Why do protestants name their churches after Saints?

[mgrfin]

He’s no more in denial than you are. You don’t think either she or the ABC is a valid bishop. He thinks the ABC is but KJS isn’t. I think they both are. None of us are in denial–we just have different theologies of what it takes to be a bishop.

Actually the difference between you and GKC may not be strictly speaking theological. It’s more one of historical fact–did the Anglicans break the line of succession or not. But GKC can speak more authoritatively than I on that one.

If the Orthodox Church (I say that because I know you don’t think this could ever happen in Catholicism) were to choose a woman as bishop, wouldn’t you make a distinction between her and the male bishops of the Orthodox Church, whom you regard as valid albeit schismatic bishops? GKC is doing exactly the same thing.

Edwin

To say that Katharine is a bishop is simple. To say that you don’t accept her orders as valid is entirely another. GKC wouldn’t deny that Benedict XVI is a bishop.

You may say I am splitting hairs. But you understand how that works.

Simply speaking, there are theological differences between GKC and myself. To say otherwise, Edwin, is truly to be in denial.

The EO are just as unlikely to ordain a woman as Roman Catholicism is, maybe more so. My authority for whether the Anglican Church broke the Apostolic line of succession is Leo XIII. He spoke definitively on this subject. GKC accepts the view of T.A. Lacey, whose views were not accepted by the Holy Father.

Just accept Katarine’s title. Whether women can be ordained, or whether Episcopal ordination is ‘apostolic’ is not the issue here.

That’s all.

peace

 

[GKC]

To say that Katharine is a bishop is simple. To say that you don’t accept her orders as valid is entirely another. GKC wouldn’t deny that Benedict XVI is a bishop.

You may say I am splitting hairs. But you understand how that works.

Simply speaking, there are theological differences between GKC and myself. To say otherwise, Edwin, is truly to be in denial.

The EO are just as unlikely to ordain a woman as Roman Catholicism is, maybe more so. My authority for whether the Anglican Church broke the Apostolic line of succession is Leo XIII. He spoke definitively on this subject. GKC accepts the view of T.A. Lacey, whose views were not accepted by the Holy Father.

Just accept Katarine’s title. Whether women can be ordained, or whether Episcopal ordination is ‘apostolic’ is not the issue here.

That’s all.

peace

Nope. Benedict is a bishop. Numero uno.

WIlliams is a bishop, in apostolic succession. In your view, he could be a bishop, in apostolic succession (i.e., the matter is correct) if AC was not what AC is. Katherine cannot be a bishop, regardless of AC. The requirement of valid matter, form, intent, minister, etc, did not originate with AC. Hence Katherine is not a bishop in apostolic succession. And that’s the only sort of bishop I recognise.

There are theological issues between thee and me, true. But what constitutes a bishop, in apostolic succession, is not one of them. Our difference lies in whether Anglican males meet the requirements.

Lacey was present in Rome during the commission’s meetings, as a Latinist, at the call of any who needed such (no one called, and certainly not the Holy Father). He relates his experiences in his ROMAN DIARY. His work forms no significant part of my opinions on what went on during the events.

And, of course, I’m not an Episcopalian.

Why do you do these things to yourself, in public? Why not ask if Lacey is why I believe what I beliave?

GKC

 

[GKC]

Ask any Episcopalian. She is more than a functionary (whatever that is).

Means she works in the front office for TEC.

GKC

 

[mgrfin]

Nope. Benedict is a bishop. Numero uno.

WIlliams is a bishop, in apostolic succession. In your view, he could be a bishop, in apostolic succession (i.e., the matter is correct) if AC was not what AC is. Katherine cannot be a bishop, regardless of AC. The requirement of valid matter, form, intent, minister, etc, did not originate with AC. Hence Katherine is not a bishop in apostolic succession. And that’s the only sort of bishop I recognise.

There are theological issues between thee and me, true. But what constitutes a bishop, in apostolic succession, is not one of them. Our difference lies in whether Anglican males meet the requirements.

