Anglican bishop lays mitre, crozier at our lady?s feet as he leaves for ordinariate [ewtn]

[Hesychios]

Oh. I thought Anglican priests could remain priests if they were married when the came in…

I think Bluegoat was referring to the fact that future Anglican Ordinariate candidates for the priesthood are required to be celibate. The exception is made for convert priests and ministers.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Hi JohnnyReb,
I don’t see how he can say that.

We have been dialoging with Rome since the days of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras. There have been volumes published with the communications, some of which I have read.

I think his point was that in his view of things, Orthodoxy has pulled away recently, I’m not saying that is my view.

But we cannot share communion with people who do not share the Faith. That is the bottom line. If the Papacy is willing to share communion with people who do not believe everything it teaches that is their own business, they can admit Lutherans and Baptists and Mormons to communion if they want, and leave the cafeteria door open … but Orthodoxy does not work that way. We have never ever been able to knowingly commune people outside of the Faith. That’s a 2000 year old rule of Christianity, it didn’t start with us just recently.

In Protestant theology, as with the Anglican group that I am a part of, we see all those who put their faith in Christ as sharing the same faith, so all who do are welcome to receive communion.

If I bring a friend to church with me the first thing they are going to hear from me is “don’t go up for communion” if they are not Orthodox, and I tell people here on CAF the same: if you have a problem with this or that, stay clear of Holy Orthodoxy, you are not ready and you don’t belong there.

Well the same goes for Catholicism, and I understand why they practice it this way. It can come across offensive but its not meant to be.

Now if allowing married priests and an Anglican use liturgy is a sign of openness, we have already done that* with the same conditions Rome imposes*, that being they must accept our theology and repudiate any novel beliefs. If Rome can insist upon this for Anglicans, Methodists and Lutherans, how can it be wrong when Orthodox insist on it too?

Its not. One of the my main areas of conflict is some of Rome’s novel beliefs, as you put it, especially those defined post schism. That doesn’t mean that I can embrace the whole of Orthodox theology at this time however.

We also have a version of the Tridentine liturgy in use, kneeling included (in Europe certainly, probably not much in north America), the same conditions apply. I have also seen where the Mozarabic liturgy has been used by Orthodox, the same conditions apply. One must accept Orthodox teaching entirely, adding nothing and taking away nothing if one wants to share communion.

The Vincentian Canon

It’s the same ‘rigidity’ and ‘stagnation’ we have always endeavored to maintain, and we have no right to make exceptions for one group or another.

Pax et Bonum,

I am finding that I probably actually side more with the Orthodox in terms of revelation. Believe it or not, I think the *same ethos *is behind Protestant Sola Scriptura. We do not want to accept those things added later on, which are not from the Apostlic Church and times. We want access to the Christian faith as believed and taught by the Apostles without later developements foreign to the Apostlic faith.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Sola scriptura didn’t exist in the early Church, didn’t exist in the Church at the time of the Schism, and doesn’t exist now. You talk about Catholic “novelties” when you are embracing the biggest novelty of all? Would you think that all the Orthodox liturgical trappings and all of their teachings are straight from apostolic times? Do you think that St. Peter and St. Andrew went around “censing” icons and kissing and praying in front of icons? At the Last Supper did Jesus use leavened or unleavened bread? Did the Early Church allow three divorces? Did the Early Church permit birth control/contraception as long as your bishop ok’d it?

I think his point was that in his view of things, Orthodoxy has pulled away recently, I’m not saying that is my view.

In Protestant theology, as with the Anglican group that I am a part of, we see all those who put their faith in Christ as sharing the same faith, so all who do are welcome to receive communion.

Well the same goes for Catholicism, and I understand why they practice it this way. It can come across offensive but its not meant to be.

Its not. One of the my main areas of conflict is some of Rome’s novel beliefs, as you put it, especially those defined post schism. That doesn’t mean that I can embrace the whole of Orthodox theology at this time however.

I am finding that I probably actually side more with the Orthodox in terms of revelation. Believe it or not, I think the *same ethos *is behind Protestant Sola Scriptura. We do not want to accept those things added later on, which are not from the Apostlic Church and times. We want access to the Christian faith as believed and taught by the Apostles without later developements foreign to the Apostlic faith.

 

[Hesychios]

Did the Early Church allow three divorces?

Now I know somewhere in here there is a post from Prodromos pointing out to you that the Orthodox church does not allow three divorces. I thought you understood that.

But you are going through something here and I think you are posting reflexively at the moment.

I hope you find peace in your new convictions … soon.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not going through anything, Michael. I just disagree with you. For some time now I have made it clear to you that I disagree with much about Orthodoxy. We’ve had some spirited arguments in the past whether I was struggling with my own Catholic convictions or not, correct? I have found peace so thanks for your hopes

When you very sarcastically and I think poorly depicted the Church with this statement: But the RC situation reminds me much more of those people who have lost all of their friends, one at a time over many months or years, and really believe that something is wrong with everyone else and fail to look in the mirror. I found that to be petty and unecessary.

Your characterizations of Catholicism as a bully and Orthodoxy as an innocent, consistent, and rational victim of a wild pope-gone-wild, IMO, are tribal and your posts are revealing the same triumphalism you detest in Catholics at times. Polemical lingo like “poor little RC” betray a reflex of your own I think.

Sometimes I wonder what our purpose is in coming to message boards. I have sought and journeyed to find my faith. I have been wandering in the wilderness trying to come to terms with my religion. Being a Catholic who had fallen away, I would come here to give Catholicism and honest open-minded try. I have sought to listen to them and not cast the Catholic Church aside, throwing her over my shoulder like an empty beer can. I have tried to listen. I have debated Catholics a lot, had some heated moments, disagreed a lot, but always listened. I am at a place, both my wife and I, where I feel we have arrived at the right place. Not just intellectually, but with faith.

