A CHALLENGE FOR PROSTESTANTS

A Challenge

It has become quite common today for those who hold to sola scriptura to claim that it does not mean Scripture is the only authority for the Christian but that it is the ultimate authority. They argue that church councils and history are authoritative in some sense, but that only Scripture is our final authority.

My main objection to this line of reasoning is that, though it sounds good in theory, in reality I have never known two Protestants to use any of these other sources of authority as a genuine tiebreaker in their disputes. It always seems to come down to my interpretation of Scripture versus yours, which in the end makes me the ultimate source of authority.

In a way, I think this is fair, since I cannot expect a Protestant to hold the Catholic understanding of authority. But I do have a challenge for the Protestant who claims that there are authorities outside of just the Bible: let those authorities be actual authorities. If councils, creeds, and the Fathers are never allowed to truly settle a dispute, then they function as no authority at all. And neither they nor the Scriptures become the actual final authority, but the individual.

History as a Safeguard Against Myself

For me, this was one of the main reasons I began to take Church history seriously, not as an authority equal to Scripture in itself, but as a safeguard against my own private interpretation.

Here was my approach

I began with Scripture, accepting it as one hundred percent authoritative, and did my best to interpret it honestly.

Then I turned to the earliest Christians, looking first to the Apostolic Fathers, those who knew the apostles personally, and asked two main questions:

1. How does their interpretation of Scripture compare with mine

2. Is their interpretation at least plausible, or is it altogether anti scriptural

Continuing generation by generation, I repeated the process with later Fathers and councils, testing whether their interpretations showed continuity or a rupture.

What I found was that history often exposed the blind spots in my own reading. If I discovered that the Christians closest to the apostles read Scripture differently than I did, I had to ask myself whether I was really more likely to have the correct interpretation than those who were closer in both time and space to the original authors, as well as being entrusted by them to pass on their teachings.

This did not mean I gave history absolute authority, but it did mean I treated it as a mirror, forcing me to confront whether my interpretation was consistent with the faith “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

Conclusion

Our Lord promised to send us a helper to lead us into all truth (John 16:13). But was this promise meant for the individual or for the Church as a whole. If it was meant for the individual, then why do so many Christians disagree about the meaning of Scripture. If I look at a passage and interpret it one way and my fellow Christian brother interprets it another way, then my brother must have been led less by the Holy Spirit than I have. Under this view, I am implying that he must not be as close to God as I am, otherwise he would have been led into the same truth as me. But Scripture reminds us what to do if I have a dispute with my brother that cannot be resolved. I am to take it to the Church (Matt 18:17), which is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). The Bible also makes it clear that no verse of Scripture is of one’s own interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). And if it comes down to my interpretation against yours, I am making myself the final authority. The only way to avoid this is by looking to something outside of ourselves.

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. CK Chesterton

HOW ARE WE MADE RIGHT WITH GOD

Catholics and Protestants are both in agreement that our salvation comes solely through the saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross. But where we begin to differ is in the question of how that saving work is applied to the individual.

In my experience, those who attack Catholics as not even being Christian are a subset of Protestants who often title themselves “Reformed” (one of my favorite Protestant theologians, R.C. Sproul, falls into this group). “Reformed” in this case refers to their belief that they hold to the theology of the Reformation.

They are heavily influenced by the works of John Calvin, but also, to some extent, by the writings of Martin Luther. They say that the merits of Jesus Christ simply cover us (imputed righteousness). On the day of judgment, when God the Father looks at us, He does not see our sinful selves but only the righteousness of Christ. Martin Luther compared this to a dung hill covered in white snow—though it might look pure and beautiful on the outside, inside it is still just filth.

This view of salvation has a host of implications. When brought to its logical conclusion, we can start to see some of the uniquely Calvinistic doctrines emerge. For example, the idea of “once saved, always saved” naturally follows. If we have not actually been changed but are simply covered by Christ’s righteousness, then nothing we do from that point forward can affect our salvation. This is why Martin Luther could say that even if he committed murder a thousand times a day, he would still go to heaven.

It also explains other particularly Reformed doctrines, such as the belief that Jesus did not die for all mankind but only for the elect. Because if Jesus truly paid the price for all sins, how is it that all are not saved? From this reasoning, they arrive at the doctrine of double predestination—the idea that before all time God predestined some to eternal life and others to hell. Similarly, the doctrine of Irresistible Grace follows naturally: if you were predestined before time to eternal life and Christ has already paid for your sins, then whether you want to accept God or not is irrelevant—it will necessarily be the case. For this reason, some Reformed theologians go so far as to say that free will is nothing more than an illusion.