Lacey was present in Rome during the commission’s meetings, as a Latinist, at the call of any who needed such (no one called, and certainly not the Holy Father). He relates his experiences in his ROMAN DIARY. His work forms no significant part of my opinions on what went on during the events.

And, of course, I’m not an Episcopalian.

Why do you do these things to yourself, in public?

Why not ask if Lacey is why I believe what I beliave?

GKC

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said his work forms any part of your opinions on what went on during the events at the end of the 19th Century. I’ve read his Diary as well.

We already know you are not an Episcopalian. We have been told that by you, and by a few others on this site.

I don’t believe Williams is a bishop in apostolic succession. Absolutely not. But I don’t deny his title. Our difference does not lie in whether Anglican males meet the requirements.
Gender is not the primary issue.

What do you mean 'why do you do these things to yourself in public"? Such a comment is inappropriate; let’s not go there.

Lacey has has nothing to do with what you believe. I never said that he did. He is purely a point of reference. I could have referred to Abbe Duchene, or Gasparri, but that would have taken us too far afield. I’m not really interested why you would believe in the validity of Anglican Orders. For me, the issue has been resolved by Leo. For you, it is at least an historical nicety.

peace

 

[GKC]

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said his work forms any part of your opinions on what went on during the events at the end of the 19th Century. I’ve read his Diary as well.

We already know you are not an Episcopalian. We have been told that by you, and by a few others on this site.

I don’t believe Williams is a bishop in apostolic succession. Absolutely not. But I don’t deny his title. Our difference does not lie in whether Anglican males meet the requirements.
Gender is not the primary issue.

What do you mean 'why do you do these things to yourself in public"? Such a comment is inappropriate; let’s not go there.

Lacey has has nothing to do with what you believe. I never said that he did. He is purely a point of reference. I could have referred to Abbe Duchene, or Gasparri, but that would have taken us too far afield. I’m not really interested why you would believe in the validity of Anglican Orders. For me, the issue has been resolved by Leo. For you, it is at least an historical nicety.

peace

Heck, If I put words in your wouth, you try to put me into the Episcopal church. It’s that sort of thing, the assuming bit, that you are doing in public. It’s embarassing. You know otherwise now, because you were told. If you ask, you won’t get it wrong.

And no, not Gasparri or Duchesne, either. Though the man is a RC priest, as I have many, many times mentioned.

It’s an historical tragedy.

And it’s not WIlliams we were discussing, It was Katherine. If you wish to refer to her as a bishop, you and the Episcopal church will both be happy.

GKC

 

[mgrfin]

It’s an historical tragedy.

GKC

You don’t want to give Bishop Schori her minimal due, so be it.
I’m not going to discuss it further.

As for Anglican Orders, the Holy Spirit spoke with finality on this issue through Leo XIII. Luteranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism are historical tragedies. It’s all depends on your viewpoint.

End of issue, end of story.

 

[GKC]

You don’t want to give Bishop Schori her minimal due, so be it.
I’m not going to discuss it further.

As for Anglican Orders, the Holy Spirit spoke with finality on this issue through Leo XIII. Luteranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism are historical tragedies. It’s all depends on your viewpoint.

End of issue, end of story.

Which is, as I always, invariably, point out, exactly what a RC should affirm. It certainly does depend on your viewpoint. So we end by agreeing.

Next?

GKC

 

[Deconi]

Which is, as I always, invariably, point out, exactly what a RC should affirm. It certainly does depend on your viewpoint. So we end by agreeing.

Next?

GKC

The Truth of the statement though remains outside of that ‘viewpoint.’

“Anglican Orders are invalid,” Roman Catholic
“Anglican Orders are valid,” Anglican
“No. It depends on your perspective / viewpoint,” GKC
“No. It does NOT!” Deconi

How accurate am I?

 

[GKC]

The Truth of the statement though remains outside of that ‘viewpoint.’

