Catholic, but not Roman

[ThackeG67]

This is why there are lot’s of religions that are popping out in this world because of misunderstanding the bible. One must understand the bible accurately to be saved and to be in the right direction, guidance and doctrine.

 

[GKC]

Well in that case we are arguing.

What makes you think that you have a better grasp of history than Rafael Merry del Val and Pope Leo? And do you have greater authority to make a judgment on these matters than do the Popes? Under the Catholic system we trust our shepherds and elders to research these matters properly and make wise judgments. Under your system, every Anglican is expected to buy a library of books and study deep into history to convince themselves that the Popes are wrong and that they do actually have apostolic succession and Holy Orders.

Not every Anglican has the resources that you have to make this determination, let alone the audacity.

It reminds me of the scripture passage
“7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth”

Put away your books. Our eternal salvation is not a hobby. We cannot trust in our hobbies more than we trust the Bishop of the Church.

And I tend to research things myself.

Remember that bit about being deep in history?

How do you think one gets there?

GKC

 

[Eutychus123]

I’m not sure what this is. I assume that it relates to the mixing of the Old Catholics (whose ordinations are valid) and the Anglicans. If these influences validated Anglican Orders then the Pope would not now be calling for Anglicans to be re-ordained.
Besides, this is all just arguments on technicalities when compared to the clear evicence that their Holy Orders are not valid. If they were they would be prevented by the divine Grace from ordaining female, homosexual and lesbian priests and bishops. Its all academic in the face of incontrovertible proof.

Here is an article from a high church Anglican priest that says as much
theanglocatholic.com/2010/02/ordination/

He said. “We have no coherent church”. Such a comment makes pale by comparison the Vatican 2 statements that the separated churches are not churches in the proper sense.

Was the matter considered in the preparation of the AC? I have seen no definite ruling on the subject.

 

[GKC]

Was the matter considered in the preparation of the AC? I have seen no definite ruling on the subject.

No. The co-consecration of Old Catholic and Anglican bishops was only officially begun after the agreement of Bonn, and started in 1932, after the two Churches entered into full joint communion. The same with the PNCC started in 1946.

As I said, this has not formally been commented on, by the RCC. Logically, IOW with Ott, this would result in valid but illicit orders.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Was the matter considered in the preparation of the AC? I have seen no definite ruling on the subject.

The matter was not in question. Only the form and intent. Which, as I have said, had to be considered together.

GKC

 

[Eutychus123]

The matter was not in question. Only the form and intent. Which, as I have said, had to be considered together.

GKC

IOW? Women’s Ordination?

Thank you for the clarifications on DT/PP. I’m waiting to hear from some of the other posters, on the RCC view.

 

[elvisman]

Hold on, I’m dialating my eyes with drops after reading your rainbow, multicolored technicolr, psychadelic posts. Try just using one ink color there, King, and ease off on the highlighters. Man, Strawberry Fields!..

Like I’ve always said – when they finally complain about the** color****s is about the point when they’ve run out of things to say . . . **

Now, to your post. There is no discourse with you and it’s impossible to carry on a conversation. You lack the charity, good will, and hope of a good Catholic reaching out to people who are questioning the Catholic faith. Rather than speak with the love of Christ, you compare yourself to St. Paul and act like you’re the righteous apostle trying to get through to these relativist fools who refuse to see the truth as you see it. Putting yourself in Paul’s league is mistake numero uno.

Just parroting the teachings of the only Church Christ established and gave his blessing to.

Using too many colors is numero dos!

See my first comment above about running out of thingd to say . . .

It’s interesting how you avoid the Orthodox Christians, who also were founded 2,000 years and “1500 years before the Protestant revolt?” Do they also only hold “portions of the truth?” They reject the papacy full throttle as well.

I don’t avoid them. We were all ONE until they broke away in the 11th century.

I find it interesting that you say the “Christian truth was around 1500 years before Protestantism.” So you’re saying Transubstantiation, Indulgences, the “Treasury of Merit,” the belief in the Immaculate Conception, the term and useage of Papal Infallibility, Eucharistic Adoration, a celibate priesthood, and all these other things you constitute as “the truth” existed day one? Cardinal Newman might disagree with you as he and many other Catholics are honest about development doctrine. You seem to think the whole truth was there day one?

Doctrines have developed, but they, in and of themselves are not the truth. The Truth is the Church who declares them (John 16:12-15, 1 Tim. 3:15**) because it is the Body of Christ (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 12****).**
**Do you ever actually ****READ **the Bible – or do you just shoot from the hip?

 

[elvisman]

I’m blown away by your lack of vision or ability to understand human beings. You act as if every single person KNOWS the truth 100% that the Catholic Church is perfection and infallible beauty with no errors and everything it preaches is to be followed. Everyone knows this and it’s just stubborn pride. I’m sure that comforts you to feel that way. It’s empowering for you to think that everyone who disagrees with you is an enemy, an angry and bitter, stubborn soul who refuses to acknowledge what is so obvious. It’s NOT obvious. People read the Catholic teachings and don’t agree, Elvis. Why can’t you get it in your head that people look at the early fathers, history, the Bible, and they try to follow their conscience and they sincerely want to do God’s will.

