Originally posted by L'organist:
@ loggats
Are you for real?
I ask because respect for your clergy is one thing but really!
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) but there does seem to be more than a little shade thrown at the merest mention of Catholicism. Obviously different Christian groups have different ideas about faith, but does that really mean things have to become catty and rude?quote:"Different Christian groups"??? I think you mean churches: because that is what most of us belong to.
posted by loggats
Obviously different Christian groups have different ideas about faith, but does that really mean things have to become catty and rude?
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:There is a vital qualifying clause missing from that sentence. The one that says "from a Catholic point of view."
Originally posted by loggats:
So while he was certainly being insensitive and quite rude, he wasn't altogether wrong.
quote:Definitely, "from a Catholic point of view".
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:There is a vital qualifying clause missing from that sentence. The one that says "from a Catholic point of view."
Originally posted by loggats:
So while he was certainly being insensitive and quite rude, he wasn't altogether wrong.
Because as far as the Anglican churches are concerned, our orders are perfectly valid, and my priest is just as much a priest, in exactly the same sense, as yours.
quote:Not sure what you mean - I'm fairly real, most of the time.
Originally posted by L'organist:
@ loggats
Are you for real?
I ask because respect for your clergy is one thing but really!
quote:I feel left out
Barnabas62: We're pretty ecumenical in our muckspreading. Evangelicals and New Frontiers-type charismatics could tell you that. Fundamentalists have a hard time. And then there's the Dawkinsite atheists ..
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:1. It was certainly crass, was not a joke and was most definitely rude. To put it the other way around, how do you suppose (for the sake of argument) a Proto-Notary Apostolic who was Administrator of a Cathedral would feel if they were told they were not a "proper priest" by a complete stranger?
posted by loggats
Well. If he wasn't making a crass joke he was being very undiplomatic. I guess he just couldn't get Pope Leo XIII's 1896 bull out of his mind, where all Anglican ordinations are declared "absolutely null and utterly void". I think Pope Benedict (while Cardinal Ratzinger and Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)affirmed this understanding.
So while he was certainly being insensitive and quite rude, he wasn't altogether wrong. Which isn't to say there's not a lot different Christians can't learn from one another - I've found the writings of Dr Rowan Williams especially interesting and know a lot of Catholics who share my admiration of his work.
quote:Or liturgical dance.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I don't think you'll find the Mystery Worship reports of Catholic churches anti-Catholic. That said, we don't hesitate to criticize that which, in our opinion, deserves criticism. Did somebody say folk mass . . . ?
quote:Well, with this you've lost my respect. Good luck with the rest of the denizens.
Originally posted by loggats:
So while he was certainly being insensitive and quite rude, he wasn't altogether wrong.
quote:Many here do, but they can't agree on which is the One True Church ;-)
Originally posted by loggats:
I'm still very new here, and didn't expect everyone on an ecumenical forum to fall about in rapt admiration for the One True Church (
quote:That sort of thing is inevitable.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The knee-jerks you get against predestination will knock your head off.
quote:"...catty and rude?"
Originally posted by loggats:
I'm still very new here, and didn't expect everyone on an ecumenical forum to fall about in rapt admiration for the One True Church (
One of the reasons I looked forward to joining in here was the sheer variety of opinions and attitudes. Maybe I've got to get a thicker skin and I "ain't seen nothing yet" - either way, I think the kind of comments appearing in the thread about Pope Francis' statement re. "Jesus not outside the Church" weren't particularly suitable.
Nobody looks good if all you read is one of their decontextualised comments, and if you've already decided that whatever he says is bunk there doesn't seem much point in having a chat about it.
quote:Yes, he firmly believed that the Roman Catholic Church is the source of all true Christianity in unbroken lineage from its inception, but he also looked for the positive in other people of goodwill. He honored those who preach the Gospel whether formally inside or outside the RCC. Pope Francis evidently doesn't.
Although the Catholic Church knows that it has received the fullness of the means of salvation, it rejoices when other Christian communities join her in preaching the Gospel. This is the proper context for understanding the Council's teaching that the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church (cf. Lumen Gentium 8; Unitatis Redintegratio 4).
