M
Man
Guest
Do you remember when many of the Anglican priests “fled” to the Holy See?
Many or most of them recieve conditional Holy Orders for this reason.
…Divine Providence being what it is…
- Status
Many or most of them recieve conditional Holy Orders for this reason.
…Divine Providence being what it is…
M
Man
Guest
Jesus Christ is Lord.
It is important that the truth be presented in a way proper for the format. I am not speaking to someone lost either. Here, I must select the proper tool…
Salt, Light, or Leaven?
Sword, Staff, or Rod?
And then, also, the Holy Spirit can be used to consume the flesh of human nature.
What I see is that you accept the church in the way it was presented to you, with the defenses thereof. Often rejecting things, because “that is not what we believe?” Is that right?
Long live the Pope!
David
E
Elzee
Guest
I think the key here is this Pope seems to like clarity. I like how he lays things out on the table. Hiding behind political correctness and mincing words doesn’t appear to be his style and I’m thankful for that! Catholics need to hear this clarity - our faith is constantly being watered down from within by many priests and bishops. Bravo for B16!
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
Pardon me for being so blunt, but you seem to only desire to be contentious, and rarely speak as if you know what you are talking about.
- Yes, obviously I notied that over 75% were “Catholic”. Actually the figure was even higher than that. The succession, in my case, was even more than 1500 years in one church. The Methodist Church did not break from the Church Jesus founded.
- Why are you stuck on the reformation? No Methodist denomination traces its history back through the Reformation. If you are going to say that the United Methodist Church has no history prior to the Reformation, you might as well speak accurately (as I did) and say that it has no history prior to its formation in 1968. But if you can recognize that it has a longer history by including its emergence from some of its predecessor bodies, why be restrictive to just certain of those predecessor bodies, why not include all those which are part of the history which led to the forumation of the United Methodist Church?
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
Ah, yes, of course you are right with regard to this. Thank-you for the correction.
I believe that processing information and making decisions this way, helps us to be more likely to steer clear of errors than if we simply “proof texted” our way through life. Surely being better able to steer clear of error and making more informed decisions will be more helpful to restoring healthy functioning to the Body of Christ, than not doing so. But I think your question was really something other than this, and that I may not have understood it.
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
I see your point. But may I suggest a few tools that you left off of the list: hands extended in fellowship, arms to hug with, and open hearts.
As to your other question, I try not to reject something simply because “that is not what we believe”, in the sense of it being taught to me – I see that as the Catholic pattern, and there is some merit to it. But those who accuse me of having a protestant mind that likes to decide what my individual beliefs are probably have a point. I don’t know that it is a protestant mindset, but it is certainly my personal mindset (be it protestant, independant American, or perhaps just being the product of my father). Anyway, I nearly always like to ask “Why?” of any statement, including when I am presented with religious dogma (no matter the source). And rather than turn first to the interpreters of that dogma, I like to turn to the sources from which I am told that dogma arose and see if I can see the same things in those sources that the holders of the dogma tell me that they saw. If I do, I generally adopt it as well. If I don’t, then I continue to research until I am able to reach some conclusion of my own, be it the same dogma for other reaosns or perhaps a different view.
M
Man
Guest
This objections seems to be due to undue pride in the place of religion.
The Church does not assert that it is perfect, but only Holy. It is Holy because it was founded by Jesus, upon “Cephas.”
The Church objects to people dividing it. Thus, as I said to Grace Seeker, it has a preference for priests, bishops, and faithful who protest from within. For the first few hundred years, the church appears to have been united under the Holy Father the Bishop of Rome. Later, there was division based on whether it was an honorary position or authentic primacy. There was also limited value placed on the value of the Synod… Thus, a major schism.
I try to be patient and take my time before I reject assertions by others, instead focusing on telling truths concise and strong about things. There is value to the various things that are true or that people think is true. I would be rare, especially in this context, for a person to simply be a liar…
G
guanophore
Guest
It is a sad fact that most Catholics do not have a thorough understanding of their faith.
I think this is very Berean of you!
I agree with you that the fierce independent mindedness is an American phenomenon. We don’t like other people telling us what to do, especially what to believe, and most certainly those outside our borders. It is a Nationalistic mentality.
M
Man
Guest
Yes, but you’re a pastor…
Eventually, I determined that I did not want to make every decision, nor was it my right or my responsibility. If I see an inconsistency or I disagree I protest. I determined that many of those who came before me, where both better educated and holier than I, and then even, discussed things based on their life long specialty, and search through incredible depths of Church documents and so forth.
Then I submitted, because though I could disagree, my reason, no better than theirs…
M
Man
Guest
You’re fine. Live and learn.
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
Thank-you.
