Protestants, has the reformation project run its course?

[CopticChristian]

Anglicans are not concerned with interpretations like Roman Catholics and Protestants are. For example: The Creed affirms Christs decent into Hell. This scriptures make this clear. A Roman Catholic will say that Christ descended into hell to offer the gospel message to them also and bring them out. A Lutheran will say that He went there to proclaim his victory over the Devil. In all Actuality both of these views were held in Apostolic times. Anglicans do not think your view on what Jesus did there is that important. What is important is that you believe he descended into hell as the Creed affirms. Considering both views were held in the early Church and it was united for the first thousand years, I do not think they considered it Church dividing either.

Mormons believe that the agony in the garden is the source of salvation…I am not sure what your point is. You do not group yourself with Protestants…interesting. I am not sure what you want to believe…believe as you wish…you make no sense.

 

[JPeter]

Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic Eastern/Western agree on 7 Sacraments and in particular the Eucharist. Those that disagree have not reformed but have substituted unity under other than that which unites the aforementioned.

Testimony from the Early Church and Ancient Church suggests your mind is infected by Western Philosophical constructs that blind you. There is no Ancient, Medieval or Modern Church except in your own mind. Satisfy yourself that Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Satisfy yourself that Jesus is the way the truth and the light. If the Church is the body of Christ, the Bride of Christ and Christ is the head do you want me to accept the Bride as Ancient, Medieval and Modern…for how can Christ change…does the truth change, can the body reform the entire corpus and head, the body adapts to the world or the world adapts to the body. The OHCAC got it right in Gaudium et spes…”The Church in the Modern World”…The OHCAC understands this semantic difference that you do not.

We believe the faith was already delivered once and in its fullness. Christ never Changes. I don’t see the 7 sacraments as a Point of tension. The Orthodox have never actually counted their sacraments but they generally hold to 7. As do Anglicans although the Eucharist and Baptism are the most important that we consider generally necessary to salvation. I came across an article from a Lutheran Priest that stuck out to me.

#20 – What Is a Sacrament?
What is a sacrament? If we try to answer that question from the Scriptures, we have a problem. For the word “sacrament” is simply not found in the Bible.
The word “sacrament” was used by the ancient church to describe the most im-portant “holy acts” in the life of a Christian. It was used to describe some special action performed in order to nourish the Christian life for its growth to the glory of God.
How Many Sacraments?
Just as Christian denominations today disagree on the number of sacraments, so it was among Christians in the church over a thousand years ago.
Some listed only a few sacraments. Others listed over thirty. Finally, the great twelfth century theology Peter Lombard tried to convince everybody that there were sev-en sacraments – no more and no less. Many Christians still agree with him.
Lutherans have always taught that the numbering of the sacraments is unimpor-tant. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession states: “We do not think it makes much difference if, for purposes of teaching, the enumeration varies, provided what is handed down in Scripture is preserved” (XIII, 2).
What then is important? It is important to preserve these rites and ceremonies which Scripture tells us Christ instituted, and which proclaim and seal God’s mercy and grace in the lives of men.
There are many religious ceremonies and practices described in the Bible (prayer, the washing of feet, fasting, etc.), but not all of them proclaim and seal God’s mercy and forgiveness.
The Church’s “Holy Acts”
The church has the right to create ceremonies, rites, and customs, to teach, guide, and train its members. But is it really wise to call such rites and ceremonies “sacra-ments” right along with those acts instituted by Christ? Doesn’t such a general use of the word tend to place all “holy acts” on the same level?
The Lutheran Church teaches that we should carefully distinguish between those acts instituted by Christ to actually communicate and seal God’s promises, and those acts created by the church to teach and remind people of God’s will. Luther said that God’s promises create the church, but the church doesn’t create God’s promises.
God’s “Holy Acts”
The Church of the Augsburg Confession recognizes three rites which deserve the name “sacrament” because Christ himself gave them to the church to save men. These three are: Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Absolution (Apology, XIII, 4).
Two other rites, ordination and matrimony, could be called sacraments with cer-tain qualifications (Apology, XIII, 12, 14). Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the pastoral ministry, and God the Father established marriage; and both estates are involved with the forgiveness of sins and the general communicating of God’s saving grace. Yet, the cere-monies of ordination and matrimony were not instituted directly by Christ, and neither of them directly brings God’s forgiveness.
Once again, it is not a sin to call those other things “sacraments,” but Lutherans stress that it is unwise because it might weaken our special appreciation of those most precious gifts given directly by Christ to the church in order for the church to live.

