Who is the authority of your church?

[Rbt_Southwell]

You’re either misquoting the Didache or, as in the partial one on Baptism, you are not giving the WHOLE quotation.

This gives the impression (intended on your part?) that the Church teaches something WRONG or nonScriptural.

Robert

 

[Rightlydivide]

You’re either misquoting the Didache or, as in the partial one on Baptism, you are not giving the WHOLE quotation.

This gives the impression (intended on your part?) that the Church teaches something WRONG or nonScriptural.

Robert

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

The first thing is to baptize IN living water. Immersion of course.
If you do not have living water, you baptize IN other water. Only if you have neither, not a problem except in a few places in the world I imagine, you pour on the head.
So…tell me again…why am I wrong??

First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever…

And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever…

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

Where is the part that turns it into his real body and blood? Well?

Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord,

Plain and simple
AMEN
So…where exactly am I wrong again??

 

[jmcrae]

The first thing is to baptize IN living water. Immersion of course.
If you do not have living water, you baptize IN other water. Only if you have neither, not a problem except in a few places in the world I imagine, you pour on the head.

This is exactly how it’s done in the Catholic Church.

So…tell me again…why am I wrong??

If you thought that Catholics do it some other way, then you were wrong.

I have no idea if that’s what you were thinking, but just the way you phrased it made it sound like, “Oh, you don’t use immersion or pouring for baptism, but it says to use immersion or pouring for baptism.” Uh, yeah, actually we do - please don’t mistake us for Methodists.

 

[Rightlydivide]

This is exactly how it’s done in the Catholic Church.

If you thought that Catholics do it some other way, then you were wrong.

I have no idea if that’s what you were thinking, but just the way you phrased it made it sound like, “Oh, you don’t use immersion or pouring for baptism, but it says to use immersion or pouring for baptism.” Uh, yeah, actually we do - please don’t mistake us for Methodists.

You dunk babies?

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Where is the part that turns it into his real body and blood? Well

In almost everything you have accused us Catholics of not believing in or of believing in without Scriptural foundation.

Oh, what is your infallible interpretation of this passage from St Matthew (3:8):

“Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentence.”??

Robert

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Jesus Christ

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

You dunk babies?

There you go again, rightlydivide, giving the flippant answer or accusing another of writing something he or she did NOT write.

Shame on you.

Robert

 

[jmcrae]

You dunk babies?

Sometimes we do, especially in the summer time.

In this cold climate, pouring is more usual, though - we still have snow on the ground at Easter time, so immersion isn’t very convenient most of the time, the river being frozen solid, and all.

But yes, we do (surprise, surprise) consider immersion to be the better way, and whenever it’s possible, we do it.

 

[jmcrae]

There you go again, rightlydivide, giving the flippant answer or accusing another of writing something he or she did NOT write.

Shame on you.

Robert

No, no - he read it right.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

I meant his out of context answers.

It is easy to ridicule our Church by taking what we believe out of context.

For example, you Catholics eat God.

True? In a partial context but the choice of words connotes other, less savory, images.

Robert

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;3243236:

I respect your answer, although I dont think that is what the ? of the post was asking. As much as I would like to discuss your answer, that Jesus Christ is your authority, would be taking us off the posted topic. I am sorry I was not able to learn more about your church authority through you…Love having you on the threads.

May the Peace, love and truth of Jesus Christ enlighten you

And you as well

 

[Rightlydivide]

Sometimes we do, especially in the summer time.

In this cold climate, pouring is more usual, though - we still have snow on the ground at Easter time, so immersion isn’t very convenient most of the time, the river being frozen solid, and all.

But yes, we do (surprise, surprise) consider immersion to be the better way, and whenever it’s possible, we do it.

I was once told by a Catholic school principal, assistant principal maybe, they NEVER did. I will look into it and try to ascertain how often if occurs! Good, this makes me happy

 

[Rightlydivide]

In almost everything you have accused us Catholics of not believing in or of believing in without Scriptural foundation.

Oh, what is your infallible interpretation of this passage from St Matthew (3:8):

“Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentence.”??

Robert

When have I EVER said I was infallible??
Ever?

Mat 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

I MAY be missing something but it is saying to…have good fruits to show you have repented.
What do YOU think it means?