And I can truly appreciate this attitude. Indeed, the Reformers should have stayed with “reforming” the problems they saw from within the Catholic church rather than going off to create a new ecclesiastical community of their own. And though they probably felt forced out (Please don’t argue whether they in fact were or not, I’m merely assuming how they felt. None of us alive today can actually know how they felt at that time, save from reading what they wrote, and this is my interpretation of those writings)… And though they probably felt forced out, they certainly were going to be in a weaker position to effect the changes they felt were needed from outside than if they had remained inside. Establishing congregations apart from the existing institutions of the Catholic church means that they had given up on the Catholic church. Alas, though I haven’t actually given up on the Catholic church, I have never been a part of it. I find myself called by God to be in ministry and found my place in ministry that just happened to not be part of the institutions of the Catholic church. There is now so much water gone under the bridge that there is no going back. Rather there is only going forward.
I experience some of these same issues in my own denomination. Perhaps you have heard of the Good News movement, perhaps not? Within the United Methodist Church, there are those that thing that we have lost our direction. Many feel very strongly about certain matters with regard to the moral authority of the church and the teaching leadership it has given (or not given) with regard to moral issues. More than a few have left the church to join other denominations that are more in line with their personal beliefs on these issues. Some in the church have suggested that if change cannot be effected that schism is the best course to assure the fidelatiy of a faithful remnant. But thus far, we have resolved to stay the course and seek to effect change from within. This is the history we are writing today. But it is present day history and we can effect it. We cannot go back an change the course of the past, we can only chart our course for the future.
Can our going forward into the future bring about a reuniting between Catholics and non-Catholics? I suppose it could. I would even welcome it. But it must involve going forward, not backward.
It could even be like a stream of water that flows around an island to merge again on the other side. Now when this happens there are two channels, but only one is the true channel. I sense the Pope focusing on this aspect of our experience. My focus is elsewhere, my focus is not on the riverbed, but on the molecules of water themselves. Though they flow on different sides of the island, there is no real difference between them. They are still all of one stream, have one source and bound for one destination. The Pope sees two channels and says that only one is true. I see one river and say that it I was born on this side of the island. I am not going to get out and cross the island to reach his channel. I have found this side of the island to be navigable as well and trust it to carry me to where we are all going.
M
Man
Guest
This is called fear and is inadequate in and of itself.
I believe that the Holy Father is concerned that people are being lost. They are lead astray by poor morality teachings. Like the “controversial” contraception. Wherein the Church warns that widespread contraception use will lead to:
STD’s
Adultery
Loss of vitality in communities
Unmarried pregnancy
Divorce
Erosion of marriage (to much emphasis on sexuality)
Pornography
etc…
All of which have come to pass. Some people are blind to these things. It is my right!
And also, that they are not being afforded the effectual grace of the properly exercised Sacraments of the Church.
And so, in the small Methodist rivulet, perhaps there is a place where the molecules are not warned that the swine will drink them up. Not that such a place does not exist in the Catholic Church, but at least the warnings are in place.
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
This too is called fear. Remember that we are not a rivulet, we are part of the very same river. We have the same source, we have been fed by the same rains, we drain the same lands. The channel on our side is shallower than yours, and so I suppose there is an increased chance of groundings. But remember I already told that, in this case, both sides of the island are navigable.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is beautiful!
M
Man
Guest
Rivulet means -stream- but is also like a diminutive for river as well… The point was not to create undo separation, but rather give to use a literary device to depict what was a sort of unfair comparison. The meaning, not to divide. I speak the truth so that we can agree.
By that same token, we cannot accept over tolerance for individual freedoms over the well being of society, especially families. I cannot stress this point firmly enough.
By that same token, we cannot accept over tolerance for individual freedoms over the well being of society, especially families.
We cannot and will not sacrifice society for individual freedoms. We will defend unalienable rights. And we will not endanger the well being of the poor, the “radically” orthodox, or the family.
This Church is not a Judas, it is not a revolutionary. And if there is something radical about me, it is the freedom I am afforded by adherence to the truth.
“We are under assault by the proud…” Pope Benedict XVI
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
I am. Your point?
C
Contarini
Guest
Methodists did not break from Catholicism. They “broke” from Anglicanism (in the U.S. it’s more correct to say that they established a separate church at a time when Anglicanism’s future was in doubt).
Actually it has no history prior to the 18th century. That is important to you, but not necessarily to Methodists. Methodists do not claim to be the true Church, but simply one part of the universal Church.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
You have been engaging in dialogue on this board for long enough that you should know better. This point has been made over and over–from a moderate Protestant point of view, error on some doctrinal points does not make you a “false church.” This arguably accounts for church history far better than either the Catholic view that the Church has never really changed (which doesn’t fit well with history) or the old-fashioned, ultra-Protestant view that the Catholic Church apostasized at some point (at what point has always been difficult for Protestants to demonstrate).
There is no church that has got it all correct. So your argument fails. It is simply irrelevant to the position held by myself and many other Protestants, and you need to stop using it.
Edwin
- Status