The Church, precisely because it is Catholic, is open to dialogue with all other Christians, with the followers of non-Christian religions, and also with all people of good will, as John XXIII and Paul VI frequently said. Lumen Gentium explains convincingly and in depth the meaning of "people of good will." The Church wants to preach the Gospel together with all who believe in Christ. It wants to point out to all the path to eternal salvation, the fundamental principles of life in the Spirit and in truth. Crossing the Threshold of Hope~ see "Is Only Rome Right?"
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
quote:That sort of thing is inevitable.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The knee-jerks you get against predestination will knock your head off.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
quote:That sort of thing is inevitable.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The knee-jerks you get against predestination will knock your head off.
Planned before the foundation of the world no doubt
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
quote:That sort of thing is inevitable.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The knee-jerks you get against predestination will knock your head off.
Planned before the foundation of the world no doubt
quote:The irony is choking.
Originally posted by loggats:
So while he was certainly being insensitive and quite rude, he wasn't altogether wrong.
quote:Probably because those things include being obnoxious about Anglicanism.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I think that some Christians are very quick to take offence at what other Christians believe. I've never really quite understood it myself. Anglicans are usually the worst at this (sorry, Anglicans, but you are).
quote:What do you mean "obnoxious"?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Probably because those things include being obnoxious about Anglicanism.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I think that some Christians are very quick to take offence at what other Christians believe. I've never really quite understood it myself. Anglicans are usually the worst at this (sorry, Anglicans, but you are).
quote:Every time a priest fails to live up to his responsibilities he diminishes his office, not just in the eyes of the world but in God's too. Haven't you got it - the true church (as you call it) is a laughing stock at best and viewed as sinister at worst. Most of us in "false" churches (as defined by you) are being tainted in the same way - that is, by association. Thanks a bunch, "true church" our work is hard enough as it is.
Originally posted by loggats:
[QUOTE]That's partly why a priest who fails to live up to the huge responsibilities implicit in his vocation is so pitiable - but that doesn't make the office (and the Person) he figures any less awesome.
quote:I agree. But, let's be fait L'Organist - it's hardly suprising since the RCC doesn't respect huge numbers of the vulnerable adults who they've been in "contact" with over the years.
Originally posted by L'organist:
[QUOTE] I think it does come down to respect: its unfortunate that your church from time-to-time shows scant respect for us, our church, our christianity or our priests. You see, by saying that they consider our priesthood "absolutely null and utterly void" they show no respect whatsoever, either to the Church (of England), our priests, or us: the correct word for this crass rudeness is un-Christian.
quote:Well, quite.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:Well, with this you've lost my respect. Good luck with the rest of the denizens.
Originally posted by loggats:
So while he was certainly being insensitive and quite rude, he wasn't altogether wrong.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Slayer said something similar.
Originally posted by comet:
I hate all you fuckers. equal opportunity.
quote:Some jump straight in, some lurk for a while, some lurk for years before boarding - nothing wrong with any of these.
Originally posted by QLib:
Exactly how long did you spend looking forward? Did any of that looking involve actually hanging about and reading stuff?
quote:All of us heretics get to stew in the same pot. Tastey.
Originally posted by comet:
I hate all you fuckers. equal opportunity.
quote:I can thole the Maybes and even the Probables. It's the ones who are Right that I can't stand - albeit with an open, tolerant, inclusive sort of loathing, y'ken.
