B
barbgal
Guest
Thank you everybody for all of the responses. I am Catholic and recently went to an Episcopal church, while at the mass it seemed very close to a Catholic mass so I was wondering the difference. Thanks to everybody
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
My daughter did something like that for her TI-99, in 1979.Might this help?
#include <stdio.h>
main()
{
int post_entry;
int post_num;
if (post_entry != post_num)
printf("%d
", post_entry);
else
logout;
}
(Ok! I know it’s really dumb! I’d need an array to store all the post numbers.)
GKC
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Were you just curious or considering a conversion? God bless
Thank you everybody for all of the responses. I am Catholic and recently went to an Episcopal church, while at the mass it seemed very close to a Catholic mass so I was wondering the difference. Thanks to everybody
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
What is the difference between episcopal and catholic? I’ll pay homage to our local Gandalf: depends on which episcopalians you ask…
I sense Master Po coming…
I sense Master Po coming…
P
Poco
Guest
Funny you should mention that! Several years ago I attended my first Catholic Mass. I came out thinking, Wow, that was a lot like our Episcopal Holy Communion!Thank you everybody for all of the responses. I am Catholic and recently went to an Episcopal church, while at the mass it seemed very close to a Catholic mass so I was wondering the difference. Thanks to everybody
Well, It would have taken up too much space to draw a bunch of punch cards! :yup:
G
GKC
Guest
I remember punch cards.Funny you should mention that! Several years ago I attended my first Catholic Mass. I came out thinking, Wow, that was a lot like our Episcopal Holy Communion!
Well, It would have taken up too much space to draw a bunch of punch cards! :yup:
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
I think Warner Oland was a little better.Ok Kung Fu Panda!
Now I’m in the mood to go watch some Sydney Toler Charlie Chan flicks!
I can’t say I’ve met James Hong, but I walked past him, once.
GKC
H
Holly3278
Guest
Episcopalians here in the United States at least tend to be much more liberal than other denominations of Christianity. They are similar in belief to Catholics but as far as I know, they reject the papacy. Also, Episcopalians do not have valid apostolic succession and therefore, they do not have valid Sacraments with the exception of baptism. Even Evangelicals can validly administer the Sacrament of Baptism provided that they do it properly.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Aww, say t’aint so, Jim. I’m a Toler fan. I realize Oland was the original but I never cared for him at all. I think Toler had more warmth, humor, and character. I liked number two son much better also, Victor Sen Yung, than Keye Luke’s number one. I didn’t care as much for the Tolers when he went over to Monogram but the addition of Mantan Moreland was a treasure as Birmingham. I love Moreland. If you ever hear his vaudville comedy act with his friend and stage partner Ben Carter where they finish each other’s sentences, hi-larious.
Come on now, 36 years old and a well-versed Charlie Chan fan, you have to give me some props!
Greatest episodes: Castle in the Desert, Charlie Chan and the Wax Museum, Murder over New York, Treasure Island.
Did you ever see Roland Winters as Chan? Wow, now that was baaaad.
You walked by James Hong! Hong is the bomb man! Big Trouble in Little China, Lo Pan, nuff said! (I sound like Stan Lee!)
Come on now, 36 years old and a well-versed Charlie Chan fan, you have to give me some props!
Greatest episodes: Castle in the Desert, Charlie Chan and the Wax Museum, Murder over New York, Treasure Island.
Did you ever see Roland Winters as Chan? Wow, now that was baaaad.
You walked by James Hong! Hong is the bomb man! Big Trouble in Little China, Lo Pan, nuff said! (I sound like Stan Lee!)
B
BrushedByAngels
Guest
Some of my family are Episcopalian. As far as I know, the Episcopal church does not have a problem with abortion, active homosexuals, ordaining women as priests, remarriage, oral contraception, etc… The holy communion service is very similar to the RC mass.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Fairly accurate. But I would add that though the communion services appear like Catholic ones, the theology/beliefs behind the communion tend to be quite different.
N
nhylan
Guest
I would also point that that Anglican Holy orders are only invalid to Roman Catholics who affirm what Rome says on the matter. If one was to examine the matter on their own one might come to a different and maybe (MAYBE) more accurate conclusion. I’m not saying a Roman Catholic should say that Anglican’s have valid orders but I am saying that Anglican’s have valid Holy Orders… LOL.
B
BernadetteM
Guest
Unless something has changed, the Orthodox do not accept Anglican orders as valid either.
Bernadette
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Nothing has changed—you’re correct.
N
nhylan
Guest
indeed, however it should be noted that some Orthodox don’t think Roman priests have valid orders either.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Depends on which Orthodox you ask. Also, the position, as it has been explained to me by the Orthodox and in what I have read in my home library, the Orthodox haven’t definitively said, “the Catholics do not have valid orders.” What their position is is this: like St. Cyprian’s view of valid orders, when one leaves the Church, we cannot be sure if they have valid orders or not. That is to say, when one leaves Holy Orthodoxy, they are not in communion with what we KNOW are valid orders. The Catholics “could” have valid orders but we cannot affirm or disprove it as they are outside of Orthodoxy." So it’s a “maybe they do—maybe they don’t?” So some Orthodox go with “don’t” and some speculate they “do.”
