protestant nuns?

[Maccabees]

mercygate:

Stupid? Calvin and crew? Or non-Catholics seeking God through the monastic way?

Greymore, Prinknash, and several other formerly Protestant monastic houses have moved into the Church as complete communities. Were they “stupid?” We’re all in different stages of our journey.

Read Newman’s Apologia pro Vita Sua and then come back and say it’s “stupid” to approach Catholic faith from outside the Catholic Church.

Most of Newman’s high church Anglican-Catholic contemporaries were so much fooled by playing catholic that they just stayed there.
That is what I am afraid of if we simply say to them I’m ok your ok because you look catholic. The posters here don’t see themselves as not being catholic that’s a big problem. Newman realized in his books that the 3 branch theogy of Catholcism was inept an inadequate he knew he was fooling himself. I have no problem with a person working out his faith toward the church but to say I am catholic now when they plainly are not in communion with the Pope is dishonest.

 

[Contarini]

Maccabees,

It isn’t dishonest to have a different understanding of “catholic” than you do. It may be wrong, but it isn’t dishonest. Simply telling us that we are dishonest will convince no one. I’ve agonized about this issue for years. One person shouting slogans at me is only going to put me off, if it has any effect on me at all. No one is asking you to accept our claims. Either challenge us courteously and rationally, or agree to differ. Those are the only options that will not do damage to the claims of your own Church.

Edwin

 

[Matt16_18]

Contarini:

… it would be intellectually dishonest to say that the doctrines of the Roman communion are full Christian teaching when we don’t think they are.

The fullness of truth is found only in the Catholic Church. You will always be a Protestant living in imperfect communion with Christ’s church until you realize this.

Pray to the Holy Spirit for the sanctifying gift of wisdom, and seek not first a human understanding of the mysteries of the faith.

 

[Maccabees]

Contarini:

Maccabees,

It isn’t dishonest to have a different understanding of “catholic” than you do. It may be wrong, but it isn’t dishonest. Simply telling us that we are dishonest will convince no one. I’ve agonized about this issue for years. One person shouting slogans at me is only going to put me off, if it has any effect on me at all. No one is asking you to accept our claims. Either challenge us courteously and rationally, or agree to differ. Those are the only options that will not do damage to the claims of your own Church.

Edwin

Your understanding of the term catholic is not in agreement with any of the church fathers nor church councils nor any cathechism.
Your defintion of catholic is a protestant one.
And yes you are being dishonest in how the world catholic has been historically understood. Muck like those today who are trying to reinvent the definition of marriage your defintion of of the word catholic is an dishonest invention.
You have made a conscience decision to not be catholic so don’t make it out to be that your disagreemnt with me descredits my church obviously the reasons you are not catholic are deeper than your differences with me, once again you are dishonest in your assertion.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Maccabees:

I haven’t read anyone here where Contarini discredited the Catholic church. Those are your words, not his. I certainly understand and respect your faith and conviction, but do they give you license for strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks? They do you a discredit to you and the Catholic Church.

Perhaps English isn’t your first language - but your language and syntax often comes off as condescending. Perhaps you don’t mean to be.

O+

 

[Contarini]

:Your understanding of the term catholic is not in agreement with any of the church fathers nor church councils nor any cathechism.:

Your reduction of the term “Catholic” to being in communion with Rome and accepting the dogmas promulgated in that communion does not reflect the way the term is used in the early Church. Being in communion with Rome is one of the aspects of being Catholic–it isn’t the be-all and end-all. You can’t take the patristic use of “Catholic” and transfer it wholesale to the third millenium A.D., when the body claiming the exclusive right to the word “Catholic” has changed in radical ways from the early Church. Protestants argue that the Roman communion as it exists today is significantly different from the early Catholic Church, so that it cannot claim to be simply identical with that Church and shut out all rivals. Now of course you disagree with this claim–but it isn’t a dishonest one. At the very least, it has a certain plausibility.

:Your defintion of catholic is a protestant one.:

Of course it is.

