G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
He does not speak for himself alone; I concur with his conclusions and feelings
- Status
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
The “Anglicanism” you embrace began in the sixteenth century and it was never meant to be a permanent religion. The American Church, the Protestant Episcopal Church of America, made it clear in their statements that are placed in the Book of Common Prayer that they hoped for unity with the Church to be achieved sometime in future and that the divisions of Christendom are tragic, sad. You seem to embrace the division and your arguments always seek to find what’s wrong with the Church, bolstering your desire to be divisive, rather than unitive. You never seek reunion and those Anglicans that are reuniting with the Church are written off as traitors and idiots that don’t understand what Anglicanism really is rather than good, faithful Christians who are willing to obey rather than follow a rebellious heart. The true goal of all these “isms” should be to annihilate themselves and be one again, as Christ and Blessed Paul asked, One.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
See GKC’s post. He can make the point clearer than I. But I think the problem here is that you don’t understand a Bishop, a Cardinal, a Priest, a Pope ALL work with Christ’s guidance, with the Holy Spirit’s moving power. To be a Vicar of Christ is a representative. As Father Mark pointed out to you, and you didn’t listen to his point, a vicar is a representative who has the authority given him by the bishop. Why is it so difficult to accept authority? The Vicar of Christ isn’t Christ himself but he works with authority given him by the Almighty. It’s tough to swallow for the rebellious spirit. I myself have struggled with it in the past. We want to be our own Christs and we rebel and scream at the top of our lungs at the thought of another man carrying the keys and being guided by the Holy Spirit. That is precisely what the Holy Father is, the vicar of Christ. Do you seriously, honestly, truly, believe that these quotes you’ve taken from obscure sources (or spurious ones that never existed) prove that Catholics are to worship the pope in place of Christ? Do you really, honestly think the Church teaches that? It might give you comfort to think we believe in papal worship but I think in your heart of hearts you’ve been reading way too much anti-Catholic website material and it’s gotten out of hand, Justy.
gurneyhalleck1;6074012:
You did nothing of the sort. I made a genuine point by which it can be supported with many other sources including a papal encyclical by Pope Leo XIII entitled, “The Reunion of Christendon” 1885 which states that the pope holds “upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Now, let’s work on refuting that one next.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I fail to see the point. I have read all of these quotes before. The priests of the Catholic Church stand at Mass in persona christi. It’s how the sacraments work. The Holy Spirit works through the Pope as leader of the Church. In effect he stands in place of Christ in leadership not in godhead. That’s absurd and you know it. Since Christ is at the right hand of the Father and he works through the person of the Spirit, the Spirit guides the pope who holds the keys. Simple concept and not a diabolical one as you’d like to make it out to be. Have you ever considered that the pope transfers bishops at the behest of the Holy Spirit? They need not be mutually exclusive. But in your analysis the actions of men cannot be the actions of the holy spirit. Somehow the Holy Spirit works magically and never through us. And he does have “divine authority.” Who has argued otherwise? God gave Peter the keys to bind and loose, to the gates of heaven itself. I’d say that’s divine authority…nothing new here…
:shrug: And your “proofing” text mode of thought shows the sola scriptura attitude and again cynically denies the Church the divine path guided by the Holy Spirit. The pope, from your point of view, needs to go look up everything in the Bible as a proof text (as if the Bible contains every single issue or every single instance or every moral or ethical debate for every single conundrum) from a legalistic vantage point. I wonder how the Holy Father is supposed to rule with the embryonic stem cell research debate using Scripture? Maybe that technology is in Titus or Corinithians? 
Or how about end of life issues? Or what about sterilization or cloning or…??? The sola scriptura mentality is a dead-end. And it’s another sign of the inadequacy of anglican thought.
:shrug: And your “proofing” text mode of thought shows the sola scriptura attitude and again cynically denies the Church the divine path guided by the Holy Spirit. The pope, from your point of view, needs to go look up everything in the Bible as a proof text (as if the Bible contains every single issue or every single instance or every moral or ethical debate for every single conundrum) from a legalistic vantage point. I wonder how the Holy Father is supposed to rule with the embryonic stem cell research debate using Scripture? Maybe that technology is in Titus or Corinithians? Or how about end of life issues? Or what about sterilization or cloning or…??? The sola scriptura mentality is a dead-end. And it’s another sign of the inadequacy of anglican thought.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
God forbid an Anglican be truthful about history and report things without a warped lens that distorts it for his own purposes and prejudice. Amazing when an Anglican is truthful about the record he gets thrown under the bus! Ouch!
G
GKC
Guest
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
Friend, If you and your Neo Anglican colleague wish to believe these claims, I have no objections. It is your and his right.
How-and-ever, as a Catholic, it is my duty to point out that it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. The magisterium of the Church lies in the Bench, or College of Bishops, all of them and each and is ususally expressed through the guidance of the Holy Ghost, by means of Ecumenical Councils. Seven of them! ‘It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us’.] To most Catholics ,**'God’s true vice Governor **on earth,'would be The Holy Ghost.To pretend that these claims are run of the mill utterances, will be seen for what they are by most people at the best, overheated imagintion!
G
GKC
Guest
You do jump to conclusions.
Context from primary sources is always useful, in understanding what an isolated phrase might be intended to convey.
GKC
Context from primary sources is always useful, in understanding what an isolated phrase might be intended to convey.
GKC
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
I have read {Copies}of the Primary source on various occasions and indeed studied them. In essence there is still nothing to justify the terms used or acceptance of what has evolved from these matters.
Authority is from the bishops.Christ, Apostles, Scripture and the College of Bishops. This is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church!