 

[jmcrae]

I was once told by a Catholic school principal, assistant principal maybe, they NEVER did. I will look into it and try to ascertain how often if occurs! Good, this makes me happy

Maybe just in that particular location, for whatever reason.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Maybe just in that particular location, for whatever reason.

I just wanted to let you know jmcrae, that even though you may do this because of TRADITION, I think it is wonderful! I am not going to even try to talk you into doing it for scriptural reasons…

 

[jmcrae]

I just wanted to let you know jmcrae, that even though you may do this because of TRADITION, I think it is wonderful! I am not going to even try to talk you into doing it for scriptural reasons…

Of course, Scripture follows Tradition - but you already knew that.

 

[nonjuror]

Since Anglicanism is essentially English, and has the Queen (a secular national ruler) as its head, how can it be considered “Catholic” (universal)?

"Very simply, Just as followers of, ‘The Bishop of Rome,’ have a claim to catholicity so do we. We hold to the formula of faith posted in my last missive and to Catholic order as we have received it from the apostles. We hold to the faith in its entirety without any additions or subtractions.

Regarding the Queen as(’ a national secular ruler,’) was not the pope ruler of broad lands in Italy for at least a thousand years? Further, the Queen is not the head of the Anglican Church except as, “far as the Law Of God allows”. She is the chief magistrate and we are under the law! Would you claim that the Roman Church in the UK, doesn’t come under the rule of Law?

The Anglican Catholic Church is Catholic,’ universal’ because we
are no more,or less, than a manifestation of the Body of Christ here in Britain and have been so since AD37 approx.

 

[MrS]

"Very simply, Just as followers of, ‘The Bishop of Rome,’ have a claim to catholicity so do we. We hold to the formula of faith posted in my last missive and to Catholic order as we have received it from the apostles. We hold to the faith in its entirety without any additions or subtractions.

Regarding the Queen as(’ a national secular ruler,’) was not the pope ruler of broad lands in Italy for at least a thousand years? Further, the Queen is not the head of the Anglican Church except as, “far as the Law Of God allows”. She is the chief magistrate and we are under the law! Would you claim that the Roman Church in the UK, doesn’t come under the rule of Law?

The Anglican Catholic Church is Catholic,’ universal’ because we
are no more,or less, than a manifestation of the Body of Christ here in Britain and have been so since AD37 approx.

So if Benedict XVI is able to reconcile your church into the Catholic Church, and requirements expected of your church are met in full… would you submit, and would you make the changes (theological, disciplinary, etc), or would you reject the True Church founded by Jesus Christ… which by the way does NOT come UNDER the rule of law.

Natural Law stems from the “rule” of God.

.

 

[mercygate]

"Very simply, Just as followers of, ‘The Bishop of Rome,’ have a claim to catholicity so do we. We hold to the formula of faith posted in my last missive and to Catholic order as we have received it from the apostles. We hold to the faith in its entirety without any additions or subtractions.

Regarding the Queen as(’ a national secular ruler,’) was not the pope ruler of broad lands in Italy for at least a thousand years? Further, the Queen is not the head of the Anglican Church except as, “far as the Law Of God allows”. She is the chief magistrate and we are under the law! Would you claim that the Roman Church in the UK, doesn’t come under the rule of Law?

The Anglican Catholic Church is Catholic,’ universal’ because we
are no more,or less, than a manifestation of the Body of Christ here in Britain and have been so since AD37 approx.

Abp of Canterbury, Michael Ramsay, once said, “Of course I believe the bishop of Rome is the head of the Church.”

When I was an Anglican, I used to make this “catholic” argument all the time. Then one day at prayer, the Boss whispered in my ear: “Mercy, if you have Apostolic Succession, and Peter is NOT in your House of Bishops, you are missing the centerpiece.”

 

[nonjuror]

So if Benedict XVI is able to reconcile your church into the Catholic Church, and requirements expected of your church are met in full… would you submit, and would you make the changes (theological, disciplinary, etc), or would you reject the True Church founded by Jesus Christ… which by the way does NOT come UNDER the rule of law.

Natural Law stems from the “rule” of God.

.

If Pope Benedict were able to satisfy our beliefs in Theology and Tradition I have no doubt that our Bishops would come to some accomodation with the Roman Church. We are not however, members of the TAC. We have standards born out of the distillation of two thousand years of Catholic belief and practice. We acknowledge the Bishop of (Elder,) Rome as the Patriarch of the West.