I am, of course, simplifying somewhat, but you can see how these ideas flow from the concept of imputed righteousness. They hold this to be essentially the same as the Gospel, so that anyone who denies imputed righteousness is, in their eyes, outside the Christian fold.

The whole framework is actually quite legalistic. They believe that Jesus, on the cross, suffered all of God’s wrath for all of our sins. Because of this, it would be unjust for the Father to send us to hell, since Christ has already paid the price. But here lies the problem: the Scriptures never say that the Father poured out His wrath on the Son in punishment for our sins. In fact, the price of even a single sin is eternal damnation. How, then, could the Son have borne the punishment for all sins and yet rise again on the third day?

The Catholic position, by contrast, is that Christ’s saving work on the cross has restored us to our original relationship with God—namely, as His sons and daughters. It is believed that when the Holy Spirit comes upon us, God’s grace is infused into our souls, making us a new creation (infused righteousness). This is why St. Paul says that we are adopted sons and daughters and that God longs to hear us cry out, “Abba, Father.” As children of God we grow in holiness, and eventually that relationship is perfected as we become Christlike.

It is in this context that works are necessary—not salvific works by which we demand salvation as a debt owed, but works done out of love for God (gracious works).

This is how St. Paul can say that in the end, “faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor. 13:13). It is worth noting that when Martin Luther wrote his Bible commentary, he left this verse uncommented. Likewise, our Lord said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15).

This is why St. James, speaking of Abraham, wrote: “Do you see that his faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’; and he was called the friend of God” (James 2:22–23).

Notice how Abraham’s works perfected his faith, leading him into a living relationship with God. Ultimately, our works are not even our own; they are Christ working in us through the Holy Spirit, who will bring His work to completion.

This is why, at the Council of Trent, as a response to the Protestant doctrine of “faith alone,” the Church affirmed instead: “faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6).

DID GOD TURN IS BACK ON JESUS

1. What are Lord meant when he said my God my God why have you forsaken me.

As I'm sure you're already aware he was quoting Psalm 22. It was a common Jewish custom to quote an extended piece of scripture by quoting the first line or two. so when he says my God my God why have you forsaken me he means to invoke the entire sense of the whole Psalm. a Psalm which explicitly says that God did not turn his face from him. 

Psalm 22:24 "For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; and he has not hid his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him." 

I think there is a sense were you can say that God the Father forsake the Son, that is by allowing his creatures to crucify him. But not in a sense of turning his back on the Son.

2. Why God the Father could not have turned his back on the Son.

Our God is a triune God, three in persons but one in essence. Even in the incarnation our Lord through his divine nature still shared in the beatific vision. Meaning that he saw God the Father face to face. This is essential because if there was ever a moment where God the Father turned his back on God the son, God would cease to be a triune God. This is something we know cannot happen God is God by nature and he does not have the ability to go against his own nature.

even in the incarnation our Lord still shared in the beatific vision where he sees the father face to face.

3. Jesus as our high priest.

Jesus is our high priest who offers himself on the cross to God the father on our behalf. And in John 10:17 our Lord tells us that the Father loves him for it. 

“For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again."

 but if God the father had turned his back on the Son or or turned his face from him it would have been a sign that God the Father rejected the sacrifice being offered. And we would all still be dead in our sin.

Amos 5:22 "Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, and the peace offerings of your fatted beasts I will not look upon."

4. Why it was not necessary that God the Father pour out his wrath on the Son.

How could God the Father put on the Son his punishment for our sins when the punishment for sin is everlasting separation from God. Not only can God not be separated from himself but if it was the true punishment for our sins he would be forever separated.

But what does sin specifically do? It separates us from God, it brakes our relationship we have with him.

Isaiah 59:2, says, "but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear."

The wrath and torment of hell is just a natural consequence of dying separated from God. Because in this life whether we know it or not we still feel his presence. But in the next life when he finally grants us our wish and withdraws his presence from us, as a creature who is made for communion with God this will be the most agonizing torment imaginable.

So what does Christ saving work on the cross do? It restores that relationship so we can once again be called sons and daughters of God.

Romans 8:14–17

"For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, "Abba! Father!"

it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.”

MARY PART 2: THE ARK OF THE COVENANT

Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant:

Thank you for your compliment, I do not know how well written it is, but I do try to make it as clear as possible. I do anticipate objections and that is fine. We can discuss them as they come.