 

[CopticChristian]

We believe the faith was already delivered once and in its fullness. Christ never Changes. I don’t see the 7 sacraments as a Point of tension. The Orthodox have never actually counted their sacraments but they generally hold to 7. As do Anglicans although the Eucharist and Baptism are the most important that we consider generally necessary to salvation. I came across an article from a Lutheran Priest that stuck out to me.

#20 – What Is a Sacrament?
What is a sacrament? If we try to answer that question from the Scriptures, we have a problem. For the word “sacrament” is simply not found in the Bible.
The word “sacrament” was used by the ancient church to describe the most im-portant “holy acts” in the life of a Christian. It was used to describe some special action performed in order to nourish the Christian life for its growth to the glory of God.
How Many Sacraments?
Just as Christian denominations today disagree on the number of sacraments, so it was among Christians in the church over a thousand years ago.
Some listed only a few sacraments. Others listed over thirty. Finally, the great twelfth century theology Peter Lombard tried to convince everybody that there were sev-en sacraments – no more and no less. Many Christians still agree with him.
Lutherans have always taught that the numbering of the sacraments is unimpor-tant. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession states: “We do not think it makes much difference if, for purposes of teaching, the enumeration varies, provided what is handed down in Scripture is preserved” (XIII, 2).
What then is important? It is important to preserve these rites and ceremonies which Scripture tells us Christ instituted, and which proclaim and seal God’s mercy and grace in the lives of men.
There are many religious ceremonies and practices described in the Bible (prayer, the washing of feet, fasting, etc.), but not all of them proclaim and seal God’s mercy and forgiveness.
The Church’s “Holy Acts”
The church has the right to create ceremonies, rites, and customs, to teach, guide, and train its members. But is it really wise to call such rites and ceremonies “sacra-ments” right along with those acts instituted by Christ? Doesn’t such a general use of the word tend to place all “holy acts” on the same level?
The Lutheran Church teaches that we should carefully distinguish between those acts instituted by Christ to actually communicate and seal God’s promises, and those acts created by the church to teach and remind people of God’s will. Luther said that God’s promises create the church, but the church doesn’t create God’s promises.
God’s “Holy Acts”
The Church of the Augsburg Confession recognizes three rites which deserve the name “sacrament” because Christ himself gave them to the church to save men. These three are: Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Absolution (Apology, XIII, 4).
Two other rites, ordination and matrimony, could be called sacraments with cer-tain qualifications (Apology, XIII, 12, 14). Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the pastoral ministry, and God the Father established marriage; and both estates are involved with the forgiveness of sins and the general communicating of God’s saving grace. Yet, the cere-monies of ordination and matrimony were not instituted directly by Christ, and neither of them directly brings God’s forgiveness.
Once again, it is not a sin to call those other things “sacraments,” but Lutherans stress that it is unwise because it might weaken our special appreciation of those most precious gifts given directly by Christ to the church in order for the church to live.

J,

The OHCAC, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox hold to 7 Sacraments…You are at odds with this group…Luther came along long after the establishment of these 7…

If your brother transgresses and refuses to listen then call witnesses and if still he refuses to listen take it to the Church…the pillar and foundation of truth…so as you disagree and we have to take it to the Church…where would you think we should go…which Church?

 

[JPeter]

Why do you send me Calvinist arguments? I’m Anglican. I also have a very high opinion of the Lutheran Augsburg confession. In 1976 Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) suggested that the Augsburg Confession might possibly be recognized as a Catholic statement of faith. The word “Protestant” is often loosely and to a large extent inaccurately applied to Anglican Churches. It is unfortunate that many Anglicans think of themselves as “Protestants.” In fact, Anglicanism is “Protestant” only in a most limited sense. It is Protestant in that it “protested’ against and rebelled from the supreme authority of the Pope over all other bishops. It is also Protestant in that it “protested” against and set out to reform the many abuses which had crept into the worship and faith of the Roman Church of which the English Church had so long been a part.
In these limited senses, Anglicanism is indeed “Protestant,” and honorably so. However, the objection to thinking of all Anglicanism primarily in terms of “Protestant” is that it serves to obscure the fact that, theologically and historically, Anglican Churches are Catholic. They retain the full and complete faith of Christianity, in its Sacramental form, and they are in continuity with the primitive Church, adhere to the ancient Creeds and base themselves firmly on the Scriptures. These, after all, are the marks of Catholicism, shared with the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the Old Catholics, some Lutherans and others.

