Regarding Anglicans: Have I got this right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanteAlighieri
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Justy90 said:
… they ultimately will have to profess absolutely every single thing in Catholic theology including the notion that the pope is Christ on earth.
Click to expand...
Now I am beginning to see the wisdom of Fr. Mark’s comment on you.

Catholics do not believe that the Pope is Christ on earth. I don’t know how you get this idea but for peace sake, I hope it is due to your ignorance of Catholic doctrine and not deliberate act of inflammation.
 
Reuben_J said:
Now I am beginning to see the wisdom of Fr. Mark’s comment on you.

Catholics do not believe that the Pope is Christ on earth. I don’t know how you get this idea but for peace sake, I hope it is due to your ignorance of Catholic doctrine and not deliberate act of inflammation.
Click to expand...
The pope takes the place of Christ on earth. Is this depiction acceptable to you now??:bowdown:

Sheeesh!
 
Justy90 said:
Fr. Mark: That is not the case and you know it sir. I have given facts many times in arguments questioning Catholicsm just to have them thwarted because they could not be answered objectively in the Catholic realm or they would be dismissed altogether siting Protestant bias or something equally ridiculous. I have been charitable just as many other Protestants have been just to be ultimately treated in a much lesser way. When we rightfully react to such treatment we get labeled hostile and argumentative just as you have labeled me sir. Go to Rome if you wish. That’s your perrogative. But, I am not nearly as optimistic as you are about many many Anglicans overloading the Tiber to get there, that’s all I’m saying. There is absolutely nothing special about the pope’s invitation to Rome. Anyone could go if they so chose, but just as with Anglicans; they ultimately will have to profess absolutely every single thing in Catholic theology including the notion that the pope is Christ on earth.
Click to expand...
Justy,

I do not make my observation of you out of nothing. I have read your exchanges on numerous threads. When your points are agreed with, all is well. When, as in this case, they are not, emotions and a victim card is played. All the mean ole catholics don’t like me and the protestants. I know there are some Catholics and Protestants on this forum that are bigoted and ill-informed about protestantism and catholicism. I also notice that catholics that get out of line, like protestants are banned.

Prove your point. In this thread you have now stated Cathloics believe the Pope is Christ on earth, when Reuben J corrected you, you changed it “to takes the place of Christ on earth,” and ended with a truly crass and unchristian statement and observation. Your similes indictating Catholics worship the Holy Father. Just as some protestants incorrectly state that Catholics worship the Blessed Virgin. This similie is the whole of your argument.

You try to discredit me, at least in your eyes, by telling me to go on to Rome. As if that is something sinister. Only one person on these threads, that I can remember, have I told to go on to Rome. Not the ACNA, but to Rome. When people of the parish come to ask my bless on going to Rome, I give it. I do not take it as a threat or think they are making a mistake. By the time the decision is made, we have already had numerous conversations. I just told a younger priest here in town to not go to Rome, but to the Orthodox. His would fit there and be happy and serve Christ better.

You are hostile and argumentative, that is why you get labeled as such. Sit back and think how you react if someone disagrees with you. If only one person and the same one said it, that is one thing, but if many people are telling you…there is a reason.

Justy, you are an evangelical; and you were poorly catechized in the Church if you think the Pope takes the place of Christ and many other negative things you have said about the Church. It also shows you do not understand the theology behind Alter Christus. Something a Catholic will understand, but if not still accept it on faith as he seeks understanding. You are in a majority evangelical group, the ACNA. Very few of us are Catholic. Catholics would not have a woman priest or sit under one…violates scripture, creed, tradition and the nature of the priest, sacraments etc. And an Anglican whose third leg of the stool of scripture, tradition and reason, would if an act violated the first two, use the third (reason) to reject the new teaching.

Too many Anglicans think they are Catholic because they bow alot, cross themselves, genuflect, have incense, candles,…a high church mass. But lack the theology which is catholic. By your own words of insulting Catholics and the Holy Father, you reveal you are not catholic. You can call yourself one, that is your right. But a rose by anyother name is still a rose.

