Anglicans; since you still call your selves Catholic, please tell me why.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rv_Cain_Spencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TriuneUnity said:
Amen! I mean, come on… Marvel has the Falcon…DC has a guy with a hawk helmet. Marvel has Hawkeye…DC has a guy who looks like he just exited a gay parade version of Robin Hood. Marvel has Namor the Submariner, DC has a guy in orange tights riding dolphins.

DC is to comic books what the Episcopal Church USA is to Christianity.
Click to expand...
sputter

OK, in the early 1970s Marvel was it. They had Barry Windsor-Smith, John Romita, Gil Kane, all these great guys writing interesting scripts that incorporated issues that had to do with the real world. Wasn’t it in SPIDER-MAN that comic books first started addressing drug abuse? (as opposed to underground comix glorifying dope-smoking and so on)

But in the late 70s or so Marvel started to lose it. And the Distinguished Competition, which distinguished itself in the late 60s and early 70s by debasing its flagship heroes to fighting robots and goofball space aliens, bounced back in the 80s with Allan Moore, Grant Morrison, and Neil Gaiman.

Nowadays, of course, both companies have their great titles and their dross. But for me–and it’s almost unthinkable that I would say this, since in my early teens I was an implacable Marvel loyalist–DC has that slightest bit of an edge. YMMV, of course.
 
Palaeologos said:
sputter

OK, in the early 1970s Marvel was it. They had Barry Windsor-Smith, John Romita, Gil Kane, all these great guys writing interesting scripts that incorporated issues that had to do with the real world. Wasn’t it in SPIDER-MAN that comic books first started addressing drug abuse? (as opposed to underground comix glorifying dope-smoking and so on)

But in the late 70s or so Marvel started to lose it. And the Distinguished Competition, which distinguished itself in the late 60s and early 70s by debasing its flagship heroes to fighting robots and goofball space aliens, bounced back in the 80s with Allan Moore, Grant Morrison, and Neil Gaiman.

Nowadays, of course, both companies have their great titles and their dross. But for me–and it’s almost unthinkable that I would say this, since in my early teens I was an implacable Marvel loyalist–DC has that slightest bit of an edge. YMMV, of course.
Click to expand...
I agree… the Bronze Age was the downfall of most of the major comic characters. Since the Bronze Age has always been traditionally viewed as beginning with the death of Gwen Stacy in Spider-Man, you can see the downward spiral begin. In some ways, there were bright spots in the 80s, such as The Dark Knight Returns, but other than that, it’s been horrendous. I enjoy reading Marvel sometimes nowadays, because they have gotten slightly better, but I’ve always been a Silver Age guy.
 
DC was silly all the way through the 60s and into the 70s. Batman fighting alien gorillas, anyone? It improved somewhat in the 80s, but they’re hamstrung with just…really cheesy heroes and villains.
 
Palaeologos said:
sputter

OK, in the early 1970s Marvel was it. They had Barry Windsor-Smith, John Romita, Gil Kane, all these great guys writing interesting scripts that incorporated issues that had to do with the real world. Wasn’t it in SPIDER-MAN that comic books first started addressing drug abuse? (as opposed to underground comix glorifying dope-smoking and so on)

But in the late 70s or so Marvel started to lose it. And the Distinguished Competition, which distinguished itself in the late 60s and early 70s by debasing its flagship heroes to fighting robots and goofball space aliens, bounced back in the 80s with Allan Moore, Grant Morrison, and Neil Gaiman.

Nowadays, of course, both companies have their great titles and their dross. But for me–and it’s almost unthinkable that I would say this, since in my early teens I was an implacable Marvel loyalist–DC has that slightest bit of an edge. YMMV, of course.
Click to expand...
And they had Roy Thomas, though he only did 4 Spiderman comics. One with the Punisher…

And DC had Speedy, the heroin addict.

