**Hi Guan,
Watch out for pictures of the bible nailed to the cross.
Which post? Yours? 
Which, of course, is what any RC should affirm, to the syllable.**Hi Catherine,
Oh Anglicans are Protestants. They just don’t Know it!
They are known as the “great Pretenders” or as they like to think of themselves the 3rd arm of Catholicism.
They think they are Catholics who do not follow the Pope. We call them Protestant because they don’t follow the teachings of Jesus who say that His church had to follow the Pope!
Apostolicae Curae is the title of a papal bull, issued in 1896 by Pope Leo XIII, declaring all Anglican ordinations to be “absolutely null and utterly void”.
God Bless
**
And it is possible that your knowledge of Anglicans is not complete. As likewise, your knowledge of Hank’s Great Matter.I think we can safely say that this is objective truth, so not dependent on who you ask.
The Anglican church is a protestant Church although some of them like to think they are catholic with a small c. But they are definitely not Catholic. High Anglicans like the Catholic look but that is as far as it gets. Doctrinally they are veering further and further away from Catholicism especially now with ordinained priesteses and activecly homosexual priests.
But what can you expect from a religion whose reason for inception was to legitimize an adulterous relationship.
The Queen is the Supreme Head of the Church of England, per the Act of Supremacy , 1559, not of Anglicanism.With the Queen as the head of the Anglican Church?
How about you prove that statement?With the Queen as the head of the Anglican Church?
That is interesting because I am afraid I am ignorant regarding the difference between the Anglican Church and the Church of England.
RealCatholick!
Hugh, One small point. The Eucharist isn’t an “infusion of the Savior in the elements” It is the changing of the elements into the actual Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior. Whole and complete not as a part of the bread and wine. His body is given to us completely as the bread of life!
Very good post!
Which post? Yours?
**
Hi Cinette,
You got me in trouble with Guan!I think she is a member of the “secret Topic Police!”
Sweetheart. my posts often are “Excellent” " Awesome" "Fantastic " and “Phenomenal” but rarely do they go down to just “good”
The Anglicans, not being protected by the Holy Spirit, are also dividing and muntiplying. But since they ‘almost’ have it right, the devil may sometimes gets confused and avoids them more then he does the more easier corrupted Protestant denominations.
God Bless**
I will try, though I will have to be brief. My wife thinks I’m at the post office, doing errands. And I must needs be, forewith.That is interesting because I am afraid I am ignorant regarding the difference between the Anglican Church and the Church of England.
Some years ago I saw a documentary here in S Africa about the Church of England and what I can remember is that there had been a huge disagreement in the church (way back in the beginning of the history of the settlers) which split because there were objections in regard to Blacks being admitted. I once attended a service in the Anglican Church and found similarities with the Catholic Church in the liturgy etc. One day I was invited to a church called St James in another city and when I asked what was the denomination I was told “Church of England” and was surprised because St James was just a very big hall with a concert going on - there was a stage with some musical instruments and the people were talking to each other - there was a little pulpit and after some singing a preacher came along and spoke for about 30 minutes and then someone came around with trays with some little squares of sliced bread and little glasses with grape juice which were passed around. I was surprised because it was nothing like the Anglican experience. On TV I have heard Anglican Ministers refer to the Church of England as if it were another name for the Anglican Church.
If you could explain please I would be grateful.
Cinette
This whole post was great; but I wanted to emphasize what I have quoted. Of all the things I have ever been accused of; this is the best! I am glad that there was enough evidence on this forum to “convict” me. Thanks Brother!!
:bowdown:This whole post was great; but I wanted to emphasize what I have quoted. Of all the things I have ever been accused of; this is the best! I am glad that there was enough evidence on this forum to “convict” me. Thanks Brother!!
not a bad answer…but not satisfying at this end.
it is not about maturity of faith, it is about an understanding of how creation works. When water (a physical thing) was changed to wine (another physical thing) a physical change occurred…that is the way that they would have understood that creation worked. By definition, to change a purely physical thing, a physical change is needed. Is there any indciation that the disciples (or the earliest Christians) held to a philosophical view that distinguished between the accidents and the substance of a thing?
They would have seen the material and not seen the non-material. A body is material and God is non-material. It is a very different thing to say that God is present here than it is to say that the body God clothed himself with, is present here.
If the body has been converted from a material thing to an immaterial thing (at the Eucharist) then one should be talking about a spiritual (which is immaterial) presence and not a real bodily (which is material) presence. How a material thing could become an immaterial thing and still be that same thing, however, is still beyond me.
To be specific it is the teaching of one individual within the sub-apostolic church. To what degree Ignatius’s view was shared by the entire Church is unknown. It is a teaching that gained acceptance or perhaps already enjoyed considerable acceptance. That said, I haven’t read an historian lately that thinks the Church started out with a single leader (aka bishop) per local church or thinks that it started out with even bishops leading at every local church.