 

[CopticChristian]

Why do you send me Calvinist arguments? I’m Anglican. I also have a very high opinion of the Lutheran Augsburg confession. In 1976 Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) suggested that the Augsburg Confession might possibly be recognized as a Catholic statement of faith. The word “Protestant” is often loosely and to a large extent inaccurately applied to Anglican Churches. It is unfortunate that many Anglicans think of themselves as “Protestants.” In fact, Anglicanism is “Protestant” only in a most limited sense. It is Protestant in that it “protested’ against and rebelled from the supreme authority of the Pope over all other bishops.** It is also Protestant in that it “protested” against and set out to reform the many abuses which had crept into the worship and faith of the Roman Church of which the English Church had so long been a part.** In these limited senses, Anglicanism is indeed “Protestant,” and honorably so. However, the objection to thinking of all Anglicanism primarily in terms of “Protestant” is that it serves to obscure the fact that, theologically and historically, Anglican Churches are Catholic. They retain the full and complete faith of Christianity, in its Sacramental form, and they are in continuity with the primitive Church, adhere to the ancient Creeds and base themselves firmly on the Scriptures. These, after all, are the marks of Catholicism, shared with the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the Old Catholics, some Lutherans and others.

J,

Dilineate for me the abuses that the English Church is responsible for reforming as it regards worship and faith…1, 2, etc…the wrongs and the corrections…

What primitive Church are you in continuity with…what year…where?

 

[JPeter]

The OHCAC, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox hold to 7 Sacraments…You are at odds with this group…Luther came along long after the establishment of these 7…

If your brother transgresses and refuses to listen then call witnesses and if still he refuses to listen take it to the Church…the pillar and foundation of truth…so as you disagree and we have to take it to the Church…where would you think we should go…which Church?

The ancient lists of sacraments never counted 7 and they came well before Peter Lombard.

No that is not entirely true for the Orthodox. The sacraments in the Orthodox Church are officially called the “holy mysteries.” Usually seven sacraments are counted: baptism, chrismation (or confirmation), holy eucharist, penance, matrimony, holy orders and the unction of the sick.

The practice of counting the sacraments was adopted in the Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholics. It is not an ancient practice of the Church and, in many ways, it tends to be misleading since it appears that there are just seven specific rites which are “sacraments” and that all other aspects of the life of the Church are essentially different from these particular actions.** The more ancient and traditional practice of the Orthodox Church is to consider everything which is in and of the Church as sacramental or mystical. ** antiochian.org/content/our-sacraments

What is the Church? The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same

 

[CopticChristian]

The ancient lists of sacraments never counted 7 and they came well before Peter Lumbard.

No that is not entirely true for the Orthodox. The sacraments in the Orthodox Church are officially called the “holy mysteries.” Usually seven sacraments are counted: baptism, chrismation (or confirmation), holy eucharist, penance, matrimony, holy orders and the unction of the sick.

The practice of counting the sacraments was adopted in the Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholics. It is not an ancient practice of the Church and, in many ways, it tends to be misleading since it appears that there are just seven specific rites which are “sacraments” and that all other aspects of the life of the Church are essentially different from these particular actions.** The more ancient and traditional practice of the Orthodox Church is to consider everything which is in and of the Church as sacramental or mystical. ** antiochian.org/content/our-sacraments

What is the Church? The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same

J,

Well then let’s just say we are united by mystery/sacrament and in particular in worship that is the Eucharist…that is unity…

Now let me know the name and address that we can go to settle the dispute…take it to the Church…the pillar and foundation of truth…the mystery hidden for all ages through which the manifold wisdom of God is known by which the gentiles are made fellow heirs…where not what do we go to…?

