- Status
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
Is it your opinion that someone who is not Catholic is sinning?At the risk of eliciting groans, with all this talk about repentance maybe I should ask the Anglicans here when they will repent of being non-Catholic.
G
GKC
Guest
You are very welcome. The status of the Articles, with respect to Anglicanism as a whole, is a subject I have to post on often.
Like using the word “motley”.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
But how is Scripture to be interpreted ? Through the lens of the current time and secular society’s prevailing norms? Does the meaning of Scripture change depending on the particular time period? Is Truth absolute of relative?
Or are we living in particularly special time where the societal norms are those upon which the timeless interpretation of Scripture ought to be base?
T
total_Catholic
Guest
As one gets further and further from the Magesterium, the old “scripture interprets scripture” card gets played. It is the proverbial house built on sand.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Although my post was in jest (which probably goes without saying, but sometimes it’s better to err on the side of obviousness), now that I’ve opened that jar of worms, here’s what we say about it (well, among other things – I can’t quote everything)
However, it is evident that, when individuals wish for full Catholic communion, their preparation and reconciliation is an undertaking which of its nature is distinct from ecumenical action. But there is no opposition between the two, since both proceed from the marvelous ways of God.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
Essentially if someone wants to come in, we will not only unlock the door, but also open it for you. We just won’t carry you in.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
I don’t think the interpretation of Scripture is timeless.
For example, people in the past interpreted Scripture in such a way that they saw no problem in owning slaves. Slave owners in the South before the Civil War could point to passages in Scripture to justify the owning of slaves and the requirement that those slaves must be obedient to their masters.
After all, in Leviticus 25:44 it says:
Colossians 3:22 says: Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord
St. Augustine saw nothing wrong with owning and whipping slaves: “if you see your slave living badly, what other punishment will you curb him with, if not the lash? Use it: do. God allows it. In fact he is angered if you don’t. But do it in a loving rather than a vindictive spirit” (Servumque ipsum tuum, si male viventem videris, non poena aliqua, non verberibus refrenabis? fiat hoc, fiat : admittit deus, imo reprehendit, si no fiat ; sed animo dilectionis fac : non animo ultionis.) (from Corpus christianoruam, series Latina (Turnhout, 1953-), 40: 1464-6).
But of course most people nowadays would agree that slavery is wrong and immoral and would not agree with Augustine that God is angry if someone doesn’t whip their disobedient slaves. The interpretation of Scripture on slavery has not been timeless.
C
commenter
Guest
You’re right in that people, either with good or bad intentions, sometimes misinterpret, or misuse Scripture. Individual Christians are always influenced by “The World”, in other words, by the “Times” they are in.I don’t think the interpretation of Scripture is timeless.
For example, people in the past interpreted Scripture in such a way that they saw no problem in owning slaves. Slave owners in the South before the Civil War could point to passages in Scripture to justify the owning of slaves and the requirement that those slaves must be obedient to their masters. …
** The interpretation of Scripture on slavery has not been timeless.**
Historically, the Anglican Communion served as kind of a limited magisterium. They took good insights from several different directions, in different eras, and balanced out the extremes. They also were cautiously open to ideas coming from exploration, science, social life, some of which went contrary to scripture, some compatible. They had to judge when to reject some new ideas as contrary to Scripture, and when to reinterpret Scripture in the light of certain other new ideas.
But they really were relying on the momentum of wisdom from the actual Magisterium they had broken off from, which was and is, still visible, and still informative. As long as the Culture was compatible with Christianity, the borrowed momentum was somewhat adequate. Since the mid 1960s the borrowed momentum (from the actual Magisterium) is almost gone, in some Anglican provinces, and in England. They are unable to reject any new ideas as contrary to Scripture. They are unable to hold onto any good and true, old ideas that the culture is now rejecting. When you totally split from a Living Magisterium, there are no longer any absolutes, everything is relative.
In the long run, I think this will happen to Anglicanism as a whole, as the borrowed momentum fades away. The African provinces, ACNA, and so on will either be like the TEC, or rejoin the Magisterium.
P
Peter_J
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
Or, continue to keep an eye on that Magisterium.
C
commenter
Guest
Originally Posted by JRRTFAN View Post
And nothing will this time either. The Anglican community was formed to legitimize adultery for King Hank VIII. The current state of Episcopalian self determination is simply an evolution of the genesis. A development of doctrine if you will.
to your second sentence, I had read that poster, not noticed the literary taste, which I share.