You have no intention of being Catholic, have a hostility toward the religion and I’m wondering what you feel your mission is on the CAF board? You’re certainly a good man but your desires seem to pull people away from the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy. You have a huge faith in Orthodoxy. I do not. I am not reflexive but rather strenuously disagree with Orthodox theology in some areas, don’t think they are the united and consistent body they make themselves out to be, and if you don’t want things like the “three divorces” mentioned, you might want to tell some of the Orthodox posters on here to stop making the claim. Usually when I’ve read about the Three Divorces it is from Orthodox posters!

Now I know somewhere in here there is a post from Prodromos pointing out to you that the Orthodox church does not allow three divorces. I thought you understood that.

But you are going through something here and I think you are posting reflexively at the moment.

I hope you find peace in your new convictions … soon.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Sola scriptura didn’t exist in the early Church, didn’t exist in the Church at the time of the Schism, and doesn’t exist now.

What do you mean it doesn’t exist now? Can you elaborate?

You talk about Catholic “novelties” when you are embracing the biggest novelty of all?

Not really. Either one must embrace sola scriptura or the sola ecclesia of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, the Jehovah’s witnesses and Mormonism. All SS states is that all that is necessary to be believed for salvation is found in the scriptures. Do we see a single binding papal decree in the scriptures, or a college of cardinals?

Would you think that all the Orthodox liturgical trappings and all of their teachings are straight from apostolic times? Do you think that St. Peter and St. Andrew went around “censing” icons and kissing and praying in front of icons? At the Last Supper did Jesus use leavened or unleavened bread? Did the Early Church allow three divorces? Did the Early Church permit birth control/contraception as long as your bishop ok’d it?

Look Scott, I’m not going to go back and forth with this. I never said Orthodoxy was perfect or without flaws. Do you think that Peter and Andrew went around praying a rosary? Did annulments exist in the early church? It looks like then Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox are guilty of “developments” in their Christianity from the time of the Apostles. Catholics and to a degree Orthodox justify it by saying that they are the one true church, and that the one church cannot be lead into error. They turn around and use the idea they are somehow protected from error, to tell others, our developments are OK, but yours are heretical.

We don’t see eye to eye, and that’s ok. I don’t like Rome to the degree you do, but there is alot to like. I am a little warmer to the east than you seem, but granted my familarity with it is limited. We are two people on a faith journey searching for answers, but are in different places because we come from different places with different baggage. Let’s not forget that.

 

[Bluegoat]

I am finding that I probably actually side more with the Orthodox in terms of revelation. Believe it or not, I think the *same ethos *is behind Protestant Sola Scriptura. We do not want to accept those things added later on, which are not from the Apostlic Church and times. We want access to the Christian faith as believed and taught by the Apostles without later developements foreign to the Apostlic faith.

I think there may be some truth to this. As I see it, the Protestant Reformers were basically in the position of seeing all these things that seemed like additions to the faith, and they were justified on the basis of Tradition and the authority of the Church.

But as a “reformed” Church, they too would need a principle for discerning true doctrine and limiting authority. They mistakenly thought that Tradition was a real part of the problem and so discarded it. They were not willing to give ultimate authority to an individual. And there was Scripture, unchanging and written down for everyone to read. It seemed like a perfect basis for the Church to carry on. If the Church could go thorough he processes for making decisions, they could always be checked against and limited by Scripture.

Unfortunately, this is a departure from what the Church had done before. OTOH, if it had worked, even pretty well, I don’t know that I could argue with it. But it seems clear to me that ultimately it can lead you in two directions - liberal theology if you are honest, and fundamentalism if you are less honest, or scared.

I think the reformers failed to see the real issue - a leadership model that was hierarchical with an individual or group at the helm which is empowered to set doctrine and make decisions. One you have that, you have people who will innovate, and the opportunity for those that disagree to separate off into a smaller group which also claims authority. In the ancient model where acceptance of the new is required at every level it is very difficult indeed to introduce new ideas and the overall trend is very conservative. And in that model, the Church really is defined by its members - the members define the Body of Christ, not a particular leader or a presbyter, or whatever leadership structure has final authority.

 

[Hesychios]

Dear Scott,

… if you don’t want things like the “three divorces” mentioned, you might want to tell some of the Orthodox posters on here to stop making the claim. Usually when I’ve read about the Three Divorces it is from Orthodox posters!

So is that what you want to believe, and tell others? If you want to make the assertion you had better back it up with a reference, or retract it. Show us the post, the book or the website so we can see the reason you keep repeating it.

It has already been explained to you in a post right here in this forum, which you acknowledged.

It is possible for someone to have a divorce and remarry. It is not someone’s right. The innocent party may have a chance, provided the bishop agrees, to marry again. The only other reason a person may marry again is in the case of the death of a spouse, which is also the Roman Catholic church’s position.

So that makes it conceivable that some Orthodox could be married three times in their own lifetime, but there is just one possibility of a divorce for some people, and it is certainly not anyone’s entitlement, it is a concession of mercy.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It doesn’t exist in the Catholic Church now and didn’t exist in the beginning. Tradition is held to be equal with Scripture and the decrees of the Magisterium coincide equally with both.

Sola scriptura decrees that all salvation and issues of theology can be ascertained in Holy Scripture and that everything not in Scripture is subordinate to it. While the Early Father quoted Scripture strenuously and vigorously, they never said the Church was subordinate to Scripture and that if something isn’t in the Bible, it’s not to be believed.

I’m not wanting to go back and forth either. I simply made a statement in reply to one of your posts as you have frequently done with me. I took no offense to you and am not being combative so there’s no need to try and head off a round-and-rounder.

