heresy.

But what does all this mean and do? Well, first, when the Catholic Church says it is catholic, it means it. Catholic with respect to geography and time. In the Eucharist, the Church believes that all the faithful are made present to the cross … like a kind of time travel without anyone going anywhere, in some mystical way present before the same, one cross Christ died on. And just as we are, in the particular moments of the Mass, mystically present at the cross, so are we mystically joined with every other man, woman, and child who has ever lived and lives in Christ. And in receiving the Eucharist, uniting with Christ in a real, tangible way, we find our common unity in each other, the rest of the body, in a real, tangible way. And in this reality comes the awareness that all of who we are, all the gifts and riches we have been given by God, are not gifts for ourselves, not just gifts to be used for Christ, but gifts meant for the service of the entire body.

Now, we can assent to all these things intellectually, big deal that Catholics have a sign to go with it. And, I guess if that’s one’s perspective, so be it with the whole lot Christianity. Baptism – eh … who needs it, really? But if signs are the mechanism of sanctifying grace as is a common belief with regards to Baptism, how could such a sweet gift like the Eucharist be ignored?

I don’t think the Protestant churches could legitamately lay claim to the Eucharist today, though I know a number try. The Eucharist is tied intimately with liturgy and liturgy with authority and authority with Bishops and Deacons and all that falls out from that. That’s a pretty big hump to have to get over, and I often wonder if Protestant churches can. But all we Catholics are left to do is pray that somehow it does and keep faithful to Christ through the Sacraments as a sign to the world, especially our separated brethren, that indeed there is more to what is seen, it is real to us today, and it is a better way … it is The Way.

The Pope Must Be a Genius

The Pope gave an address 22 December 2005

In it, he explains and reflects on … well, a lot.

He talks about Christmas, Christ, JP2, World Youth Day, Worship, Evil, Suffering, Vatican 2, the right and wrong way to understand Vatican 2, the reason why Vatican 2 needed to happen … there’s probably some other stuff … but that’s the stuff I remember off the top of my head.

Now, this is a long read … probably took me an hour to parse my way through it (I am a slow reader because I like to be sure I’m understanding as much as possible, so that means a lot of re-reading) … BUT YOU SHOULD READ THIS.

It offers … so much … oh, it even touches on religious freedom … and the nature of the deposit of faith and the expression of faith and historical continuity in the deposit of faith and the seemingly historical discontinuity in the expression of faith. Did I mention I found this read awesome?

I’ve read elsewhere that this should be viewed as a kind of mini-encyclical before the Pope’s first encyclical due out later this month. Rumor has it that the Pope will be on something of a rescue mission for Eros – Romantic/Sexual Love – in his encyclical. Judging by the way that this man has stirred my noodle even in small passages, I can’t wait … even if the rumors turn out wrong.

The Christmas Mystery

525 Jesus was born in a humble stable, into a poor family. Simple shepherds were the first witnesses to this event. In this poverty heaven’s glory was made manifest. The Church never tires of singing the glory of this night:

The Virgin today brings into the world the Eternal
And the earth offers a cave to the Inaccessible.
The angels and shepherds praise him
And the magi advance with the star,
For you are born for us,
Little Child, God eternal!

526 To become a child in relation to God is the condition for entering the kingdom. For this, we must humble ourselves and become little. Even more: to become “children of God” we must be “born from above” or “born of God”. Only when Christ is formed in us will the mystery of Christmas be fulfilled in us. Christmas is the mystery of this “marvelous exchange”:

O marvelous exchange! Man’s Creator has become man, born of the Virgin. We have been made sharers in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share our humanity

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Danger of Theology

… is forgetting that theology is only as good as the relationship with Christ you have and continue to pursue.

How often we forget that and make theology our idol.

Makes sense though … having a perfect theology probably makes you feel a lot more secure than the tenuous ebb and flow, give and receive of earnest relationship. But that’s what Christ calls us to. He went to the cross to give it to us. We ought to be brave enough to stay true to Him in our hearts and lives as we know how before anything else – open to let the rest pour forth.

I doubt that’ll make everyone Catholic – oh, one come hope – but I do imagine it’ll bring us closer if the peoples of the faith can really latch onto that idea.

