C
CopticChristian
Guest
This appears to suggest frustration and an admonition. Thank you
I am Apostolic, you can't be Apostolic, Why I cant be Protestant
- Status
C
CopticChristian
Guest
It isn’t what you know that makes a difference. It is what you don’t know.Like you, I lack understanding in an array of things
To be frank, there are so many “Christian” movements that it is practically impossible to keep track of them.
I honestly believe that the term apostle is pretty simple to define.
That the Church Fathers can trace a line of apostles to Peter shows a lot of dedication and sacrifice to keep the traditions and the word of God as we know it.
What do you think the Pharisees thought of Jesus and all of his apostles and disciples?
Probably the same as the Church thought or thinks of Protestants today.
Disclaimer: In no way I am inferring the Protestant movement as a 2nd coming of Jesus.
However, who are we to decide what messenger our Lord chooses to carry His word? How much do we know of God’s messengers in China, Nepal, Middle East, etc? Have you looked at the Voices of the Martyr’s website? Christians persecuted and killed for spreading the word of God. While we sit comfortable in our chairs with air conditioning, there are men and women living the persecution that the early church lived long ago.
So in my limited view of things, most of these apostles are not Caucasian at all. And if our Lord decides to choose only Caucasians like he chose only Jews for thousands of years, Who am I to question His decision?
God Bless.
I am not sure what you are calling Christian movements.
It would be impossible for me to know what any Pharisee could think, I would have to be able to read minds, speak Greek and Hebrew and transport myself back in time.
Yes, absolutely it was the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.
Yes. Have you looked at Colombia, a banned site, a problem for the voices. however, based on various studies, more than 95% of the population adheres to Christianity,[80] the vast majority of which (between 81% and 90%) are Roman Catholic. Why do Protestant need to evangelize Colombia? Whats the urgency to get Bibles to Colombia, am I going to hear that the Catholic Church is keeping the Bible from the people?
That is not what I see happening from where I sit. I see Protestants trying to evangelize Catholic Countries, where The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is a majority belief.
That is assuming that these decisions are His. I would question it and I have.
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes, it does. I wanted to evoke some such response, so that I could point out to you that the people who have done this are generally not on this forum, and the methods that may be appropriate in dealing with your friendly local fundamentalists may not be good ones for this forum.
Having once been one of those obnoxious Protestants who attacks Catholicism (though in my defense, I stopped acting this way before I was out of my teens–Dante and G. K. Chesterton took me in hand when I was about sixteen and knocked a lot of the anti-Catholicism out of me), I understand where you are coming from.
Yes, Freud used the word “ego,” but he didn’t invent it. And what he meant by it was quite different from the traditional way in which I was using the word.
And I wasn’t actually accusing you of being egotistical, but of potentially appearing egotistical. I was a bit tongue in cheek–all I was trying to get across was that the burning issue on this forum really isn’t whether you can be Protestant or not, because the people who are trying to get you to be Protestant aren’t here. So why not title your threads after specific issues instead?
Perhaps a minor issue, but it does affect the general tone of the forum. I won’t bother you about this again.
God bless,
Edwin
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Really? sigh…
Really? They killed our Lord and Savior and constantly conspired to get Him in trouble or to contradict Himself… pretty clear throughout the New Testament.
Very childish answer, imo.
Good, defend your faith.
I have actually worked in Colombia. La Iglesia Catolica es practicamente no-existente cuando se trata de ayudar a los pobres y a la gente que esta ligada a las drogas…
I’ve never understood why some Protestants try to evangelize Catholics… However, I can see and understand why they are stepping up where the Catholic Church is no longer Apostolic outside their comfort zone. Someone needs to pick up the slack
I question the decisions and interpretations of men, not of our Lord. Like the papacy, etc.
There is an entire world of believers outside your Church, doing the good works our Lord and Savior preached and instructed. Go outside, get active and spread the Word.
God Bless.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
If you wanted to evoke a response then you will understand that I choose to write from an Ericksonian model as compared to a Meta Model in posting. These models are models of communication.
You are providing me guidance? You have guaged the forum and speak for all the forum? Are you the barometer and arbiter of the forum?