I am not sure why you’re trying to point out the Catholic Church’s innovations. I openly admit that they have innovated devotions, have elaborated and developed doctrine, and I’m fine with that. God continues to reveal Himself to us and often times, because of history and other factors, squabbling and bickering and even heresy forces the Church to have to elaborate and issue dogmas and clarity. That doesn’t bother me in the slightest. It seems to bother you because you mention it a lot, that all your issues came forth after the Schism. You cozy up a bit to Orthodoxy, which it’s your right to do of course, but I am just pointing out to you in that last post that Orthodoxy is guilty of many of the same things you don’t like in Catholicism and I’d be careful just getting jazzed on them because they seem like non-papal Catholicism.

I personally have come to believe the Church’s infallible claims are true. I happen to think they make a lot of sense. Despite my many struggles with the catholic claims, prayerfully and intellectually and faithfully I feel Peter was the Rock the Church was built on, Matthew 16:18 is to be interpreted in the Catholic sense, and Orthodox Christians are in schism, not Catholics. That’s my conclusion. I hope you find what you are looking for, Johnny, wherever you end up. Blessings to you and Merry Christmas

What do you mean it doesn’t exist now? Can you elaborate?

Not really. Either one must embrace sola scriptura or the sola ecclesia of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, the Jehovah’s witnesses and Mormonism. All SS states is that all that is necessary to be believed for salvation is found in the scriptures. Do we see a single binding papal decree in the scriptures, or a college of cardinals?

Look Scott, I’m not going to go back and forth with this. I never said Orthodoxy was perfect or without flaws. Do you think that Peter and Andrew went around praying a rosary? Did annulments exist in the early church? It looks like then Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox are guilty of “developments” in their Christianity from the time of the Apostles. Catholics and to a degree Orthodox justify it by saying that they are the one true church, and that the one church cannot be lead into error. They turn around and use the idea they are somehow protected from error, to tell others, our developments are OK, but yours are heretical.

We don’t see eye to eye, and that’s ok. I don’t like Rome to the degree you do, but there is alot to like. I am a little warmer to the east than you seem, but granted my familarity with it is limited. We are two people on a faith journey searching for answers, but are in different places because we come from different places with different baggage. Let’s not forget that.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If Orthodox want to issue divorces despite the fact that the historic church EAST AND WEST have never permitted it, and Our Lord expressly forbids it except in cases of adultery and such, go for it. I find divorce sinful and evil. If you want to re-package it that’s fine. I find the outlook that remarriage in Orthodoxy is a pastoral concession in the context of “economia” to the human weakness and the corrupt world in which we live
as un-Christian and a giving in to the weakness of human beings. It’s not what Christ stated in Scripture and certainly not traditional. It’s innovative. So much for the idea of Orthodoxy being solid as a rock unchanging…Christ is not of the world but apparently this teaching is…

Taken from an Orthodoxy website: *Orthodox canon law can permit a second and even a third marriage “in economia”, but strictly forbids a fourth. In theory divorce is only recognized in the case of adultery, but in practise is also recognised in light of other reasons. There is a list of causes of divorce acceptable to the Orthodox Church. In practise the bishops sometimes apply “economia” in a liberal way. By the way, divorce and remarriage are only permitted in the context of “economia”, that is, out of pastoral care, out of understanding for weakness. * This propensity to accomodate sin and “human weakness” is disturbing to me. So, an Orthodox website spells it out plain as day. Is this what I “want to believe?” Nope. It’s just what your folks teach, Michael. Sorry if that bothers you. Theoretically I could marry three times in Orthodoxy. Is it typical and common? No. Could it happen? Yes-um.

And by the way, you paste a link trying to make me trip and fall on my face looking like I’ve contradicted myself. No dice. I did not “acknowledge” it. I simply said that three divorces is probably uncommon. That is not an acknowledgment by any stretch. I still maintain it’s probably uncommon. That’s not the problem. The problem is that it’s possible.

Dear Scott, So is that what you want to believe, and tell others? If you want to make the assertion you had better back it up with a reference, or retract it. Show us the post, the book or the website so we can see the reason you keep repeating it.

It has already been explained to you in a post right here in this forum, which you acknowledged.

It is possible for someone to have a divorce and remarry. It is not someone’s right. The innocent party may have a chance, provided the bishop agrees, to marry again. The only other reason a person may marry again is in the case of the death of a spouse, which is also the Roman Catholic church’s position.

So that makes it conceivable that some Orthodox could be married three times in their own lifetime, but there is just one possibility of a divorce for some people, and it is certainly not anyone’s entitlement, it is a concession of mercy.

 

[Hesychios]

When you very sarcastically and I think poorly depicted the Church with this statement: But the RC situation reminds me much more of those people who have lost all of their friends, one at a time over many months or years, and really believe that something is wrong with everyone else and fail to look in the mirror. I found that to be petty and unecessary.

You compared the Orthodox to Joseph’s brothers throwing him into a cistern.

It was in that context that I responded. Many Catholics will claim the Orthodox “left obedience” to the Pope, when in fact that is not historically plausible.

…your desires seem to pull people away from the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy.

Do you honestly think I have been trying to pull you into Orthodoxy, after all the times I have told you that you don’t fit in?

When you went back to Catholicism the first time, I told you to bloom where you were planted, and I answered every question you ever sent me with honesty.

I have wished you well, and wished you peace.

Now I wish you happiness, be the good Roman Catholic you were meant to be.

Merry Christmas,

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You misread the post, Michael. Here’s what I said: **your desires seem to pull people away from the Catholic Church toward Orthodoxy “People.” I never said “me.” You regularly trash Catholicism on here, Michael, and try to convert people to Orthodoxy with your words and imagery. You have a zeal to poke holes in Catholicism and you know I’m right here. I never, however, have claimed you tried to pluck me away. You suggested it several times but I told you my views which you disagreed with but respected. I don’t think you’re trying to convert me personally, but others, yes.

