Episcopalian/ Anglican services

[masuwerte]

LOL! Here is how I summit up the Episcopal Church:

It’s like a snickers bar: A solid coating of chocolate on the outside resembling a devout Catholic Mass (if you ignore the priestess) and on the inside doctrines that are soft and gooey that will rot your soul out.

Go on, tell us how you really feel. “Summit” up.

Honestly, the lack of civility here is distressing.

 

[PA650]

Go on, tell us how you really feel. “Summit” up.

Honestly, the lack of civility here is distressing.

Yes, it is. Although no one here is without sin.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Sorry to be re-joining the discussion so late.

But, didn’t Paul also say that women should be silent in Church? How should that reflect in our understanding of what you have referenced above?

Putting aside the Biblical scholarship that SpiritMeadow has mentioned (and with which I sympathize), I think it is important to differentiate between tradition and Tradition, between an accretion of custom informed by cultural biases, and the Tradition which God has revealed (and continues to reveal) to his church by the Spirit. The idea that women should keep silent strikes me as a tradition, not part of the Tradition.

The only reason I have for supporting the male only priesthood is that Holy Mother Church does.

Cothrige, I understand the argument from the authority of the Magesterium, and that you subscribe to that authority is very appropriate, given that you’re a Roman Catholic! My problem, though, is when the argument from authority gets wrapped up in a theological argument which seems necessarily predicated on an Aristotelian/Scholastic understanding of what is or is not proper matter. Calling a woman improper matter seems, to me, to leave the door open to a whole host of indecencies regarding the dignity of human beings and directly impacts how we view a woman’s relationship to grace, sacramental or otherwise.

(One of the mistakes of the church in the West, I think, was to give far too much credence to Aquinas’ intellectualization of things which should have remained mysteries. I am no fan of scholasticism.)

So, as far as I understand it, the theological argument against women’s ordination (which, in defining women as improper matter ontologically classes them in the same category as rice crackers and grape juice, or suggests that being a woman is an affliction, like blindness) seems bankrupt. Re-defining a case against women’s ordination as a matter of discipline, though, does not do the same violence against human dignity, no matter how much I would continue to disagree with such a discipline. But it seems to me more humane.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!

 

[Peter_J]

I admit the comparison fails in the area of numbers, but otherwise I believe it valid.

Suit yourself – I respect your right to free speech. Although I suspect that some of your fellow Episcopalians might start making this-person-does-not-represent-us type disclaimers.

 

[cothrige]

Calling a woman improper matter seems, to me, to leave the door open to a whole host of indecencies regarding the dignity of human beings and directly impacts how we view a woman’s relationship to grace, sacramental or otherwise.

[snip]

So, as far as I understand it, the theological argument against women’s ordination (which, in defining women as improper matter ontologically classes them in the same category as rice crackers and grape juice, or suggests that being a woman is an affliction, like blindness) seems bankrupt. Re-defining a case against women’s ordination as a matter of discipline, though, does not do the same violence against human dignity, no matter how much I would continue to disagree with such a discipline. But it seems to me more humane.

I think you may be a bit off in part of this. The definitions of what is proper matter, at least practically speaking, predate St. Thomas. The Eastern Churches have no scholasticism and yet they share our definitions. No women in the priesthood, no same sex couples in marriage, no rice crackers in the Eucharist, and so on.

I also think your overall reasoning is flawed. Obviously, the Church is not making a judgment about women in the life of grace in this. If it were then I would also be judged as inferior to a woman because I am improper matter for marriage to a man, where a woman wouldn’t be. But, more to the point, what happens to a revealed faith in which revelation is subject to politics? First, women want to be priests because it isn’t fair, and so you change that. Then homosexuals want to get married and so you change that. Then the atheists get offended and you change all of the God stuff. Where do you draw the line? Oh sure, it sounds silly, but I guarantee you, fifty years ago suggesting that men should be able to marry men, in a Christian Chuch, would have been even more ridiculous.

 

[cothrige]

Good grief I would never let my interpretation of scripture be definitive…

Okay, you are clearly confused. Your entire position is that your interpretation is definitive. Sure, you claim to have taken your interpretation from “experts” but that means nothing. Once you adopt it you make it yours. You simply follow people who write books, and I follow the teaching of 2000 years of Christian life in the Spirit.