Originally posted by comet:
I hate all you fuckers. equal opportunity.
quote:Well, quite. loggats appears to be just one more in a long line of fuckwits who think that the rest of us are being rude because we don't kowtow to whatever the Pope says. What an asshat.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Okay, the leader of your church spits in the eye of every self-identifying Christian on the planet who is not Roman Catholic by saying that no one may find Jesus outside the Church, that "If we are not "sheep of Jesus," faith does not some (sic) to us. It is a rosewater faith, a faith without substance", and our comments are not suitable?
quote:Even if he can't bring himself to confirm our sovereignty, how about he confirms that the people of the Falklands have a right to express their views on how and by whom they are governed. Of course, that would mean accepting that the Falklands, by an overwhelming majority, have decided they'd rather be at the mercy of Whitehall than the crew in BA.
posted by Exclamation Mark
Besides which, how can we english (even if we're membetrs of the true church [RCC]) follow a man who is from Argentina and who fails to conform our sovereignty in the Falklands? The "true church" isn't the big question with Frankie (following Benny and joining him), but whether he's prepared to naysay the junta of the country he lived in? I think that like Benny, Frankie, has a few shadows in his past that the sun would do well to shine on .....
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:Well quite. Though I love the Guardian deeply, it is imbued with an unthinking liberalism which can't understand faith or commitment (with honourable exceptions such as Giles Fraser). ISTM that the Ship - though crewed predominantly by Christians - shares a lot of this liberal agenda. Especially its more 'catholic' Anglican shipmates: there is a snobbish superiority complex among many 'establishment' and middle-class Anglicans towards what they still sometimes call the Italian Mission.
Originally posted by StevHep:
Comment is Free at the Guardian effortlessly outdoes this Forum for sheer vitriolic anti-Catholicism, often combined with a near perfect ignorance of what the Church actually believes. Here there is less ignorance which is something.
quote:Just because you might not agree with what Roman Catholics believe about the Church and Anglican orders, for instance, it doesn't necessarily make them obnoxious or rude or whatever. I mean, get over it. If you're an Anglican what Roman Catholics believe matters not one jot concerning what you believe about your own orders, does it? If the answer is no, then what's the problem?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Probably because those things include being obnoxious about Anglicanism.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I think that some Christians are very quick to take offence at what other Christians believe. I've never really quite understood it myself. Anglicans are usually the worst at this (sorry, Anglicans, but you are).
quote:As I've just posted on the main thread, it is very unlikely that the pope intended any grief to Protestants/Anglicans. This was not about them. And they should get used to not being on the agenda, because the RCC is at this point in time mostly busy with sorting out its internal affairs. This includes missions, in spite of their outward orientation: without the conviction that the RCC is precisely what Christ asked Christians to bring to the world, there will be no zealous RC missionaries trying to do exactly that.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Well, quite. loggats appears to be just one more in a long line of fuckwits who think that the rest of us are being rude because we don't kowtow to whatever the Pope says. What an asshat.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Okay, the leader of your church spits in the eye of every self-identifying Christian on the planet who is not Roman Catholic by saying that no one may find Jesus outside the Church, that "If we are not "sheep of Jesus," faith does not some (sic) to us. It is a rosewater faith, a faith without substance", and our comments are not suitable?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The basic exchange is this:
Depraved individualist: Please become liberal Anglican so that I do not feel condemned by authority in my sins any longer.
RCC: Uhhmm, sorry, but no. Perhaps you could repent instead?
Depraved individualist: Die, medieval scum!
With a few exceptions, that's pretty much the basic motivation for vitriolic anti-RC rants on SoF. It's just too predictable and boring to worry about.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I don't often agree with IngoB but this is spot on!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Wouldn't that be nice.
Originally posted by IngoB:
without the conviction that the RCC is precisely what Christ asked Christians to bring to the world, there will be no zealous RC missionaries trying to do exactly that.
quote:Meh, I couldn't care less what a bunch of old men in dresses condemn me for. It's when they start trying to influence the laws of the land so that I and/or my friends are not free to decide for ourselves what is or isn't allowable that I get all anti-. If the RCC had no political power whatsoever I wouldn't even bother to take notice of what its leader is saying.
As for the anti-Catholicism on this site, it has rarely much to do with matters of faith. As with the secular world, it is in truth mostly about morals and power. The basic exchange is this:
Depraved individualist: Please become liberal Anglican so that I do not feel condemned by authority in my sins any longer.
RCC: Uhhmm, sorry, but no. Perhaps you could repent instead?