:And yes you are being dishonest in how the world catholic has been historically understood.:

No, I’m not. Of course my use is not the usage of the post-Reformation “Roman Catholic” Church. Even before the Reformation, Catholicity was being linked too closely with submission to Rome. But that is not its only aspect. To repeat: I don’t claim that we Protestants have full catholicity. All I claimed is that we are attempting to recover our Catholic heritage. You are essentially saying that all such attempts are meaningless as long as we are not in union with Rome. That gives communion with Rome an importance that it did not have in the early Church–although it was certainly very important.

What you are claiming isn’t even the current teaching of your own Church. The Church does not claim that the Catholic elements in Protestantism are meaningless because they are incomplete. The Catholic Church today recognizes that these aspects of Sacred Tradition are good and valuable even when they are found among “separated brethren.” The just and charitable approach is to rejoice in the fact that we are trying to recover our heritage, and to exhort us gently to complete the process by reuniting with Rome. I have no complaints when Catholics do this–indeed I expect you to and would be disappointed if you didn’t. That’s not what I’m taking offence at.

: Muck like those today who are trying to reinvent the definition of marriage your defintion of of the word catholic is an dishonest invention.:

“Catholic” simply means “belonging to the one true Church, and possessing the fullness of the historic Christian Faith.” Of course we disagree on what that means–although if you subscribe to the teachings of your own Church’s Catechism, then we may disagree less than you think (though probably we interpret the Catechism differently).

Furthermore, I don’t agree that those who want to redefine marriage are dishonest. They are wrong, but they aren’t dishonest. If I went into a Catholic church and told a priest that I was Catholic, so that he would give me Eucharist or hear my confession–that would be dishonest. All I said was that we were recovering parts of our Catholic heritage. As a matter of fact, that is perfectly in keeping with the teaching of your own Church. The Catholic Church recognizes that the Catholic heritage is ours, although we have departed from it in certain respects. So what are we fighting about?

:You have made a conscience decision to not be catholic so don’t make it out to be that your disagreemnt with me descredits my church:

Of course it doesn’t. Your rudeness and failure to make a reasonable argument discredit your Church, but not very much, because clearly you are not representative of your Church.

: obviously the reasons you are not catholic are deeper than your differences with me, once again you are dishonest in your assertion.:

No, I never claimed otherwise. Why are you inventing things and attributing them to me? What are you trying to prove? What are you trying to gain by this behavior? I really don’t get it, unless you think that the nastier you are to non-Catholics the more you prove your title to be a true orthodox Catholic.

Of course my reasons for not being Catholic have very little to do with you–but they do have something to do with you, because when you put the case for the Roman Communion so crudely, I can see just what it is about that case that I don’t accept, and indeed find distorted and repulsive. The unwillingness to see elements of Catholic truth outside the visible boundaries of the Roman Communion–even though it doesn’t reflect recent Catholic teaching–does derive from one aspect of your tradition. You have plenty of historical precedent for the attitude you’re taking, though it’s not the one that the leaders of your Church take these days. And I believe firmly that this attitude is horribly wrong.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Maccabees]

Contraini the current cathechsim does not say protestants belong to a valid church for their is only one valid church the catholic church thus your not catholic.

Comprende compadre?

You belong to an ecclesial community no longer how catholic it may seem to your senses. You are christian by nature of baptism we share this gift of grace in common we don’t share the church in coomon thus we are termed seperated brethren.
Your attempts of twisting the catheshism to suit your purposes is pathetic. You are mad at the truth which I am proclaiming I am not straying from what the church teaches you do. Why does it bother you what the catholic church beleives about you anyways. A protestant wouldn’t care but since your a want to be catholic the truth is itching at you and your scratching it by attacking me.
I am just the messeger of what the church teaches.
You are still in denial and are a want to be catholic. Come back home to where you wher meant to be. Stop pretending to be what you are not. Much like Augustine who fooled himself to thinking he was catholic when he was with the Manichees or Neuman who fooled himself of the same thing as an Anglican they both realzied they were going through the motions of being catholic but were not catholic at all.