I still believe my earlier suggestion to you to avoid such threads is sound. The inner struggles you are having is showing. It will not help you to vent them here, but with your confessor.

Peace,

Fr.Mark
ACNA
 
Reuben_J said:
I want to thank you Fr. for writing such a sensible and mature post. It is very encouraging to read contribution like this whereby objectivity, reasons and charity prevail.

May God continue to use and bless you.
Click to expand...
thank you. I appreciate your comment.

I pray God bless all of us and use us all to expand His kingdom.

Peace,

Fr. Mark
ACNA
 
MarkBrown said:
Justy,

I do not make my observation of you out of nothing. I have read your exchanges on numerous threads. When your points are agreed with, all is well. When, as in this case, they are not, emotions and a victim card is played. All the mean ole catholics don’t like me and the protestants. I know there are some Catholics and Protestants on this forum that are bigoted and ill-informed about protestantism and catholicism. I also notice that catholics that get out of line, like protestants are banned.

Prove your point. In this thread you have now stated Cathloics believe the Pope is Christ on earth, when Reuben J corrected you, you changed it “to takes the place of Christ on earth,” and ended with a truly crass and unchristian statement and observation. Your similes indictating Catholics worship the Holy Father. Just as some protestants incorrectly state that Catholics worship the Blessed Virgin. This similie is the whole of your argument.

You try to discredit me, at least in your eyes, by telling me to go on to Rome. As if that is something sinister. Only one person on these threads, that I can remember, have I told to go on to Rome. Not the ACNA, but to Rome. When people of the parish come to ask my bless on going to Rome, I give it. I do not take it as a threat or think they are making a mistake. By the time the decision is made, we have already had numerous conversations. I just told a younger priest here in town to not go to Rome, but to the Orthodox. His would fit there and be happy and serve Christ better.

You are hostile and argumentative, that is why you get labeled as such. Sit back and think how you react if someone disagrees with you. If only one person and the same one said it, that is one thing, but if many people are telling you…there is a reason.

Justy, you are an evangelical; and you were poorly catechized in the Church if you think the Pope takes the place of Christ and many other negative things you have said about the Church. It also shows you do not understand the theology behind Alter Christus. Something a Catholic will understand, but if not still accept it on faith as he seeks understanding. You are in a majority evangelical group, the ACNA. Very few of us are Catholic. Catholics would not have a woman priest or sit under one…violates scripture, creed, tradition and the nature of the priest, sacraments etc. And an Anglican whose third leg of the stool of scripture, tradition and reason, would if an act violated the first two, use the third (reason) to reject the new teaching.

Too many Anglicans think they are Catholic because they bow alot, cross themselves, genuflect, have incense, candles,…a high church mass. But lack the theology which is catholic. By your own words of insulting Catholics and the Holy Father, you reveal you are not catholic. You can call yourself one, that is your right. But a rose by anyother name is still a rose.

I still believe my earlier suggestion to you to avoid such threads is sound. The inner struggles you are having is showing. It will not help you to vent them here, but with your confessor.

Peace,

Fr.Mark
ACNA
Click to expand...
The pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth. By divine right, the pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the TRUE VICAR OF CHRIST, the Head of the entire Church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils, the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, THE SUPREME JUDGE OF HEAVEN AND EARTH, the judge of ALL, being judged by no one, GOD HIMSELF ON EARTH.

Do you recognize that or do you want to again accuse me of just being angry and spewing venom?
 
