- Status
J
Justy90
Guest
I completely rest my case Mark. Every single time someone doesn’t like the quote, they accuse the material of being biased or of a questionable nature. It is there and comes from well documented sources (Fr. Mitch Pacwa, professor of theology in the Catholic church) that are very credible. The things that you say to demean me are lies and are laughable. I’m not going to get into this sparring game with you because you are a clown and cannot be taken seriously upon the things that you say to discredit. I doubt if you are truly who you claim to be. You have outlandish claims against the Anglican church by which you ought to be totally ashamed. The fact that you are not says alot about you. You shouldn’t waste another moment of Archbishop Duncan’s time and the ACNA’s mission.
G
GKC
Guest
What is the New York Catechism? Where might it be found, to be read? By someone other than John Ankerberg, I mean.
GKC
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Justy, when you resort to name-calling, Mark has won the debate. Several posters asked you to produce the New York Catechism and give us a link to it. You didn’t do that. Also, you are not citing where you’ve heard Father Pacwa use the catechism? If it is well-documented, please show us the link. If you Google “New York Catechism” you’ll find nothing but off-the-wall weird anti-Catholics using this mystery book. There are no places where the Catholic Church references it, produces it, and can you find an IMPRIMATUR on it? If you find us a link that shows us the imprimatur, then your argument is credible. If you can’t, you might as well admit that you’ve fallen into the trap of buying into anti-Catholic folks who make up phony documents to demean a Church they know next to nothing about. These are the same folks who think we worship Mary, worship statues, all our priests are gay, and that we are cannibals.
Mark’s not a clown. He’s a good, solid guy and he doesn’t see Anglicanism as you see it. Neither do I. And statistics and declining, horrible attendance numbers show that we’re not alone. People who leave Anglicanism are not psychotic or ungodly or foolhardy.
Also, you say that Father Mark makes “outlandish claims against the Anglican Church.” I’d actually like you to list and enumerate these “outlandish claims” so we can dissect them and see how “outlandish” they are?
And regarding Archbishop Duncan, he ought to quit wasting his own time ordaining women to the priesthood. This guy will be the cause of ACNA’s collapse. Iker is fed up with him…
Mark’s not a clown. He’s a good, solid guy and he doesn’t see Anglicanism as you see it. Neither do I. And statistics and declining, horrible attendance numbers show that we’re not alone. People who leave Anglicanism are not psychotic or ungodly or foolhardy.
Also, you say that Father Mark makes “outlandish claims against the Anglican Church.” I’d actually like you to list and enumerate these “outlandish claims” so we can dissect them and see how “outlandish” they are?
And regarding Archbishop Duncan, he ought to quit wasting his own time ordaining women to the priesthood. This guy will be the cause of ACNA’s collapse. Iker is fed up with him…
M
MarkBrown
Guest
Justy,
Do you really want to rest your case? You have presented no evidence. I did a simple google of Fr. Pacwa and New York Catechism. Appears you gathered your information from a notorious anti-catholic, (well Ankerberg is anti-many things). Did you read any of the exchange between Fr. Pacwa, Martin and Ankerberg? Ankerberg quoted the supposed “New York Catechism” and another work, translated them both into his own words and then asked Fr. Pacwa “Now, I know that most of these writings establishing Jesus establishing Peter go back to Matthew Chapter 16.”
Fr. Pacwa reply: “Yes” This is from the transcripts available on line. Fr. Pacwa did not document the NY Catechism. He agreed with the last comment. If you read the transcript you will see that Martin and Ankerberg rapid fire questions, numerous at one time and it takes some skill in reading the transcripts to figure out to what the good father is answering. He never has a chance to answer all the questions. If he start to get the better of Martin, Ankerberg the host jumps in to save him, Martin.
Also, using Ankerberg as a source? Most Protestants think him a joke. At Baptist Seminary when a student used him, the professor dropped the paper a letter grade as a warning to the class to not use as he said “wacky dis repubtable sources.” From a Baptist prof in a Baptist Seminary…not a Catholic. That student was me. I learned a very valuable lesson that day.
So, you really want to use a well documented, as the Baptist Seminary calls wacky, source to prove the existence of the New York Catechism?
Why don’t you just open your copy and give us the copyright information?
Could it be that it does not exist, and you have been caught passing along false and incorrect information?
I notice you are back to your old habits of insulting and dodging questions and request.
What you care about Archbishop Duncan? Now, has your jurisdiction totally come under his leadership or is it like the majority…double dipping. Staying with their foreign Archbishops of Africa and Southern Cone and with ++Duncan. Divided loyalities and all.
I think your concern for the good Archbishop and the Mission are just feeble attempts to get everyone to forget…you still can not produce any copyright information on the great tome called the New York Catechism.
Tell you what. Give us the information we have asked for, and asked for…please don’t make the Anglicans ask you again. If it is creditworthy, ie not from some crazed anti-catholic site, but the actual copyright information; you can start a thread on all my outlandish claims. Now understand, I can support my claim with solid evidence from Anglican websites, seminaries, church sites, pictures (properly censored for the young and those with weak hearts) etc. So far, you have Boettner and Ankerberg. Who is next,
Jack Chick? Westboro Baptist? In my book they all have the same level of scholarship.