Thank you.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
I have travelled to Peoples Republic, Manilla, Colombia, Guatemala, Hong Kong, many parts of Mexico and the venue does not change what I see as an inherent evil. Protestants evangelize Catholics. They are bringing Extrinsic Justification, denial of Church Authority, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide to people that are in the Faith, in poverty and know little of what I just said. Shall we do evil that grace may abound, by no means…Really? sigh…
Really? They killed our Lord and Savior and constantly conspired to get Him in trouble or to contradict Himself… pretty clear throughout the New Testament.
Very childish answer, imo.
Good, defend your faith.
I have actually worked in Colombia. La Iglesia Catolica es practicamente no-existente cuando se trata de ayudar a los pobres y a la gente que esta ligada a las drogas…
I’ve never understood why some Protestants try to evangelize Catholics… However, I can see and understand why they are stepping up where the Catholic Church is no longer Apostolic outside their comfort zone. Someone needs to pick up the slack
I question the decisions and interpretations of men, not of our Lord. Like the papacy, etc.
There is an entire world of believers outside your Church, doing the good works our Lord and Savior preached and instructed. Go outside, get active and spread the Word.
God Bless.
I have seen Mormons evanglizing around the world doing all you say is being done, helping the people, doing social services, and they too are of a new religion founded by Caucasions in New York, believing that Missouri is the new Jerusalem. Are you OK with this evangelization? They are doing good works spreading a word.
C
Contarini
Guest
I didn’t know these terms, but based on the wikipedia descriptions I find the “Ericksonian” or “Milton” model to be dishonest and manipulative–unworthy of a human being created in God’s image, not to say a follower of Jesus.
The wikipedia article confirms my initial sense of what you are doing, and reassures me that I am not simply making a tempest in a teapot, as I had worried. If I understand the method rightly, you really are deliberately taking a disingenuous stance in order to get behind people’s defenses. I don’t think you’re doing so very effectively, but perhaps that’s just because I’ve been round the block in these debates a number of times.
As your odd assumption about the context of the word “egotism” further indicates, you seem to come at things from a psychological perspective. Perhaps less modern psychology and more Aquinas would make you a better advocate for the Catholic Faith.
Certainly not. I speak only for myself. I’ve been hanging out here for a while, that’s all.
You are welcome to disregard my suggestions. But I have as much right to offer my opinions about your statements as you do to make the statements in the first place!
God bless,
Edwin
C
CopticChristian
Guest
You are quick to judge.
These are tried and true models of communication. They work. You and I take in information and generate communication via deletions, distortion, generalizations.
You probably won’t like what Jesus and Paul had to say as they routinely use the Milton model. They used it before Milton. Parables are examples of the Milton model, ambiguous and meaphoric allowing the listener to form an opinion. Jesus was a master, and you would expect that, in consideration that Milton used this, as a creature, not discovering it, since he was a creature.
You despise that our God created us in a way that allows us to communicate in ways we don’t understand. You despise that God created our minds and that our minds, his creation, work in ways that others have described. Perhaps describing what is, presents an offense to you. This is unusual.
I am purposely not making direct statements. I do on occasion. I am purposely speaking in generalities. The reader provides a response that is based on their understanding of what I write. I have no obligation to address a post in any way other than the way I choose. You decry my freedom of my mind? Next time you read your bible and you have to use your imagination curse the fact that God created it and caused you to think. God did not write our bible as a cookbook. It is not spelled out in the Meta model. It is filled with the Milton model. God is the author of our mind and chooses to speak to us through the bible indirectly and if you understand that then you understand that your God, my God talks to us indirectly. Do you have the same thoughts about how God talks to us? Perhaps since Protestants come to the Bible with formed opinions as you do here, you were not listening.
Bob Bodehammer, one of the founders of Neurosemantics has addressed this issue. Your opinions are at odds with the world and that is not unusual with my experience with the closed minded Protestants that do not look in the world to see what God is doing. You reject what you do not know or understand
renewingyourmind.com/Articles/Key_Presuppositions.htm
Bod looked at this and concluded what I and others see. He is not Catholic and I forgive him for that but look at what he says:
What you know isn’t the problem it is what you don’t know that is.