 

[JPeter]

Now let me know the name and address that we can go to settle the dispute…take it to the Church…the pillar and foundation of truth…the mystery hidden for all ages through which the manifold wisdom of God is known by which the gentiles are made fellow heirs…where not what do we go to…?

You could go to any Church where the Sacraments are rightly administered and word of God is purely preached.(Roman Catholic,Anglican,Orthodox, Old Catholic,some Lutherans). You would not go to a church if they can be called that, that has taken its interpretations from men rather than the undivided universal catholic church. We have a broader understanding of the term church than Roman Catholics. Even the Roman Catholic Church has declared that the Orthodox and the Old Catholics have a valid Eucharist. One hundred years ago both these groups were damned to an eternity in Hell for not recognizing the Pope. Now the Orthodox do not have a very high view of Rome but I believe Rome is correct on this issue. The Catholics do not officially recognize Anglican or Lutheran orders but that is starting to change. In the Anglican view all of these Churches bear the marks of THE CHURCH. We believe Rome has added things but these things do not invalidate them in our view. We all have One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church. No Church has held to Unity in Essentials better than the Anglican communion. Though the Church may have fallen into schism within itself and its several provinces or groups of provinces be out of communion with each other, each may yet be a branch of the one Church of Christ, provided that it continues to hold the faith of the original undivided Church and to maintain the Apostolic Succession of its bishops. We are in full communion with the Old Catholics who Rome does recognize as valid. In Sweden and Finland all of the Catholic Bishops became Lutheran. They maintained Apostolic succession. Many Lutheran groups today are reestablishing Apostolic succession from this line and the Old Catholic and Anglican lines.

 

[JPeter]

What primitive Church are you in continuity with…what year…where?

The Church in England of course! Until 1054 there was only one Christian Church – the CATHOLIC CHURCH. Its leadership was centered in five great Patriarchates – Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople in the East and Rome in the West. After the Roman Empire became Christian some bishops increasingly became involved in political matters, and the bishops of Rome in particular began to claim power over the whole Church. This led to a tragic division in the Church, the “Great Schism” of 1054, when it split into the “Orthodox” East and the “Roman Catholic” West.

Not directly involved in that split was the Church in England, which the Bishops of Rome were determined to claim - especially after 1061, when a rival Papacy in Lombardy claimed allegiance from the See of Canterbury. In 1066, the Duke of Normandy (William “the Conqueror”), with the support and formal blessing of Pope Alexander II, invaded England. After seizing the English Crown, William replaced all but one of the English bishops with Norman bishops loyal to Rome. The CHURCH OF ENGLAND was to remain under Papal jurisdiction for nearly 500 years, until the reign of King Henry VIII.

 

[CopticChristian]

You could go to any Church where the Sacraments are rightly administered and word of God is purely preached.(Roman Catholic,Anglican,Orthodox, Old Catholic,some Lutherans). You would not go to a church if they can be called that, that has taken its interpretations from men rather than the undivided universal catholic church. We have a broader understanding of the term church than Roman Catholics. Even the Roman Catholic Church has declared that the Orthodox and the Old Catholics have a valid Eucharist. One hundred years ago both these groups were damned to an eternity in Hell for not recognizing the Pope. Now the Orthodox do not have a very high view of Rome but I believe Rome is correct on this issue. The Catholics do not officially recognize Anglican or Lutheran orders but that is starting to change. In the Anglican view all of these Churches bear the marks of THE CHURCH. We believe Rome has added things but these things do not invalidate them in our view. We all have One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church. No Church has held to Unity in Essentials better than the Anglican communion. Though the Church may have fallen into schism within itself and its several provinces or groups of provinces be out of communion with each other, each may yet be a branch of the one Church of Christ, provided that it continues to hold the faith of the original undivided Church and to maintain the Apostolic Succession of its bishops. We are in full communion with the Old Catholics who Rome does recognize as valid. In Sweden and Finland all of the Catholic Bishops became Lutheran. They maintained Apostolic succession. Many Lutheran groups today are reestablishing Apostolic succession from this line and the Old Catholic and Anglican lines.