Depraved individualist: Die, medieval scum!
quote:The leadership of the Roman Catholic Church is arrogant and rude. That is a strike against it. The second strike is that it is simply the largest church in the world and complaining that it doesn't have everyone - and no one likes a poor winner. The third strike, one a size the French could only dream of, is that morally the Roman Catholic Church simply doesn't have a leg to stand on. It can not be trusted unless exposed by outside sources to prevent its priests from fucking kids. It can't tell right from wrong to the point that it comes out against public health in the form of contraception, and thereby turns sex into something profane. It claims to object to materialism - while headquartered in one of the most lavish buildings in the world, and one paid for by simony. It is institutionally sexist and homophobic and senior Catholics campaign for homophobia. As such, respect for the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church is low - because they've earned it. (Not as low on the Ship as it is e.g. in Quebec, but that's a whole different story).
Originally posted by loggats:
I'm still very new here, and didn't expect everyone on an ecumenical forum to fall about in rapt admiration for the One True Church (
One of the reasons I looked forward to joining in here was the sheer variety of opinions and attitudes. Maybe I've got to get a thicker skin and I "ain't seen nothing yet" - either way, I think the kind of comments appearing in the thread about Pope Francis' statement re. "Jesus not outside the Church" weren't particularly suitable.
Nobody looks good if all you read is one of their decontextualised comments, and if you've already decided that whatever he says is bunk there doesn't seem much point in having a chat about it.
quote:
posted by Justinian
And then when a new Pope (or even an old one) swaggers onto the world stage, expects everyone to kiss his ring...
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:That's right, we're all just feeling guilty. It couldn't possibly be that the Catholic Church is doing anything worth criticising – heavens no! it's just GUILT.
Originally posted by IngoB:
As for the anti-Catholicism on this site, it has rarely much to do with matters of faith. As with the secular world, it is in truth mostly about morals and power. The basic exchange is this:
Depraved individualist: Please become liberal Anglican so that I do not feel condemned by authority in my sins any longer.
RCC: Uhhmm, sorry, but no. Perhaps you could repent instead?
Depraved individualist: Die, medieval scum!
With a few exceptions, that's pretty much the basic motivation for vitriolic anti-RC rants on SoF. It's just too predictable and boring to worry about.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Sorry, what rudeness? I fail to see any rudeness unless by rudeness you mean an opinion you don't agree with?
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:The leadership of the Roman Catholic Church is arrogant and rude. That is a strike against it. The second strike is that it is simply the largest church in the world and complaining that it doesn't have everyone - and no one likes a poor winner. The third strike, one a size the French could only dream of, is that morally the Roman Catholic Church simply doesn't have a leg to stand on. It can not be trusted unless exposed by outside sources to prevent its priests from fucking kids. It can't tell right from wrong to the point that it comes out against public health in the form of contraception, and thereby turns sex into something profane. It claims to object to materialism - while headquartered in one of the most lavish buildings in the world, and one paid for by simony. It is institutionally sexist and homophobic and senior Catholics campaign for homophobia. As such, respect for the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church is low - because they've earned it. (Not as low on the Ship as it is e.g. in Quebec, but that's a whole different story).
Originally posted by loggats:
I'm still very new here, and didn't expect everyone on an ecumenical forum to fall about in rapt admiration for the One True Church (
One of the reasons I looked forward to joining in here was the sheer variety of opinions and attitudes. Maybe I've got to get a thicker skin and I "ain't seen nothing yet" - either way, I think the kind of comments appearing in the thread about Pope Francis' statement re. "Jesus not outside the Church" weren't particularly suitable.
Nobody looks good if all you read is one of their decontextualised comments, and if you've already decided that whatever he says is bunk there doesn't seem much point in having a chat about it.
And then when a new Pope (or even an old one) swaggers onto the world stage, expects everyone to kiss his ring he gets mocked or castigated. On the other hand when he does something that might demonstrate (rather than lecture) about genuine virtues, such as the recent foot washing, they get praised for it. You are talking about rudeness - remember that the rudeness in this case was started by the Pope himself.