My statement about the Orthodox and Joseph/10 brothers is not meant to condemn Orthodox as evil brothers. I am simply saying that the argument many Orthodox make is this: “Hey, four patriarchs from the pentarchy stayed unified, solid as a rock, while the elder brother bailed. Four against one, no brainer who is right here!” My illustration is merely that numbers don’t mean squat. Joseph was the only brother who was right and look what happened to him. Athanasius was one of the only men with guts enough to stand up to Arianism and look how he was treated his whole life! 'Athanasius against the world…"Noah and his family versus the world. It’s just an illustration to point out that numbers and majorities can be wrong. So that 4 against 1 doesn’t seem compelling to me. It gets down to faith. In your gut you feel the other 4 were right. If I feel Matthew 16:18 teaches that Peter was the Rock, not his confession, that he and his successors are the Rock, that the Chair of Peter is what Catholicism says it is, you guys are the ones in schism, not the West. That’s all.

I still think you’re a brilliant guy. You’re historically very savvy. I think your passion for Orthodoxy creates a bias you aren’t willing to acknowledge but that’s part of being human. Intellectual honesty is truly rare in anyone these days, sometimes myself included although I strive for it. I have defended Orthodoxy actually when stupid claims have been leveled against it, same with Anglicanism and Lutheranism. When I have, while being Anglican, even mentioned anything positive that the papacy has done, you usually find holes to poke and take an antagonistic view of the popes. Like the popes fighting iconoclasm, you try to diminish their role. that’s just how I’ve felt.

Yes, your IM’s have always been edifying. You can relax that I don’t think you’re a bad guy here, Michael. I can disagree with you and think you’re sugar-coating things and still respect the heck out of you. Which I do as a matter of fact. IMO you’re one of the most level-headed and intelligent posters on here, hands-down. And you’re probably a lot holier man than I. We can disagree and not be enemies. I do not feel you are, never have, never will. You are a brother in Christ always

You compared the Orthodox to Joseph’s brothers throwing him into a cistern.

It was in that context that I responded. Many Catholics will claim the Orthodox “left obedience” to the Pope, when in fact that is not historically plausible.
Do you honestly think I have been trying to pull you into Orthodoxy, after all the times I have told you that you don’t fit in?

When you went back to Catholicism the first time, I told you to bloom where you were planted, and I answered every question you ever sent me with honesty.

I have wished you well, and wished you peace.

Now I wish you happiness, be the good Roman Catholic you were meant to be.

Merry Christmas,

 

[JohnnyReb]

It doesn’t exist in the Catholic Church now and didn’t exist in the beginning. Tradition is held to be equal with Scripture and the decrees of the Magisterium coincide equally with both.

Well yes I the Catholic church that is the case.

Sola scriptura decrees that all salvation and issues of theology can be ascertained in Holy Scripture and that everything not in Scripture is subordinate to it. While the Early Father quoted Scripture strenuously and vigorously, they never said the Church was subordinate to Scripture and that if something isn’t in the Bible, it’s not to be believed.

Actually there is good presidence from the early church fathers that their authority as bishops was subject to a right interpretation of the scriptures. SS is not a doctrine, but a praxis, and there are many interpretations and applications of SS. Its only people along the lines of Baptists, Pentecostals, and low church Evangelicals who take the practice to the point of “if its not in the Bible, its not to be believed” and even they are not that strict even if they act like they are. They hold to the canon of scripture (no list exists in the Bible), and the Trinity and the Rapture (neither word exists in the Bible, only the concepts are there). So they rely on tradition some. Anglicans rely on scripture, tradition and reason. I take the Wesleyan approach which adds experience to those 3. We only differ with the Catholic church that tradition, et al. cannot establish a doctrine in their own right.

I’m not wanting to go back and forth either. I simply made a statement in reply to one of your posts as you have frequently done with me. I took no offense to you and am not being combative so there’s no need to try and head off a round-and-rounder.

Ok good. I think we are both clear in our position about Rome and the position about the East, which is cool with me. I wasn’t trying to sound combative in anyway either. Most (key word here) of the time, I try to think before I type.

I am not sure why you’re trying to point out the Catholic Church’s innovations. I openly admit that they have innovated devotions, have elaborated and developed doctrine, and I’m fine with that. God continues to reveal Himself to us and often times, because of history and other factors, squabbling and bickering and even heresy forces the Church to have to elaborate and issue dogmas and clarity. That doesn’t bother me in the slightest. It seems to bother you because you mention it a lot, that all your issues came forth after the Schism. You cozy up a bit to Orthodoxy, which it’s your right to do of course, but I am just pointing out to you in that last post that Orthodoxy is guilty of many of the same things you don’t like in Catholicism and I’d be careful just getting jazzed on them because they seem like non-papal Catholicism.

That’s fair enough that you point that out. Actually I appreciate it. I am not as familiar with Orthodoxy as perhaps I wish to be. My knowledge is very surface level about it and I am not going to pretend otherwise. Its probably beneficial to me hammering out my thoughts for you to point those things out to me.

I personally have come to believe the Church’s infallible claims are true. I happen to think they make a lot of sense. Despite my many struggles with the catholic claims, prayerfully and intellectually and faithfully I feel Peter was the Rock the Church was built on, Matthew 16:18 is to be interpreted in the Catholic sense, and Orthodox Christians are in schism, not Catholics. That’s my conclusion. I hope you find what you are looking for, Johnny, wherever you end up. Blessings to you and Merry Christmas

Thanks Scott. You have a Merry Christmas as well with your family. If that is what you believe and accept, that is good. If that gives you a sense of peace, great.