“Anglican Orders are invalid,” Roman Catholic
“Anglican Orders are valid,” Anglican
“No. It depends on your perspective / viewpoint,” GKC
“No. It does NOT!” Deconi

How accurate am I?

In commenting on what I as commenting on, not completely, I think. mfrgin replied to my statement that the affair of *Apostolicae Curae * was a tragedy (and considering how it got started in 1890, with Halifax and Portal, it certainly was) by observing that Anglicanism , Lutheranism, Calvinism were all tragedies themselves. And that that conclusion depended on your viewpoint.

My two sentences are replies to his two sentences. Which, incidentally, said nothing about what I myself considered a tragedy, in his comments.

GKC

 

[Roy5]

Most Protestant denominations use only Biblical names when naming churches after saints. especially the gospel writers. However, some other saints are generally admired, among them St. Augustine and St. Francis of Assisi. The typical informed Protestant view is that many Catholic saints are legendary or semi-legendary. Some were local pagan gods and goddesses who were ‘baptized’ (as it were) when Christianity came to this or that community. They also tend to note that just about every woman saint is described as a virgin and nearly every male saint is a priest.

 When Protestants speak of saints they often mean the wider community - e. g., all loyal Christians serve to be known as saints. 

 As for women bishops, some denominations (e. g., Methodists) have had them for many years now. 

  The Catholic Church moved in the direction of less saints some years ago when St. Christopher and St. Nicholas (among others) were 'demoted'. So many stories associated with saints sound like pious superstition today.   

  I'm hoping that Catholicism continues to reform, such as allowing priests to marry and ordaining women. There seems to be nothing in the Bible that forbids either outright. That would help stop the flow of Catholics from the church into either secularism or some form of Protestantism. The only way that American Catholicism has grown is through Hispanic immigation, much of it illegal, and even many Hispanics are embracing Protestantism, usually the stricter, fundamentalist type. By 2020 it's estimated that half of all US Catholics will be Hispanic. Nothing against Hispanics, but this is likely to have a major impact upon our society at large and the Catholic Church in particular.

 

[Deconi]

In commenting on what I as commenting on, not completely, I think. mfrgin replied to my statement that the affair of *Apostolicae Curae * was a tragedy (and considering how it got started in 1890, with Halifax and Portal, it certainly was) by observing that Anglicanism , Lutheranism, Calvinism were all tragedies themselves. And that that conclusion depended on your viewpoint.

My two sentences are replies to his two sentences. Which, incidentally, said nothing about what I myself considered a tragedy, in his comments.

GKC

OK. Understood.

 

[geraldffff]

Just watch. Some Episcopalian is going to jump in here and say they are Catholic.

peace

I read the whole thread. A lot of the specifics I did not understand but your side of the discussion gets my vote. Your side of the discussion seemed more reasoned while the other debaters appeared to waffle or change their positioning just to win a point.

 

[GKC]

I read the whole thread. A lot of the specifics I did not understand but your side of the discussion gets my vote. Your side of the discussion seemed more reasoned while the other debaters appeared to waffle or change their positioning just to win a point.

Odd. I voted that I won.

It all depends on your viewpoint, I guess.

GKC

 

[Deconi]

Most Protestant denominations use only Biblical names when naming churches after saints. especially the gospel writers. However, some other saints are generally admired, among them St. Augustine and St. Francis of Assisi. The typical informed Protestant view is that many Catholic saints are legendary or semi-legendary. Some were local pagan gods and goddesses who were ‘baptized’ (as it were) when Christianity came to this or that community. They also tend to note that just about every woman saint is described as a virgin and nearly every male saint is a priest.

 When Protestants speak of saints they often mean the wider community - e. g., all loyal Christians serve to be known as saints. 

 As for women bishops, some denominations (e. g., Methodists) have had them for many years now. 

  The Catholic Church moved in the direction of less saints some years ago when St. Christopher and St. Nicholas (among others) were 'demoted'. So many stories associated with saints sound like pious superstition today.   