Then you fail to realize that Paul was essentially ordering Philemon to free Onesimus who had fled him. Timothy gives no such luxury to slaves, they are to be obedient, not run away. They are in direct contradition.

Ridiculous. It doesn’t even make any sense. You say that in 1 Timothy slaves are told to “not run away” and that Philemon offers a “direct contradiction.” So, this means that Paul told Onesimus to run away, right? Please show me where he does this? My copy has him sending Onesimus back to Philemon. Where I come from that is called the opposite of encouraging people to run away. Believers are to receive one another as brothers, and this teaching is explicit, not implicit, explicit in both 1 Timothy and Philemon. No contradiction at all.

 

[Peter_J]

I take inspired to mean that the various writers were deeply spiritual and moved to write about Jesus and what they believed about him, (and moreover what their communities believed about him) to the very best of their abilities.

Well then, you really don’t understand what “inspired” means at all.

Certainly allowing the Church to define scripture for you period without reasonable investigation would be in some sense idolatrous.

That’s hardly surprising, given that you reject even the “branch theory” idea of the Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Great post, Daedelus! Take Oprah, Gnosticism, the Village People, the Dalai Lama, as well as neo pagans and universalists, throw them into a salad with some abortion doctors for croutons and you have the Episcopal Church.

I’m not soft on Episcopalians, but posts like this ^^ are no credit to you at all.

I miss the old gurneyhalleck.

 

[cothrige]

Oh I think literalism is quite on point. If one is not free to understand what words mean in their time and place and that they do not necessarily mean the same as we would use them, then we cannot discuss much in terms of scripture.

But, it isn’t on point at all. These comments arose not out of a discussion about interpetation of scripture, but definition of scripture. Totally different concepts.

Why is it do you think that your Church does not suppress these men and women? I have heard of no excommunications lately.

Suppress? I would be curious as to how you think that could be done? Perhaps the albino monk can come out of retirement and bump them off? A bishop may certainly exommunicate somebody if they have it coming, and that may happen for some of the people you like to read, but I won’t presume to know anything about it. It wouldn’t change your opinion of any of them, and it wouldn’t change any Catholic’s either. The voice of the magisterium is very clear, and the teachings are set forth most positively. No Christian that I know is actually confused by these vipers.

My so quick to throw the word worship.

I don’t know what this means.

I have yet to worship a person. I have great regard for all who learn. But alas, many who do don’t seem all that smart. Many are brilliant. The trick is to read widely enough to begin to discern the difference. If all historians were brilliant, there wouldn’t be much to write about. The disagree a lot, but then I assume you wouldn’t know that, not reading them.

Are you sure? Maybe they publish their findings in Teen Beat magazine.

But it isn’t historians. They cannot teach me much on the bible, perhaps some anthropologists can. But mostly biblical experts and theologians. They are lodged mostly in the divinity departments of universities. They teach bible studies and theology. I seldom rely on my own reading. I’ve said that before, yet you continually accuse me of it. Worshiping self would be gravely disordered I think.

You seldom rely on your own readings? And you imply that I am the mindless follower?

More properly you listen and obey the church as to what to believe because the Church tells you that Christ commands it. All you relate is Catholic doctrine, and not located in scripture except by Catholic interpretation. Others don’t interepret it as you do.

Oh, this is sad. Of course I have used scripture, and what has been response? Paul didn’t write that. Absurd. Your entire position is about strange interpretations that the Church has never accepted, but which you insist on simply because they fit your strange political ideas. You redefine what scripture is, what its authority is, and what it means at every turn purely because you don’t like what it says.

But of course, my argument is not that gender equality is modern, but that it is as old as Jesus and Paul

. But, they never said it. You say they did because you decide what the words really mean and which words are accurate and which are not. It is not Jesus or Paul saying this, but you.
When your mind is against the possibilities, I guess you can only conclude this. For the 9th time or so, I don’t say anything. I rely on those who are experts. If I find there reasoning rational and in line with what seems right and correct to me, I’m inclined to believe it. Like I make most decisions in life. As you do, in everything it seems but faith.