You claim that a high level of respect is due to your priests. Why? Lay Catholics in my experience tend to be good people - but lay Catholics also tend to be smart enough and morally engaged enough to tell the Roman Catholic Church where to stick its official teachings on various issues.
But give it another week and there'll be another target appearing. Dawkins will be the target du jour, and deservedly so. Or Justin Webley will finally put his foot in it. Or...
quote:I see no particular reason why the RCC should not try to influence the laws of the land towards what she thinks is right. I see no particular reason why you then should not contest the political propositions of the RCC in the political sphere. The problem comes when either side mixes religion with politics in an explicit manner. So if the RCC says that the State should change its laws because God demands it, then that is a breach of the separation of Church and State, a grab for political power based on Divine favour. As long as the RCC argues from natural moral law, the common good, social and cultural tradition (including religious tradition as part of that), etc. she is fine though. There's nothing wrong per se with the RCC being a political agent in that way. Likewise, as long as you attack the propositions of the RCC on these political terms (natural moral law, common good, ...) you are simply acting as a political agent. But if you start to bring in your disbelief in RC teachings, disgust at the RC hierarchy, or perhaps a rejection of religion altogether, etc. then you are breaching the separation of Church and State. On political matters, it should be for you irrelevant whether the RCC supports policies because she studies the bible, sucks up to Vatican oligarchs or snorts magic mushrooms. That's internal Church business, religion stuff. Rather, the question is what the Church proposes, in political terms.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Meh, I couldn't care less what a bunch of old men in dresses condemn me for. It's when they start trying to influence the laws of the land so that I and/or my friends are not free to decide for ourselves what is or isn't allowable that I get all anti-. If the RCC had no political power whatsoever I wouldn't even bother to take notice of what its leader is saying.
quote:First, "hellbound" and "un-Christian" is not normally what you will get to hear, not from the RCs here and certainly not from an official RC source. Second, since when is "Protestant" ("Protty") a derogatory term in line with these others? Third, I will never understand the ado about the labels "schismatic" and "heretic". I would be ... well, not offended, more thoroughly confused if Protestants or Orthodox did not consider me schismatic and heretic. Because, well I simply am that as far as their church structures and doctrines, respectively, are concerned. Yes, there were times in history were such labels were dangerous to one's life and well-being. But this is not the case now, and hasn't been for a while. Since nobody has come up with better words for these obvious features of religious life, let's use these then. Without the murderous intent.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sure, it pisses me off when they go round saying I know nothing of Christ or calling me a Hellbound UnChristian Schismatic Protty Heretic. But that's just because it's rude.
quote:There's plenty of criticism of the RCC out there, and some of it is even justified. I was however specifically talking about vitriolic anti-RC rants. These one does no get without serious emotional engagement. And it is simply my experience that then there usually are underlying personal moral issues. These can cause guilt. But of course, people also get seriously angry about being accused of sin when they do not feel guilty in the slightest. Perhaps more so.
Originally posted by St Deird:
That's right, we're all just feeling guilty. It couldn't possibly be that the Catholic Church is doing anything worth criticising – heavens no! it's just GUILT.
quote:One sure sign that someone has lost the argument is when he cannot defend his view with recourse to reason and evidence, and relies on questioning the motives and morality of his opponents. This is actually very typical of parts of Fundie-Evangelicaldom: "It's because he's got sin in his life, and he refuses to repent and face up to a holy God" etc... This may indeed be true, but it can never be right to assume this, or to deploy this kind of non-argument as a substitute for rational discourse.
Originally posted by IngoB
As for the anti-Catholicism on this site, it has rarely much to do with matters of faith. As with the secular world, it is in truth mostly about morals and power. The basic exchange is this:
Depraved individualist: Please become liberal Anglican so that I do not feel condemned by authority in my sins any longer.
RCC: Uhhmm, sorry, but no. Perhaps you could repent instead?
Depraved individualist: Die, medieval scum!