J,

Then the Anglicans are united on issues like Homosexuality

Since the 1990s, the Anglican Communion has struggled with controversy regarding homosexuality in the church. In 1998, the 13th Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops passed a resolution stating that homosexual acts are “incompatible with Scripture”. In 2002, the Diocese of New Westminster, in the Anglican Church of Canada, permitted the blessing of same-sex unions.

Birth Control

Then in 1930, at the Seventh Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Communion, after years of considerable internal debate, issued the first statement permitting birth control “when there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence.”

Abortion

The Church of England generally opposes abortion. In 1980 it stated that: “In the light of our conviction that the fetus has the right to live and develop as a member of the human family, we see abortion, the termination of that life by the act of man, as a great moral evil. We do not believe that the right to life, as a right pertaining to persons, admits of no exceptions whatever; but the right of the innocent to life admits surely of few exceptions indeed.” The Church also recognizes that in some instances abortion is “morally preferable to any available alternative.”

Would you consider these marks of the Church?

 

[JPeter]

No, I’m Anglican Church in North America. I mostly disagree with Anglicans on all of these issues. We have some Liberal Bishops in parts of the Church but not the majority. These are issues that we are a voice against and they are never permitted in the ACNA. We are loyal to God before the Bishop. I suggest talking a look at Anglicans for life. When the Bishops error we have a moral obligation to do what is right. I think the Roman Church may be getting a little carried away with contraceptives. If they are preconception and the parents have a valid reason for waiting to have children (like not having enough money) I don’t think its sinful. Social issues is one of the biggest reasons Anglican Priests became Catholic. I do not feel like they made the right decision though. When someone converts to Catholicism it should be because they believe its the fullness of the faith and not because we are having problems in our own communion. There is a difference between Anglican and Catholic thought in this area. An Anglican will look at Catholicism and say "they have the fullness of the faith’’ we can get around these nonessential issues like the infallibility of the Pope and the immaculate conception of Mary. That is the difference! For A Roman Catholic these are not nonessential issues. Anytime a Church allows something that clearly stands against how scripture has been understood for the first thousand years of the Christian faith we have an obligation to disregard their decision and voice our concerns. At the same time lets not forget that you have the Catechism of the Catholic Church and then you have Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden which have been some of the Biggest “Catholic” supporters of the so called womens “right” to have an abortion on earth. I have not seen Rome do much about it. They should both be excommunicated as they support what the Roman Church rightfully condemns.

 

[CopticChristian]

No, I’m Anglican Church in North America. I mostly **disagree **with Anglicans on all of these issues. We have some Liberal Bishops in parts of the Church but not the majority. These are issues that **we are a voice against **and they are never permitted in the ACNA. We are loyal to God before the Bishop. I suggest talking a look at Anglicans for life. When the Bishops error we have a moral obligation to do what is right. I think the Roman Church may be getting a little carried away with contraceptives. If they are preconception and the parents have a valid reason for waiting to have children (like not having enough money) I don’t think its sinful. Social issues is one of the biggest reasons Anglican Priests became Catholic. I do not feel like they made the right decision though. When someone converts to Catholicism it should be because they believe its the fullness of the faith and not because we are having problems in our own communion. There is a difference between Anglican and Catholic thought in this area. An Anglican will look at Catholicism and say "they have the fullness of the faith’’ we can get around these nonessential issues like the infallibility of the Pope and the immaculate conception of Mary. That is the difference! For A Roman Catholic these are not nonessential issues. Anytime a Church allows something that clearly stands against **how scripture has been understood for the first thousand years **of the Christian faith we have an obligation to disregard their decision and voice our concerns. At the same time lets not forget that you have the Catechism of the Catholic Church and then you have Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden which have been some of the Biggest “Catholic” supporters of the so called womens “right” to have an abortion on earth. I have not seen Rome do much about it. They should both be excommunicated as they support what the Roman Church rightfully condemns.

J,

Your Anglican posture leaves me breathless. Disagree. Voice against. I don’t think it is sinful. Scripture understood for the first thousand years.

I believe that the magesterium, Scripture & Tradition state that Murder is Murder and birth control and abortion are evil. I do not have to like it but I agree. I can raise my voice of discontent but I have to believe it. What I think is irrelevant. I am called to repent and as you know that means change your mind. The Scripture, word of God, understood by all Protestants early on was that Birth Control and Abortion as well as homoexuality was evil and sin. Protestants wavered as you know and now there is a crisis of Faith in that regard.