I am befuddled at how it is that I am so discombobulated about folks disagreeing with me. I see thread after thread here aimed at discrediting and demeaning the Anglican Communion and more times than not they are distortions of the truth at best and in most cases purely ignorant false accusations and statements. Your position is that I and other Anglicans and many other Protestants for that matter are supposed to remain cordial to the utmost no matter what is heaved in our direction and if we do not, we are then fair game to be called hostile and rebellious. This is plainly and vehimately ridiculous. It is you who has the unbridled anger toward the ACNA and is using Rome to attempt to justify your vengence. Your painting of me as evangelical is false based upon your own admission of stereotyping and I really don’t care what you think otherwise based upon your viewpoints. You had better become a better catechized Catholic than you accused me of being if you still don’t think that Catholics believe that the pope takes the place of Christ on earth. I gave it to you quoted directly from the New York Catechism in my last post.
 
Well I have known several Anglicans on CAF, most notably GKC, who agree with Catholics more often than they lash out at them or get hostile. GKC, for example, hates women’s ordination and yet he acknowledges it goes on all over the place within Anglican circles. He hates gay marriage and gay ordination and many other things that he always acknowledges to be going on within the Anglican world. He has talked about how he dislikes the evangelical angles of Stott and Packer, etc. Catholics and Anglicans often bash Anglicanism because Anglicanism is a wide, wide, wide and motley crew. They don’t take everything personally. You’ll hear many Catholics, not just me, trashing the Novus Ordo post Vatican II Mass here. I hate it! Many Catholics do and yet many in here adore it or defend it. But for me to dislike the holding hands during the Our Father or the communion in the hand, Eucharistic ministers, Mass in English, that doesn’t mean I hate the Church. It’s just a preference I have and can voice my opinion without being necessarily anti-Catholic. Maybe you’re taking any criticism of Anglicanism as being aimed toward you and your congregation when it isn’t necessarily. You have to just analyze the situation and ask if it pertains to you…Do you have a female priest? Do you have a gay pastor? Do you have openly divorced and remarried people taking communion? Do you have gay marriages? Do you believe in sola scriptura? Just answer each one in your mind and if the answer is “no” then don’t take it so hard. But if the answer is “yes” then it hits close to home sometimes. Talking religion is tough. The old saying, “avoid talking politics and religion” is true in most social circles. But here we’re on a religion forum. You’re in a den of Catholics expecting them to be open to Anglicanism when they clearly should not be. If I were on an Anglican forum, I wouldn’t expect an outpouring of love for the Holy Father!

Regarding the papacy, no one has ever believed the Holy Father is Christ on earth. Nonsense, Justy. Father Mark is correct here.

"The pope, bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, as as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."–Catechism of the Catholic Church section 882

“Vicar” of Christ and actually being Christ are two very different things. Father Mark’s catechesis is correct on this issue. Look up the word “vicar” in the dictionary and you’ll see it means “representative.” To say one represents Christ and actually being Christ is apples and oranges of epic proportions.

Bishop Jack Iker of the ACNA Fort Worth Diocese recently said something thoughtful:
"Most of our clergy are Anglo-Catholics, who have long been committed to healing the breach with Rome that came about in the Reformation, and they see this (the Pope’s offer to Anglicans) as a very positive forward step in that direction."