Starting off with a quote from the great St. Athanasius of Alexandria, defender of the Holy Trinity  (296-373)  “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Ark of the Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides.” Homily of the Papyrus of Turin.

The Ark of the Covenant which was the dwelling place for God among his people (Exodus 25:8). That which was so holy that once placed into the inner sanctuary of the Temple it would be filled with the Holy Spirit  henceforth being known as the Holy of Holies where no one could enter except for the high priest once a year or they would die.  (1 Kings 8:6)

The glory of the Lord “overshadowed” the ark and filled the tabernacle.
(Exodus 40:33-35) "Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting because the cloud had settled upon it (the Art), and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle."

The Spirit comes upon the Virgin Mary and “overshadows” her, so that she might conceive and give birth to Jesus. (Luke 1:35)
"The angel answered, 'The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.'"



The Ark had within it (according to Hebs 9:4)  a golden jar holding the manna, Aaron’s rod that  had budded (symbol of his priesthood), and the stone tablets of the covenant  (God's word written on stone).

Mary had within her the true bread which comes down from heaven (John 6:48-50), the ultimate High Priest (Heb 8:1) and God's word made flesh. (John 1:1)



Parallels between Mary and the Ark:

"The ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite for three months, and the LORD blessed him and his entire household." (2 Sam 6:11) David, wearing a linen ephod, danced before the LORD with all his might, while he and all Israel were bringing up the ark of the LORD with shouts and the sound of trumpets. As the ark of the LORD was entering the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul watched from a window. And when she saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD, she despised him in her heart. (2 Sam 6:14-16)

In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” (Lk 1:39-45) And Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home. (Luk 1:56)


Lining up the parallels we see.

The Ark is in the hill country - He left the ark in the hill country
The New Ark is in the hill country - Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country

The Ark stayed in the hill country for three months - He left the ark in the hill country of Judea for three months
The New Ark stayed in the hill country for three months - And Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home.

David proclaims about the Ark - "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?"
Elizabeth proclaims about the New Ark - And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

David danced and leapts before the Ark - As the ark of the LORD was entering the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul watched from a window. And when she saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD, she despised him in her heart.
John the Baptist  leaps for Joy before the New Ark - For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.



The Ark in Revelation:

In the book of Revelation John reaccounts seeing the Art of the Covenant after it had been missing for hundreds of years.

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm.  (Rev 11:19)

At this high point of revealing the missing Ark John goes on to describe the image of the Woman. "A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head." (Rev 12:1)



Lets end this part with a quote from St. Ambrose (c. 339-397)

“The prophet David danced before the Ark.  Now what else should we say the Ark was but holy Mary?  The Ark bore within it the tables of the Testament, but Mary bore the Heir of the same Testament itself.  The former contained in it the Law, the latter the Gospel.  The one had the voice of God, the other His Word.  The Ark, indeed, was radiant within and without with the glitter of gold, but holy Mary shone within and without with the splendor of virginity.  The one was adorned with earthly gold, the other with heavenly” (Serm. xlii. 6, Int. Opp., S. Ambrosii) (Blessed Virgin, p. 77).

ON MARY PART 1: AN INTRODUCTION

 

Hi *****‚ I am so happy that you wrote to me. I very much enjoy having a deep theological discussion. Especially with those of other Christian persuasions. Because I think one of the greatest things we can do towards Christian unity is to more deeply understand each other. And at the end of the day even if we don't agree we can't help but have more respect for each other by understanding why we believe what we believe and how we have arrived at those beliefs. For I am pretty sure if there is one thing which is true of just about all Christians is that we believe that we are following God's word in order to do his will. And when I sit down with other Christians I often times find that we are closer in belief and we previously thought.

Normally I would not start out on the subject of Mary because it is a pretty large subject and if there is one subject in which Protestants are likely to find objections to the Catholic faith it is this one. 

CS Lewis and his introduction to mere Christianity writes this. 

“There is no controversy between Christians which needs to be so delicately touched as this [concerning Mary]. The Roman Catholic beliefs on that subject are held not only with the ordinary fervour that attaches to all sincere religious belief, but (very naturally) with the peculiar and, as it were, chivalrous sensibility that a man feels when the honour of his mother or his beloved is at stake. It is very difficult so to dissent from them that you will not appear to them a cad as well as a heretic. And contrariwise, the opposed Protestant beliefs on this subject call forth feelings which go down to the very roots of all Monotheism. To radical Protestants it seems that the distinction between Creator and creature (however holy) is imperilled: that Polytheism is risen again. Hence it is hard so to dissent from them that you will not appear worse than a heretic — a Pagan.”

