7
7_Sorrows
Guest
She is replying to the post saying Luther and his followers did separate from the Catholic Church.
- Status
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Guanaphore - your last 2 quotes in post #355 were actually mine.
S
spina1953
Guest
Those who are Christian but not Catholic are protestants because they are protesting the CC. They are not Catholic’s yet, they are Christian so therefore they are in imperfect union with the CC. The CC does not judge them as they have some of the truth but not all. Those who come after the reformation and brought up in whatever faith they received can not he held responsible for the actions of those who broke away from the CC due to what they thought were major differences in how one was to believe.
While I would not agree with those who call themselves evangelical Catholic's and it seems not right, I am not going to let it bother me since people often call themselves many things and many like to have a label of who they are, which I think is not really all that important because we do have Catholic's in name only who do not practice their faith, and I am sure that is true among out Protestant brethren. I doubt that all Lutheran's call themselves evangelical Catholic's, only some do. I will say this if they are not in union with the CC and imbracing all of what the CC teaches then they are not Catholic in any sense of the word, but protesters who protest the CC for whatever reason they feel according to their beliefs.
D
Duane1966
Guest
Danged if we do, danged if we don’t.
That’s RIGHT! See what happens when you mess with the RCC grasshopper?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Here’s why I believe it’s wrong for people who aren’t actually Catholic to call themselves Catholic.
Let’s take a parallel: there are some couples who are living together, who have not actually “made it official” and gotten married, who want to call themselves married. They say that they love each other in the same way that married couples do…and, in fact, there are some couples who are married but act in a less loving way than they do…
so why can’t they say that they are married? They love each other, right? They are fully committed to each other, right? They are faithful and exclusive to each other, right?
Answer: because they aren’t, well, married. Even if they act as if they are.
Even if some married couples don’t act as if they are married, and actually cheat on their spouses!
Even if some married couples don’t even talk to each other and this living-together couple talks to each other constantly!
And it should bother us, even a little bit, that there are some couples who are calling themselves married when they actually aren’t.
M
marywarfield
Guest
I’d like to add another one in response-
Why are Lutherans unhappy being called Protestants?
Remember that thread?
Let’s throw a hypothetical out there- some Lutherans
call themselves Catholic in order to mislead and take
a pot shot at the Church. Other Lutherans call
themselves Catholic because they resent the
Protestant label and don’t like being lumped
with fundamentalists.
When I was a kid ( and no Guanophore I’m not
an Old Catholic just an older lol) Cathilics resented
a Protestant church holding services very very similar
to Catholic Mass. Yet most Lutherans at that time- fifty
years ago- were happy with the Protestant label
and to be lumped more in the Baptist arena than Catholic.
Now no. They stress their commonalities to the CC.
Could it be that the Protestants over the last fifty
years have become so extreme the Lutherans
want to put distance between themselves and the
Protestant label?
As far as the Body of Christ goes- they are seperated.
I suggest that if I cut my right arm off it is still MINE.
If I have a cousin rather than a brother he is still
part of my family.
If we (Catholics) are THE Body of Christ than
Lutheran arms cut off would still be OUR arms.
So why not consider them Catholic if you consider
them Christian?
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
That is a good analogy PRmerger.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Very astute marywarfield
M
marywarfield
Guest
Your post here is a complete distortion of what I said.Naturally, marywarfield can answer for herself, but my response to the above is: I highly doubt that mary is “coming from the Old Catholic perspective”.
And even if she is indeed using that document as her criterion (PR says ever so skeptically), it does not account for the fact that she views 2 sacraments as a required entry into the Catholic Church, not the 7 the document declares to be required.
or both churches the episcopal office in apostolic succession, within which the whole church stands, t**ogether with the seven sacraments **form the ecclesiological pillars of their endeavours for ecclesial communion.
From whence does she get this criterion that belief in only 2 sacraments are necessary for inclusion into the Church?
And it would seem that this document erodes mary’s position that submission to the Roman Pontiff is not required for the name “Catholic”.
All previous official Old Catholic statements and declarations on the primacy of the bishop of Rome (see Appendix) have always recognised a factual primacy of the pope as it accords with the common tradition of the church of the East and the West.
I never said two sacraments are required blah blah. That’s
nonsense.
What I am referring to are not requirements for inclusion
per se. I am referring to the famous
4 Marks of the Church. Remember those?
If not you can find them in a kazillion places on
the Internet, all catechisms and here:
catholic-pages.com/church/marks.asp
Now that link purports that ONLY the Roman
Catholic Church possesses all four marks of a
Christian Church.
