T
twf
Guest
The First Vatican Council defined the dogma of papal infallibility and clarified its limits… I’m not sure what you meant by the Pope declaring himself infallible?
What percentage of Protestant theology is based on the Bible?
- Status
V
Vonsalza
Guest
How so? Dirty rubs off onto clean, not the other way around. When those fellas left the Church their ability to validly ordain (and thus pass on the succession) was destroyed.po18guy:
Apparently Anglicans of the time did not consider this an issue. But even if it were, the "infusion " of Dutch Old Catholic lines in the early 1930’s would have solved that.
Henry made that perfectly clear when he couldn’t get his way.
T
twf
Guest
Well it’s all a matter of perspective. The Catholic Church obviously believes and professes that Her bishops embody the fullness of the college of bishops.
The Church’s Councils have always been challenged by some. We can’t really say that there are seven universally recognized councils… the Oriental Orthodox only recognize three… and the Assyrians only recognize two.
The Church’s Councils have always been challenged by some. We can’t really say that there are seven universally recognized councils… the Oriental Orthodox only recognize three… and the Assyrians only recognize two.
This is what I was talking about before, regarding your apologia.
And Rome made it clear with Apostolicae Curae when they couldn’t get theirs.
I have no doubt that both Catholic and Anglican orders are valid.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
*Shrug
I’m not the original author of that argument, Jon. It’s a century old as it pertains to the example you’ve provided.
The point is made, dismissive though you might be.
Including the Anglican orders that admit homosexuals? I guess the Godhead was just joking about that?
Oh, please. Let’s not talk about the sins of priests, or even the presence of homosexuals in the priesthood .
That said, I’m in a continuing Anglican communion, so our approach excludes openly practicing gays. We also do not ordain women.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I know, I know.Vonsalza:
Oh, please. Let’s not talk about the sins of priests, or even the presence of homosexuals in the priesthood .
But in fairness, they have to at least hide and be ashamed of their sin to become Catholic clergy, as opposed to some Anglican orders - an important difference even as you might disagree.
Ok, so what does that matter? Are you refining your statement to say “SOME Anglican orders are valid”?
If so, we’re back to the question you balked at mightily a few hours ago; who’s in and who’s out? Which baptisms are valid, which aren’t? How do you decide in a way that isn’t capricious?
po18guy
Well-known member
Dutch touch, Dutch schmutch. To me that is at least illicit in God’s eyes. If it is that danged important to have succession, just skip the runaround and join the real deal. Does that not strike you as cheating?
They changed it out of obedience to a secular King, rather than the Church founded by the King of kings. A lot of good folks still in the Anglican communion, but it is clearly a retrograde step from the true Apostolic Churches - Catholic and Orthodox.
They changed it out of obedience to a secular King, rather than the Church founded by the King of kings. A lot of good folks still in the Anglican communion, but it is clearly a retrograde step from the true Apostolic Churches - Catholic and Orthodox.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
You forgot the mic drop at the end, there.
G
guanophore
Guest
I don’t think so. Catholicism has never made any effort to extract doctrines from Scripture, or to interpret Scriptures to produce any unique doctrines. Certain scriptures may be understood in the light of the Traditions, but the Scripture is not the source of them.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is a major impediment to many mainline Christians. I have heard many say that, if the Orthodox and Catholics could resolve their differences, they could jump into that unity without hesitation.
I got it. Your fine with your homosexual priests as long as they hide?
Got it.
Being homosexual does not invalidate orders. Acting on it, just like anyone acting on sexuality outside of marriage, Is sin.
B
bettercallpaul
Guest
wow
these threads can go off in all kinds of tangents. But I don’t mind. its all communication.
these threads can go off in all kinds of tangents. But I don’t mind. its all communication.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Absolutely disgusting comment.
You should be embarrassed.
And still here we are. So openly and actively gay clergy aren’t valid, now? That’s very Catholic of you. Not very Anglican and not Episcopal at all, though.
Last edited:
You bring the topic in, and think I should be embarrassed. I don’t EVER bring these types of topics up because behaviors of members does not necessarily reflect on communions. But if what I said isdisgusting in your view, I would say you need to take a look at what Michael Voris and others have said about Catholic seminaries.
It isn’t hidden away, Von. I don’t like Voris, but I’ve watched him, and if what he says is half true, there’s where you’ll find disgusting. So don’t bring something like that up and expect no push-back.
There seem to be women clergy now in the Old Catholic Churches. You are asking me to speak for Anglicans that I’m not in communion with. I’ll hold you at the same standard. Clearly there are CATHOLIC clergy who are not validly ordained.
Last edited:
You’ve probably read it from me.
The method of determining doctrine isn’t really the point, but instead that doctrine’s exclusivity to one Tradition within the Church.
- Status