So as I stand here I ask myself…If the Scripture as written and understood should that understanding be different in time with respect to Abortion, Birth Control and Homosexuality…If the Church is the mystery hidden for all ages through which the manifold wisdom of God is known, the pillar and foundation of truth…am I to believe that God lied and that what I disagree with, voice, think is relevant to revealed truth?

I am afraid that if you and I disagree and if we find witnesses that cannot help us then I would be unwilling to take the issue to your Church.

 

[JPeter]

I believe that the magesterium, Scripture & Tradition state that Murder is Murder and birth control and abortion are evil. I do not have to like it but I agree. I can raise my voice of discontent but I have to believe it. What I think is irrelevant. I am called to repent and as you know that means change your mind. The Scripture, word of God, understood by all Protestants early on was that Birth Control and Abortion as well as homoexuality was evil and sin. Protestants wavered as you know and now there is a crisis of Faith in that regard.

So as I stand here I ask myself…If the Scripture as written and understood should that understanding be different in time with respect to Abortion, Birth Control and Homosexuality…If the Church is the mystery hidden for all ages through which the manifold wisdom of God is known, the pillar and foundation of truth…am I to believe that God lied and that what I disagree with, voice, think is relevant to revealed truth?

You make it sound like the Church can never error. The church can error and has. Christs Church (even if you don’t think mine is fully part of it) has always had heretical priests and bishops intertwined with true believers. Bad bishops and aberrant priests have and will always surface in the true Church. From time to time, (this includes Popes)
they introduce novel and heretical teachings. But if the liturgy doesn’t change, then their faith destroying words will not take hold and will eventually fade away. The bottom line, then, is that the unchanging liturgy keeps us on the straight and narrow. It keeps us both on the way to the Kingdom, and in the Way which is Our Lord Jesus Christ. And the Kingdom of heaven is the goal, and the Lord Jesus is our Life. The Liturgy never changes. I don’t mean that chants or prayers or feasts are not added or
subtracted gradually over time. What I mean is that no priest or bishop or congregation can decide to cut the Eucharistic Prayer or go with a new style of worship or change things to suit his convictions or the times. Why? Because the liturgy is not something smart men have created and so can modify. The liturgy is from the Holy Spirit in the same way that the Scriptures are from the Holy Spirit. In the liturgy, the Holy Spirit rightly instructs us in Holy Scripture and His presence transforms us and the gifts set forth in the Holy Eucharist. So the liturgy is the way the Faith is given, confessed, prayed and proclaimed. As the liturgy goes, so goes the Faith together with your certainty and surety.

I think you place far to much emphasis on men making decisions. If we look at it from your perspective a Pope could say almost anything and the faithful are sinning if they do not accept it as revealed truth. If the Pope says something that totally contradicts how scripture has always been plainly understood, are we obligated to agree with him? God makes His promises, the Church does not make them for Him.

 

[CopticChristian]

You make it sound like the Church can never error. The church can error and has. Christs Church (even if you don’t think mine is fully part of it) has always had heretical priests and bishops intertwined with true believers. Bad bishops and aberrant priests have and will always surface in the true Church. From time to time, (this includes Popes)
they introduce novel and heretical teachings. But if the liturgy doesn’t change, then their faith destroying words will not take hold and will eventually fade away. The bottom line, then, is that the unchanging liturgy keeps us on the straight and narrow. It keeps us both on the way to the Kingdom, and in the Way which is Our Lord Jesus Christ. And the Kingdom of heaven is the goal, and the Lord Jesus is our Life. The Liturgy never changes. I don’t mean that chants or prayers or feasts are not added or
subtracted gradually over time. What I mean is that no priest or bishop or congregation can decide to cut the Eucharistic Prayer or go with a new style of worship or change things to suit his convictions or the times. Why? Because the liturgy is not something smart men have created and so can modify. The liturgy is from the Holy Spirit in the same way that the Scriptures are from the Holy Spirit. In the liturgy, the Holy Spirit rightly instructs us in Holy Scripture and His presence transforms us and the gifts set forth in the Holy Eucharist. So the liturgy is the way the Faith is given, confessed, prayed and proclaimed. As the liturgy goes, so goes the Faith together with your certainty and surety.