If what it says is true it means that only Romans are
Catholic and no other Church is even Christian.
If they are not Christian than they are not “brethren”
either are they?
You see? Everyone- both Catholic and Lutheran-
want their cake and to eat it too.
We HAVE to view them as our “brethren” because
they are Christians but not Catholics while claiming
only RCCers are the true Christian Church. WAT?
And Lutherans want to be Catholics while leaving the
Cross behind.
meltzerboy
New member
Common-law marriages are legally recognized in certain jurisdictions and acceptable world-wide. Would you include them in your analogy?
P
PRmerger
Guest
If they made the effort to make it legal, then I would include them in the analogy.
If it’s merely by attrition, then no.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
PRNaturally, marywarfield can answer for herself, but my response to the above is: I highly doubt that mary is “coming from the Old Catholic perspective”.
And even if she is indeed using that document as her criterion (PR says ever so skeptically), it does not account for the fact that she views 2 sacraments as a required entry into the Catholic Church, not the 7 the document declares to be required.
or both churches the episcopal office in apostolic succession, within which the whole church stands, t**ogether with the seven sacraments **form the ecclesiological pillars of their endeavours for ecclesial communion.
From whence does she get this criterion that belief in only 2 sacraments are necessary for inclusion into the Church?
And it would seem that this document erodes mary’s position that submission to the Roman Pontiff is not required for the name “Catholic”.
All previous official Old Catholic statements and declarations on the primacy of the bishop of Rome (see Appendix) have always recognised a factual primacy of the pope as it accords with the common tradition of the church of the East and the West.
You may not be aware that these issues are dealt with in the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue. Lutherans identify the 2 major Sacraments but never limit the number to 2 or 3 [holy Absolution]. I’ll provide documentation on this if you would like. Episcopal/ apostolic succession is practiced by most Lutherans as affirmed in the Dialogue. What you raise is “old” business and no longer a church-dividing issue between Lutherans and Catholics.
Also, we mustn’t forget that Anglicans refer to themselves as Anglo-Catholic. Is that acceptable?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, since the Lutheran church acknowledges only 2 sacraments, and you want them to be included in the Catholic realm, then by implication you believe that only 2 sacraments are required.
Is that not a logical conclusion I have made?
I am asking you for your requirements, mary.
What are they?
And they would have to explain logically why JWs and Mormons would be excluded.
And you would have to explain why you believe that you can exclude folks from calling themselves Catholic but I can’t.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes. I would like something from the equivalent of the Lutheran magisterium which declares that this is no longer correctly articulates Lutheran doctrine:
There has been a change, according to you, in Lutheran teaching?
Do these Anglo-Catholics profess submission to the Roman Pontiff?
A
Annie39
Guest
M
marywarfield
Guest
What nonsense! I never gave a list of requirements
. I never said I wanted Lutherans included in the RC.
In fact most of those who have helped boot me off
CAF recently can testify to that lol!
They are not ready to be a part of the RCCERS. They
have a long long way to go as do many Catholics
such as yourself. Plus they are a mess. I don’t know
half the time which Lutheran Church is being discussed
under the Lutheran label. We already have too much
of those confusions- we don’t need to add theirs. Like all
hoarders there comes a time when the accumulated
nonsense just CAN’T be stored under one roof
and we have to call 1-800- got junk? For relief.
I’d rather not get to that point.
Having said all that- I still say that for the most part-
Catholic resentment at Lutherans attempting to cozy
up to safety in a Protestant world gone mad are
exhibiting signs of “nationalism” than true adherence
and loyalty to Christ.
JMO
Mary
P
PRmerger
Guest
Right.
I am asking (and have been asking. And asking…) for your list of requirements.
Yet, as you say, correctly, you have not yet given a list of requirements.
You actually are just arbitrarily, at this point, saying, “Lutherans can be included but JWs and Mormons can’t!”
I would like your list of requirements, please!
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Some Anglicans do, many don’t. Anglicanism is – how shall I put it? – fickle? freckled? … almost motley.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Could you please clarify what you mean by this comment, mary, as it applies to me?
How is it that I “have a long way to go”? In what way?
And how does my having “a long way to go” apply to this discussion?
M
marywarfield
Guest
True desire. Very simple.
That’s my list. Simply because no one has explained
how we are to consider someone truly Christian
but not Catholic. At this time the Church calls
JWs and Mormons neither name. So that’s simple
too.
- Status