I got stuck watching the view yesterday…gag, but my mom wanted to watch it.

Anyway they brought up a point that I thought was appropriate. Joy Behar (as much as she is a blowhard) talked about being Catholic and struggling with the church’s position on some issues. She said that she herself has disagreements with the church (probably in areas that would trouble both of us, but stay with me) but that she was born Catholic, baptized and confirmed Catholic. She is Catholic and will remain Catholic despite her difference with the church on some things.

She said she thought is was dishonest and self righteous of people in the church to believe that other Catholics are never going to struggle with some church teachings. Its human nature, we question things. But that does not mean that we just leave the church! I think she has a point. This could even apply to me. After all I am a confirmed Catholic. I think my reasons for not going back at this time are clearly “pastoral” in relation to my family, which I discussed previously. The intellectual reasons are playing a role, but I don’t think they are entirely it for me. I just don’t see Catholicism or Orthodoxy as a realistic option right now. None of them have or would have any interest in converting, but I want to see the kids in church. In an grounded Anglican church, they can receive the Eucharist and not made to feel like outsiders.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I can totally appreciate and identify with EVERYTHING you say here, Johnny, especially your last paragraphs there. And you’re right. Catholicism is a real bear to try to grip one’s mind around. I only went to confession two days ago to try and return to the Catholic faith and already I’m reading the catechism’s statements about Islam and I want to vomit. (catechism 841)

Pastoral care is superior in Anglicanism around here but I must say Father Rod, our assistant priest, RUSHED over to the convalescent home to give my grandma last rites. He’s quirky and different but he did get over there fast and was very kind and comforting to my mom.

Anglicanism has SO MUCH to love. It’s a great group of people and I love the dignity of it. But what I hate is the contradiction, the camps within her that contradict each other on key theology, women’s ordination, refusal to hammer down major theological points, and the lack of authority. The Anglicans’ greatest strength is respecting the individual’s beliefs and not being overly-dogmatic but the Anglicans’ greatest weakenss of all is respecting the individual’s beliefs and not being overly-dogmatic

I really miss our Anglican parish already. I felt I had a home there but the theological conflicts and the 39 Articles and Protestant side being so strong, I don’t know…

I think I’m one of those folks doomed to struggle for my whole life in my faith, not in my faith in Christ Jesus but in my faith in ecclesiastical structures. I wish I could be one of those EWTN stories of hellelujah! I’ve found Rome! Give me Scott Hahn! Give me Tim Staples! Give me as much Catholicism as I can drink down, baby! But that’s not me. I’m muddling through…trying to affirm, as GKC would say, the “particulars.” And boy it’s not easy boy!

BTW, yes, watching the View is a gagathon. I’m convinced that if, God forbid, I went to hell (please Lord don’t let it happen!) I would be stuck watching Twilight films, the View, listening to Hip Hop, and having to watch movie remakes

Well yes I the Catholic church that is the case.

Actually there is good presidence from the early church fathers that their authority as bishops was subject to a right interpretation of the scriptures. SS is not a doctrine, but a praxis, and there are many interpretations and applications of SS. Its only people along the lines of Baptists, Pentecostals, and low church Evangelicals who take the practice to the point of “if its not in the Bible, its not to be believed” and even they are not that strict even if they act like they are. They hold to the canon of scripture (no list exists in the Bible), and the Trinity and the Rapture (neither word exists in the Bible, only the concepts are there). So they rely on tradition some. Anglicans rely on scripture, tradition and reason. I take the Wesleyan approach which adds experience to those 3. We only differ with the Catholic church that tradition, et al. cannot establish a doctrine in their own right.

Ok good. I think we are both clear in our position about Rome and the position about the East, which is cool with me. I wasn’t trying to sound combative in anyway either. Most (key word here) of the time, I try to think before I type.

That’s fair enough that you point that out. Actually I appreciate it. I am not as familiar with Orthodoxy as perhaps I wish to be. My knowledge is very surface level about it and I am not going to pretend otherwise. Its probably beneficial to me hammering out my thoughts for you to point those things out to me.

Thanks Scott. You have a Merry Christmas as well with your family. If that is what you believe and accept, that is good. If that gives you a sense of peace, great.

I got stuck watching the view yesterday…gag, but my mom wanted to watch it.

Anyway they brought up a point that I thought was appropriate. Joy Behar (as much as she is a blowhard) talked about being Catholic and struggling with the church’s position on some issues. She said that she herself has disagreements with the church (probably in areas that would trouble both of us, but stay with me) but that she was born Catholic, baptized and confirmed Catholic. She is Catholic and will remain Catholic despite her difference with the church on some things.

She said she thought is was dishonest and self righteous of people in the church to believe that other Catholics are never going to struggle with some church teachings. Its human nature, we question things. But that does not mean that we just leave the church! I think she has a point. This could even apply to me. After all I am a confirmed Catholic. I think my reasons for not going back at this time are clearly “pastoral” in relation to my family, which I discussed previously. The intellectual reasons are playing a role, but I don’t think they are entirely it for me. I just don’t see Catholicism or Orthodoxy as a realistic option right now. None of them have or would have any interest in converting, but I want to see the kids in church. In an grounded Anglican church, they can receive the Eucharist and not made to feel like outsiders.

 

[JohnnyReb]

I can totally appreciate and identify with EVERYTHING you say here, Johnny, especially your last paragraphs there. And you’re right. Catholicism is a real bear to try to grip one’s mind around. I only went to confession two days ago to try and return to the Catholic faith and already I’m reading the catechism’s statements about Islam and I want to vomit. (catechism 841)

Pastoral care is superior in Anglicanism around here but I must say Father Rod, our assistant priest, RUSHED over to the convalescent home to give my grandma last rites. He’s quirky and different but he did get over there fast and was very kind and comforting to my mom.