 

[Contarini]

Maccabees:

Contraini the current cathechsim does not say protestants belong to a valid church

The Catechism says that we are imperfectly united to the only universal Church there is. It does not say that we have valid particular churches, although we have “ecclesial communities” that meet some, but not all, of the criteria for being churches.

for their is only one valid church the catholic church thus your not catholic.

That’s not the way Vatican II, the Catechism, or Dominus Iesus speaks. They don’t make that absolute either/or. Rather, they speak of our being imperfectly united to the “one valid church.”

You belong to an ecclesial community

I’m quite aware that that’s what the Catholic Church (or more precisely “the Roman Communion”–but you know that’s what I mean so I’ll use the more courteous term unless you force me to do otherwise) teaches. That means that my community has some characteristics of a church, or it couldn’t be called “ecclesial.” We are imperfectly united to the Catholic Church. So you have absolutely no grounds for objecting to our speaking of “our Catholic heritage.” You are quite right to remind us that a full recovery of that heritage would involve communion with the See of Rome. If that was all you meant to say, then I thank you–but it could have been expressed far more clearly as well as far more graciously.

no longer how catholic it may seem to your senses.

You keep arguing as if I claimed to be Catholic, when I never claimed any such thing. I spoke of “recovering aspects of our Catholic heritage,” which reasonably implies that we are not currently in full possession of that heritage. I claim that I am in some sense part of the Catholic Church, yes. But I won’t object to the claim that I am only imperfectly part of it–which is what the Catechism says.

You are christian by nature of baptism we share this gift of grace in common we don’t share the church in coomon thus we are termed seperated brethren.

That is heresy. You are flatly denying the ancient principle “extra ecclesiam nulla salus.” If you recognize me as a Christian, then you must recognize me as being in some sense united to the Church. That is what your own Magisterium does. Why don’t you follow it? You can’t separate being a Christian or having valid baptism from some connection with the Church. Baptism belongs to the Church and cannot exist outside it. Go read Augustine’s treatise on baptism against the Donatists. The existence of baptism proves some connection to the Church. That is indisputable. Augustine thought that the grace of baptism was immediately nullified in those baptized in schismatic communities. The Catholic Church today takes a gentler stance, for which I’m grateful. But no one makes a complete separation between baptism and membership in the Church, as you’re doing. That’s outright heresy.

 

[Contarini]

Your attempts of twisting the catheshism to suit your purposes is pathetic.

This claim would be a lot more convincing if it had some evidence behind it. Show me where I’m misinterpreting the Catechism.

You are mad at the truth which I am proclaiming

First of all, I’m not exactly mad. Annoyed would be a more exact word. And I’m annoyed by your bad logic and your rudeness.

I am not straying from what the church teaches

If you deny that I am imperfectly united to the Church, then you are. If you deny that baptism is a sacrament of the Church and cannot be received otherwise than from the Church, then you are.

you do.

I never claimed that I adhere to all the teachings of your Communion.

Why does it bother you what the catholic church beleives about you anyways.

Because the See of Rome is the first See of the Church, and because I believe that to be fully Catholic we do indeed need to be in communion with Rome. I’m not disputing that. Furthermore, even if I didn’t believe that, I would still care about what such a large an ancient Christian body believes. I care very much about what the Orthodox believe, even though I am not particularly inclined to think that they are the true Church. I even care about what other Protestant groups believe. You really don’t understand the ecumenical mindset, do you?

A protestant wouldn’t care

That’s not true. Someone who was fully Protestant in their theology (assuming that means something) wouldn’t care about my first reason–but in fact I’ve met many other Protestants who have the same Catholic leanings I do. However, even a convinced Protestant who saw no value in the Papacy per se could still (and very many do) care about what fellow-Christians believe about them–especially such a large and ancient Christian communion as yours.

but since your a want to be catholic the truth is itching at you and your scratching it by attacking me.