With a few exceptions, that's pretty much the basic motivation for vitriolic anti-RC rants on SoF. It's just too predictable and boring to worry about.
quote:I'm sorry, is your use of the term Depraved meant to include, for example, shipmates who are gay and/or divorced and re-married (as opposed to annulled and married - which is, of course, just fine)? Just your little rhetorical flourish, is it? Or is that actually the language you use inside your own head?
Originally posted by IngoB:
As for the anti-Catholicism on this site, it has rarely much to do with matters of faith. As with the secular world, it is in truth mostly about morals and power. The basic exchange is this:
Depraved individualist: Please become liberal Anglican so that I do not feel condemned by authority in my sins any longer.
RCC: Uhhmm, sorry, but no. Perhaps you could repent instead?
Depraved individualist: Die, medieval scum!
quote:"Christ cannot be found outside the RCC", combined with "those who do not believe in Christ are damned", equals "those outside the RCC are hellbound". Sure, they might have the grace to not state it so explicitly, but the meaning is clear enough.
Originally posted by IngoB:
First, "hellbound" and "un-Christian" is not normally what you will get to hear, not from the RCs here and certainly not from an official RC source.
quote:I don't. I consider you to be wrong, of course, but I don't think that in itself sets you apart from or outside of the Body of Christ. I'd be perfectly happy to kneel alongside you at the altar rail on Sunday, and I can affirm that position even while knowing that the errors in your belief make doing so impossible.
Third, I will never understand the ado about the labels "schismatic" and "heretic". I would be ... well, not offended, more thoroughly confused if Protestants or Orthodox did not consider me schismatic and heretic.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Translation: I haven't seen the leadership of the RCC be arrogant. I've just seen them proclaim that they have the One True Way.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I haven't seen the leadership of the RCC to be arrogant or rude as a general policy. What I have seen is an unyielding insistence on proclaiming the truth as it understands it, whether that offends the sensibilities of secularists or Protestants or anyone else. And I desperately wish that Anglicanism was better at doing that.
I am not willing to write off Anglicanism like certain Roman Catholic shipmates here are apt to do, but it does give me something to pray about. "The gates of hell shall never prevail" is becoming something of a mantra when I read about the future of our Church.
quote:As an evangelical, I'm not offended by the RCC proclaiming what it deems to be the truth about the gospel. I disagree, quite strongly, on how the RCC perceives the gospel at times, but I'm not offended.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I haven't seen the leadership of the RCC to be arrogant or rude as a general policy. What I have seen is an unyielding insistence on proclaiming the truth as it understands it, whether that offends the sensibilities of secularists or Protestants or anyone else. And I desperately wish that Anglicanism was better at doing that.
quote:Not just about Anglicanism but the western Church in general.
I am not willing to write off Anglicanism like certain Roman Catholic shipmates here are apt to do, but it does give me something to pray about. "The gates of hell shall never prevail" is becoming something of a mantra when I read about the future of our Church.
quote:So who is true then?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Well, I believe my beliefs are true, and accept the rational conclusion that all contrary beliefs are false. If it's arrogance, it's an arrogance I share.
)quote:Delighted to hear it.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Barnabas: I don't hate RCs.
quote:We don't have quite that tradition here and we do allow for the possibility of appropriate Nazi parallels. But they've got to be very well argued. Or if asserted in Hell, look out for squalls.
For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress
quote:I'm not aware of having had an argument here so far, much less of having lost it.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
One sure sign that someone has lost the argument is when he cannot defend his view with recourse to reason and evidence, and relies on questioning the motives and morality of his opponents.
quote:What argument have I dismissed with a fallacious "ad hominem"? To point out that those who "turn up the heat" on the RCC often have other personal moral motivations is certainly saying something negative about them, but it does not claim that any specific argument they may accidentally advance during their vicious ranting is false because of their bias. Mostly though vitriol employs assertion, not argument.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Anyone can come out with this kind of approach: "If you don't agree with my position, it's because you're a sinner, lack faith, are running away from what you know is the truth..." Blah blah blah. It's what CS Lewis called Bulverism, which is essentially the ad hominem fallacy.
quote:A hellish flourish, indeed. And yes, I include the people mentioned among the depraved, as well as masturbators, fornicators and adulterers-in-the-heart. I mentioned the latter simply because mentioning your own depravities seems to have a calming effect (apparently two wrongs do make a right...). My own head is rarely filled with thoughts about gays or mono-adulterers. Quite frankly, I have more important things to worry about, and so in my opinion has the Church.