 ** I'm hoping that Catholicism continues to reform, such as allowing priests to marry and ordaining women. There seems to be nothing in the Bible that forbids either outright. That would help stop the flow of Catholics from the church into either secularism or some form of Protestantism.** The only way that American Catholicism has grown is through Hispanic immigation, much of it illegal, and even many Hispanics are embracing Protestantism, usually the stricter, fundamentalist type. By 2020 it's estimated that half of all US Catholics will be Hispanic. Nothing against Hispanics, but this is likely to have a major impact upon our society at large and the Catholic Church in particular.

I hope you aren’t Catholic with those views!

1. Scriptures ‘argues against’ women ordination, and it isn’t due to gender.
2. Tradition confirms that ‘argument.’
3. I’d like to see the ‘reformation’ in Catholicism that you hope to continue. What is it?
4. Are you blind and ‘dumb,’ as in not being able to hear? Which problems with married priests and or women priests, occurring in the denominations that have them, have you missed?
5. By 2020, I’ll say that whatever happens will happen! The Church does not respond to enmasse ‘popular’ whim or demand by changing. Instead, if need be, She searches her ‘history’ (Tradition, Scriptures and Magisterium) to reach a conclusion and settle an issue. Sometimes, those conclusions are against popular thought within and without Her sphere.

She, like the dutiful Bride, remains bound to Her Founder’s teachings!

 

[Steadfast]

The Reformers did not accept the ‘sanctity’ of our saints, since we claimed that they merited their reward.

You are mistaken, both Luther and Calvin referred to numerous historical personages from the first 1600 years of the church as saints, Saint Augustine especially, but also Thomas Aquinas and, again, many others.

They tore out our altars, pulled down our statues, and erased our devotions.

This would be a fruitless discussion. Suffice to say that plenty was done on both sides to deprive Christians of their religious practices and devotions.

To the Reformers, we were all guaranteed heaven, so there was not purpose to this distinction of ‘saints’ and sanctity.

I understand the attraction of cartoon sketches of history but you’ll have to do better than this. As a broadside it isn’t even remotely true and in the 16th century wasn’t much believed anywhere outside of Geneva and even there it wasn’t the centerpiece of Reformed Christianity that it became later on in Holland and Scotland.

For the moment, I am not going along with this ‘we are all the same’. To be all the same, they have to become members of the Mystical Body of Christ.

That’s good because nobody said that.

How do you define “the Church”?

The Church is the Body of Christ, all believers everywhere and in every age, all those who trust solely in Him for their salvation.

Only He knows who they all are.

 

[geraldffff]

Most Protestant denominations use only Biblical names when naming churches after saints. especially the gospel writers. However, some other saints are generally admired, among them St. Augustine and St. Francis of Assisi. The typical informed Protestant view is that many Catholic saints are legendary or semi-legendary. Some were local pagan gods and goddesses who were ‘baptized’ (as it were) when Christianity came to this or that community. They also tend to note that just about every woman saint is described as a virgin and nearly every male saint is a priest.

 When Protestants speak of saints they often mean the wider community - e. g., all loyal Christians serve to be known as saints. 

 As for women bishops, some denominations (e. g., Methodists) have had them for many years now. 

  The Catholic Church moved in the direction of less saints some years ago when St. Christopher and St. Nicholas (among others) were 'demoted'. So many stories associated with saints sound like pious superstition today.   

  I'm hoping that Catholicism continues to reform, such as allowing priests to marry and ordaining women. There seems to be nothing in the Bible that forbids either outright. That would help stop the flow of Catholics from the church into either secularism or some form of Protestantism. The only way that American Catholicism has grown is through Hispanic immigation, much of it illegal, and even many Hispanics are embracing Protestantism, usually the stricter, fundamentalist type. By 2020 it's estimated that half of all US Catholics will be Hispanic. Nothing against Hispanics, but this is likely to have a major impact upon our society at large and the Catholic Church in particular.