I’ve made it clear that I think Anglican orders ARE valid. I stick to that. I’ve made my reasoning known also. I do know that the “orders” of female priestesses are not valid nor are those they “consecrate.”
I’ve made it clear that I think Anglican orders ARE valid. I stick to that. I’ve made my reasoning known also. I do know that the “orders” of female priestesses are not valid nor are those they “consecrate.”
Some Orthodox don’t. However, even now, some Orthodox seek a dialogue with Rome towards unifiation as Rome seeks a dialogue with them. An Orthodox Christian can receive the eucharist from a Catholic church if they have their Bishops approval.
I suppose you could see it as the Catholic Church was One Church for centuries guided by the Holy Spirit, valid Apostolic Succession, and Sacred Tradition. Then theological, political, and social disagreements occurred.
Resulting in the first split of The Church. Some formed the Occidental Orthodox Churches (Church of the East, Jacobite Church etc which followed a Nestorian theology). Now both have valid Apolostolic Succession and Sacred Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit, etc.
Then centuries later The Church under went more theological disagreements, and political pressures. Resulting in a second split and the Eastern Orthodox Churches were born. Now three groups are guided by the Holy Spirit, a valid Apostolic Succession, and Sacred Tradition.
Then a few more centuries pass, The Church under immense political pressure from other governments, an encroaching Hostile religion from the south (Islam), and then a theological disagreement with a few priests (Luther, and others with access to a printing press) the Church underwent a different kind of split. The Church was still the Church, but those that left went through a Reformation as it were under Luther, Calvin, and King Henry the 8th among others. The first left over theological disagreements, he and priests like him had a Valid Apostolic Succession, and was guided by the Holy Spirit, though he changed Sacred Tradition when he altered the Sacred Scriptures. Now the second generation from him didn’t have a Valid Apostolic succession because Luther was never a Bishop and couldn’t ordain anyone to pass it down.
King Henry had issues with how the Church wouldn’t grant his request of nullity as earlier stated in this thread. So he placed himself as the Head of the Church in England, he still liked the Church Structure with Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, so he kept it and the Holy Spirit still guided the Anglican Church with Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession until the words of Ordination were changed. Then Apostolic Succession for the Anglican Church was broken until some were ordained by Old Catholics centuries later.
Calvin’s theology was the most extreme and did away with any sort of Clerical church structure Bishop,Priests, and Deacons, etc. He was in favor of a faith for the people. From him there was no Apostolic Succession, and Sacred Tradition was limited with just the Sacred Scriptures and a rudimentary form of local governance though still guided by the Holy Spirit.
Through it all The Church with the Holy Spirit still stands. You could say the Church sees the Occidental and Eastern Orthodox as siblings with a Valid Apostolic Succession, Sacred Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit. The Reformation Churches are viewed as ecclesial communities, that have Sacred Tradition in the form of Baptism and Sacred Scriptures guided by the Holy Spirit though without Apostolic Succession.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom
I suppose you could see it as the Catholic Church was One Church for centuries guided by the Holy Spirit, valid Apostolic Succession, and Sacred Tradition. Then theological, political, and social disagreements occurred.
Resulting in the first split of The Church. Some formed the Occidental Orthodox Churches (Church of the East, Jacobite Church etc which followed a Nestorian theology). Now both have valid Apolostolic Succession and Sacred Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit, etc.
Then centuries later The Church under went more theological disagreements, and political pressures. Resulting in a second split and the Eastern Orthodox Churches were born. Now three groups are guided by the Holy Spirit, a valid Apostolic Succession, and Sacred Tradition.
Then a few more centuries pass, The Church under immense political pressure from other governments, an encroaching Hostile religion from the south (Islam), and then a theological disagreement with a few priests (Luther, and others with access to a printing press) the Church underwent a different kind of split. The Church was still the Church, but those that left went through a Reformation as it were under Luther, Calvin, and King Henry the 8th among others. The first left over theological disagreements, he and priests like him had a Valid Apostolic Succession, and was guided by the Holy Spirit, though he changed Sacred Tradition when he altered the Sacred Scriptures. Now the second generation from him didn’t have a Valid Apostolic succession because Luther was never a Bishop and couldn’t ordain anyone to pass it down.
King Henry had issues with how the Church wouldn’t grant his request of nullity as earlier stated in this thread. So he placed himself as the Head of the Church in England, he still liked the Church Structure with Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, so he kept it and the Holy Spirit still guided the Anglican Church with Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession until the words of Ordination were changed. Then Apostolic Succession for the Anglican Church was broken until some were ordained by Old Catholics centuries later.
Calvin’s theology was the most extreme and did away with any sort of Clerical church structure Bishop,Priests, and Deacons, etc. He was in favor of a faith for the people. From him there was no Apostolic Succession, and Sacred Tradition was limited with just the Sacred Scriptures and a rudimentary form of local governance though still guided by the Holy Spirit.
Through it all The Church with the Holy Spirit still stands. You could say the Church sees the Occidental and Eastern Orthodox as siblings with a Valid Apostolic Succession, Sacred Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit. The Reformation Churches are viewed as ecclesial communities, that have Sacred Tradition in the form of Baptism and Sacred Scriptures guided by the Holy Spirit though without Apostolic Succession.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
- Status