Actually, you are somewhat confused about who attacked whom. No one was attacking you or attacking Catholicism. You chose to say rude and silly things about Protestant monastic communities. You asked for everything you got. You are not defending your Church and I am not attacking your Church. I’m attacking your rude, unjust, and uncharitable way of speaking, in which you do not have the support of the Magisterium (thank God!).

I am just the messeger of what the church teaches.

Then show how your view is in accord with the Magisterium on the points I raised above.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Maccabees]

Contrani
The Catechism says that we are imperfectly united to the only universal Church there is. It does not say that we have valid particular churches, although we have “ecclesial communities” that meet some, but not all, of the criteria for being churches.

The first part of your statement is correct you are wrong to assume the catholic church attributes that your community meets any catholic criteria from itself rather all truth your community receives comes from the catholic church.

“With the expression subsist it in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that "they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church."57 “

Contrani
That’s not the way Vatican II, the Catechism, or Dominus Iesus speaks. They don’t make that absolute either/or. Rather, they speak of our being imperfectly united to the “one valid church.”
I’m quite aware that that’s what the Catholic Church (or more precisely “the Roman Communion”–but you know that’s what I mean so I’ll use the more courteous term unless you force me to do otherwise) teaches. That means that my community has some characteristics of a church, or it couldn’t be called “ecclesial.” We are imperfectly united to the Catholic Church. So you have absolutely no grounds for objecting to our speaking of “our Catholic heritage.” You are quite right to remind us that a full recovery of that heritage would involve communion with the See of Rome. If that was all you meant to say, then I thank you–but it could have been expressed far more clearly as well as far more graciously.

You are right in your statement but it incomplete as it fails to go where the catholic church officially teaches you guys are not officially churches that is what I have been telling you

The fact there is a type of imperfect union with the church is not protested by me I fully agree. Only in the participation of the one Eucharist can the true church exist.

The church exisit in only one place. It is not divided in any way. Thus you belong to a community and not a church.

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorp orated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63 "The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection – divided, yet in some way one – of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach."64 In fact, "the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities."65

 

[Maccabees]

Contrani
You keep arguing as if I claimed to be Catholic, when I never claimed any such thing. I spoke of “recovering aspects of our Catholic heritage,” which reasonably implies that we are not currently in full possession of that heritage. I claim that I am in some sense part of the Catholic Church, yes. But I won’t object to the claim that I am only imperfectly part of it–which is what the Catechism says.

I agree. You exagerate our difference here.

Contrani
That is heresy. You are flatly denying the ancient principle “extra ecclesiam nulla salus.” If you recognize me as a Christian, then you must recognize me as being in some sense united to the Church. That is what your own Magisterium does. Why don’t you follow it? You can’t separate being a Christian or having valid baptism from some connection with the Church. Baptism belongs to the Church and cannot exist outside it. Go read Augustine’s treatise on baptism against the Donatists. The existence of baptism proves some connection to the Church. That is indisputable. Augustine thought that the grace of baptism was immediately nullified in those baptized in schismatic communities. The Catholic Church today takes a gentler stance, for which I’m grateful. But no one makes a complete separation between baptism and membership in the Church, as you’re doing. That’s outright heresy.

You misunderstand my point. As you misunderstand what the church is trying to say

I did not deny a certain communion but it is not union where you are in the church its imperfect and with defects that render your falsely called church a community.

You are separated from the church.thus separated brethren.

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorp orated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63 "The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection – divided, yet in some way one – of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach."64 In fact, "the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities."65

Its always funny to me when a want to be catholic starts interpreting catholic teaching to me a catholic.
I think your suffering from something come home my friend and learn catholcism from bonafied catholics and not want to be catholics.
This is where you are in error thinking you a protestant can interpret catholic teaching learning from other protestants there is only one way to learn authentic catholic teaching and that is from a catholic. I won’t try interpreting Luther for you and and you can stop interpreting the pope for me ok bud.
If you want to be an expert on the Pope join us.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Maccabees,

I consulted a priest of my acquaintance… and he thinks (as do I) that you’re correct about a few things and mistaken about a few things you’ve written here. No doubt you’ll say the priest is wrong. But I did consult a Catholic about Catholic teaching.

