Why can't we all just get along...

  • Thread starter Thread starter JillianRose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If Getting Along means abandoning our core principles to come celebrate the Mass, submit ourselves to the Magisterium & her Infallibility, and** silently sit by while the Rosary is recited**, then I’d much rather we stay in this sort of bizarre enmity.

We certainly pray for you on the Protestant side,
Hascard,

So that I can understand. You believe as an Anglican that you can pray for us and that God will hear your prayers. But you do not believe that those in heaven can pray for us…those closest to God? This includes the Mary, the Mother of God?

What part of the Rosary do you object to?
Hail Mary, full of grace.
Our Lord is with you.
Blessed are you among women,
and blessed is the fruit of your womb,
Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.
Keep in mind also, that while praying the rosary, we are contemplating the the life of Christ, from the annunciation and his birth to his death, resurrection and ascension. The mysteries that we meditate on are below. Mary always point us to her Son.
THE JOYFUL MYSTERIES
The Annunciation: The Archangel Gabriel “announces” to Mary that she shall conceive the Son of God.
The Visitation: Mary visits her cousin Elizabeth, who is pregnant with John the Baptist.
The Nativity: Jesus is born.
The Presentation: Mary and Joseph “present” Jesus in the Temple where they meet Simeon.
The Finding in the Temple: After losing Him, Mary and Joseph find young Jesus teaching the Rabbis in the Temple.
THE LUMINOUS MYSTERIES (THE MYSTERIES OF LIGHT)
The Baptism in the Jordan: The voice of the Father declares Jesus the beloved Son.
The Wedding at Cana: Christ changes water into wine, his first public miracle.
The Proclamation of the Kingdom: Jesus calls to conversion (cf. Mk 1:15) and forgives the sins of all who draw near to him.
The Transfiguration: The glory of the Godhead shines forth from the face of Christ.
The Institution of the Eucharist: Jesus offers the first Mass at the Last Supper with his apostles, establishing the sacramental foundation for all Christian living.
THE SORROWFUL MYSTERIES
The Agony in the Garden: Jesus sweats water and blood while praying the night before his passion.
The Scourging at the Pillar: Pilate has Jesus whipped.
The Crowning with Thorns: Roman soldiers crown Jesus’ head with thorns.
The Carrying of the Cross: Jesus meets His mother and falls three times on the way up THE
THE GLORIOUS MYSTERIES
The Resurrection: Jesus rises from the dead.
The Ascension: Jesus leaves the Apostles and bodily “ascends” to heaven.
The Descent of the Holy Spirit: The Apostles receive the Holy Spirit in tongues of fire in the upper room with Mary.
The Assumption: Mary is taken bodily–assumed–into heaven by God at the end of her life here on earth.
The Coronation: Mary is crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth.
The rosary is a form of repetitious prayer that focuses our minds on the life of Christ. I see that Anglicans have their own Rosary. To the OP, on this point we seem to get along. Do you have one and if so, how do you use it?

franciscan.org.au/anglican-rosary/
 
Funny how these threads drift. One only has to read this thread to find that we are all intolerant at times and in certain situations. Sorry if I drifted back to the original theme. Carryon with your various debates.
 
I just wanted to point out that LC-MS Concordia Publishing House has recently publish a Reader Edition of the Apocrypha with Lutheran Notes, this is a companion to the Lutheran Study Bible with Lurheran Notes.
This is good news. 🙂

We could get along even better if the pejorative Apocrypha title was dropped and Deutercanonical was added.

From Merriam-Webster

Definition of APOCRYPHA

1 writings or statements of dubious authenticity

Can the written Word of God be dubious?
 
This is good news. 🙂

We could get along even better if the pejorative Apocrypha title was dropped and Deutercanonical was added.

From Merriam-Webster

Definition of APOCRYPHA

1 writings or statements of dubious authenticity

Can the written Word of God be dubious?
If one understands the word “dubious” not as a pejorative, but to mean that there have been, over the course of Church history, disputes and questions regarding them, then the term is sound. It is, in fact, the case.
That doesn’t mean, however, that they should be ignored, or even rejected as a part of scripture. As Hn points out, (finally) American Lutherans are returning to the appropriate Lutheran position that these books are, indeed, part of our scriptural heritage as catholic Christians, and they should be used properly in the historic Lutheran manner, including liturgically.