You may choose to look at 3 books or not.
NLP for dummies
Users Manual of the Brain I
Users Manual of the Brain II
or continue to use your brain the way you are using it now.
As you cite Aquinas. Recall Aristotle and Plato and what Augustine and Aquinas did with these worldly thoughts. NLP is no different.
C
Contarini
Guest
Interesting and provocative points.
My basic objection is that your supposedly open-ended, paradoxical, imaginative approach seems to be at the service of a highly specific, ideological, dogmatic view of how things are.
Perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps you think that ultimate reality is Mystery.
In that case by all means, Miltonize away!
But if you think you have it figured out and are simply proselytizing for an ideology, and claiming that the parables of God Incarnate, Mystery made flesh, are a model for this approach, then may God Incarnate have mercy on you before you destroy your own soul.
Edwin
C
CopticChristian
Guest
You object to what you assume.
You can never know what anyone thinks unless you ask a direct question, Meta, as opposed to a generality, Milton as you did here.
What I think you could not know because you choose to imagine what it is I know causing your mind to draw conclusions based on presuppostion and not fact.
You are thoughtful, as I recall, Romans 9, the word Mercy is mentioned more than in any other chapter.
I want no Justice, I want Mercy. Thank you for that thought.
Your reasoning is backward. The model is what it is. The model is descriptive of what is. The use of reading glasses does not change the reading material. The glases make it legible. The material does not change. Historical criticism, allegorical interpretation, literal interpretation are different ways of looking at something and giving information. Do you object to these too?
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
So much being written and yet so little purpose evident within it…
C
Contarini
Guest
Good point that I was myself using the “Milton” method. I shouldn’t have initially condemned it wholesale. Again, what I’m concerned about is using an open-ended method when what you want is a concrete result. Use an open-ended method when you can do so honestly, by all means. But if what you want is to get Protestants to change their doctrine from X to Y, using vague and open-ended language is dishonest. That’s all I’m saying.
If you want to argue for a position, argue for it.
If you just want to get people to ask questions and reframe their context, then do that. Both are legitimate depending on the context.
I don’t get this. You aren’t just describing what is. You are deliberately using a rhetorical method to get a point across.
I think you are well-intentioned and you make some good points that I need to think about. Thanks for the discussion. I do think that the way you’re applying these methods is a bit muddled, though, and I do worry a lot (maybe too much) about anything that looks remotely dishonest or manipulative. I know that that’s one of the reasons I’m often unsuccessful as a communicator (including in the classroom), but I’d a lot sooner be unsuccessful than dishonest.
God bless,
Edwin
C
CopticChristian
Guest
I am not dishonest. I am not manipulative. I understand communication, errors in communication, and weakness in communication and I use them to my advantage. I purposely phrase all my writings with clarity, no generalities, no distortions and no deletions. Many do not. There is no method. The method is clear communication and expecting nothing more than that from someone else. I read and screen for these and then ask questions. This is not dishonest.
I gather you do not understand NLP. You may want to do a search for NLP+Christianity.
NLP is about modeling excellence and that is all. NLP looks at how people that communicate deliver their message and using their methods to achieve similar goals.
If we are predestined to be conformed to the image of His son and if you believe that Modeling Jesus is acceptable, then you understand and accept the basic tenet of NLP.
Pax Vobiscum, ite missa est
Now if you go back and read all of our communication you will see how we communicated. I spoke in generalities and then spoke in specifics and formed a conclusion. Is this so wrong? I do want gobs and gobs of Mercy and thanks again.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
One more thing. You are used to Aristotelian logic, if this therefore that, etc. You may want to investigate and understand non-aristotelian logic. Logic is Logic. I kinda like my logic and I find that I can make conclusions. We are free to communicate as we wish.
J
Jim27290
Guest
I am Catholic though not Roman, I am a member of a Church which was built in the 1700’s on the site of the previous church which has stood since the 11th Century and which was situated on the site where Saint Patrick founded a community of Believers… an outpost of the church in an uncharted land.