It doesn’t have to be deceitful. Does Ignatius claim that what he is teaching was taught by Jesus? Does he claim that what he is teaching was taught by the apostles? Does he provide a theological rationale (as noted by M W Holmes) for the central role of the bishop? (see Eph 6.1; Magn 3; Trall. 2.2, 3; Phld 2.1; Smyrn 8.1) If he is arguing from a theological base, then he is merely presenting his understanding (which he thinks is right). Does he claim divine inspiration for his understanding?
Actually, it is extremely easy. If he derives his view of how the church should operate from his understanding and interpretation of the relationship between Jesus and the Father (as an example) and without reference to some apostolic teaching that we do not know about, then he is in no better position to determine how the church should operate than any pastor in any church today (and perhaps even less so, depending on what scripture was available to him.)
Again, not deceiving. Instead, providing his mistaken (and self-serving) understanding. It would be pretty uplifting for Ignatius to believe that any disobedience or disagreement with Ignatius as bishop amounts to disagreemnt and disobedience with God himself. Further, to a considerable degree the early church was the welfare system of its political/social environment. It cared for its widows and its poor. If one could not receive such welfare without being recognized as being in communion with the local church via the eucharist and if one could not participate in the Eucharist w/o submitting to the bishop, then the bishop controlled not just the path to salvation, but also the path to charity. Excommunication threatened both.
Nope. I think Ignatius tries to justify that position by reference to Christ (ie follow the bishop as Christ followed the Father), but Christ’s obedience to the Father does not establish the authority that Ignatius claims for himself as bishop.
Shouldn’t we both answer that question the same? That is, we should be inclined to believe those that have demonstrated a good moral character, but must always exercise that inclination with the realization that all men possess a sinful nature that will influence them from time to time. I would suggest that the real question is, “To what degree has the Holy Spirit guided all the generations of the church and protected each from error?” Did Ignatius and the other apostolic fathers enjoy some gift from the Holy Spirit that is not enjoyed today by both RC and non-RC theologians? I am not inclined to think that they did.
B/c, contrary to the criticism often leveled against protestants by RCs, I am inclined to think that the ECFs should be given a voice in determining a proper interpretation of scripture etc., but I am also inclined to believe that their voice should not be accorded the excessive weight awarded by the RCC. Also, I think there is a tendency for all to interpret the ECFs to align with one’s own views (no doubt you have thought that of me)…also it can be somewhat satisfying to point out (hopefully in love) that an ECF (say Augustine in sermon 272) isn’t clearly saying what RCs often declare that the ECF is saying.
Hi Protestant101,
Yes Sir, I have noticed that “structure” you refer to many times. The more I go over it, the more I feel you are wrong in making an exception to the idea of Jesus using the metaphor idea when He used “flesh” or “blood” to describe Himself. There is no Biblical hermeneutic to support your exception; except of course your chosen catholic doctrine, which is not based upon the Bible, no matter how many times you quote John 6. It’s never going to mean what you want it to; just because you guys keep quoting it over and over, and trying to isolate it from the rest of Scripture.
How can this not be an exception? How can you defend that he did not give his “metaphorical” flesh and blood on the cross?
There is a hermeneutic to support it, but you are right, it is Catholic.
No, in fact, the Catholic interpretation is the ONLY one that is consistent with the rest of the Scripture, and the unfailing faith of the Church. One cannot “profane” something that does not exist. If one can profane the Body and Blood by taking it in an unworthy manner, then it has to be Real.
Yes, you have made your case, and made it well. It may be that the teaching of the Apostles is not apprehendible by you at this point in your walk with God. However, I stand by what I said, your passion for feeding on His Word can only bring you to Him, as He stated, the scriptures all point to HIm. Eventually, you will see him in the breaking of the bread, as did the disciples on the road to Emmaus.
Such a statement is based upon ignorance of the Catholic Teaching and practice. We affirm that Jesus died once for all. Our memorial of that brings us present with Him at the foot of the cross. It is like the memorial of Passover, which made the Jews of subsequent generations present during the deliverance from Egypt.
We don’t make the Bible mean what we want it to mean. We just allow it to speak for itself. You on the other hand would rather do violence to the Bible by making it speak what it is not saying because like the other disciples, you cannot accept the hard teaching.
Actually as I have said before, the other metaphors before, everyone understood them to be metaphors. So you don’t have anyone saying " How can he possibly say he is the door". Because in Hebrew everyone understood that he was talking in metaphors.
but, I did read some of the previous posts and would like to offer a comment or two.I honestly can understand your feelings in this matter. Truly, it really is a “hard saying”. But, in all charity, we all need to move away from an emotional response based upon feelings and on to an intellectual response. The best advice is to re-read Benedictus2’s previous response - he has all the material there.
It is not really a case of isolating anything from the rest of Scripture. The Passover Feast, the Pascal Lamb and the account of Matthew, Mark and Luke at this Last Supper - all point to God’s power over nature - and that all of this is revealed and in context.