Jon
 
This is good news. 🙂

We could get along even better if the pejorative Apocrypha title was dropped and Deutercanonical was added.

From Merriam-Webster

Definition of APOCRYPHA

1 writings or statements of dubious authenticity

Can the written Word of God be dubious?
Pork,

It is my understanding, pre Scott Hahn, that Apocrypha means hidden…it is the notion of dubious that exists in the minds of those that know not the truth and have been taught otherwise. The only way to change this if for the minds of those that believe this to learn that they have always been part of the Word of God, stolen, then retranslated with Hebrew texts and removed as stated. Facts are facts. Regardless of what Finland does…

Jesus was an Jew and Christianity is an Asian Religion…Finland is not in Asia.
 
Pork,

It is my understanding, pre Scott Hahn, that Apocrypha means hidden…it is the notion of dubious that exists in the minds of those that know not the truth and have been taught otherwise. The only way to change this if for the minds of those that believe this to learn that they have always been part of the Word of God, stolen, then retranslated with Hebrew texts and removed as stated. Facts are facts. Regardless of what Finland does…

Jesus was an Jew and Christianity is an Asian Religion…Finland is not in Asia.
Since Christianity is an Asian religion, perhaps it could be polemically claimed that Rome, not in Asia, “stole” scripture from Asian patriachates.

Neither claim and accusation, however, leads to productive dialogue.

Jon
 
I have made this remark already earlier. Is the discussion anymore in anyway related to the title of the thread.

Or is our intention to give a practical demonstration, “why can’t we all just get along…”
 
Since Christianity is an Asian religion, perhaps it could be polemically claimed that Rome, not in Asia, “stole” scripture from Asian patriachates.

Neither claim and accusation, however, leads to productive dialogue.

Jon
I have indeed heard that claim from a very polemical Jewish apologist, though about general (not just Catholic) Christian appropriation of the Jewish Scriptures.
 
I think some of the issue is kinda like this:

If I go to your house, and you tell me, for example, that you support banning all guns, I will politely disagree and say no more. It is, after all, your house.

If you come to my house and say the same thing, I will vigorously debate you and not back down.

I do not go to Lutheran Boards and tell Lutherans they are wrong. I do not go to LDS boards and tell them they are wrong. I do not go to any other religious boards to tell people they are wrong.

This is a Catholic site. If a non-Catholic comes here to discuss their faith and talks about their faith, I will vigorously defend.
The difference I see in your analogy is that this website (house) set up a non-Catholics forum and invited non-Catholics in, with the stated purpose to “explore the history and beliefs of non-Catholic and non-Christian faiths, dialogue with their adherents.” In my opinion, though perhaps only the moderators know for sure, no one’s purpose in coming here should be to start a thread telling someone else that their church is wrong. It is obvious, however, that people from different denominations and faiths will have beliefs that differ, and the house rules state that it is perfectly permissable to “discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions.”

If I’m reading the Important Forum Information sticky correctly, there should not be a “my house, your house” distinction; all participants are free to disagree and debate, with the caution that we “are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not.” Furthermore, the sticky on “Charity” states, “Catholics are NOT given preference because of their religious affiliation.”
I found out that MY best friend, who knows better, tells her kids that Catholics don’t love Jesus like they are suppose to and we worship and pray to Saints.

So here is my question. For all you Catholics and Non Catholics, is this common?
Unfortunately, it’s probably still pretty common. When I read books by either Baptist or Reformed authors who comment on the Roman Catholic Church, it is not unusual to find statements like this one, a response to a letter from a Catholic priest, from John R. Rice, “In actual practice, I well know, and you do, too, that multitudes of Catholics give far more attention to Mary than to Jesus Christ. They bow before shrines of Mary, but you say it is not worship. They adore Mary as ‘Mother of God and Queen of Heaven,’ but you say it is not worship. They make their prayers to Mary, yet you say it is not worship, They ascribe to her the sinless perfection which the Bible gives only to Christ, and yet you say it is not worship. Common people know better . . .”