But since you asked I am happy to answer to the best of my ability and I hope I can do the Catholic understanding some justice.

You asked about terminology‚ most Catholics will refer to her in one of the following ways. The Virgin Mary‚ The Blessed Virgin‚ The Blessed Mother or simply as Our Lady. To keep things simple going forward in this I will just refer to her as Mary.

Before I explain what we believe about her I think it is important to make some distinctions which I think will help clear up some possible misconceptions about what Catholics believe about Mary.

First‚ though we believe that she is the most perfect creature ever created. She is still just that a creature. And as such it is absolutely forbidden to worship her.

Second‚ the primary role of Mary is to point the way to her son Jesus. We believe this was summed up perfectly at the wedding feast in Cana when she turns to the servants and says do whatever he tells you.

And thirdly‚ any Holiness she has achieved is strictly through the saving work of her son. The Church Fathers compared her to the moon. In that the moon appears bright but in actuality has no light of its own but simply reflects the light of the sun.

With those distinctions in mind‚ we do believe that she was preserved from the effects of original sin at the moment of her conception. That throughout her life she did not commit personal sin. And at the end of her life she was assumed into heaven. We also believe that in spiritual sense she is the mother of all Christians.

We do not believe this because of Scripture but we believe that we believe this because we have always believed it. We do however think that Scripture and Tradition both support this belief.

Though for the last one that she was assumed into heaven Scripture has less to say about it since at the time that it happened most of Scripture had already been written except for maybe the Book of Revelation.

However as I mentioned last time we talked that God would assume someone into Heaven is not entirely without precedent. As we read in the book of 2 Kings Elijah was assumed into heaven. If we Catholics are correct in our assertion that Mary was the greatest creature whoever lived and God saw fit that Elijah should not see death then it seems fitting that he would do the same for her. 

I assume you will find Scripture to be the most persuasive so I will focus mostly on it. 

To quote St Augustine‚ “The New Testament lies hidden in the Old, and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.” To understand the sinlessness of Mary it is helpful look at how she is the fulfillment of three types in the Old Testament. The first is Mary as the new Arc of the Covenant. The second is Mary as Queen Mother. And the third is Mary as the New Eve.

In the next email I will try to cover Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant and try to explore some of the implications of that. Then in the following email I will try to cover Mary as Queen Mother and her as the New Eve. All of this will be just an introduction so if there are specifics you would like to go into more detail about please feel free to let me know.

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION PART 1: THE OLD TESTAMENT

My general premise is that the New Testament is not a replacement but the fulfillment of the Old. Many of the things we see in the New have direct parallels  to those things which went before but now in the New are greater and more perfect then that which came before.

As our Lord  put it, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." - Matthew 5:17-18

So if the New Covenant is a continuation of that which came before it then we would expect it to not look like a completely new thing but to have strong similarities to what came before.

As St. Augustine put it "The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New." 

With this in mind I plan on answering each of the questions in three parts.

1. What is the foundation in the Old Testament.

2. How is it manifested in the New Testament.

3. And what evidence do we see of this in the Early Church.

 

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION PART 1

I hope to start with Apostolic Succession because if we can't show that the Apostles' authority to some degree carried on after their deaths then it does not matter what kind of authority Peter had in relation to the other twelve.  But on the other hand if the authority of the Apostle's did carry on then it goes a long way in showing that if Peter had a special authority then it too might have carried on.

In the book of Numbers we read, 

"Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him." - Numbers 27:20

"Moses did as the Lord commanded him. He took Joshua and had him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly. Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the Lord instructed through Moses." - Numbers 27:22-23

In Deuteronomy we learn that with the Laying of Hands came a special gift of wisdom.  

"Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit[a] of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the Lord had commanded Moses". - Deuteronomy 34:9

Again in Numbers we have the following account, 

"So Moses went out and told the people what the Lord had said. He brought together seventy of their elders and had them stand around the tent. Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took some of the power of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied—but did not do so again. - Numbers 11:24-25

Though it does not explicitly say they had hands laid on them but there is good reason to believe they had because there seems to be a clear parallel between the two accounts, in both accounts people are singled out for leadership, given authority, have some of the power transfered to them and after recieve a gift. As we will see Jewish custom seems to back this up as well. 