DC’s heroes in the 50s fought giant robots and goofball space aliens. And gorillas. Don’t forget gorillas.

Me, I’m a Golden Age/Silver Age fan. And most things after COIE can go snort powdered Kryptonite.

GKC, crank.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I was thinking of designing a new Marvel villain to fight the X Men or Spider Man. It would be Katharine Jefforts Schiori as herself during the day but when she becomes angry she turns into The Litigator, a wild lawyer that’s a cross between the Punisher, Humbug, Sabertooth, and Johnny Cochrane. She sues break-off conservative parishes/dioceses and plays to win. Red eyes, purple and black trench coat, wild and gauddy three piece double breasted suit, and a briefcase that, when you open it, blinds you permanently, and her voice sounds like that anonymous computer sound they use on 20/20 or Nightline when they want to preserve the identity of an informant or squeeler.
Click to expand...
The thing I loved about her was her complaint that seeking oversight from +Akinola or +Venables was a breach of one of Nicaea I’s canons, all the while turning a blind eye to the denial by many of her clergy of the Nicene Creed. Yay, consistency.
 
Yes. Mainly due to bad writing. The concept of Daredevil is brilliant. Frank Miller always does wonders to revitalize characters, though.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I was thinking of designing a new Marvel villain to fight the X Men or Spider Man.
Click to expand...
Dude…since we did it with the Lord of the Rings…

John Calvin = Dr. Doom
Ulrich Zwingli = The Red Skull
Martin Luther = The Incredible Hulk
John Hus = The Human Torch (Ok, that was bad…)
 
I’m not Anglican, but it seems to me that if we consider the creeds to be of spiritual authority, then we’d have to take what the Athanasian Creed defines as “catholic,” which is its own statement of the Trinity and the Person of Christ.
 
TriuneUnity said:
I’m not Anglican, but it seems to me that if we consider the creeds to be of spiritual authority, then we’d have to take what the Athanasian Creed defines as “catholic,” which is its own statement of the Trinity and the Person of Christ.
Click to expand...
Of course, the Athanasian Creed uses the term “Catholic Faith” polemically, and it’s the “Catholic Faith” inasmuch as it touches on the Trinity and Christology.

I would take the three historical creeds together as a thumbnail sketch of the Catholic faith; but of course, they’re not exhaustive.
 
Palaeologos said:
Of course, the Athanasian Creed uses the term “Catholic Faith” polemically, and it’s the “Catholic Faith” inasmuch as it touches on the Trinity and Christology.

I would take the three historical creeds together as a thumbnail sketch of the Catholic faith; but of course, they’re not exhaustive.
Click to expand...
I would agree with that… especially considering the Athanasian, Chalcedonian…etc, are basically expositions of the Niceneo-Constantinopolitan confessions. However, to take it further, how far do we go with the some of the basic statements in the ecumenical creeds as it relates to various Protestant sects? Take, for example, the Baptists. Can they honestly say they agree with the Nicene statement “we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins…”? Or the Reformed churches, which in many respects, come dangerously close to heterodoxy in their Christology? Your thoughts?
 
TriuneUnity said:
I would agree with that… especially considering the Athanasian, Chalcedonian…etc, are basically expositions of the Niceneo-Constantinopolitan confessions. However, to take it further, how far do we go with the some of the basic statements in the ecumenical creeds as it relates to various Protestant sects? Take, for example, the Baptists. Can they honestly say they agree with the Nicene statement “we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins…”? Or the Reformed churches, which in many respects, come dangerously close to heterodoxy in their Christology? Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Your Baptist example is a good one, and somewhat illustrative of the problem. I suspect most informed Baptists would probably enthusiastically agree that they acknowledge one baptism (after all, any baptism followed by a falling-away isn’t a real baptism, is it?), but have difficulty with the “remission of sins” part. Heterodoxy or heresy? That’s a tough call.