When this is the kind of teaching people are exposed to, responses like the one from your friend are probably to be expected. As a non-Catholic, I disagree with many of the teachings and practices concerning Mary that are held by the Roman Catholic Church, but I also understand and accept the distinction that Catholics make between their devotion to Mary and their worship of God. Hopefully your friend will also, at some point, be able to appreciate that distinction, but it may also be that this belief of your friend is irrevocably settled. Does it affect your friendship? As an Anglican, I have many doctrinal differences with my Baptist friends, but we can still enjoy each other’s company when going bowling, watching movies, and in reading together and discussing a variety of Christian literature. Best wishes for an amicable resolution to this possible strain on your relationship.
 
The difference I see in your analogy is that this website (house) set up a non-Catholics forum and invited non-Catholics in, with the stated purpose to “explore the history and beliefs of non-Catholic and non-Christian faiths, dialogue with their adherents.” In my opinion, though perhaps only the moderators know for sure, no one’s purpose in coming here should be to start a thread telling someone else that their church is wrong. It is obvious, however, that people from different denominations and faiths will have beliefs that differ, and the house rules state that it is perfectly permissable to “discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions.”

If I’m reading the Important Forum Information sticky correctly, there should not be a “my house, your house” distinction; all participants are free to disagree and debate, with the caution that we “are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not.” Furthermore, the sticky on “Charity” states, “Catholics are NOT given preference because of their religious affiliation.”

Unfortunately, it’s probably still pretty common. When I read books by either Baptist or Reformed authors who comment on the Roman Catholic Church, it is not unusual to find statements like this one, a response to a letter from a Catholic priest, from John R. Rice, “In actual practice, I well know, and you do, too, that multitudes of Catholics give far more attention to Mary than to Jesus Christ. They bow before shrines of Mary, but you say it is not worship. They adore Mary as ‘Mother of God and Queen of Heaven,’ but you say it is not worship. They make their prayers to Mary, yet you say it is not worship, They ascribe to her the sinless perfection which the Bible gives only to Christ, and yet you say it is not worship. Common people know better . . .”

When this is the kind of teaching people are exposed to, responses like the one from your friend are probably to be expected. As a non-Catholic, I disagree with many of the teachings and practices concerning Mary that are held by the Roman Catholic Church, but I also understand and accept the distinction that Catholics make between their devotion to Mary and their worship of God. Hopefully your friend will also, at some point, be able to appreciate that distinction, but it may also be that this belief of your friend is irrevocably settled. Does it affect your friendship? As an Anglican, I have many doctrinal differences with my Baptist friends, but we can still enjoy each other’s company when going bowling, watching movies, and in reading together and discussing a variety of Christian literature. Best wishes for an amicable resolution to this possible strain on your relationship.
Thanks. I just know that I am where God wants ME to be. It is heart breaking that I can’t even talk about stuff that goes on in my Church, without worrying she is going to “twist it”. She has sent me literally page upon page on what she believes and what the Catholic Church believes and why we are “wrong”. I am afraid that my kids are going to hear this from her kids and then, I don’t know how much more Charity I can bring to the table. My 7 and 4 year old LOVE GOD and LOVE CHURCH. I don’t know why it has to be taken to such levels. I know for a fact if one of her children came home with a Catholic to marry, she might stroke!! LOL

Peace Brother/Sister,
Jill
 
If one understands the word “dubious” not as a pejorative, but to mean that there have been, over the course of Church history, disputes and questions regarding them, then the term is sound. It is, in fact, the case.
Hi Jon, you know that I am 97% LCMS 🙂 …you would agree that disputes and questions existed on some of the NT writings and no one has removed any.