Okay, you are either completely lost, or ridiculously misled. First you say that Jesus and Paul taught gender equality as you have posited it, i.e. women have a right to be priests. I respond that they never said this, you have only said that they did. So, did you respond by showing where they in fact did teach this? No, of course not. Instead you say that you rely on experts and if you find their reasoning “rational” you accept it. But, that doesn’t make it something Jesus said. He never said it. You did. It is not his teaching. It is yours.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I think Episcopalians are cool …

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This is classic. You get on me for trying to theorize why you guys have sold out the historic faith of the Catholic Church in favor of this new world order of anything-goes and YET you say at the end “I suspect you are still far from happy.” Thanks, Dr. Phil! I can’t get in your head but you as heck can get into mine. LOL

I like the way you and other liberals like you use the word HATE all the time to describe anything that God Himself declared sinful and out of line with the Christian life that you yourself choose to modify as wholesome. Homosexuality, gay “marriages,” women’s ordination, abortion, euthanasia, there is nothing off the table with you. And you say I’m not happy? You’re the one that came into a Catholic forum with an axe to grind. You came here to “educate” Catholics to throw away our catechism and replace it with your worldly libertarian credo. Sorry, no can do.

And I don’t need to prove my RC worth. Everyone is full of WORTH to Jesus Christ, you and me included. Homosexuals included. That doesn’t mean they have the right to persist in their sinful lifestyle and pass it off as acceptable. Love the sinner, not the sin must escape your keen intellect, Meadow.

And as far as speaking ill of former denominations, if the shoe fits, Spirit…You have a selective memory and you read what you want to read. I have spoken very highly of the liturgy I participated in as an Episcopalian. I adored the BOCP liturgy. I loved the fellowship, coffee hour, dignified music, and highly pastoral ministry of our priest (who, along with the Diocese of San Joaquin, had the common sense to get out of your denomination a couple years ago) but at a national level I despised and continue to despise its teachings and heretical theologies. Your likening it to a divorced man speaking of a former spouse is a moot point to me. Unlike your denomination, I hate divorce, like Our Lord hated divorce in scripture. I am happily married and would divorce my wife when hell freezes over. I have no concept of divorce to speak ill of a former wife…can’t relate, sorry.

I have no need to “cleanse” my TEC sinfulness. For seven years of my life I was in your ecclesiastical community (it’s not a church in fact as Benedict has accurately described it) and I have only myself to blame. I was uneducated in my faith and fell into many traps that lure Catholics away when they don’t know their catechism. It is not by my own doing that I came back but by the Holy Spirit. And I pray that He does the same for you. I went to confession and ate my crow for having left the True Church for a far lesser vehicle that only holds kernels of it. I poured my heart out to God and was given absolution. My guilt for that is gone. But I’m still sad to see some folks in that community. Hopefully there will be a day when the Episcopal Church is no more…not merely because they are not Catholic, but because they do so much damage to the Body of Christ.

I will continue to be a “stringent ranting screamer” for God, you bet. And you aren’t too shabby yourself, Spirit. You have a pretty loud bark on these boards coming in here right and left with your liberal venom. You constantly feel it incumbant upon you to ‘educate and enlighten’ us with your episcopalian rhetoric. You’re no shrinking violet and yet you fancy yourself a calm, moderate, rational voice of reason. Hilarious stuff.

I guess my question is this: if you have absolutely no openness to the Roman Catholic faith and you are going to be nothing but a disagreeable, heretically-oriented, feminist malcontent, what do you hope to prove in CAF? I’ve found the true Apostolic faith so I’m just defending the Truth of 2,000 years. You’re an innovator with an axe to grind. So be it. I’m not budging, neither are you. Do you hope to convert people, have a dialogue, what? There are much more liberal Christian forums on the net. You’d be in heaven in a few of the no-hangups lefty Christian forums I’ve perused online. Why Catholic Answers Forum? Maybe it’s you that needs to evaluate what your reasoning, goals, and point is in being in here? Cancel that, don’t answer. I don’t want to know. I’ve heard enough. I’ll just put you on ignore. I will keep you in my prayers, however, that you’ll open yourself up to the Church and the fact that Christianity is about obedience to God, not ourselves.

Time to hit that ignore button now…:thumbsup:

I concede. I couldn’t spew that kind of venom in a year. I don’t have that kind of anger. Blessings in your silence.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Okay, you are clearly confused. Your entire position is that your interpretation is definitive. Sure, you claim to have taken your interpretation from “experts” but that means nothing. Once you adopt it you make it yours. You simply follow people who write books, and I follow the teaching of 2000 years of Christian life in the Spirit.