**I think **you place far to much emphasis on men making decisions. **If **we look at it from your perspective a Pope could say almost anything and the faithful are sinning **if **they do not accept it as revealed truth. ** If **the Pope says something that totally contradicts how scripture has always been plainly understood, are we obligated to agree with him? God makes His promises, the Church does not make them for Him.

J,

Thoughts are formulated by beliefs that are filters that jade your beliefs and mine. I enjoy your understanding of men making decisions. Let me ask would you rather that women make decisions? Who would you have make decisions if not people?

If. Robert Frost wrote a poem about this. It is impossible to dialogue about what could be as you write. If I were an airplane I could fly. You conclude that the Church does not make promises…then may I ask why does Scripture say that the Church is the mystery by which the manifold wisdom of God is known…

Guide me. Help me.

8To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, 9and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; 10so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.

What is the sound of one hand clapping? How and who makes known through the Church the manifold wisdom of God and the angels in heaven …? Who does God use to do this. You exclude men. I offer women…we are stuck with people…help me here.

 

[JPeter]

What is the sound of one hand clapping? How and who makes known through the Church the manifold wisdom of God and the angels in heaven …? Who does God use to do this. You exclude men. I offer women…we are stuck with people…help me here.

Let me clarify myself. The Holy Spirit does work though the Church. However, the Sheep will hear His voice, not the individual lamb. This is something that both Popes and reformers forgot. It is not about how you think or feel about an issue. It is about looking back to the faith once and in its fullness delivered to all of the saints. The Holy Spirit works to sanctify the Church through word and sacrament. The word of the Lord will endure forever. Neither Papal decree nor what a protestant dictates to you the bible is saying can change that. The early councils of the Church and the Fathers who took over after the Apostles died are so far ahead of us we have not even caught up with them yet.

 

[CopticChristian]

Let me clarify myself. The Holy Spirit does work though the Church. However, the Sheep will hear His voice, not the individual lamb. This is something that both Popes and reformers forgot. It is not about how you think or feel about an issue. It is about looking back to the faith once and in its fullness delivered to all of the saints. The Holy Spirit works to sanctify the Church through word and sacrament. The word of the Lord will endure forever. Neither Papal decree nor what a protestant dictates to you the bible is saying can change that. The early councils of the Church and the Fathers who took over after the Apostles died are so far ahead of us we have not even caught up with them yet.

J,

The sheep hear the voice. The individual lamb does not. The individual lamb must get information from somewhere or that lamb is lost…do the sheep corporate Baaaaah so that the lamb does not get lost?

The early Councils of the Church. What was that Church like? Did it have sacraments and what Canon of the Bible did it use?

 

[JPeter]

J,

The sheep hear the voice. The individual lamb does not. The individual lamb must get information from somewhere or that lamb is lost…do the sheep corporate Baaaaah so that the lamb does not get lost?

The early Councils of the Church. What was that Church like? Did it have sacraments and what Canon of the Bible did it use?

Research it! You may see first hand just how narrow some of Romes interpretations are. I suggest starting with the Apostolic fathers.

 

[CopticChristian]

Research it! You may see first hand just how narrow some of Romes interpretations are. I suggest starting with the Apostolic fathers.

J,

I have the OHCAC with writings and documents, a Catechism, long held beliefs that I do not doubt. What am I researching? You are on Catholic Answers a forum for questions and answers. I suggest you spend some time on your own researching the issues you have problems with concerning the Catholic Faith…

Grasshopper I did not come to this forum unresearched…you on the other hand…I do not know???

You may want to ask some questions about what it is you do not understand about the people on this forum that you would like to know.

If you were totally resolved in your beliefs, totally content, not doubting any issue, not wondering about any concern as to your Anglican beliefs…why would you be here?

 

[GKC]

Do you recall Luckyfredsdad?

GKC

 

[GKC]

I think I recall the 2nd gentleman, too.

We lost the services of LFD some time back, but he was also an aficionado of this take on the history. He had a thing for WIlliam the Butcher, as he said.

For that all, politics is a key factor in how things played out.

GKC