The thought map I see from Protestants is (correct me as you see it)

The Catholic Church is not the one and visible Church established by Christ >
Still the CC was able to authoritatively establish the NT canon >
However, men in the 16th century determined that the CC erred on establishing the OT canon>
1,100+ years of history… from 400ad + can be wiped out by a printing company>
No outcry from non-Catholics that they are missing 7 books of Sacred Scripture>
Until the LCMS … adds them back…
That doesn’t mean, however, that they should be ignored, or even rejected as a part of scripture. As Hn points out, (finally) American Lutherans are returning to the appropriate Lutheran position that these books are, indeed, part of our scriptural heritage as catholic Christians, and they should be used properly in the historic Lutheran manner, including liturgically.
Are you saying that the LCMS believes that the deutercanonicals are the inspired and infallible Word of God? If not, by whose authority are they declared not? How does this fit with the Holy Spirit guiding the Church to all Truth? :confused:
 
It is heart breaking that I can’t even talk about stuff that goes on in my Church, without worrying she is going to “twist it”. She has sent me literally page upon page on what she believes and what the Catholic Church believes and why we are “wrong”. I am afraid that my kids are going to hear this from her kids . . . My 7 and 4 year old LOVE GOD and LOVE CHURCH. I don’t know why it has to be taken to such levels.
I feel for your situation. I don’t want to presume to give guidance, but has your friend heard the thoughts quoted above in this frank and direct manner? I also understand the need for protecting impressionable youngsters. Has your priest or others in your church offered suggestions for this situation? I’m sorry you are going through such a painful dilemma.
 
=Porknpie;10336745]Hi Jon, you know that I am 97% LCMS 🙂 …you would agree that disputes and questions existed on some of the NT writings and no one has removed any.
The thought map I see from Protestants is (correct me as you see it)
The Catholic Church is not the one and visible Church established by Christ >
Still the CC was able to authoritatively establish the NT canon >
However, men in the 16th century determined that the CC erred on establishing the OT canon>
1,100+ years of history… from 400ad + can be wiped out by a printing company>
No outcry from non-Catholics that they are missing 7 books of Sacred Scripture>
Until the LCMS … adds them back…
Let’s remember that even today, German Lutheran Bibles do contain the DC’s. It isn’t a matter of “throwing them out”, or “adding them back”. Also remember that Lutherans still use the NT Antilegomena (disputed books) differently than we do the universally attested books. It isn’t that they’re not scripture, but we recognize and respect the fact that throughout Church history there have been legitimate questions about them.
It is also the case that the Lutheran confessions not only reference the DC’s, but also there is no explicit list of canonical books in the confessions.
Are you saying that the LCMS believes that the deutercanonicals are the inspired and infallible Word of God? If not, by whose authority are they declared not? How does this fit with the Holy Spirit guiding the Church to all Truth? :confused:
No. I am saying the the LCMS recognizes that the DC’s are part of the historical scriptural heritage of the Church, and hold, as the name deutercanon implies, a secondary position.
Again, we look to the history of the Church, and their disputed nature, and treat them as such, probably not unlike the way the CC treats 3 and 4 Macc, I would suspect.

Jon
 
Since Christianity is an Asian religion, perhaps it could be polemically claimed that Rome, not in Asia, “stole” scripture from Asian patriachates.

Neither claim and accusation, however, leads to productive dialogue.

Jon
Jon,

You know how much I respect you and find your thoughts helpful. Here, however I must point out what I believe points out the problem as I see it…
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.
Christianity did not begin in Europe. Protestant thought began in Europe.

Jesus was an Asian Jew. Protestants propose that the Council of Jamnia is where the Jews declared the Hebrew OT, not the Septuagint to be the official canon of Scripture.

Ok, if this is true, the Septuagint was discarded and The OHCAC took what was discarded and added that to the NT declared to be Canon in Council. The same Septuagint that mimics the findings of the Oldest Bible in the world as we know, not the Protocanonicals.

So, Protestants stole the Vulgate, and disobediently translated it into English and then stole the Hebrew OT, decalred to be the Hebrew Canon, supposedly at the Council of Jamnia. They then put it together and call it the Bible, although it is only a translation and try to prove that it is the Word of God and they cannot.