This is where you are decidedly wrong. It’s hard to be confused about one’s own position by the way. My interpretation is anything but definitive. It is where I am at today, based on a wealth of previous reading. New discoveries, new analysis might well change my mind. And that is rational, the way a thinking mind works. I doubt the actual biblical scholars would appreciate my “absconding with their work and making it mine” approach.

As I said, I have no problem with your decision to accept your church as final authority. but you should recognize I would think that they continue to do this work and their teaching reflects the advances they too are making in understanding.

As to the Spirit, we trust that all people who sincerely follow Christ and wish to gain wisdom are guided to truth. I don’t buy excusive posession of it by any particular denomination.

Ridiculous. It doesn’t even make any sense. You say that in 1 Timothy slaves are told to “not run away” and that Philemon offers a “direct contradiction.” So, this means that Paul told Onesimus to run away, right? Please show me where he does this? My copy has him sending Onesimus back to Philemon. Where I come from that is called the opposite of encouraging people to run away. Believers are to receive one another as brothers, and this teaching is explicit, not implicit, explicit in both 1 Timothy and Philemon. No contradiction at all.

No, you have gotten that wrong. He sent a letter to Philemon, essentially telling him that it was Philemon’s Christian DUTY to free Onesimus. Onesimus ran away on his own from Philemon and sought apparent sanctuary with Paul. Paul’s making the letter a public one, places Philemon in an impossible place. If he receives Onesimus back as a slave, he has failed by Paul’s instruction to treat him in a Christian way. And worse, now everyone in the community will know. He really has no choice but to free Onesimus, as Paul wishes, since Paul is telling Philemon that Christians do not keep other human beings in bondage. Hope this helps.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Well then, you really don’t understand what “inspired” means at all.

To say that I don’t accept what you mean by inspired is not to say that I don’t understand it “at all.” I define it differently than you perhaps.

That’s hardly surprising, given that you reject even the “branch theory” idea of the Church.

I couldn’t say, you haven’t explained it to me yet as I requested. You are not of course obligated to. You seem quite pleasant when I praise you, but seem to get a bit miffed with I don’t. You really don’t expect us to agree on many things do you Peter? I certainly don’t, thought I’ve appreciated your fairly civil responses unlike others who cannot veil their contempt well.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

But, it isn’t on point at all. These comments arose not out of a discussion about interpetation of scripture, but definition of scripture. Totally different concepts.

But literalism is one means of interpreting scripture. How are we defining scripture. I thought we were all agreed as to what scripture is. the canon of the OT and NT, and the apocryapha.

Suppress? I would be curious as to how you think that could be done? Perhaps the albino monk can come out of retirement and bump them off? A bishop may certainly exommunicate somebody if they have it coming, and that may happen for some of the people you like to read, but I won’t presume to know anything about it. It wouldn’t change your opinion of any of them, and it wouldn’t change any Catholic’s either. The voice of the magisterium is very clear, and the teachings are set forth most positively. No Christian that I know is actually confused by these vipers.

It seems to me that Jon Sobrino has been disallowed from teaching because of his rather radical (by RC standards at least) views. This is not happening by and large to other RC scholars. I tend to agree that whether the Vatican steps in to prevent any of this scholarship won’t change anyone who reads them. I suggest that they aren’t prevented largely because their ideas and scholarship is not nearly so abhorant to the Vatican as it is personally to you. You would agree would you not that ultra conservative RC’s and moderate to liberal RC’s have rather different ideas on what might be “unacceptable?”

I

don’t know what this means.

It’s a quick slam to accuse someone who disagrees with you with “worshiping” the subject of the disagreement. If you talk to RC’s who believe evolution is a conspiratorial lie, they accuse evolution believers of worshiping science. You say I worship historians, which is amusing since I read very little history, I just don’t have the time, and when I do, it’s not about religious history in any case.

Are you sure? Maybe they publish their findings in Teen Beat magazine.

Cheap shot. Of course people who teach at Harvard, Duke, Yale and so forth usually publish for Random House and Zondervan and reputable publishing concerns. This is really not a rational way to attack an argument is it?

You seldom rely on your own readings? And you imply that I am the mindless follower?