That argument is like saying Jesus did not speak out against homosexuality; there for there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts. Two of my sons baptized there newborns in to the Roman Catholic within the last six months. There is no hispanic blood there. Neither one of them or I would consider doing this if they thought there was any chance of the married or female priest hood in the future. So we must be living in a different universe. We pray it never comes to THAT

 

[lak611]

That argument is like saying Jesus did not speak out against homosexuality; there for there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts. Two of my sons baptized there newborns in to the Roman Catholic within the last six months. There is no hispanic blood there. Neither one of them or I would consider doing this if they thought there was any chance of the married or female priest hood in the future. So we must be living in a different universe. We pray it never comes to THAT

Female “priesthood” will never be allowed in the Catholic Church. Married men may be ordained in the Eastern Catholic Church already. Also, men who are married and are Anglican priests and convert to Catholic are allowed to be Catholic priests. Celibate priesthood in the Latin Catholic Church is a discipline, not a dogma, so that could possibly change.

 

[geraldffff]

Most Protestant denominations use only Biblical names when naming churches after saints. especially the gospel writers. However, some other saints are generally admired, among them St. Augustine and St. Francis of Assisi. The typical informed Protestant view is that many Catholic saints are legendary or semi-legendary. Some were local pagan gods and goddesses who were ‘baptized’ (as it were) when Christianity came to this or that community. They also tend to note that just about every woman saint is described as a virgin and nearly every male saint is a priest.

 When Protestants speak of saints they often mean the wider community - e. g., all loyal Christians serve to be known as saints. 

 As for women bishops, some denominations (e. g., Methodists) have had them for many years now. 

  The Catholic Church moved in the direction of less saints some years ago when St. Christopher and St. Nicholas (among others) were 'demoted'. So many stories associated with saints sound like pious superstition today.   

  I'm hoping that Catholicism continues to reform, such as allowing priests to marry and ordaining women. There seems to be nothing in the Bible that forbids either outright. That would help stop the flow of Catholics from the church into either secularism or some form of Protestantism. The only way that American Catholicism has grown is through Hispanic immigation, much of it illegal, and even many Hispanics are embracing Protestantism, usually the stricter, fundamentalist type. By 2020 it's estimated that half of all US Catholics will be Hispanic. Nothing against Hispanics, but this is likely to have a major impact upon our society at large and the Catholic Church in particular.

Within the last two months two of my sons have baptized their newborns in to the Roman Catholic Church. They are not hispanic. Last week end I went to Church with my daughter. The mass was filled with small children who were not hispanic. The church I attend has a lot of young people not hispanic. So my personal experience is that the Church is growing inspite of the misimformation of its detractors. My children all adults and freethinkers would not be attracted to a Church with married male or female priests. Just because other denominations have female priests and pastors dose not make it right with God or the reasonable thing to do. Would you jump off a cliff just because others were doing it? If you are a Roman Catholic I suggest you educate yourself on why we do not have married or female priests. Read this thread in its entirety I suggest you pray that Jesus will open your eyes. Look at the denominations that have married and female pastors, they are a mess that gets worse day by day. This is proven by the fact that many of these denominations have openly homosexual pastors and other strange goings-on. Whats next? I’,m praying that that The Roman Catholic Church continues to follow the traditions of the founder Jesus and his Apostles.

 

[geraldffff]

Female “priesthood” will never be allowed in the Catholic Church. Married men may be ordained in the Eastern Catholic Church already. Also, men who are married and are Anglican priests and convert to Catholic are allowed to be Catholic priests. Celibate priesthood in the Latin Catholic Church is a discipline, not a dogma, so that could possibly change.

Yes it could change. I do not believe it will. If it dose I can accept that also.

 

[geraldffff]

Odd. I voted that I won.

It all depends on your viewpoint, I guess.

GKC

Sorry, just thought mgrfin’s points were more in agreement with what I have come to believe. Thanks for adding to my knowledge base. An ability to vote might be an interesting addition to these fourms.