In The life and times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim, a famous Jewish convert to Anglicanism, he points out that the members of the Sanhedrin of Second Temple Judaism were originally ordained by the laying on of hands. Whenever they would ordain they had three men present and at least one of the men ordained had to be able to trace his ordination through Joshua to Moses. This seems to be supported by other Jewish scholars as well,

On the site "myjewishlearning.com" we have the following, While the use of rabbi as a formal title does not appear until the Mishnah (a first-century compendium of laws and teachings that, together with the Gemara, makes up the Talmud), the first rabbi in Jewish history is often considered to be Moses, who is referred to in the Talmud as Moshe Rabbeinu — Moses, our teacher. At God’s command, Moses ordains Joshua as his successor to lead the Jewish people and render judgments, a process he effects by laying his hands upon him. According to a sequence laid out in the first chapter of Pirkei Avot (which is part of the Mishnah), the line of authority was directly transmitted from Joshua down to successive generations all the way to Hillel and Shammai, two leading sages of the Mishnaic period — thereby establishing a direct link between the rabbis of the Talmud and Moses. Though this chain was disrupted in the wake of the destruction of the ancient temple in the first century of the Common Era, the modern use of the word semichah (literally, “laying of the hands”) for rabbinic ordination implies some kind of continuity between the rabbis of today and the earliest sources of Jewish communal authority.

So we have a Jewish custom of succession through the Laying of Hands right down to the time of our Lord. Furthermore after the destruction of the Second Temple there seems to be a belief that before the construction of the Third Temple that the Sanhedrin would be redeemed and restored. They they base it on Isaiah 1: 25-26  "I will restore your leaders as in days of old, your rulers as at the beginning." In Vision for the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology Michael Goulder points out the Apostolic College of the New Testament is clearly a redeemed Sanhedrin. 

I don't mean this to be the bulk of the scriptural evidence for apostolic succession, that will come in part two when we examine the New Testament. But I just mean to lay out some background for the practice.

INTRODUCTION

The following is an email I wrote to an acquaintance around 15 years ago. I post it here because it is a good introduction to who I am and why I have started this blog. I may expand of it a bit latter. 

A little about myself.

I am a 30 year old male who converted to the Church from

Evangelicalism. My journey started after the death of my daughter. In

my grief I started to draw closer to the Lord and quickly experienced

great growth in my faith. The closer I grew to God the more I wanted

to know about the faith and the more I learned about the faith the

more questions I had. Often times it seemed that the answers I got,

though themselves fine, did not square with the answers which had been

given for other things. This would start me looking at different

denominations I was not really looking for a denomination which I

totally agreed with because I did not think that there was one to be

found. However I was looking for the one which was closest to my own

ideas which I had developed through my Scripture studies. This was

certainly not the Catholic Church. Although I was never particularly

anti-catholic and I would even discover that some of my beliefs were

indeed closer to Catholic belief and that of my Protestant background.

(For example I had always taken the Lord's Supper to be literally the

body and blood of Jesus Christ.) There was however other things which

greatly offended my Protestant sensibilities such as the whole notion

of Tradition as well as many of the beliefs on the Virgin Mary. The

one thing I had to grant them though was that their arguments had a

certain internal consistency and this would cause me to be open to

looking further. Fortunately around this time I would also start to be

exposed to the Church Fathers.

I owe a great debt to RC Sproul and James White for the role they

played in my conversion. Sproul because he introduced me to a depth of

theology that I had not previously heard and would not hear again

until I started looking into the Catholic Church. It started a life

long love of theology which I have never gotten over and even more

importantly he was my first introduction to such names as St.

Augustine, St. Ambrose and St. Thomas Aquinas who he always spoke very

highly of. And as you can imagine the ball started too rolled out of

control from there. My debt to James White is a little different, it

comes in the form of his chapter in the book “Sola Scriptura” on the

Church Fathers and his inability to prove sola scriptura from the

Church Fathers which would convince me of the truth of Sacred

Tradition. And that was one of the last stumbling blocks to me

converting to the Catholic Church.

I also have a special spot in my heart for Eastern Catholics. When I

was considering the Church there was an Orthodox priest, who was also

a convert, that tried to convince me to go that way but I could not

because I have a strong belief in the office of the papacy. I ended up

entering the Church through the Latin Rite by way of the military

diocese. And although I love the Latin Rite I still have a strong

affection for the Eastern Rites as we Well this is already longer then 

I had intended so I better end it now. I hope this e-mail finds you well 

and that you are at peace in your journey. 

 God bless my friend. 

 Your fellow servant, Kyle