I don’t know what your beef is here. I don’t feel confident in assumping that my conclusions from reading scripture are necessarily correct. I don’t have the expertise to do so. I am not generally in favor of people self-interpreting scripture. That doesn’t mean however that one should allow any one entity to do it for them. One must read broadly being careful that one is getting an unbiased picture as possible. Reading scripture for oneself is valuable as a pastoral thing. One I highly recommend. But we get more wrong than right when we try to determine meaning on our own. We are more likely to get it wrong. We don’t have the tools to understand the 1st century mind. That is what experts are for.

Oh, this is sad. Of course I have used scripture, and what has been response? Paul didn’t write that. Absurd. Your entire position is about strange interpretations that the Church has never accepted, but which you insist on simply because they fit your strange political ideas. You redefine what scripture is, what its authority is, and what it means at every turn purely because you don’t like what it says.

Yes I get that in your opinion any claim that anything isn’t as you have decided is correct is wrong. Actually some of the interpretations I have given are one’s at least members of your Church have given me. I was initially taught this stuff about Paul at least from priests and nuns in Catholic college. You of course believe they don’t know what they are talking about. I prefer to give credibility to their doctorates however in the field.

I don’t define anything. I don’t try to make scripture fit my notions. And we are not in any way discussing what I like or don’t like about any scripture. YOu continue to tell me that this is all me. I tell you it is not. If you refuse to look at anything, you cannot know that I guess, but you have no right to call me a liar.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

con’t

Okay, you are either completely lost, or ridiculously misled. First you say that Jesus and Paul taught gender equality as you have posited it, i.e. women have a right to be priests. I respond that they never said this, you have only said that they did. So, did you respond by showing where they in fact did teach this? No, of course not. Instead you say that you rely on experts and if you find their reasoning “rational” you accept it. But, that doesn’t make it something Jesus said. He never said it. You did. It is not his teaching. It is yours.

Perhaps it might be you confused. I can hardly be confused about what i believe. You may be confused about understanding it, and I am more than willing to accept that I havent’ stated it well to help you.

Jesus and Paul did teach gender equality. Jesus did it by way of example again and again, by treating women in ways that were highly shocking to his time. Paul said it very directly in some of his letters. This leads many people to believe that Jesus if asked does this mean that women are disciples in the same manner as men would have said yes. This leads to the rational conclusion that Jesus would not oppose women priests today.

I never said they anyway spoke directly that women were to be priests. That would be absurd. I said that Paul seems to suggest that it was obvious fact by his greetings to a woman deacon and a woman apostle.

What seems to be the hitching point here, is that we are confronted with an issue. Does Jesus reasonably say by actions or words that women are not to be priests? I would argue that he says nothing that would directly prohibit it, and acted in ways that suggest that he would have assumed it as a given.

Perhaps we should slow down a bit. You seem to be jumping to assumptions. To say that I think that women can be priests, says that I find nothing in scripture, by what I have learned so far, that prohibits it, and much that rationally thought through, leads to the conclusion that both Jesus and Paul would have assumed it to be the norm.

 

[emeraldcoast]

This is classic. You get on me for trying to theorize why you guys have sold out the historic faith of the Catholic Church in favor of this new world order of anything-goes and YET you say at the end “I suspect you are still far from happy.” Thanks, Dr. Phil! I can’t get in your head but you as heck can get into mine. LOL

I like the way you and other liberals like you use the word HATE all the time to describe anything that God Himself declared sinful and out of line with the Christian life that you yourself choose to modify as wholesome. Homosexuality, gay “marriages,” women’s ordination, abortion, euthanasia, there is nothing off the table with you. And you say I’m not happy? You’re the one that came into a Catholic forum with an axe to grind. You came here to “educate” Catholics to throw away our catechism and replace it with your worldly libertarian credo. Sorry, no can do.

And I don’t need to prove my RC worth. Everyone is full of WORTH to Jesus Christ, you and me included. Homosexuals included. That doesn’t mean they have the right to persist in their sinful lifestyle and pass it off as acceptable. Love the sinner, not the sin must escape your keen intellect, Meadow.

And as far as speaking ill of former denominations, if the shoe fits, Spirit…You have a selective memory and you read what you want to read. I have spoken very highly of the liturgy I participated in as an Episcopalian. I adored the BOCP liturgy. I loved the fellowship, coffee hour, dignified music, and highly pastoral ministry of our priest (who, along with the Diocese of San Joaquin, had the common sense to get out of your denomination a couple years ago) but at a national level I despised and continue to despise its teachings and heretical theologies. Your likening it to a divorced man speaking of a former spouse is a moot point to me. Unlike your denomination, I hate divorce, like Our Lord hated divorce in scripture. I am happily married and would divorce my wife when hell freezes over. I have no concept of divorce to speak ill of a former wife…can’t relate, sorry.