Likewise with the Reformed, although honestly it’s their own fault for wanting all the corners to square up. When you insist that 1) there must be an explanation for everyone, 2) it must be discoverable by the human brain, and 3) you need to know the explanation right NOW, you wind up forcing yourself into taking positions that are hard to defend–see God, Sovereignty of, subheading : Hardening the Hearts of Sinners. In my view, they just need to hunker down and get comfortable with apparent paradoxes in the faith (God is One, yet God is Three; Jesus is fully human, yet fully divine; it tastes like bread and wine, but it is the Body and Blood of our Lord; and so on). Some things just can’t be explained, and human reason at the present time is not all-sufficient. Reformed Christological problems are the direct result of being backed into a theological corner and relying on reason to get themselves out.

Magisterialism : the tragedy of Western Christianity? 🙂
 
Some people even go out to eat with Roy Thomas!😛
GKC said:
And they had Roy Thomas, though he only did 4 Spiderman comics. One with the Punisher…

And DC had Speedy, the heroin addict.

DC’s heroes in the 50s fought giant robots and goofball space aliens. And gorillas. Don’t forget gorillas.

Me, I’m a Golden Age/Silver Age fan. And most things after COIE can go snort powdered Kryptonite.

GKC, crank.
Click to expand...
 
Palaeologos said:
Your Baptist example is a good one, and somewhat illustrative of the problem. I suspect most informed Baptists would probably enthusiastically agree that they acknowledge one baptism (after all, any baptism followed by a falling-away isn’t a real baptism, is it?), but have difficulty with the “remission of sins” part. Heterodoxy or heresy? That’s a tough call.
Click to expand...
My inner Lutheran says heresy… but yet, it really couldn’t be, otherwise it would call their baptisms into question. I would say heterodoxy because they have a false belief about the effects of baptism, yet most would, in the end, maintain that baptism is a requirement to some extent, if only because Christ commanded it. Yet, I really can’t put them within historic Nicene Christianity. If anything is unifying about Christianity for the last 2,000 years, it is infant baptism and baptismal regeneration.
Likewise with the Reformed, although honestly it’s their own fault for wanting all the corners to square up. When you insist that 1) there must be an explanation for everyone, 2) it must be discoverable by the human brain, and 3) you need to know the explanation right NOW, you wind up forcing yourself into taking positions that are hard to defend–see God, Sovereignty of, subheading : Hardening the Hearts of Sinners. In my view, they just need to hunker down and get comfortable with apparent paradoxes in the faith (God is One, yet God is Three; Jesus is fully human, yet fully divine; it tastes like bread and wine, but it is the Body and Blood of our Lord; and so on). Some things just can’t be explained, and human reason at the present time is not all-sufficient. Reformed Christological problems are the direct result of being backed into a theological corner and relying on reason to get themselves out.
Click to expand...
Magisterialism : the tragedy of Western Christianity? 🙂
Click to expand...
Absolutely, on all counts. As Chesterton once quipped; Calvinists have so filled their minds with the sovereignty of God, their skulls have cracked. Double predestination, limited atonement, the real absence of Christ in the eucharist… all of these are a result of human logic having a magisterial role over the meaning of Scripture. If it doesn’t make sense rationally, it must be forced out.
 
**Thomas Cranmer **as Mr. Fantastic the rubber man who can stretch his theology to fit anything he needs it to fit…

**John Eck **as The Thing

Erasmus as Daredevil

Hugh Latimer as Kingpin

Osiander as Cyclops

That Hus joke was below the belt, dude!! LOL:D
TriuneUnity said:
Dude…since we did it with the Lord of the Rings…

John Calvin = Dr. Doom
Ulrich Zwingli = The Red Skull
Martin Luther = The Incredible Hulk
John Hus = The Human Torch (Ok, that was bad…)
Click to expand...
 
I remember watching something on tv where it said a King wanted to divorvce, so therefor he created his own religion & I think it may’ve been this 1.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top