**The Church IS the truth *(read my last comment – BETTER yet, read the BIBLE . . .) ***God reveals the truth but some are blinded by there own pride:

John 6:63-66
**“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. *****And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” ***
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Finally - you’re right – some people*** try***** to follow their conscience and they sincerely want to do God’s will but reject the very MEANS by which he dispenses truth and grace – the Church.**

It strengthens you to feel the truth is on your side and everyone else just flat out rejects the truth KNKOWINGLY and you’re like St. Paul trying to admonish us all.

Maybe you should do these things to be a better apologist:
Drop the bitter, angry, nasty attitude
Quite emphasizing with rainbow highlighting
Try to be KIND to people—talk to people as if they’re people, not idiots
Prove your points without just quoting Matthew 16:18 with a domino effect mentality
Use history and specific theological arguments, points, and less generalities
Quit acting as if everyone were idiots
Quit putting yourself on the same plane as saints
Win back Catholics with good arguments, good will, saying something POSITIVE just once in a while

I’m not acting as if everyone was an idiot. I’m saying plainly that some are filled with spiritual pride because they reject the truth in favor of their own inventions. I don’t judge them (that is only foe Gos to do. I judge their actions because the Bible tells me so (Eph. 5:11, 1 Cor. 2:15, Titus 2:15, 1 Tim. 5:19-20). If what I’ve said makes you feel like an idiot - that is something you must deal with - not me.

Finally - the fact that you’re diatribe is so filled with vitriol tells me that God may be knocking.
Answer** the door, my angry friend.**

 

[Apollos]

Like I’ve always said – when they finally complain about the** color****s is about the point when they’ve run out of things to say . . . **

I typically have plenty to say. The color scheme is annoying, and I have in fact been skipping your posts because of it.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gurneyhalleck1
It’s interesting how you avoid the Orthodox Christians, who also were founded 2,000 years and “1500 years before the Protestant revolt?” Do they also only hold “portions of the truth?” They reject the papacy full throttle as well.

They reject the papacy in full throttle…NOW! Apparently you do not read early church very much do you? Name one eastern early church father who REJECTED the papacy as a complete ursurpation of Christ prior to 1,000 A.D.?

 

[Rightlydivide]

I typically have plenty to say. The color scheme is annoying, and I have in fact been skipping your posts because of it.

Thumbs up. It has gone on long enough!!

 

[Nicea325]

Thumbs up. It has gone on long enough!!

Then ignore him,if it bothers you so much.

 

[Rightlydivide]

No. I must speak out against it unless I am told by those in power to stop.
Now dont talk to me please.

 

[elgar]

When the Catholic Church forbids communion to somebody it is for a reason.
COMMUNION means to have the same beliefs.

If you were to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church - you are saying that you accept all of the teachings of the Church. If you do not - you should refrain from receiving and go to another church, whose teachings you DO accept.

Finally - Because we believe the Eucharist to be the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ - to receive without accepting the teachings of his Church is to receive unworthily and to profane **the Body and Blood of our Lord, which St. Paul strictly WARNED **us against in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.

Would you then venture to say the many, many Catholics who don’t believe in the real presence and Do NOT accept many of the non-negoiable teachings of the Church are really no better than high-church protestants wanting to be called Catholic?

 

[josie_L]

I typically have plenty to say. The color scheme is annoying, and I have in fact been skipping your posts because of it.

It’s a pity you’re not reading his posts because of a color scheme (I love it by the way), he’s really good!!

 

[josie_L]

No. I must speak out against it unless I am told by those in power to stop.
Now dont talk to me please.

Because if you don’t you’ll go blind . . . .

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

So - what, in your estimation, are the essential beliefs?

Belief in the statements of the Nicene Creed. That’s it.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

If that were the case, then there was no point in Jesus telling the parable at all and there would be no point in including it in sacred scripture. Obviously, Jesus made a point in telling it, and it was latter deemed important enough for Paul to re-tell it (Luke was most likely a disciple of Paul and his Gospel is most likely from that time, with other possible influences being Matthew and Mark, but it is not in either of those). To just throw out a part of Scripture because you “don’t like it” is very revisionist and relativistic and not at all Catholic.

There would of course be a point in it. Our actions, the actions of every man, our very lack of charity, especially mine, deserve eternal torment. God, as a loving Father, sent his Son to die for us. Christ entered into hell, and broke its gates. I think that, for one who wills to be with God, he would never be forever in hell.

This is not a matter of revising Scripture, of of not taking it seriously. I take it very seriously. Far more seriously than your interpretation of it.

 

[Eutychus123]

Belief in the statements of the Nicene Creed. That’s it.

I thought that you had doubts about a physical resurrection? Did I mis-read your OP?

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

One cannot, as I often point out, generalize successfully on Anglicans. But the most common position is that the Dominical sacraments are Baptism and the Eucharist.

GKC

This is true. I differ on this non-essential point. I also respect those who would say that Christ instituted all seven sacraments. I think a case can be made for that, and was eloquently made, by Cardinal Newman.