Agreed. I don’t know if it would lead me to convert or not, but it certainly would make it easier if there were an Anglican Use Catholic Parish within driving distance. Perhaps that option would not entail a complete abandonment of our liturgical and musical heritage. I’m sure most Catholics won’t understand or appreciate what I’ve said here, but maybe some of the Catholic converts from the Methodist or Episcopal Churches will…
Or perhaps those of us who are converts from Methodist and Episcopal backgrounds will note that actual practices in most of these churches do not rise to you gentlemen’s high standards for liturgical music.
I thought “truculent” was a nice touch myself. It has the pitch-perfect tone of petulant condescension with just enough of that Germanic hard consonant to let you know you’ve been insulted.
No, you are right, and we fully understand. We have been at this English thing for 40 years only.
No-one was comparing the US Constitution to the Church. The point was to compare the Constitution to the Bible. Regardless of the faults of the Constitution, the founders of the USA didn’t just produce a document and leave it up to individuals to interpret it. They founded an ongoing institution, the Supreme Court, to interpret it for all time to come. Just as it’s useless trying to interpret the Bible without reference to the Church.
I apologize for caring more for truth than for partisanship!
I am obviously in no position to comment on that
I just reread both of our posts, and while my posts were certainly not perfect, I have satisfied myself that the truth is the reverse of what you claim. I am not going to argue the point, and I certainly want to admit whenever I have offended. But I do not see that the paper trail bears out your accusation, and it will just have to rest there.
Obviously I disagree that “Amazing Grace” contradicts Catholic doctrine. However, I have no authority to decide that matter.
This is, I think, the real issue. Is Catholicism really the fulfillment of what is good and true in evangelicalism? This is what I was told by my old friend Tim Gray twelve years ago. This is the reason I hang out on this board (other than my unsanctified desire to annoy people like you). I hope with all my heart that this will turn out to be true. But if it is, then there must be a way to preserve the central expressions of evangelical piety in communion with the bishop of Rome. That is what I was talking about in my original post. That is what I have been talking about all along.
Isn’t that special. Sorry, I’m not running off to ‘mommy’ cause you’re a gadfly. Whenever you’re wrong, whether in history or theology, we will be happy to point that out.
So far I don’t recall you ever pointing out an instance of my doing this.
That is truly disturbing. You want to know why people are anti-Catholic, look no further than this post.
I am sorry for making a remark that got blown way out of proportion. The point I was trying to make is that I’m a lot more concerned to preserve evangelical piety than to preserve any Protestant doctrine.There are many Catholic parishes where evangelical and wesleyan hymns are sung regularly. And though I admit I do wince a bit when I sing “Amazing Grace”, it is possible to interpret the words in a Catholic way. A few Catholics may mutter, but I’ve never heard of a Catholic actually complaining about his parish singing a hymn which implies acceptance of protrestant doctrines. Crikey, some the “hymns” you’ll hear in Catholic churches imply doctrines which aren’t even Christian!
This is not sliding?:
How is it “sliding” to point out that a claim to already possess truth sounds very much like a claim not to care about truth? I think there is a reason why these two things sound a lot like each other. If you cared about truth as you ought to, you would know that in this life you are never quite there. Your posts repeatedly show a preference for partisanship over truth, as do those of many Catholics on this forum. I annoy you, not just because I am a sinner and frequently express myself with insufficient charity, but also because I call you and other Catholics on your one-sided and overly complacent approach to truth.
#1. You don’t annoy me, Edwin.
Sure you can. You could, for example, provide those threads where you have exhibited self-awareness and corrected your behavior, thus undermining my claim. I can wait.I am obviously in no position to comment on that
Well, as long as you’re satisfied—that’s what’s important, right?
So much for seeking truth, huh?
Here goes the sleight of hand again, courtesy of The Great Contarini. What you think is the real issue hasn’t even a passing resemblance to the point of the thread, nor arguments you’ve made in it. And yet it’s now magically “the real issue” since you’ve been nailed on the spurious claims you made earlier.
Perhaps through academic training or perhaps by nature, Edwin is gifted in being able to see two sides of an issue at the same time. This is not a vice, but a virtue…especially on an apologetics board where Catholics and Protestants spend more time sniping at each other than finding common ground. It’s also a necessity when you are honestly discussing and/or debating an issue. As an elderly gentlemen from Southwest Virginia once told me, “no matter how thin you slice a pancake it still has two sides.”
Eternity has two sides as well—we call them Heaven and Hell.
Oh garbage. Nobody’s asking you to give up what you believe, only to be capable of understanding and appreciating the other guy’s side of the story. If you are incapable or unwilling to do that, it’s your loss.
It is the point of every one of my posts since the initial remark to which you took such grave and irrelevant exception. The fact that you refuse to listen to what I have been saying consistently is not my fault.
And I have pointed out that evangelicals of a non-Calvinist stripe (such as myself) have no problem singing a Calvinist hymn such as “Amazing Grace.” The point I was trying to make (clumsily because it was a passing remark more than anything else) was that these “mutterings” don’t take the form of pointing out real, irreconcilable doctrinal deviations. If those were there, you wouldn’t have orthodox Catholics who see nothing wrong with “Amazing Grace.” (And since the one real doctrinal issue some have pointed to–eternal security–is also a difference between Calvinists and Wesleyans, Wesleyans would not have been able to sing the hymn either.) The reason Catholics “mutter” is that “Amazing Grace” speaks of a kind of experiential piety that makes many Catholics uncomfortable: “I once was blind, but now I see.”
Not just evangelization.
Right about what? If you agree with these “mutterings,” you haven’t said so. If you want to make a doctrinal argument against “Amazing Grace,” by all means do so. I would welcome such a substantive conversation instead of irrelevant remarks about praise bands (not to mention the continual personal attacks). I am not saying that Catholics should sing hymns that contradict Catholic doctrine. My problem is that many Catholics are uncomfortable with evangelical piety even if they can’t really point to a doctrinal error in it.
I am not the person who responded to a remark about “Amazing Grace” with an attack on praise bands. I have not changed the subject (except in the sense that my original casual remark was unnecessary in this thread). I have been talking throughout about the kind of evangelical piety nurtured by hymns such as “Amazing Grace.”