G
GKC
Guest
Could be.
But not the point. Once again, the point is what the truncated quotes (or the spurious quote) said, in context, and to what they were referring, in the source, and what that source might or might not be. Especially useful when presented with a list of scare quotes, with incorrect dates.
Knowledge is good.
GKC
But not the point. Once again, the point is what the truncated quotes (or the spurious quote) said, in context, and to what they were referring, in the source, and what that source might or might not be. Especially useful when presented with a list of scare quotes, with incorrect dates.
Knowledge is good.
GKC
J
josie_L
Guest
I’m curious but as a “Catholic” how many books are there in your Catholic Bible?
J
josie_L
Guest
Yes, bishops do have authority because they are the successors to the apostles (appointed by Christ), however, there is only one bishop that is the successor of a specific apostle and that is the Bishop of Rome who has always and will always be the successor to St. Peter, the apostle that Jesus Christ said He would build His Church on. Furthermore, the keys of the Kingdom which were handed to St. Peter so that he could manifest its powers to the rest of the Church are still in the hands of his successors, i.e., the bishops of Rome.
Now, I dare you to find as many Church fathers as you can who claimed that the Bishop of Rome is not the successor of Peter?
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
None of 'em vary, so it should be 66!
**My best is a beautiful KJV. **
J
josie_L
Guest
Prior to the reformation there was no Bible with 66 books in it, so what has a “Catholic” are you doing with a Protestant Bible?
p.s. Why am I not surprised that you have a KJV?
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
Madam! The King James Version is the product of the Church in England,the Catholic Church in this country!Prior to the reformation there was no Bible with 66 books in it, so what has a “Catholic” are you doing with a Protestant Bible?
p.s. Why am I not surprised that you have a KJV?
So then, as a ‘Catholic,’ you can very well imagine why I have it and why it is the accepted version for the Church.
P
Padrej
Guest
IF you the Great Anglican Catholic knew the history of the King James Version you would know that King James VI or I which ever you wish to call him was Catholic and the 1611 version had more than 66 books but had the deuterocanonical or Apocryphal books. It is the current revision of the American King James Version (which has been revised in 1824 and again in 1884) that keeps the bible incomplete and took out a great deal of the archaic endings like “foot” ending in a final “e.”
To say as you do, “The King James Version is the product of the Church in England, the Catholic Church in this country!” would be a GROSS misrepresentation of facts the Catholics had nothing to do with the King James version in this country as their authorized version as they do not use a version with 66 books as yours has.
Come on now, the Anglican lectionary has parts of it that use the Apocryphal books so if were to look them up in your Bible with only 66 books your could not follow your own prayer book.
As an Anglican Bishop I am appalled at your behavior and misquoting of facts in church history on this thread, but have kept my peace until this point when you hit one of my pet peeves regarding the Bible. If you are going to be an Anglican be an Anglican and KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. If you desire to prove that the Catholic Church is wrong and show yourself to be a fool, be my guest and continue to post to this thread.
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
**My word! Your Hysteria makes you look silly! I would suggest that you give up either mushrooms or drink!
All my KJV’s have 66 Chapters and I leave it to my Roman cousins to hunt for more! I most certainly will not!
As for misquoting facts? Are you on anyway related to GKC ?
By the way, which Anglican sect are you a bishop in?
Regarding the idea of my proving,'the Catholic Church wrong, where did you get that idea from? 'I respect the Roman Catholic Church and admire the way they fight to prove their point! As for myself, I follow the traditional Anglican way as taught by my forefathers, in the Highchurch and Nonjuring Traditions.**
P
Padrej
Guest
I too am a High Church Anglican and I do not know GKC nor am I related to him. You should know IF you are of the High Church variety as you claim that the lectionary calls for portions of the Bible not contained in the 66 books of your King James, like ones from the Book of Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Etc. Those do not make up your 66. IF you are using your prayer book to its fullest, as a good Anglican would (or would be using the Anglican Missal even), your would be cutting yourself short by only staying with the limited 66 books. If you are the High Churchman that you claim to be you will know what I am referring to and not stick to the “let my Roman cousins hunt for more.”
As to the idea of proving the Catholic church wrong it is as plain as day when you constantly banter over issues of the Papacy that put food on nobody’s table nor do they bring a soul to Christ, nor do they make a disciple for Christ as YOU are called to do in the great commission of Matthew 28:19. How can you make a disciple if you are here on this thread arguing over petty points of the Papacy that don’t amount to a hill of beans and then have the nerve to claim that your incomplete is THE Bible because it has the words “Authorized Version.” Although you did not say those exact words I know your type and can spot you a mile away.
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
**Whilst S.Peter was a co-founder of the Church at Rome he also had his chair at two other cities Alexandria and Antioch. S.Gregory the Great, in a letter to Eulogius of Alexandria gives his view of this situation…"I cordially accept …what is spoken of the Chair of Peter is spoken by an occupant of the Chair.[Eulogius,] …who does not know that the Holy Church is established on upon the firmness of the Prince of the Apostles,… to whom it is said by the Voice of Truth,…“Feed My Sheep,? Therefore only one See has grown strong in authority’; but that See is in three places, though still the See of one.” This by S.Gregory the Great! Who very obviously doesn’t see Rome as paramount and claims that authority is in all three Sees. It is the Churches, that held the Apostolic Succession that were sought out, because they held the teaching of the Apostles.
**
G
GKC
Guest
Awaiting the list of facts I have misquoted, recalling p. 37 of MacCulloch, with amusement.
GKC
GKC
- Status