As far as being want-to-be-Catholics, you’re the only one saying that here. And your run on sentence style of responding to people doesn’t make your case any better in fact it detracts from your point try another strategy.

O+

 

[Contarini]

Maccabees:

The first part of your statement is correct you are wrong to assume the catholic church attributes that your community meets any catholic criteria from itself rather all truth your community receives comes from the catholic church.

I never said anything about meeting catholic criteria “from ourselves.” I don’t assume any such thing. There is only one Church, which your Communion believes subsists fully within it, with the rest of us being imperfectly united to it in various degrees. I’m not sure that the Church perfectlys subsists in any existing body, but certainly if it does so subsist it’s within your communion. That’s not a point of disagreement.

You are right in your statement but it incomplete as it fails to go where the catholic church officially teaches you guys are not officially churches that is what I have been telling you.

No, you’ve been telling me much more. You have claimed that our heritage has nothing whatever to do with Catholicism but goes only back to the Reformation, and that any attempt on our part to recover parts of the Catholic heritage which we don’t currently possess, or to enjoy those parts which we do possess, is a dishonest mimicry of the real thing. That’s what we’re arguing about. If you no longer claim this, then retract your initial statements and the argument is over. I’m not going to get into an argument about whether we are “officially churches,” so stop trying to deflect the discussion.

The fact there is a type of imperfect union with the church is not protested by me I fully agree.

Then why on earth do you tell us that we have no claim to the Catholic heritage? You can’t say both. If we are in imperfect union with the Church, then we have a right to speak of recovering parts of our Catholic heritage. As we recover more and more, we will come closer and closer to a perfect union with the Church (from your point of view). You should be cheering us on, not mocking us.

Only in the participation of the one Eucharist can the true church exist. The church exisit in only one place. It is not divided in any way. Thus you belong to a community and not a church.

I don’t see how this works with regard to the Orthodox. They are recognizes as true particular churches and not just “ecclesial communities,” and they have a valid Eucharist. Yet they are divided from you. So your argument appears to be incompatible with your own Church’s teaching (yet again). In fact, your position seems more in keeping with Orthodox than with Catholic ecclesiology (I think this reflects the fact that Orthodox ecclesiology is more old-fashioned).

"the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities."65

Exactly. That is what your Church teaches. So since you admit that we have elements of the Church, why on earth did you mock us for claiming exactly (and only) that? If you go back and look at my posts, you will not find a single place where I claimed to be Catholic or to be fully part of the Catholic Church. In fact I repeatedly pointed out that I wasn’t claiming any such thing. All I have ever claimed is that we have elements of the Catholic heritage and we are trying to recover more. I call on you to help and encourage us in this instead of jeering at us. That is the only point of this argument.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Maccabees:

I agree. You exagerate our difference here…

I’m not sure why you think this. The only person who has been continually exaggerating differences in this discussion is you. I’m happy to agree that we don’t differ over much.

I did not deny a certain communion but it is not union where you are in the church its imperfect and with defects that render your falsely called church a community…

That is not the point. Why do you keep repeating this? That is not what I objected to. Please try to keep in mind how this argument started. You mocked the idea that Protestants could have monastic communities, arguing that it was incompatible with our heritage, because we had absolutely no claim on the Catholic heritage unless we were in full communion with Rome. Admit you were wrong, and apologize for your rudeness, and we have no argument. This isn’t about whether Protestants are churches in the full sense, or whether we can be Catholics without being in communion with Rome. It is simply about whether we can enjoy aspects of the Catholic heritage while we are not yet in full communion. Admit that, and you admit that you were wrong from the start.