It’s not a place that we’re destined to. It’s a union to God through Christ; a perfect relationship. That’s something that starts now. It’s not what theology is. Theology informs us how to make it stronger. But so many people have got it backwards – it’s so easy to do because it’s so much easier … probably more comfortable, too.

Vaitcan II: the Mission of the Church

Part of what I’ve been so busy doing lately is studying the documents from Vatican II and presenting a small subset of them to members of my parish as part of a whole parish catechesis program (fancy name for sunday school for people of all ages). In particular, I’ve been focusing on the documents that affect the Mission of the Church and the laity’s involvement in that. In total, I cover 5 documents:

Dignitatis Humanae DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Nostra Aetate DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
Unitatis Redintegratio DECREE ON ECUMENISM
Orientalium Ecclesiarum DECREE ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCHES OF THE EASTERN RITE
Ad Gentese DECREE ON THE MISSION ACTIVITY OF THE CHURCH

Together the documents repaint the picture of the Church’s place in and relationship with the world. This is something of a rough sketch of what I’ve been dialoguing with my fellow parishoners the past few days.

Firstly, the Church acknowledges and affirms the need for religous freedom in the world. Religion is suppose to be an honest pursuit of Truth: answers to whence we come, where are we going, how we’re getting there, and above all else why? As such, each man must be free to be honest in himself, to who he is, and what it is he knows and believes to be true. That is not to say that the Church denies that all men are bound to come to the Truth of the Church, but rather that each man must come to the Truth of the Church himself, in honesty and sincerity. There is to be no coercion of people, whether it be by religion, state, or individuals. There is to be freedom and honesty and dialogue – an open society of religous ideas, striving in common purpose if not to common ends and conclusions.

Secondly, the Church realizes and acknowledges that She is not the only religion in the world. There are many other great religions in the world, and there are many things in common between these religions. With the Buddhists, the Church acknowledges and affirms a common contemplative life. With the Muslims, She acknowledges a common ancestry with Abraham and belief in the God of Abraham. With the Jews, the Church acknowledges Her full ancestry rooted in that great religion. It acknowledges the many moral precepts that all these religions and more share with the Church. In all these things, the Church seeks a kind of solidarity and common encouragement for the purposes of pursuing true, free religion.

But the Church also wishes all of mankind and especially these religions that She is the first and foremost and fullness of all Divine Revelation. Though there not be immediate agreement on this, the Church is ever ready to study with the peoples of these great religions and enter into honest and open dialogue. The ideas of commonality that is seen amongst the great religions, the Church sees as seeds of God’s grace, waiting and ripening for the coming of the Gospel. The people of the Church are ever called and are to be found ready to share the Gospel of Christ with all men so that God’s grace, that has been given to and received by men outside the Church, can come into its fullness of life.

As to its special relationship with others who claim Christ as their own, the Church acknowledges all who are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as proper owners of the title Christian and members of the universal Church. The Church again maintains its foremost position as bearer of the fullness of faith and revelation in this world but also wishes to begin and continue dialogue with those Christian groups outside of Her communion.

In Her relationship with the Churches of the Eastern rite, the Church acknowledges the validity of their history, their existence, and their Sacraments. Her members are to feel free, while remaining faithful to their local parish and diocese, to participate in the Eastern Traditions, especially during special occasions.

Lastly, all members of the Church, keeping in mind all that has been said beforehand, are to participate in the great work of the Church in the world: Mission, to go out. The Missionary work of the Church has long been co-opted by the ideas of travel to far-off lands of destitution and poverty; however, any work that would inspire the Christian life truly begins in the individual and in their family. The Missionary work must begin first in the home with parents rearing children – to teach the faith, encourage engagement in the faith, and to live faith’s works of love. And in these things, to live our faith externally as much as live it internally – let it indeed be an all encompassing passion. In this way, when families of faith join together in worship and common faith, greater encouragement and engagement can be found, and greater deeds be made manifest in the world for the glory of God. And finally, through the solid base of faith found in the whole community, the distant and far-off missionary work of the Church will become that more effective and lasting.

Missionary work is about identifying common purpose, participation, encouragement, and dialogue. The Missionary work should not be viewed as a kind of colonization motivated by a kind of manifest destiny. It is a life of love, not simply duty and obligation. Without love born of a life of faith, the Missionary work of the Churh will not be as lasting and potent as possible if it is successful at all.