Fr. Dwight Longenecker: Sneaky, snaky, modernism

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vonsalza said:
Do you enjoy shrimp? Lobster? Once upon a time they were verboten to the children of God.
Click to expand...
This has always been a very weak argument for the following reasons:
  1. Eating shrimp is not the same as abortion. A better comparison would be the Holocaust or human sacrifice at Uppsala or Mayan temples.
  2. If there is issue with the Old Testament, I would suggest taking the matter up with the Jews.
  3. It’s what gay “rights” advocates used to use because it was one of the first things that showed up on wikipedia from a google search.
 
SuperLuigi said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Do you enjoy shrimp? Lobster? Once upon a time they were verboten to the children of God.
Click to expand...
This has always been a very weak argument for the following reasons:
  1. Eating shrimp is not the same as abortion. A better comparison would be the Holocaust or human sacrifice at Uppsala or Mayan temples.
  2. If there is issue with the Old Testament, I would suggest taking the matter up with the Jews.
  3. It’s what gay “rights” advocates used to use because it was one of the first things that showed up on wikipedia from a google search.
Click to expand...
Put away your goal-post stretcher. I’m not trying to say that all “bads” are equally bad, thus your refutation.

I’m merely stating that “the policy” for children of God has undergone several authoritative revisions throughout the centuries. That’s it.

Now, we craft all sorts of clever apologetics about how these changes aren’t really changes, but to the casual, outside observer there is a “delta”, a change.
 
Last edited:
Well, that thin layer of latex makes a world of difference in the eyes of God, friend.
 
I may be mistaken but I don’t think that the Cof E debate in 1930 referred to types of contraception but only to contraception. It approved it for married couples in certain limited circumstances. Then the flodgates opened. On the Catholic side, proponents put forth the proposition that hormonal methods would be okay because they were more ‘normal.’ Pope Paul VI settled the matter with Humanae Vitae. Contraception is still contraception.
 
Perhaps the Church he converted to itself is trying to change and go against its own teaching.

I think this theory “fits to the data” better than pickypicky
 
Edward_H said:
Perhaps the Church he converted to itself is trying to change and go against its own teaching.

I think this theory “fits to the data” better than pickypicky
Click to expand...
Yes, I think Fr. L. is merely observing the tactics of those in the Catholic Church who are seeking change, not advocating for it head on, but in sneaky manner, according to him.
 
Last edited:
PickyPicky said:
Fr Longenecker, having found the Church of England not to his liking, seems now to feeling uncomfortable in the Church of Rome.
Click to expand...
No, Fr. Longenecker is good, holy priest with a wonderful new Church building
 
JimG said:
I may be mistaken but I don’t think that the Cof E debate in 1930 referred to types of contraception but only to contraception.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I’m not CoE so I don’t really care. 🤷‍♂️
Pope Paul VI settled the matter with Humanae Vitae. Contraception is still contraception.
Click to expand...
Sure. And the consciences of most Catholics (put quotes around the word if you wish in this context) and the majority of the very advisors serving the pope dissented. Perhaps another “Galileo Affair” had been born.
 
Any literary devices in the Bible in which God appears to ‘change’ are simply that, literary devices, used by humans who, simply by virtue of being human, aren’t capable of expressing FULLY God’s word, but who do express it to the fullness of HUMAN understanding.

So no, God does not change His essence. God does not change His Godhood. He does not 'change His mind" but since human beings live in physical time they simply don’t know or comprehend any other way that God could ‘appear’ to have done something at one time and not at another and have it NOT be change. But. . .it isn’t. He doesn’t.
 
Difficult, though, surely, when this “slippery” teaching is coming from the Pope?
 
OK I’ll read the Bible…hold on.
OK, finished!

Now, what are you talking about? Because whatever you are saying is not the teaching of the Church.
 
Mr_Freeze said:
OK I’ll read the Bible…hold on.
OK, finished!

Now, what are you talking about? Because whatever you are saying is not the teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
Let me read it too. One sec…

OK, done.

Wow! “We” were Jews? How’d THAT happen? When did it quit happening?!?

*Resists fierce urge to grow curly sideburns…
 
Last edited:
He’s very correct. If the Catholic Church doesn’t learn from the Church of England’s mistakes, we will be destined to make the same mistakes.

The CoE was male only priesthood & diaconate not that long ago, and didn’t allow divorce and remarriage (without annulment) until the 21st century.

The changes they made (thinking it would bring people back to the pews) didn’t work. More people didn’t fill the pews, if anything less people did.
 
Last edited:
Old Covenant was for the Jews expecting Christ.
Now that we have Christ we are under the New Covenant, one that doesn’t apply only to Jews, but to the gentiles and Jews made one under Christ.
Hence it is Old Testament and New Testament.
I do not call this clever apologetics, but rather basic Christian belief, that sadly, many people don’t seem be taught.
 
For I am the Lord, and I change not: and you the sons of Jacob are not consumed. For from the days of your fathers you have departed from my ordinances, and have not kept them: Return to me, and I will return to you, saith the Lord of hosts. And you have said: Wherein shall we return? Shall a man afflict God? for you afflict me. And you have said: Wherein do we afflict thee? in tithes and in firstfruits. And you are cursed with want, and you afflict me, even the whole nation of you. Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in my house, and try me in this, saith the Lord: if I open not unto you the flood-gates of heaven, and pour you out a blessing even to abundance.

Malachi chapter 3 verse 6
 
JimG said:
Well, in 100 years, despite Fr. Longenecker’s worries, I don’t think we will have women priests (or bishops), and doctrine will not change.
Click to expand...
I pray you are right. As a former Episcopalian, Anglican I watched it happen. Once the door was open, there was no going back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top