And I thought I would get the copyright evidence from you Justy.
Blessing
Fr.Mark
ACNA
B
BernadetteM
Guest
The Catholic Church has allowed the Anglican Use (Pastoral Provision) for 30 years, with their own liturgy. This Apostolic Constitution guarantees that an Anglican Use (not rite) will continue forever. The Ordinariate will actually work with the Bishop, but will be actually reporting to Rome directly, if there are any problems with dealing with the Bishop.
From your previous posts it is apparent that you are against Rome and that is fine, but for Anglicans who want to be fully Catholic this will be a wonderful opportunity.
As a former Episcopalian I understand that many Anglicans just can’t stand the thought of authority and because there is no authority in the Episcopal/Anglican church is why they are in such a mess now.
I have been informed by continuing Anglicans that there are between 69-100 different Anglican continuing groups now. It is fine if you don’t want to be part of this, but why do you seem so angry that other Anglicans want to accept the Pope’s offer. He did not approach them, they approached him.
Apparently the Anglican Use parishes and priests are very content within the Church.
Hopefully you have found the faith community that fits your needs. I pray you are peaceful with your choice, so it is difficult to understand your attitude towards others who have a different view than you do.
Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary
Bernadette
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Overall I agree with you, but there HAVE been problems in Eastern Catholic Churches with being pushed to give up Eastern practices/attitudes etc. So although Justy seems excessively angry and paranoid, I would not assume the Anglicans that take the CC up on this proposal will have a smooth ride.
C
chris_molter
Guest
I certainly don’t disagree and share your concerns, but I think I should point out that the Church has been trending the other way in recent years… Pope Benedict in particular seems to desire that each particular Church’s liturgical traditions be maintained. Hopefully that trend continues!!
B
BernadetteM
Guest
I feel that Rome has proven itself with the Pastoral Provision. Yes it will be different because there are more people and priests, also it will be more complicated as they are sorted out who can enter and who cannot. But I know that the Anglican Use priests have wanted some changes in the liturgy from the beginning and I believe from what I have heard this will happen. The Church (Rome) respects the AU priests and I believe that they will have (name removed by moderator)ut into the revised liturgy and BDW. They are all very solid in the faith and very traditional in their Anglican Patrimony.
It will make a difference that they don’t have to deal with Bishops, the Ordinariate will have to, but will also be able to go directly to Rome.
I converted and I feel very comfortable within the Church. I have met lovely people and of course have missed my Anglo Catholic parish, but many of us left with the priest many years ago. I put my faith before the building etc. and I know that is difficult for some, but I am at peace and that is what the goal is. I know that there are priests, Bishops and people within the Church who aren’t perfect, but they weren’t perfect in the Episcopal church either.
I just don’t understand the anger that some people have, it is an individual decision where one wants to worship and I don’t feel any anger towards Anglicans who wish to stay Anglicans or Episcopalians.
God Bless
Bernadette
J
Justy90
Guest
I’m not going to entertain your game of hide and go seek with quoted information. If I were to quote Luke from Scripture where the angel Gabriel called Mary highly favoured one instead of Hail Mary full of grace, Catholics would be attacking me for using a flawed Protestant Bible and the continued scrutiny over sources that they do not like would most asuredly continue. This all becomes circular reasoning and I’m not playing the game. As for your continued attacks upon Anglicanism, I’ll say it again. There’s the door, use it. I had the integrity to leave the Catholic church after three and a half decades and it was the only church that I knew at the time. Where’s your integrity Mark? Instead of attacking the African diocese and the Southern Cone and Archbishop Duncan, Venables and anyone else that comes into your cross hairs, make your move and stop sitting on the fence.Justy,
Do you really want to rest your case? You have presented no evidence. I did a simple google of Fr. Pacwa and New York Catechism. Appears you gathered your information from a notorious anti-catholic, (well Ankerberg is anti-many things). Did you read any of the exchange between Fr. Pacwa, Martin and Ankerberg? Ankerberg quoted the supposed “New York Catechism” and another work, translated them both into his own words and then asked Fr. Pacwa “Now, I know that most of these writings establishing Jesus establishing Peter go back to Matthew Chapter 16.”
Fr. Pacwa reply: “Yes” This is from the transcripts available on line. Fr. Pacwa did not document the NY Catechism. He agreed with the last comment. If you read the transcript you will see that Martin and Ankerberg rapid fire questions, numerous at one time and it takes some skill in reading the transcripts to figure out to what the good father is answering. He never has a chance to answer all the questions. If he start to get the better of Martin, Ankerberg the host jumps in to save him, Martin.
Also, using Ankerberg as a source? Most Protestants think him a joke. At Baptist Seminary when a student used him, the professor dropped the paper a letter grade as a warning to the class to not use as he said “wacky dis repubtable sources.” From a Baptist prof in a Baptist Seminary…not a Catholic. That student was me. I learned a very valuable lesson that day.