The key words are “healing” and “breach.” Many Anglicans, most of the early American ones, believed and still believe that the Catholic Church must be one again and it needs healing, reconciliation, and reunion. A positive step in the right direction…Most Catholics in here who criticize the Anglican communion aren’t making it personal but rather hoping, praying for reunion of our seperated brothers…hope that they’ll come home to the Catholic Church…and the many sinful teachings of Anglicanism that hinder that openness to reunion are justifiably hated by Catholics. God bless…
Justy90 said:
I am befuddled at how it is that I am so discombobulated about folks disagreeing with me. I see thread after thread here aimed at discrediting and demeaning the Anglican Communion and more times than not they are distortions of the truth at best and in most cases purely ignorant false accusations and statements. Your position is that I and other Anglicans and many other Protestants for that matter are supposed to remain cordial to the utmost no matter what is heaved in our direction and if we do not, we are then fair game to be called hostile and rebellious. This is plainly and vehimately ridiculous. It is you who has the unbridled anger toward the ACNA and is using Rome to attempt to justify your vengence. Your painting of me as evangelical is false based upon your own admission of stereotyping and I really don’t care what you think otherwise based upon your viewpoints. You had better become a better catechized Catholic than you accused me of being if you still don’t think that Catholics believe that the pope takes the place of Christ on earth. I gave it to you quoted directly from the New York Catechism in my last post.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Well I have known several Anglicans on CAF, most notably GKC, who agree with Catholics more often than they lash out at them or get hostile. GKC, for example, hates women’s ordination and yet he acknowledges it goes on all over the place within Anglican circles. He hates gay marriage and gay ordination and many other things that he always acknowledges to be going on within the Anglican world. He has talked about how he dislikes the evangelical angles of Stott and Packer, etc. Catholics and Anglicans often bash Anglicanism because Anglicanism is a wide, wide, wide and motley crew. They don’t take everything personally. You’ll hear many Catholics, not just me, trashing the Novus Ordo post Vatican II Mass here. I hate it! Many Catholics do and yet many in here adore it or defend it. But for me to dislike the holding hands during the Our Father or the communion in the hand, Eucharistic ministers, Mass in English, that doesn’t mean I hate the Church. It’s just a preference I have and can voice my opinion without being necessarily anti-Catholic. Maybe you’re taking any criticism of Anglicanism as being aimed toward you and your congregation when it isn’t necessarily. You have to just analyze the situation and ask if it pertains to you…Do you have a female priest? Do you have a gay pastor? Do you have openly divorced and remarried people taking communion? Do you have gay marriages? Do you believe in sola scriptura? Just answer each one in your mind and if the answer is “no” then don’t take it so hard. But if the answer is “yes” then it hits close to home sometimes. Talking religion is tough. The old saying, “avoid talking politics and religion” is true in most social circles. But here we’re on a religion forum. You’re in a den of Catholics expecting them to be open to Anglicanism when they clearly should not be. If I were on an Anglican forum, I wouldn’t expect an outpouring of love for the Holy Father!

Regarding the papacy, no one has ever believed the Holy Father is Christ on earth. Nonsense, Justy. Father Mark is correct here.

"The pope, bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, as as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."–Catechism of the Catholic Church section 882

“Vicar” of Christ and actually being Christ are two very different things. Father Mark’s catechesis is correct on this issue. Look up the word “vicar” in the dictionary and you’ll see it means “representative.” To say one represents Christ and actually being Christ is apples and oranges of epic proportions.

Bishop Jack Iker of the ACNA Fort Worth Diocese recently said something thoughtful:
"Most of our clergy are Anglo-Catholics, who have long been committed to healing the breach with Rome that came about in the Reformation, and they see this (the Pope’s offer to Anglicans) as a very positive forward step in that direction."

The key words are “healing” and “breach.” Many Anglicans, most of the early American ones, believed and still believe that the Catholic Church must be one again and it needs healing, reconciliation, and reunion. A positive step in the right direction…Most Catholics in here who criticize the Anglican communion aren’t making it personal but rather hoping, praying for reunion of our seperated brothers…hope that they’ll come home to the Catholic Church…and the many sinful teachings of Anglicanism that hinder that openness to reunion are justifiably hated by Catholics. God bless…
Click to expand...
Look at my second most previous post and you will see that what I said was quoted directly from the New York Catechism. I don’t see how you can argue against your own proclamations. This is getting bizzare!
 
Justy90 said:
Look at my second most previous post and you will see that what I said was quoted directly from the New York Catechism. I don’t see how you can argue against your own proclamations. This is getting bizzare!
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing against anything. Your quote also said “vicar of Christ on earth” which is very accurate. He is not Christ HIMSELF but represents Christ. The language is obvious. No Catholic has ever believed that the pope is Jesus Christ. When people say the priest is “Christ for us” at Mass, it means he is working in persona christi sacramentally. Likewise the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit actively to teach the truth of Christ Jesus. He is guided and blessed, protected by Truth, and is Christ’s Vicar. I don’t understand why that is shocking or anything new?