Anglicanism has SO MUCH to love. It’s a great group of people and I love the dignity of it. But what I hate is the contradiction, the camps within her that contradict each other on key theology, women’s ordination, refusal to hammer down major theological points, and the lack of authority. The Anglicans’ greatest strength is respecting the individual’s beliefs and not being overly-dogmatic but the Anglicans’ greatest weakenss of all is respecting the individual’s beliefs and not being overly-dogmatic

I really miss our Anglican parish already. I felt I had a home there but the theological conflicts and the 39 Articles and Protestant side being so strong, I don’t know…

I think I’m one of those folks doomed to struggle for my whole life in my faith, not in my faith in Christ Jesus but in my faith in ecclesiastical structures. I wish I could be one of those EWTN stories of hellelujah! I’ve found Rome! Give me Scott Hahn! Give me Tim Staples! Give me as much Catholicism as I can drink down, baby! But that’s not me. I’m muddling through…trying to affirm, as GKC would say, the “particulars.” And boy it’s not easy boy!

BTW, yes, watching the View is a gagathon. I’m convinced that if, God forbid, I went to hell (please Lord don’t let it happen!) I would be stuck watching Twilight films, the View, listening to Hip Hop, and having to watch movie remakes

Killing some time waiting for family to arrive, so, anyway.

Ha if I was sent to hell I would have to listen to “Hey Macerena” endlessly…and watch Iron Bowls when Auburn beat Alabama, over and over. Like this years. Gag.

I heard about your grandmother in another discussion. I am sorry about that, you and your family are in my prayers, keep us updated. It sucks to have that happen at Christmas time. My grandmother passed on Dec 23 ten years ago. Its always the worst time for anyone to go, not that there is ever a good one.

In the end for me, I want my family to be able to worship together. Given that none of them are interested in Catholicism-nor do they understand it at all, and that Orthodoxy would be even more foreign, they would not be interested in embracing either one. My mom, sister, her husband and the kids are willing to come with me to an Anglican parish. They can participate immediately in parish life and in the sacraments.

Likewise, I am very 39 articles, and contemporary music embracing. I guess in that sense I never ceased being an evangelical protestant. Do I agree with everything in the 39 articles, no, but I agree with alot. I also appreciate that in the AMIA, they are open to moves of the Holy Spirit. I have my issues with Pentecostalism, but there still is a strong Pentecostal/charismatic influence inside of my that has been longing to come out, that I had to keep hidden.

I love making the sign of the cross, then lifting my hands in worship. I love saying the creed, experiencing Christ in the Eucharist, then going forward for prayer and experiencing spiritual and emotional healing from God, and if I have a need, having other parishoners laying hands on me and praying with me until I am at peace, and returning the favor. I like the blend of the contemporary and the ancient and traditional. I love the idea of the church as my spiritual family. Everytime I step foot in my parish, I am welcomed. People are glad to see me. They take an interest in me, and I in them, and relationships on a personal level are forming.

I do agree that Anglicanism does respect the individuals beliefs, and its a strength and a weakness. That paradox is very obvious to anyone takes the time to look at it. I guess it fits where I am at. I am embrace some ambiguity. I don’t see the Catholic thinking as willing to embrace any ambiguity. One these forums, I have been accused of being a relativist for being about to embrace some grey instead of being black and white in my thinking about everything. I just don’t get that some people are too small minded to tell the difference. At you, as a Catholic is able to admit he struggles with particulars, show a willingness to embrace a little grey.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Johnny. You’re not a relativist. You’re a Christian searching for answers and Truth. Don’t listen to folks that spew that atcha. I had a couple of psychos tell me I’m turning my son into a “little moral relativist” by sending him to a Lutheran school instead of a Catholic one. The Catholic one is very far behind the Lutheran academically. The staff is far friendlier, more qualified, and harder-working plus the kids don’t have that uniform and the hardcore parochial attitude crammed down their throats. The kids accel more and seem happier. Academically they blow 'em away. And I’m supposed to sacrifice my kid’s academics and those other positive social factors to appease some Catholic poster that I’m not making my kid a relativist? pahhh. Nonsense. I have a thick skin, brother. They can call me whatever they want as long as they don’t call me late for dinner, as my dad always says! I think for years Catholics were the hunted in the apologetics game. Baptists, Pentecostals, Mormons, JW’s, Assemblies of God, they all hunted Catholics like the movie, Predator! Catholics didn’t know their faith very well, weren’t well-catechized, weren’t very motivated, and morale was pretty low. In the 1990’s EWTN and Catholic media really had a huge jolt of momentum and spiritual electricity. All of a sudden the Catholics were given their faith and taught to be apologists, envigorated, etc. That was a good and a bad thing. The humility I saw in my fellow Catholics growing up in “some” people was replaced with a pit bull, aggressive, angry, Pharisaic type of apologist that feels a triumphalist sense of superiority and a hardcore conservative passion to argue and win. “Cafeteria Catholic” and “you’re a moral relativist” became cool catch phrases to belittle and edify oneself. MANY Catholic apologists are awesome, humble, polite, charitable people. In fact, the majority really are. But there is a caucus of folks that have read one Scott Hahn book too many and are frothing at the mouth to pick a fight. It’s unfortunate. In my journey, to give Catholicism a fair shake, I have tried to ignore those people. I’ve tried to ignore the “Tiber Swim Team” stuff and the corny cliches. I try to talk to the really reasonable Catholic posters, which are the majority and I’ve learned a lot.