Its always funny to me when a want to be catholic starts interpreting catholic teaching to me a catholic…

Explain how your initial attack on us is compatible with what you have now admitted, and I’ll laugh with you. You know perfectly well that there are Catholics who don’t understand their own Church’s teachings. It’s quite possible that you are one of them, in this respect. I’ve shown how what you initially said (that our attempts to recover parts of our Catholic heritage are a dishonest sham) is incompatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church. You admit that we have a real though imperfect communion with the Catholic Church. It only remains for you to admit that your earlier claim was out of line and poorly thought through. There’s no shame in that. I’ve made silly statements like that a plenty. The Internet lends itself to it. On the other hand, if you don’t think your initial claim was out of line, then show how it is compatible with the admission that we have real, though imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.

I think your suffering from something come home my friend and learn catholcism from bonafied catholics and not want to be catholics…

You have no idea where I learned my ideas from. I’ve talked to plenty of Catholics, and I know perfectly well that you do not have exclusive rights on the interpretatino of Catholic doctrine. So drop the bluff and either prove your point or apologize.

I won’t try interpreting Luther for you and and you can stop interpreting the pope for me …

That’s really rich. The only reason we are having this argument is that you tried to interpret Luther. You claimed that because of Luther’s opposition to monasticism, Protestant recovery of monasticism was unfaithful to our own heritage. I have no interest in telling you what you as a Catholic should believe. The only reason I’m bothering with interpreting Catholic documents to you is that you tried to tell us what we could and couldn’t believe. You’re completely contradicting yourself.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Maccabees]

In regards to your objection over catholic teaching about the eucharist the church and I see the Orthodox as part of the one true church and as our Pope said very close as opposed to the ecclesial communites where there are significant differences. In fact we offer the eucharist to the Orthodox church they are the ones with the closed communion so we respect that and don’t offer communion if their church says no to us. But the church said we share the same Jesus in the eucharist and you don’t have Jesus in Jesus in your community present in communion.
Once again you misrepresent the teaching of the church and my
opinion to disagree when in fact we agree. I feel sorry for you that
you resort o such tactics to prove your point that is built on lies.

Your such in a hissyfit that you exagerrate our differnces I a with the church teaching 100 percent you in your protestant glasess have everything askew and have misrepresented church teaching and my own thoughts. But considering your a want to be catholic what else should I expect but dishonest interpretation.
Your community roots go no further than the reformation this clear church teaching. Any truth you have are a gift of the catholic church by nature of your baptism you are in an imperfect union with the church your community and your relationship is in defect only by being catholic can you be part of the church without seperation. You have totally fabricated everything else to suit your arguments we agree on many things and you exagerate many things I say. I stand with the church. You stand in confusion trying to interpret catholic doctinre with protestant lenses. Come home you confused child you very angry cofused little child.

 

[mercygate]

Maccabees:

. . . learn catholcism from bonafied catholics and not want to be catholics.

Careful, Mac. For years, before I came into the Church, I used to spend a lot of time explaining and justifying Catholic doctrine to Catholics who were outright CLUELESS!

 

[Contarini]

Maccabees:

In regards to your objection over catholic teaching about the eucharist the church and I see the Orthodox as part of the one true church.

But you and the Orthodox are clearly divided. If you don’t believe me, ask Fr. Ambrose. If what you say is true, then your claim that the one true Church is totally undivided is clearly false. You can’t have it both ways at once (though you can have it part one way and part the other–which seems to be the official Catholic position).

Once again you misrepresent the teaching of the church and my
opinion.

No, I have done neither. You are mad because I’m pointing out inconsistencies in what you say. You can’t maintain that the one true Church is totally undivided and then say that the Orthodox are part of the One True Church. Because the reality is that you and the Orthodox are divided. It’s foolish and childish of you to accuse me of misrepresenting you simply because I logically point out inconsistencies in your position.

Your such in a hissyfit that you exagerrate our differnces

This description far better fits the tone of your posts. I’m not exaggerating our differences at all. If we don’t disagree, then why do you repeatedly call me dishonest, and why is your tone so angry and shrill? Simply apologize for your initial claim, if we really don’t disagree. Otherwise, you need to show how that initial claim is compatible with what you are now saying. Because for the life of me I can’t see how it is.