By “takes the place of Christ,” are you actually thinking they mean that we replace Jesus with the pope? Surely you understand that it means since Christ is in heaven with the Father and has yet to return that He has left the Rock, Peter, to guide us in His stead, right? You don’t think we believe the pope died on the Cross and that we worship him instead of Jesus…?
 
Justy90 said:
Look at my second most previous post and you will see that what I said was quoted directly from the New York Catechism. I don’t see how you can argue against your own proclamations. This is getting bizzare!
Click to expand...
What is the New York Catechism? Where might be found, in toto? Not on p. 127 of Boettner, that is.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
Justy90 said:
The pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth. By divine right, the pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the TRUE VICAR OF CHRIST, the Head of the entire Church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils, the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, THE SUPREME JUDGE OF HEAVEN AND EARTH, the judge of ALL, being judged by no one, GOD HIMSELF ON EARTH.

Do you recognize that or do you want to again accuse me of just being angry and spewing venom?
Click to expand...
Justy,

You are angry and spewing venom, to quote your own words. As others in subsequent
post after yours I have quoted, have pointed out to you, you do reveal a lack of knowledge of the Catholic and Anglican Church. As you may not know I am considered a Vicar in my parish, the representative of the Bishop as the parish is still in mission status.

What you have published and proudly say is a Cathloic Catechism, New York to be exact, is very suspect. Google only reveals prior CAF threads answering a fundamentalist use of this very same quote. In 2007 on CAF, the New York Catechism was declared a figment of the imagination. Google reveals this quotes used by anti-catholics and fundamentalist. As GKC has asked, so do I. Please grab your copy, give us the copyright information (date of publish, where, ISBN) so we can look it up. I know Boettner quotes it, but he is a discredited anti-catholic when it comes to Catholicism.

This and your next post, as well as the quipp on another thread about the Catholic Church being the largest gay club, reveals your inner struggles that is causing you to lash out at the Church and to anyone who disagrees with your attacks on the Church. Whether Anglican or Catholic. Your citing of a noted Anti-catholic author as “proof” of the wrongness of Catholicism is sadly laughable. Just as citing Frank Page as proof on the wrongness of Calvinism is sadly laughable.

So you accusations of me sterotyping are void, except only to yourself. Your own words reveal you are not a catholic. Then again, maybe somewhere in the Anglican Communion a new term has be created to add to the big tent. Properly Catechized Catholics have, on this thread, corrected you. Can you admit you are wrong? Sadly no. You have too much invested in anger toward the Church. You believed the lies your were told or read, due to poor catechism, and made a decision based on those lies. Quoting Boettner is proof of this.

So, you do speak with emotion and when you attempt to use facts, you use discredited sources that have made up anticatholic material whole cloth. I stand by my advice to you.
I pray the Holy Spirit will open your eyes, heart and mind to what you are doing. You can
disagree with the Church, just do it in a reasonable manner.

Yes, to again quote your words, you are confused. You think misquoting or presenting anticatholic words will have Catholics suddenly slapping their foreheads and saying “d’oh” I have been wrong! Your catechism in the Catholic Church was poor as you reveal you do not know even the basics of the Catholic Faith. Not agree with, just do not know. Your Anglican Catechism, a such as Anglican Catechism exist, is also poor. But the group you belong too, does not catechize. I know, I was catechized and Confirmed in AMiA. It is telling the catechism of the Anglican Church can fit on a few pages in the back of the prayerbook. My Bishop tells us to use either the Catholic or Westminister to catechize the parish. Anglicans have not created a catechism as the book would be huge and no one would be able to carry it if it covered Anglican theology. then again it would be the most confusing book writing. One catechism saying WO is wrong, followed by one saying yes, one on homosexuality against scripture, the next it is ok. As an Anglican
priest I understand how Anglican laity are confused.

