P
PRmerger
Guest
But how would God give you the charism?
- Status
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
I wouldn’t, either. But IF they were also following THEIR ecclesial superiors, then I should submit to them.
How do you interpret Hebrews 13:17? Or do you just not follow scriptural commands?
P
PRmerger
Guest
How do you know what God revealed…except by following men who told you what God revealed?
S
SteveVH
Guest
We can do even better than that. Look at the Arians, who comprised a majority of Catholic bishops. They were not pleased either, but the pope exercised his authority anyway and condemned their theology as heresy, a judgment that still stands today. Do you think the Arians “refused to allow such control”? Their “refusal” had nothing to do with it in the end. The Pope and the magisterium had spoken. That was the end of it.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
As I mentioned in another comment here (I realise that the thread is getting far too long and that I am doing far too much of the talking on it), Mt 16:18 says that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the church, not that sin will not encroach upon the church.
As for “calling into question that which Jesus Christ put into place for our benefit”, we are doing no such thing, because we **are **part of Christ’s church.
P
pablope
Guest
So, Myst,…why do you believe it is not necessary? Is your believing in AS not necessary an absolute truth?
You do not think you could be wrong in you belief?
P
pablope
Guest
How do you follow God? If you just followed God…then why is there a need for anglicanism?
P
PRmerger
Guest
So let me get this straight: you believe that your priests, somehow, were given a charism by God to confect the Eucharist, but it has nothing to do with the laying of hands on them?
They just received it…somehow, mysteriously, at their ordination?
S
SteveVH
Guest
Based upon your reasons, I think you need to give the question further consideration before dismissing it. Through the example of the Apostles themselves, it was Christ’s intention that his authority be handed down. One can only receive authority from one with authority. Legitimate authority is never assumed. I would ask you to take a second look at your position.
Peace.
Steve
M
Mystophilus
Guest
In terms of authority, I obey them in issues under their proper purview. In Anglicanism as enshrined in our councils and canons, that purview does not include the personal beliefs of Anglicans.
As for Scripture, I do not believe that homosexuality is a sin, although (or possibly because) I know precisely what Paul says about it. I do not believe that women must keep silent in church.
A bad instruction is a bad instruction, no matter who gives it.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Um, do you see the logical issue there? That bolded part is your source of information. If your source of information is human, and to err is human, then you do not **know **that what it says is true, although you might choose to *believe *it.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
On Peter, Paul and Hypocrisy
In their effort to deny the primacy of Peter and the doctrine of papal infallibility, many non-Catholics point to Paul’s rebuke of Peter over the issue of eating with Gentiles as recorded in the Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
In this passage, we see that Paul opposed Peter for not practicing what he preached. Although Peter may have been wrong to draw back from eating with the Gentile believers, we must note that is apparently James, and not Peter, who was the leader of the “circumcision group” in Jerusalem. Thus, those who assert that it was James, and not Peter, who was the real leader of the Church must answer for this error. However, Peter’s actions do not constitute formal teaching, and the doctrine of infallibility does not apply to Peter’s private opinions or behavior. Therefore, this passage does nothing to disprove either Peter’s primacy or the doctrine of papal infallibility. Peter, like his successors, was not above reproach nor impeccable.
However, it must also be noted that Paul was not above taking prudent measures out of fear of those who held to the tradition of circumcision, either. One such measure is found in the following passage:
Acts 16:1-3
1He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 2The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Paul wrote that “circumcision means nothing” (1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15). Moreover, in the same letter in which Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy and boasted of having opposed Peter to his face, he writes the following:
Galatians 5:2-3
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
Imagine how Timothy must have felt when he first heard these words. He had let himself be circumcised by the very man who condemned the practice. Was Christ of no value to Timothy at all as a result of being circumcised?
This was not the only time that Paul had acted out of fear of the Jews. Later in the book of Acts, we find the following:
Acts 21:17-26
17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” 26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
Clearly, the brothers in Jerusalem were concerned that some harm might come to Paul from those who knew that Paul taught against circumcision. Paul agreed to purify himself according to Jewish customs and to pay the expenses of those who were purified along with him rather than openly admit that circumcision was of no value. Was this a wise course of action? Assuredly as subsequent events indicate.
However, it cannot be denied that Paul was preaching one thing (at least in private to Gentile Christians) while practicing another—the very thing he accused Peter of doing.
In his subsequent letters (1Cor 8: 9-13, Romans 14:13), Paul backtracks and admits that one might avoid controversial behavior for the sake of the “weaker brethren.” Thus, he vindicates Peter’s actions in retrospect.
In short, Peter and Paul both had valid points. Paul was right in principle whereas Peter was right pastorally.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Always good advice, thank you.I would ask you to take a second look at your position.
S
SteveVH
Guest
There is a new thread having to do with what it means to be a Catholic. An even more interesting thread, IMO, after reading your comments, would be “What does it mean to be Anglican”. Do you have to believe anything in particular?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Right. Because God can inspire men to write a gospel or a letter without error, but he cannot enable them to teach without error.
P
pablope
Guest
Well…don’t you do the same thing? You follow men in the Anglican church?
Are the one who decides and determines what is from God and what is not?
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Have you *seen *the other churches!?!
Sorry, I couldn’t resist that one.
Anglicanism is theologically broad, having been officially and constitutionally so since 1878. It is also intimately connected with the history of Christianity. That, for me, makes a good fit.
P
pablope
Guest
Well…that is why there is a teaching authority…to clarify and correct what is bad if your view, what is not clear to make it clearer…
P
pablope
Guest
I mentioned Anglican only since you are anglican…Have you *seen *the other churches!?!
Sorry, I couldn’t resist that one.
Anglicanism is theologically broad, having been officially and constitutionally so since 1878. It is also intimately connected with the history of Christianity. That, for me, makes a good fit.
Why do you believe it is a good fit? What makes it a good fit for you? Do you think the Anglicans have taught something erronously at one time or another?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
- Status