So if you hold to the Council of Jamnia as evidence for the OT, then Protestants stole the NT from the OHCAC and then stole the OT from the Jews. The Septuagint apparently discarded stayed with the OHCAC.

I do love God, and I do love the folley of man…reminds me of…someone painting themselves into a corner…and it doesn’t happen just in Cartoons…:yup:
 
Let’s remember that even today, German Lutheran Bibles do contain the DC’s. It isn’t a matter of “throwing them out”, or “adding them back”. Also remember that Lutherans still use the NT Antilegomena (disputed books) differently than we do the universally attested books. It isn’t that they’re not scripture, but we recognize and respect the fact that throughout Church history there have been legitimate questions about them.
It is also the case that the Lutheran confessions not only reference the DC’s, but also there is no explicit list of canonical books in the confessions.

No. I am saying the the LCMS recognizes that the DC’s are part of the historical scriptural heritage of the Church, and hold, as the name deutercanon implies, a secondary position.
Again, we look to the history of the Church, and their disputed nature, and treat them as such, probably not unlike the way the CC treats 3 and 4 Macc, I would suspect.

Jon
Jon, when you look to the history of the Church, in particular the synods that canonized the OT and NT …( And then much later Trent )… How does one decide 1,100 years later that the synods errored? Christ said he would guide his Church to all Truth. How is changing the canon 1,100 years later not in conflict to the words of scripture?

100% Catholic
100% Orthodox
97%. LCMS

🙂
 
👍
Jon,

You know how much I respect you and find your thoughts helpful. Here, however I must point out what I believe points out the problem as I see it…

Christianity did not begin in Europe. Protestant thought began in Europe.

Jesus was an Asian Jew. Protestants propose that the Council of Jamnia is where the Jews declared the Hebrew OT, not the Septuagint to be the official canon of Scripture.

Ok, if this is true, the Septuagint was discarded and The OHCAC took what was discarded and added that to the NT declared to be Canon in Council. The same Septuagint that mimics the findings of the Oldest Bible in the world as we know, not the Protocanonicals.

So, Protestants stole the Vulgate, and disobediently translated it into English and then stole the Hebrew OT, decalred to be the Hebrew Canon, supposedly at the Council of Jamnia. They then put it together and call it the Bible, although it is only a translation and try to prove that it is the Word of God and they cannot.

So if you hold to the Council of Jamnia as evidence for the OT, then Protestants stole the NT from the OHCAC and then stole the OT from the Jews. The Septuagint apparently discarded stayed with the OHCAC.

I do love God, and I do love the folley of man…reminds me of…someone painting themselves into a corner…and it doesn’t happen just in Cartoons…:yup:
BTW your fellow Catholics need your help at this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=752923
 
Well, scripture says to reason together. It doesn’t meant to fight, but to have respectful debates. I think we forgot how to have a respectful debate. First, we should always pray before having such a debate, because of the same God we love, and thus peace and the Holy Spirit should speak through us rather than our private self fully coming out in emotions.

Some even ignore debating because they are holding onto their beliefs too much. As sad as it is, children will learn what their mini-culture teaches them, which can be both good and bad. But as we age, we start to develop an age of reasoning. In fact, I was taught by my church and by my parents that the Catholic Church is evil and the pope is the anti-Christ, which I consider nonsense now. I joined the church alone, and now I follow Christ’s teachings rather than my old mini-culture. The mini-culture turned into the Catholic culture that’s global and universal. And I still love what I found last year. Best decision in my life! 😃
 
Jon, when you look to the history of the Church, in particular the synods that canonized the OT and NT …( And then much later Trent )… How does one decide 1,100 years later that the synods errored? Christ said he would guide his Church to all Truth. How is changing the canon 1,100 years later not in conflict to the words of scripture?

100% Catholic
100% Orthodox
97%. LCMS

🙂
I’m not convinced the synods erred, but they were not general councils, either. As Lutherans, ISTM we ought to be able to look not only at the synods, but also at the disputes about these books, and respond accordingly. For me, it isn’t an either/or thing with the DC’s.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top