Your community roots go no further than the reformation this clear church teaching.

That’s downright ridiculous. The Catholic Church explicitly recognizes that we have “elements of the Church” although our communities are not (in your Church’s view) churches in the full and proper sense. Now where do you think we got those elements? Did they just bubble up from nowhere? Clearly the fact that we have them shows that we have roots in Catholicism. Which is all I have been claiming. Admit this, and you concede the only point that has ever been at issue between us. You are the one exaggerating our differences by trying to turn this into a debate about the full ecclesial status of Protestant churches.

Any truth you have are a gift of the catholic church by nature of your baptism you are in an imperfect union with the church your community and your relationship is in defect only by being catholic can you be part of the church without seperation.

Which proves my point. If we are imperfect union with the Church, and if all our truth derives from the Church, then clearly we have roots in Catholicism. Which is what you so rudely denied at the beginning of this sorry argument. All your demeaning language can’t hide the total bankruptcy of your position.

I implore you yet again–please either substantiate your claim that we have no roots in Catholicism (which means explaining where we got our “elements of truth” from if not from the pre-Reformation heritage) or apologize for it. Those are your only honorable options. Calling me names is not doing your side any credit.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

oat soda:

i’m not bitter, but i believe that the catholic church is the fullness of truth which is not to say truth doesn’t exist outside of it. clearly, division in the church is a scandal to Jesus. He and the apostles said we are to be one body, one faith.

for a protestant to join a monastery is really rejecting protestantism. they basically acknowledge catholicism without becoming catholic. luther, henry the 8th, calvin, were all opposed to catholicism. it’s stupid.

Alternatively, it could be said that Protestants who become monks are being faithful to their roots in the fourth century and later. After all, the monastic movement seems to have begun in the 3/4th century - in Egypt, not Rome. So it’s not in origin particularly Roman, let alone Papal. It’s part of Christianity at a time which (from a generic Protestant view) might be regarded as relatively “pure”.​

I’m a bit surprised no one has yet referred to the 17th-century community at Little Gidding. One of the the great questions is, what is the theology underlying monasticism ? The problem is, that there is more than one - and not all are equally valid: a Protestant who believes that God can be honoured “in the world” by a Christian who is faithful to God in the position in which God’s Providence has put him, would not be impressed by a theology of monasticism which pooh-poohed the idea that we could live holy lives “in the world”. ##

 

[rayne89]

Volodymyr:

I believe Lutheran " nuns or monakhini" are found in Evangelische Lutheranische Kirke since 1836 but called diakonesses. A diakoness movement initiated by certain Theodor Fliedner in 1836 to allow honorable Lutheran women to help church. Most such communities were women who were med-sisters in hospitals. There were training Houses for such unmarried diakonesses in Germany and Skandinavia. I believe that there are Diakoness Lutheran Hospitals maintained by such med-sisters in America including in Philadelphia.

Such communities may have also influenced St. Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna who was German by birth in founding the Marfa-Marijinskaja Convent in Moscow. Then thrown into pit by Bolsheviks to be martyr.

I know this thread took on a life of its own but I just wanted to let you know you were right. I was looking at pictures at my parents house yesterday and there was one of my dad and aunt at a cemetary posing with my great aunt’s head stone it said Diakonesse before her name. My dad said she worked as the town nurse. His other aunt was a “blue cross” sister he said that worked with alcoholics. Just a little update.

 

[INRI]

Hey Maccabees!

Learn some grammar! You’re making us Catholics look bad. Also, please treat Contarini and O.S. Luke with CHARITY. They are obviously interested in their heritage, and don’t feel inclined to limit that search to the last 500 years. Not everything that defines a person as a Protestant comes from the last 500 years (although most things that are distinctively Protestant do). Let them explore the roots of monasticism a little more. This won’t hurt them and may even draw them to the conclusion that the church that came up with the Rule of St. Benedict isn’t so bad after all. I realize you think they are being faux Catholics, but give it a rest. Remember, you attract more bees with honey than with vinegar…