Now off to Mass

peace and blessings

Fr.Mark
ACNA
 
Justy90 said:
I am befuddled at how it is that I am so discombobulated about folks disagreeing with me. I see thread after thread here aimed at discrediting and demeaning the Anglican Communion and more times than not they are distortions of the truth at best and in most cases purely ignorant false accusations and statements. Your position is that I and other Anglicans and many other Protestants for that matter are supposed to remain cordial to the utmost no matter what is heaved in our direction and if we do not, we are then fair game to be called hostile and rebellious. This is plainly and vehimately ridiculous. It is you who has the unbridled anger toward the ACNA and is using Rome to attempt to justify your vengence. Your painting of me as evangelical is false based upon your own admission of stereotyping and I really don’t care what you think otherwise based upon your viewpoints. You had better become a better catechized Catholic than you accused me of being if you still don’t think that Catholics believe that the pope takes the place of Christ on earth. I gave it to you quoted directly from the New York Catechism in my last post.
Click to expand...
Ah, well, this expains so much. You’ve been caught out, Justy.

There is no such thing as the New York Catechism and that quote are fabrications.

You did **not **get the quote directly from the New York Catechism because the New York Catechism doesn’t exist. You got that quote either from Lorraine Boettner’s book-- the person who originated the fraud-- or you got it off of one of the numerous websites that repeat his fraud. It’s already been debunked.

And, now we know exactly who and what we are dealing with.

On ignore now.
 
With respect to everyone on this thread…can we please get back on topic? 🙂

So, someone pointed out that the AU is and would remain a subset of the Latin Rite. I’m intrigued by this – particularly the observation that it would be offensive to the Eastern Rites because of their Apostolic origin.

I don’t think anyone would dispute the fact that Rome aims to bring the entirety of the Anglican Communion back “into the fold”, as it were, but this is not about “winning”, per se. It’s about validating that which is valid in the AC and correcting that which is not.

Thus, it seems safe to say that the invitation from Rome is meant as a means for Anglicans to rejoin the Church without losing their traditions and liturgy (except, of course, for theological corrections here and there). This is a stark contrast with what would be required of, say, Baptists, who would pretty much have to enter via RCIA and a complete rejection of their previous form of worship.

I’d say that this shows a great amount of affection and respect for our Anglican brethren, and it amounts to a strong statement about just how much validity there might be in the AC given the proper context.

Thoughts?

Peace,
Dante
 
Seems logical to me.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus
DanteAlighieri said:
With respect to everyone on this thread…can we please get back on topic? 🙂

So, someone pointed out that the AU is and would remain a subset of the Latin Rite. I’m intrigued by this – particularly the observation that it would be offensive to the Eastern Rites because of their Apostolic origin.

I don’t think anyone would dispute the fact that Rome aims to bring the entirety of the Anglican Communion back “into the fold”, as it were, but this is not about “winning”, per se. It’s about validating that which is valid in the AC and correcting that which is not.

Thus, it seems safe to say that the invitation from Rome is meant as a means for Anglicans to rejoin the Church without losing their traditions and liturgy (except, of course, for theological corrections here and there). This is a stark contrast with what would be required of, say, Baptists, who would pretty much have to enter via RCIA and a complete rejection of their previous form of worship.

I’d say that this shows a great amount of affection and respect for our Anglican brethren, and it amounts to a strong statement about just how much validity there might be in the AC given the proper context.

Thoughts?

Peace,
Dante
Click to expand...
 