My Priest was ordained by a Bishop who can trace his succession directly back to 1107 in this Diocese where the Bishop of that time was ordained by the Archbishop of Armagh who can then be traced directly back to Saint Patrick. From Patrick we can trace the succession back to Pope Celestine I and from him we can trace the succession back to the Apostle Peter and thus to Christ Himself.
I am Anglican… and I do not consider myself “Protestant” but rather “Catholic and Reformed”. I most certainly do not view Baptists as Protestants and was not aware that they nor any Protestant grouping (especially those with a Calvinist background) view them as such.
My Priest was ordained by a Bishop who can trace his succession directly back to 1107 in this Diocese where the Bishop of that time was ordained by the Archbishop of Armagh who can then be traced directly back to Saint Patrick. From Patrick we can trace the succession back to Pope Celestine I and from him we can trace the succession back to the Apostle Peter and thus to Christ Himself.
I am Anglican… and I do not consider myself “Protestant” but rather “Catholic and Reformed”. I most certainly do not view Baptists as Protestants and was not aware that they nor any Protestant grouping (especially those with a Calvinist background) view them as such.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Well said.
Also, having been Roman Catholic for many years I doubt the Church is too pleased with his act of demagoguery around this subject. He was confronted with what Protestantism is and he jumped around the subject. He was confronted with what being Apostolic is and he jumped around the subject again. Bringing subjects clearly not inferred and more as an act of redirecting subjects he is not comfortable with or that just don’t arouse his interest…
Like one of my kids likes to post:
/Isaiah45_9, you have now abandoned this thread.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
This is an excellent historical fact that traces Christianity from today, through the Anglican Church, to Peter. This is a perfect example that nullifies Protestant thought. In other words if there is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One Church, One Body, then the visible/invisible Church can be seen in time and so can that thought. The stream of thought is preserved only in the OHCAC.
I understand that this issue is complicated and in asking this question I am sure you are aware that apostolic succession has been nullified by the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. I cannot nor can you change this.
I understand that putting all Protestants into one pot is difficult. Understand that I have no problem putting 22 Catholic Churches into the same belief. Your problem is not a Catholic problem as it concerns groupings.
I understand that Baptists were persecuted by all of the Protesting groups and that Baptists do not consider themselves Protestants.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Never thought of it in this aspect. Close friend of mine is Baptist. Interesting, I shall have to confront this in person.
Peace
C
CopticChristian
Guest
You may want to research the history of the Baptists forward and backward. There are many types of Baptists and before you speak to your friend you may want to know a little about this.
You may also want to know that Baptists are not necessarily Baptists in the sense that to encourage membership they change their name like Rick Warren, Saddleback, is a Baptist Church. They also may be Calvinists. They call it the Doctrine of Grace however this is Calvinism.
You are gonna not believe this. The Baptists were persecuted by Calvin, Luther and the Anglicans because they would not baptize babies. Ripley’s believe it or not.
J
Jim27290
Guest
Can the Invisible Church be “seen”?
I wasn’t aware of that… certainly I knew that The Roman Rite of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” has indeed rejected Anglican Orders on the ground that Anglican Priests do not use the proper Rite of Ordination… which is quite funny because we read in Pope Pius XII’s “Sacramentum Ordinis”, “But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We decree and establish the following: … In the ordination of priests, the matter is the first imposition of the bishop’s hands which is done in silence… But the form [referring to Ordination] consists of the words of the preface of which the following are essential and so required for validity:
"Grant, we beseech You, Almighty Father, to these Your servants, the dignity of the Priesthood (presbyteriii dignitatem); renew the spirit of holiness within them, so that they may hold from You, O God, the office of the second rank in Your service and by the example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living.”
Yet those words of the preface which are (according to Pope Pius XII) “essential and so required for validity” were left out of Paul VI’s New Rite of Ordination (approved in 1968)
So does that mean every Roman priest ordained since 1968 has been “nullified by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”? Or does Rome’s decrees only apply to those outside the fold?
Does the Old Catholic Church recognise Anglican Apostolic Succession as invalid? What about the Eastern Rite of the Church… do they deny our Apostolic Succession?
Of course another thing is that across the Anglican church there are different views on what the word “apostolic” means in relation to the church.
- Status