So, you really want to use a well documented, as the Baptist Seminary calls wacky, source to prove the existence of the New York Catechism?
Why don’t you just open your copy and give us the copyright information?
Could it be that it does not exist, and you have been caught passing along false and incorrect information?
I notice you are back to your old habits of insulting and dodging questions and request.
What you care about Archbishop Duncan? Now, has your jurisdiction totally come under his leadership or is it like the majority…double dipping. Staying with their foreign Archbishops of Africa and Southern Cone and with ++Duncan. Divided loyalities and all.
I think your concern for the good Archbishop and the Mission are just feeble attempts to get everyone to forget…you still can not produce any copyright information on the great tome called the New York Catechism.
Tell you what. Give us the information we have asked for, and asked for…please don’t make the Anglicans ask you again. If it is creditworthy, ie not from some crazed anti-catholic site, but the actual copyright information; you can start a thread on all my outlandish claims. Now understand, I can support my claim with solid evidence from Anglican websites, seminaries, church sites, pictures (properly censored for the young and those with weak hearts) etc. So far, you have Boettner and Ankerberg. Who is next,
Jack Chick? Westboro Baptist? In my book they all have the same level of scholarship.
And I thought I would get the copyright evidence from you Justy.
Blessing
Fr.Mark
ACNA
G
GKC
Guest
M
MarkBrown
Guest
Justy,
So this is your way of admitting you can not produce any information we have requested?
What is hide and seek about the copyright information of the book you said your quoted?
Set all this right. Just give us the copyright information on the New York Catechism. We seem to be unable to find a copy, your information will help in that regard.
Fr. Mark
ACNA
J
Justy90
Guest
This surely isn’t the first time that myself and other Protestants here have been asked to produce copyright information for sources that seem to hit too close to home for some Catholics. But, the funny thing is that Catholics seemingly never produce any of theirs in similar cases. Hmmm, does a double standard seem obvious here?
G
GKC
Guest
I’m a book/history person. I’m not even asking for standard publication data. Just a neutral identification of the New York Catechism.This surely isn’t the first time that myself and other Protestants here have been asked to produce copyright information for sources that seem to hit too close to home for some Catholics. But, the funny thing is that Catholics seemingly never produce any of theirs in similar cases. Hmmm, does a double standard seem obvious here?
Otherwise, this sort of thing is like people who babble about the Jesuit Oath and the Congressional Record or the Black Pope. It is baseless until a base is shown. And it is embarrassing.
You haven’t shown a source yet. That’s the issue. And yes, I take RCs to task on the same point.
GKC
Anglicanus-Catholicus
G
GKC
Guest
In essence, yes, but at least one can find the Protocols. As spurious as they are, they can be pointed to. All I have ever seen of the NYC is Boettner’s reference and one or two derivatives. Which is an interesting point. For all that Boettner’s book is, taken as a whole, a load of codswallop, there is no reason for him to make up the NYC out of whole cloth. I would suspect he had something in mind. What that might be, is the question.
But for any reasonably well-read person, the putative quote doesn’t pass the smell test.
GKC
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
We’ve sung “A Mighty Fortress” in my latin rite parish, for what it’s worth.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Just a note. The idea of having an ordinary that is not a bishop is not something new to the Church.
The religious orders of pontifical right, that is religious orders that fall under the purview of the pope, are just the same. The superiors of those orders and the superiors of the provinces of those orders act as the ordinary for the members of their orders.
My prior provincial, that is the superior of my province, is my ordinary. When one of us is deemed ready for ordination by my superior he asks a bishop to perform the ordination but the bishop does not get a say in if we are to be ordained he just gets a say in whether or not he will do it.
Also as the ordinary for our province he is the last word on all liturgical celebrations in our priories (houses), shrines, and retreat houses.
And unlike the local bishop, he has a say in our celebration of the EF, that is he can refuse to allow us to celebrate it. The document from the pope that allows for the celebration of the EF is for the local bishop and the secular priesthood.
M
MarkBrown
Guest
No. You are embarrasing yourself and Anglicanism, just as any Catholic or Baptist or Orthodox would who present baseless accusations.This surely isn’t the first time that myself and other Protestants here have been asked to produce copyright information for sources that seem to hit too close to home for some Catholics. But, the funny thing is that Catholics seemingly never produce any of theirs in similar cases. Hmmm, does a double standard seem obvious here?
You are correct, this is not the first time you and other protestants have been asked to present evidence to back up your outlandish claims. To let you know, a catholic on another thread who made the same type of baseless claims against Anglicanism you have made against Catholicism, was taken to task not only by Anglicans, but Catholics and Orthodox. This catholic, like you, was unable or unwilling to produce evidence to support thier absurd position.
Since you seem unable to produce simple copyright infor, GKC is easiler just a neutral identification, and since you can not seem to answer a question without anger directed toward the Church or those asking the question. I must assume you to be a Jack Chick type Anglican and discount what you say as hate, mean spirited, anti-catholicism.
Advent is a time of reflection for all Christians. I hope you take advantage.
Blessings
Fr.Mark
ACNA
- Status