Perhaps in the future we shall see posters using this signon:
“GKCFAN(theinternetguynotthewriter)”
And nothing will this time either. The Anglican community was formed to legitimize adultery for King Hank VIII. The current state of Episcopalian self determination is simply an evolution of the genesis. A development of doctrine if you will.
to your second sentence, I had read that poster, not noticed the literary taste, which I share.Perhaps in the future we shall see posters using this signon:
“GKCFAN(theinternetguynotthewriter)”
G
GKC
Guest
I wish I was a writer.Originally Posted by JRRTFAN View Post
And nothing will this time either. The Anglican community was formed to legitimize adultery for King Hank VIII. The current state of Episcopalian self determination is simply an evolution of the genesis. A development of doctrine if you will.
Perhaps in the future we shall see posters using this signon:
“GKCFAN(theinternetguynotthewriter)”
Never meaning I might be like the writer.
OTOH, I’ve written reams of stuff on the history of Hank and his Great Matter. That might count.
L
Little_Sheep
Guest
Thank you for your kind greeting, Sy Noe. I’m happy to hear of the good works our church near you is doing! I’m pretty crazy about all the great stuff Christians of all stripes put into our world. Here’s one of my favorite ministries - started by a sorority sister of mine who is now an Episcopal priest - thistlefarms.org. And there are many, many more - TEC is not big, but we’re busy.
There’s no need for the children of God to pick at each other. But families are families, so it happens. I’m happy for TEC to remain in the Anglican communion, if only so we can be a thorn in their conscience.
I have been reading at this fine forum for some time and always appreciate the perspective that you add to discussions. Thank you again for the welcome and for keeping my little church and its beautiful souls in your heart.
L
Little_Sheep
Guest
LOL - that didn’t make me groan, it made me chuckle!At the risk of eliciting groans, with all this talk about repentance maybe I should ask the Anglicans here when they will repent of being non-Catholic.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
I agree with this. And I personally find I also need to consider the customs of those times, even for instance the role of men and women. I sometimes have wondered if Christ had chosen a female to be one of his 12 Apostles, how many male followers he actually would have had. Given that women back in those days were so subordinate to men. Paul even tells us that back in those times, women were not to speak in churches. Yet today women speak in churches all the time. So I could actually see why Christ didn’t choose a female Apostle at the time if he wanted a following. And because he knew female ordination would still come about as society’s understanding of gender roles evolved and developed over time. The same as the understanding of homosexuality has evolved over time for many, and the understanding of marriage as well. So I don’t really have a problem with being open to the idea of human understanding of an infinite God evolving and growing over time. To do otherwise I fear I merely would think I had everything figured out while I was still walking along my path towards my Creator. And I know I haven’t yet reached my destiny. I’m still on this earth. So in the meantime the best I believe I can do is to walk by faith in accordance with my understandings til the One we seek in faith comes again and is within our sight face to face. It is not until that time when, I believe, we will truly know and fully understand God’s plan and will. And with our all-knowing and merciful Creator’s understanding of our hearts and minds, despite our differences on this earth, perhaps we will look back to these days where we debate our differences with a smile and perhaps even a chuckle. We are, it is, as I believe Little Sheep said earlier, in God’s hands.I don’t think the interpretation of Scripture is timeless.
For example, people in the past interpreted Scripture in such a way that they saw no problem in owning slaves. Slave owners in the South before the Civil War could point to passages in Scripture to justify the owning of slaves and the requirement that those slaves must be obedient to their masters.
After all, in Leviticus 25:44 it says:
Colossians 3:22 says: Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord
St. Augustine saw nothing wrong with owning and whipping slaves: “if you see your slave living badly, what other punishment will you curb him with, if not the lash? Use it: do. God allows it. In fact he is angered if you don’t. But do it in a loving rather than a vindictive spirit” (Servumque ipsum tuum, si male viventem videris, non poena aliqua, non verberibus refrenabis? fiat hoc, fiat : admittit deus, imo reprehendit, si no fiat ; sed animo dilectionis fac : non animo ultionis.) (from Corpus christianoruam, series Latina (Turnhout, 1953-), 40: 1464-6).
But of course most people nowadays would agree that slavery is wrong and immoral and would not agree with Augustine that God is angry if someone doesn’t whip their disobedient slaves. The interpretation of Scripture on slavery has not been timeless.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Little Sheep, thank you so much for your kind words and the contributions as well that you have already made in your short time. Both are very much appreciated. Brightest blessings!Thank you for your kind greeting, Sy Noe. I’m happy to hear of the good works our church near you is doing! I’m pretty crazy about all the great stuff Christians of all stripes put into our world. Here’s one of my favorite ministries - started by a sorority sister of mine who is now an Episcopal priest - thistlefarms.org. And there are many, many more - TEC is not big, but we’re busy.
There’s no need for the children of God to pick at each other. But families are families, so it happens. I’m happy for TEC to remain in the Anglican communion, if only so we can be a thorn in their conscience.
I have been reading at this fine forum for some time and always appreciate the perspective that you add to discussions. Thank you again for the welcome and for keeping my little church and its beautiful souls in your heart.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Thanks. That’s what I was hoping for.
- Status