It’s good that Catholics are learning their faith. But I hope they retain that good-natured, kind, warm, charity that I grew up with. I don’t want the roles “too” reversed where they become the fundamentalist Protestants I grew up with with that outlandish recruitment mentality and hardened pity looking down on “those poor un-saved Catholics.” I have met some Catholics here who have “awww, those poor, ignorant sola scriptura Protestants living in 25,000 different little schisms. Sad…”

I see you as a brother in Christ, Johnny. Whether you stay Anglican or grow a ZZ Top beard for Orthodoxy or return to the Catholic faith, you are a brother in Christ and the Lord loves you for trying to know and worship Him in sincerity and Truth.

**I said the filioque extra loud at Mass this morning **amidst a heavy dose of Christmas incense just for Hesychios and my Orthodox friends in here

May the Incarnation and blessings of Christmas be ever close to your heart and those of your family, Johnny!

gurney

Killing some time waiting for family to arrive, so, anyway.

Ha if I was sent to hell I would have to listen to “Hey Macerena” endlessly…and watch Iron Bowls when Auburn beat Alabama, over and over. Like this years. Gag.

I heard about your grandmother in another discussion. I am sorry about that, you and your family are in my prayers, keep us updated. It sucks to have that happen at Christmas time. My grandmother passed on Dec 23 ten years ago. Its always the worst time for anyone to go, not that there is ever a good one.

In the end for me, I want my family to be able to worship together. Given that none of them are interested in Catholicism-nor do they understand it at all, and that Orthodoxy would be even more foreign, they would not be interested in embracing either one. My mom, sister, her husband and the kids are willing to come with me to an Anglican parish. They can participate immediately in parish life and in the sacraments.

I love making the sign of the cross, then lifting my hands in worship. I love saying the creed, experiencing Christ in the Eucharist, then going forward for prayer and experiencing spiritual and emotional healing from God, and if I have a need, having other parishoners laying hands on me and praying with me until I am at peace, and returning the favor. I like the blend of the contemporary and the ancient and traditional. I love the idea of the church as my spiritual family. Everytime I step foot in my parish, I am welcomed. People are glad to see me. They take an interest in me, and I in them, and relationships on a personal level are forming.

I do agree that Anglicanism does respect the individuals beliefs, and its a strength and a weakness. That paradox is very obvious to anyone takes the time to look at it. I guess it fits where I am at. I am embrace some ambiguity. I don’t see the Catholic thinking as willing to embrace any ambiguity. One these forums, I have been accused of being a relativist for being about to embrace some grey instead of being black and white in my thinking about everything. I just don’t get that some people are too small minded to tell the difference. At you, as a Catholic is able to admit he struggles with particulars, show a willingness to embrace a little grey.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Hi Johnny. You’re not a relativist. You’re a Christian searching for answers and Truth. Don’t listen to folks that spew that atcha. I had a couple of psychos tell me I’m turning my son into a “little moral relativist” by sending him to a Lutheran school instead of a Catholic one. The Catholic one is very far behind the Lutheran academically. The staff is far friendlier, more qualified, and harder-working plus the kids don’t have that uniform and the hardcore parochial attitude crammed down their throats. The kids accel more and seem happier. Academically they blow 'em away. And I’m supposed to sacrifice my kid’s academics and those other positive social factors to appease some Catholic poster that I’m not making my kid a relativist? pahhh. Nonsense. I have a thick skin, brother. They can call me whatever they want as long as they don’t call me late for dinner, as my dad always says! I think for years Catholics were the hunted in the apologetics game. Baptists, Pentecostals, Mormons, JW’s, Assemblies of God, they all hunted Catholics like the movie, Predator! Catholics didn’t know their faith very well, weren’t well-catechized, weren’t very motivated, and morale was pretty low. In the 1990’s EWTN and Catholic media really had a huge jolt of momentum and spiritual electricity. All of a sudden the Catholics were given their faith and taught to be apologists, envigorated, etc. That was a good and a bad thing. The humility I saw in my fellow Catholics growing up in “some” people was replaced with a pit bull, aggressive, angry, Pharisaic type of apologist that feels a triumphalist sense of superiority and a hardcore conservative passion to argue and win. “Cafeteria Catholic” and “you’re a moral relativist” became cool catch phrases to belittle and edify oneself. MANY Catholic apologists are awesome, humble, polite, charitable people. In fact, the majority really are. But there is a caucus of folks that have read one Scott Hahn book too many and are frothing at the mouth to pick a fight. It’s unfortunate. In my journey, to give Catholicism a fair shake, I have tried to ignore those people. I’ve tried to ignore the “Tiber Swim Team” stuff and the corny cliches. I try to talk to the really reasonable Catholic posters, which are the majority and I’ve learned a lot.

It’s good that Catholics are learning their faith. But I hope they retain that good-natured, kind, warm, charity that I grew up with. I don’t want the roles “too” reversed where they become the fundamentalist Protestants I grew up with with that outlandish recruitment mentality and hardened pity looking down on “those poor un-saved Catholics.” I have met some Catholics here who have “awww, those poor, ignorant sola scriptura Protestants living in 25,000 different little schisms. Sad…”

Yeah I know what you mean, I have seen both extremes here and everything in between, and I have seen the same from Protestants. The old “Anti Christ Papist Cult, or Papal Droids” just get on my nerves. Its not Christ like and its not good apologetics either. Its ad hominem attacks that seem to come when they have no other arguements to give.

I am in a discussion right now with a Catholic in another thread and he has been pretty exemplary. He states his case well and backs it up with evidence, without attacking me. He’s a good chap other than not being able to admit when he is wrong.

I see you as a brother in Christ, Johnny. Whether you stay Anglican or grow a ZZ Top beard for Orthodoxy or return to the Catholic faith, you are a brother in Christ and the Lord loves you for trying to know and worship Him in sincerity and Truth.

