Ms. Schindler:

Your letter was excellent, and actually offered as many good Catholic points as Dr. James White's recent letter to me offered Protestant points. I am to the point now that my concessions are leading me to consider regular attendance at a Charismatic Episcopal Church starting in my area; this is a major step for me! Although few admit it, Luther and Calvin did not "win" in the end. Today it is obvious that the majority of "Evangelicals" have followed in the footsteps of the Reformers, but of the most radical reformers, the Anabaptists- rejecting all hints of sacrament and liturgy. This is where I was from age 15 to 21; then followed a 6 year period of frustration, sin and struggle. I am now 28 and have renewed both my personal faith and studies going on two years ago now.

I need more understanding of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi and will include this in my current research. As far as the "both/and" mystery posture in theology, I have already adopted this stance regarding many reconsidered viewpoints. This is the proper perspective (whether Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox) for any believer based on Deuteronomy 29:29. It is theological pride that often assumes that the finite can fully comprehend the infinite!

In commenting on your letter, I well use the same numbering system that I began with and that you followed:

1. I most certainly believe that the apostolic succession and Tradition found in the writings of the Fathers are much more general concepts than what is claimed today. I am not sure that I would agree that the Catholic view of these ideas is "not contrary" to the Fathers. But my research is far from over, and thus, my current ideas are far from conclusive. Tentative theological conclusions are essential to the task, but it is always preferable to be more conclusive before verbalizing them.

2. Regarding Mary: I understand the Catholic view of "Scripture + Tradition = single deposit of Faith." However, here is my problem. As you would surely admit, the devotion given Mary in both Catholic practice and theology is a major part of the Roman-Catholic Faith. Such prominence is claimed for such devotion that I find it shocking (if indeed such devotion is Apostolic doctrine) not to find such explicit in Scripture. Further more, I find great historical significance in the fact that not only were the pseudapigraphal writings describing Mary's immaculate conception and bodily assumption rejected from inclusion in the Canon, but they were never even disputed by the majority of Christians at that time! I have no trouble accepting Theotokos; the "full of grace" argument merits further investigation; I have serious doubts about your application of Revelation 12:1; I will look into acquiring Dr. Miraville's work; I have great problems thinking of our Lord as the "formal cause" of salvation only.

3. I currently hold the Divine Mystery view of communion, but cannot accept the "sacrifice of the Mass" idea and regard "transubstination" as theological speculation in violation of Deuteronomy 29:29.

4. I realize what "pope" means linguistically, but that has no relevance to my original comments and questions regarding the papacy. The relevant meaning of "pope" is the theological meaning poured into the word by the historic theologians of the Roman-Catholic Church. So, when I pose the question concerning Peter I am asking this: At what time did the Roman "bishops" (an office described in Paul's epistles) become the "pope," with all the meaning and privilege that that office now holds? For instance, we do not find Clement claiming such meaning or privilege for his office; he was a bishop in the Biblical sense, practically applying the Scriptures both to his flock and by letter to others. The whole idea that "we can trace the succession of our Popes back to St. Peter" is debatable; many parts of such lists are matters of "tradition," the very tradition defined by the Pope. Is not such "proof" of the circular kind? What about historically confirmed gaps where Christ's Church was without a pope; or, how about the oft-repeated early game of "pope vs. anti-pope"? And while the contention that "not one of them ever taught anything contrary to the Tradition of the Church" is often heard, I do not understand how such a statement can possibly be made. There were Arian popes, popes who changed their views almost weekly depending on the emperor, and even popes who flatly contradicted former "infallible" pronouncements. These are the things that trouble me.

5. I do not deny that celibacy is an option for the Christian, but I likewise affirm that marriage should be an option for the pastor. Doesn't the prophecy in 1 Timothy 4:1-4 make you wonder at all? The issue is not celibacy, but forced celibacy. I was not aware of the option available for the Protestant minister who converts; that is interesting.

6. I will leave purgatory alone for now, as eschatological issues are difficult and many passages you cite capable of multiple interpretation. I have acquired Keating's book and am currently reading it.

7. I would like to acquire Dr. Hahn's materials on justification. Could you send a list of items w/ costs?

Again, I greatly appreciated your letter and you have helped my research by provoking thought in several areas. I look forward to future correspondence with you. God bless.

In Christ Jesus,

William S. Kilgore