I have no need to “cleanse” my TEC sinfulness. For seven years of my life I was in your ecclesiastical community (it’s not a church in fact as Benedict has accurately described it) and I have only myself to blame. I was uneducated in my faith and fell into many traps that lure Catholics away when they don’t know their catechism. It is not by my own doing that I came back but by the Holy Spirit. And I pray that He does the same for you. I went to confession and ate my crow for having left the True Church for a far lesser vehicle that only holds kernels of it. I poured my heart out to God and was given absolution. My guilt for that is gone. But I’m still sad to see some folks in that community. Hopefully there will be a day when the Episcopal Church is no more…not merely because they are not Catholic, but because they do so much damage to the Body of Christ.

I will continue to be a “stringent ranting screamer” for God, you bet. And you aren’t too shabby yourself, Spirit. You have a pretty loud bark on these boards coming in here right and left with your liberal venom. You constantly feel it incumbant upon you to ‘educate and enlighten’ us with your episcopalian rhetoric. You’re no shrinking violet and yet you fancy yourself a calm, moderate, rational voice of reason. Hilarious stuff.

I guess my question is this: if you have absolutely no openness to the Roman Catholic faith and you are going to be nothing but a disagreeable, heretically-oriented, feminist malcontent, what do you hope to prove in CAF? I’ve found the true Apostolic faith so I’m just defending the Truth of 2,000 years. You’re an innovator with an axe to grind. So be it. I’m not budging, neither are you. Do you hope to convert people, have a dialogue, what? There are much more liberal Christian forums on the net. You’d be in heaven in a few of the no-hangups lefty Christian forums I’ve perused online. Why Catholic Answers Forum? Maybe it’s you that needs to evaluate what your reasoning, goals, and point is in being in here? Cancel that, don’t answer. I don’t want to know. I’ve heard enough. I’ll just put you on ignore. I will keep you in my prayers, however, that you’ll open yourself up to the Church and the fact that Christianity is about obedience to God, not ourselves.

Time to hit that ignore button now…:thumbsup:

Gurney,

It saddens me to think that I need to consider putting you on ignore. I have NEVER put anyone on ignore. The posts that you have been posting on the forum, are so filled with hate towards us Anglicans that I am beside myself that they are coming from you. I have considered you a brother in Christ and I have cherished our friendship even with all the ups and downs on this forum. It is hard to maintain a friendship with someone that has such disgust for my Church that has blessed my marriage and my family.

Lifting you up in prayer!
God Bless!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I will continue to be a “stringent ranting screamer” for God, you bet.

religious delusions of grandeur. I mean seriously … get a grip buddy!

 

[TAB39]

Just as a side note, the Episcopal church has no problem with Catholics taking communion. I’ve done so when I’ve visited, but I’m not Catholic. They only require one to be a baptized Christian.

With that said, Catholics shouldn’t take it because it would go against Catholic teaching.

I don’t care about any of that. I receive when I attend the Anglican service.

 

[cothrige]

But literalism is one means of interpreting scripture. How are we defining scripture. I thought we were all agreed as to what scripture is. the canon of the OT and NT, and the apocryapha.

You are off topic. I was not interpreting scripture when this original part of the conversation came up. I was rejecting your position about what scripture is. You say one verse is from Paul, according to experts, and another is not, according to same, and that means the former is true and the latter is not. I reject this unchristian idea of what scripture is. The original comment I responded to was therefore regarding the definition of scripture, and how scripture gets to be scripture. It had nothing to do with interpreting the actual words. Therefore, again, you are off topic.

This is a problem over and over with you. You say something. I respond. You then respond to me as if my response were to a completely different topic. If you are having a hard time following the thread of the conversation, by all means go back and read again what is being discussed.

I suggest that they aren’t prevented largely because their ideas and scholarship is not nearly so abhorant to the Vatican as it is personally to you. You would agree would you not that ultra conservative RC’s and moderate to liberal RC’s have rather different ideas on what might be “unacceptable?”