Same to you, as far as I am concerned. You are on a short list of people who I think I genuinely learn from here, and most of them have also posted in this thread.

I am giddy. Its snowing. We are having a true white Christmas here in Central Virginia. Its the first in my lifetime with snow falling on Christmas. We have had them in the past but its always been snow on the ground from storms prior to Christmas. Its the first time in my 30 years that it has actually snowed here on Christmas. Its so Normal Rockwell-esque.

Hope you and your family had a good Christmas too.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

A white Christmas? What’s that? I live in Central California. We have had snow ONCE in 80 years. The last time we had it was in 1998. I had just gotten home from the Philippines (where my wife is from) and I swear I thought I had just landed in a psychadelic Magical Mystery Tour Twilight Zone. Snow? We ran out in the front yard and made snowmen! School was canceled everywhere. It was crazy!

It’s always just cold here. It rained like a sunuvagun, too! California has been DELUGED in a flood lately. Millions in damage to many cities overrun with rain. It also destroys citrus crops around here and harvests of other crops.

So we didn’t have a “white” Christmas, just a regular one. But honestly, despite the threat of earthquakes and being the recipients of illegal immigrants to a point it’s almost mind-numbing, California does still have one redeeming characteristic----awesome weather! Surf’s up, dude! Plus we have my Giants. Other than that, we’re in real deep duky!

Thanks for the kind words. Very kind of you and I also learn plenty from you and others in threads like this. It’s nice to get different perspectives and not a monolithic mouthful from one camp. IM me anytime you want to chat about ANYTHING religiously. Chances are I’ve either felt the same way or am currently suffering through it, too! Like I said, Kate and I hoped we could go back to confession and we could feel at home in the CC at Christmas. If you read my other thread about Islam you’ll see I’m already struggling…then the indulgences thing always kills me… I’m more cut out to be a grouchy Anglican

Yeah I know what you mean, I have seen both extremes here and everything in between, and I have seen the same from Protestants. The old “Anti Christ Papist Cult, or Papal Droids” just get on my nerves. Its not Christ like and its not good apologetics either. Its ad hominem attacks that seem to come when they have no other arguements to give.

I am in a discussion right now with a Catholic in another thread and he has been pretty exemplary. He states his case well and backs it up with evidence, without attacking me. He’s a good chap other than not being able to admit when he is wrong.

Same to you, as far as I am concerned. You are on a short list of people who I think I genuinely learn from here, and most of them have also posted in this thread.

I am giddy. Its snowing. We are having a true white Christmas here in Central Virginia. Its the first in my lifetime with snow falling on Christmas. We have had them in the past but its always been snow on the ground from storms prior to Christmas. Its the first time in my 30 years that it has actually snowed here on Christmas. Its so Normal Rockwell-esque.

Hope you and your family had a good Christmas too.

 

[JohnnyReb]

A white Christmas? What’s that? I live in Central California. We have had snow ONCE in 80 years. The last time we had it was in 1998. I had just gotten home from the Philippines (where my wife is from) and I swear I thought I had just landed in a psychadelic Magical Mystery Tour Twilight Zone. Snow? We ran out in the front yard and made snowmen! School was canceled everywhere. It was crazy!

It’s always just cold here. It rained like a sunuvagun, too! California has been DELUGED in a flood lately. Millions in damage to many cities overrun with rain. It also destroys citrus crops around here and harvests of other crops.

So we didn’t have a “white” Christmas, just a regular one. But honestly, despite the threat of earthquakes and being the recipients of illegal immigrants to a point it’s almost mind-numbing, California does still have one redeeming characteristic----awesome weather! Surf’s up, dude! Plus we have my Giants. Other than that, we’re in real deep duky!

Thanks for the kind words. Very kind of you and I also learn plenty from you and others in threads like this. It’s nice to get different perspectives and not a monolithic mouthful from one camp. IM me anytime you want to chat about ANYTHING religiously. Chances are I’ve either felt the same way or am currently suffering through it, too! Like I said, Kate and I hoped we could go back to confession and we could feel at home in the CC at Christmas. If you read my other thread about Islam you’ll see I’m already struggling…then the indulgences thing always kills me… I’m more cut out to be a grouchy Anglican

I’ll pass on the Giants for now. I’m a Braves fan, but we do have your Giants double AA team here in RVA, the Richmond Flying Squirrels…yes I am not kidding…the Flying Squirrels. Its embarrasing.

You guys get mudslides and earthquakes, floods and forest fires, we get summers with 120 degrees in the shade, snowy and rainy winters with springs and autumns that are real nice except for those of us with allergies. I don’t know which is worse.

I won’t be going away anytime soon if I have my way about things. So I am sure we will be in touch.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Just an update because I know you care, Johnny. I got a painful phone call today at 6pm, just an hour and a half after visiting my grandma, that she died. I broke apart in tears on the phone, man. As ready for it as I’ve thought I was, braced and prepared, it is just a raw feeling knowing in this life I’ll never see her again.

We have a very, very small family. It’s basically me, my parents, and my grandma and grandpa. Tiny family. Of course then there’s me and my wife and three kids. But growing up it was always just those four adults in my life. This felt like an atom bomb tonight.

I’ll pass on the Giants for now. I’m a Braves fan, but we do have your Giants double AA team here in RVA, the Richmond Flying Squirrels…yes I am not kidding…the Flying Squirrels. Its embarrasing.

You guys get mudslides and earthquakes, floods and forest fires, we get summers with 120 degrees in the shade, snowy and rainy winters with springs and autumns that are real nice except for those of us with allergies. I don’t know which is worse.

I won’t be going away anytime soon if I have my way about things. So I am sure we will be in touch.