The ONLY catechism to quote is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I quoted in my post that makes it clear the Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ on earth. Father Mark, your point about you being the vicar of your bishop in the parish is a great analogy to what the Pope is for Christ. And the private opinions of the pope have diverged several times in Catholic history from the “actual” final determinations and teachings of those same popes, showing that they are inspired and can separate their own sinful prejudices and shortcomings from the truth of the Church, which is from Christ Himself. The New York Catechism is spurrious and I think a figment of the imagination of anti-Catholic biggots with a chip on their shoulders. I have heard of the Baltimore Catechism and the most recent catechism during John Paul II’s time, but New York? Upon looking for it, you’re correct that it seems a weird hoax. Great post as always!👍
MarkBrown said:
Justy,

You are angry and spewing venom, to quote your own words. As others in subsequent
post after yours I have quoted, have pointed out to you, you do reveal a lack of knowledge of the Catholic and Anglican Church. As you may not know I am considered a Vicar in my parish, the representative of the Bishop as the parish is still in mission status.

What you have published and proudly say is a Cathloic Catechism, New York to be exact, is very suspect. Google only reveals prior CAF threads answering a fundamentalist use of this very same quote. In 2007 on CAF, the New York Catechism was declared a figment of the imagination. Google reveals this quotes used by anti-catholics and fundamentalist. As GKC has asked, so do I. Please grab your copy, give us the copyright information (date of publish, where, ISBN) so we can look it up. I know Boettner quotes it, but he is a discredited anti-catholic when it comes to Catholicism.

This and your next post, as well as the quipp on another thread about the Catholic Church being the largest gay club, reveals your inner struggles that is causing you to lash out at the Church and to anyone who disagrees with your attacks on the Church. Whether Anglican or Catholic. Your citing of a noted Anti-catholic author as “proof” of the wrongness of Catholicism is sadly laughable. Just as citing Frank Page as proof on the wrongness of Calvinism is sadly laughable.

So you accusations of me sterotyping are void, except only to yourself. Your own words reveal you are not a catholic. Then again, maybe somewhere in the Anglican Communion a new term has be created to add to the big tent. Properly Catechized Catholics have, on this thread, corrected you. Can you admit you are wrong? Sadly no. You have too much invested in anger toward the Church. You believed the lies your were told or read, due to poor catechism, and made a decision based on those lies. Quoting Boettner is proof of this.

So, you do speak with emotion and when you attempt to use facts, you use discredited sources that have made up anticatholic material whole cloth. I stand by my advice to you.
I pray the Holy Spirit will open your eyes, heart and mind to what you are doing. You can
disagree with the Church, just do it in a reasonable manner.

Yes, to again quote your words, you are confused. You think misquoting or presenting anticatholic words will have Catholics suddenly slapping their foreheads and saying “d’oh” I have been wrong! Your catechism in the Catholic Church was poor as you reveal you do not know even the basics of the Catholic Faith. Not agree with, just do not know. Your Anglican Catechism, a such as Anglican Catechism exist, is also poor. But the group you belong too, does not catechize. I know, I was catechized and Confirmed in AMiA. It is telling the catechism of the Anglican Church can fit on a few pages in the back of the prayerbook. My Bishop tells us to use either the Catholic or Westminister to catechize the parish. Anglicans have not created a catechism as the book would be huge and no one would be able to carry it if it covered Anglican theology. then again it would be the most confusing book writing. One catechism saying WO is wrong, followed by one saying yes, one on homosexuality against scripture, the next it is ok. As an Anglican
priest I understand how Anglican laity are confused.

Now off to Mass

peace and blessings

Fr.Mark
ACNA
Click to expand...
 
I love Toto! Saw 'em in concert in 2008! Great musicians! 😃 There goes Jim and his Latin again! 😉 Can’t you bust out some Elvish for us once in a while!? koli iar mysti aelor “give us some elvish!”

I think the only person who could conjur up the New York Catechism is Gandalf and even then maybe not!
GKC said:
What is the New York Catechism? Where might be found, in toto? Not on p. 127 of Boettner, that is.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I love Toto! Saw 'em in concert in 2008! Great musicians! 😃 There goes Jim and his Latin again! 😉 Can’t you bust out some Elvish for us once in a while!? koli iar mysti aelor “give us some elvish!”

I think the only person who could conjur up the New York Catechism is Gandalf and even then maybe not!
Click to expand...
Si man i yulma nin enquatuva.

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top