There are “liberal” Catholics (RC is a remote control, btw) but they are not the issue. I make no claim of even being a “conservative” Catholic. Catholic doctrine is very easy to find. It is in the Catechism, the concilar documents, and papal writings of varying levels of authority. Anything not in these, or contrary to these, is not Catholic doctrine. Whether a person is corrected or not is due to many administrative reasons, but having not been corrected doesn’t make one right.

It’s a quick slam to accuse someone who disagrees with you with “worshiping” the subject of the disagreement. If you talk to RC’s who believe evolution is a conspiratorial lie, they accuse evolution believers of worshiping science. You say I worship historians, which is amusing since I read very little history, I just don’t have the time, and when I do, it’s not about religious history in any case.

See, you have lost your place again. You accused me of idolatry. Do you understand that? You said I was an idolator. I didn’t say that about you. You did about me. I responded to your accusation (are you still with me?) by pointing out that if I am an idolator for following the teaching of the Church then you are the same for following the teaching of the “experts.” Do you understand this simple point? Are you entirely lost? Please read before posting.

Cheap shot. Of course people who teach at Harvard, Duke, Yale and so forth usually publish for Random House and Zondervan and reputable publishing concerns. This is really not a rational way to attack an argument is it?

You are embarrassing yourself. Please read before posting. Let us look at what a hypocrite you are by suggesting that I am taking the cheap shot. Let me preface this by saying that I am honestly beginning to dislike you. You are a very unpleasant person.

First, you said that historians disagree a lot, which I wouldn’t know because I don’t read them. Do you see the cheap shot? The insult? Now, did I respond with a cheap shot of my own? No, I made a joke at my own expense. It is called self-deprecation. I responded to the effect that maybe I do read them, if perhaps they post their findings in TeenBeat magazine. Did I insult your experts? No, I insulted myself by suggesting that my reading list includes the very high-brow journal TeenBeat. If you are going to argue about cheap shots perhaps you should stop making them. And read what is being discussed before posting. I am getting tired of trying to go back six posts to show you how off-topic you are about what is being discussed.

I don’t know what your beef is here.

Then read the posts.

Yes I get that in your opinion any claim that anything isn’t as you have decided is correct is wrong.

Thanks be to God you don’t do that.

I don’t define anything. I don’t try to make scripture fit my notions.

Oh please. Get real. You do nothing else. If I tell you that Episcopalians are worshipping the devil I am stating my position. I cannot then say I read it in a book and so I am not saying it. I did say it! You cannot post an opinion as being true, and then say it isn’t your opinion. When you say that scripture A is erroneous because it isn’t written by apostle B, you are defining what scripture is. The experts you read are not posting here, you are. It is your definition, based on their expert opinion perhaps, but still yours. Quit playing stupid semantic games.

 

[cothrige]

This is where you are decidedly wrong. It’s hard to be confused about one’s own position by the way. My interpretation is anything but definitive.

Then how am I wrong? If you haven’t defined what you believe to be true, then you cannot say that I am wrong. Who spends so many posts arguing that a person is wrong even though you don’t have a definitive interpretation?

It is where I am at today, based on a wealth of previous reading. New discoveries, new analysis might well change my mind. And that is rational, the way a thinking mind works. I doubt the actual biblical scholars would appreciate my “absconding with their work and making it mine” approach.

Absconding? Are you serious? Well, if you really believe that then you have plagiarized them by not posting copious references to all these “opinions” you keep posting that aren’t yours. Since you think CAF is a theological journal you better follow the proper formats.

No, you have gotten that wrong.

Look, we are going further and further afield on this. Paul never explicitly commands Philemon to free Onesimus, but it doesn’t matter. If you want my personal opinion, I think he probably did want him freed, but he never told him to do it, and so he put nobody in any bind at all. As I read the text he is very thoughtful of Philemon’s position and gives him plenty of room to act in a good Christian way, which is typical of Paul. But, this is still not the point of the disagreement.

You have said that this letter is contradictory to 1 Timothy, and it isn’t. The verses you have objected to in 1 Timothy regard an exhortation that slaves obey their masters. This is not contradicted in Philemon. The only way it could be a contradiction is if Paul told Onesimus to be disobedient, and he doesn’t. When Onesimus ran away, Paul sent him back. This is in perfect harmony with 1 Timothy. In Philemon he merely takes it even further by exhorting the master to also do the Christian thing and be magnanimous to the servant. No contradiction at all. How you imagine one to exist is simply mind-boggling.