Originally posted by QLib:
I'm sorry, is your use of the term Depraved meant to include, for example, shipmates who are gay and/or divorced and re-married (as opposed to annulled and married - which is, of course, just fine)? Just your little rhetorical flourish, is it? Or is that actually the language you use inside your own head?
quote:No, Marvin, you are making shit up because it fits what you want to hear. Pope Francis said neither of the things that you attribute to him, and hence your conclusion does not follow at all. That said, there's not a shadow of doubt in my mind that your salvation chances would indeed improve significantly if you joined the RCC.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
"Christ cannot be found outside the RCC", combined with "those who do not believe in Christ are damned", equals "those outside the RCC are hellbound". Sure, they might have the grace to not state it so explicitly, but the meaning is clear enough.
quote:If I am wrong about doctrine, in your opinion, then I am a heretic. If I am wrong about ecclesiastic governance and authority, in your opinion, then I am a schismatic. If you say that I'm wrong, but not heretic or schismatic, then what precisely am I supposed to be wrong about? My choice of chewing gum? And by your presumably valid baptism I also consider you to be part of the Body of Christ. That does not make you any less heretic and schismatic. In fact, properly speaking you can only be heretic and schismatic because you are part of the Body of Christ. (Though the other Abrahamic religions at least have been discussed as schisms/heresies historically...)
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't. I consider you to be wrong, of course, but I don't think that in itself sets you apart from or outside of the Body of Christ.
quote:You're (probably mostly) wrong, but in itself that doesn't matter because we are not judged on the basis of whatever ideas our tiny minds conjure up about God. However, were your beliefs to cause you to behave uncharitably, then that might be another matter. You might mean-spirited self-righteous bastards in any church, alongside good, humble, charitable and generous people. And all us in-betweeners, likewise.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If I am wrong about doctrine, in your opinion, then I am a heretic. If I am wrong about ecclesiastic governance and authority, in your opinion, then I am a schismatic. If you say that I'm wrong, but not heretic or schismatic, then what precisely am I supposed to be wrong about?
quote:Yep, Marvin, I think you should place a bet on a significant change of furniture. Feng Shui and all that...
Originally posted by IngoB
That said, there's not a shadow of doubt in my mind that your salvation chances would indeed improve significantly if you joined the RCC.
quote:As for wankers...
And yes, I include the people mentioned among the depraved, as well as masturbators, fornicators and adulterers-in-the-heart.
quote:
posted by Barnabas62
Do you think there are any real parallels between Catholic theology and National Socialist (Hitler-style) political philosophy? And do you think that John Paul 11, Benedict XV1 and Francis 1 somehow embodied/embody those parallels in their beliefs and leadership styles?
I haven't said anything of the sort. What I said wasquote:What I referred to there was:
When considering the latest three popes its beginning to look as if the former member of the Hitler Jugend has the most transparent and unclouded past.
quote:I was pleased to read this and many thanks for your further explanation.
Originally posted by L'organist:
I have not attempted to draw any parallels between Roman Catholic theology and National-Socialism or facism.
quote:The problem is that in the UK, where you, Marvin and I live, there is no separation of Church and State. How can you not have religion explicitly mixed with politics when Bishops sit in Parliament ex officio?
Originally posted by IngoB:
I see no particular reason why the RCC should not try to influence the laws of the land towards what she thinks is right. I see no particular reason why you then should not contest the political propositions of the RCC in the political sphere. The problem comes when either side mixes religion with politics in an explicit manner. So if the RCC says that the State should change its laws because God demands it, then that is a breach of the separation of Church and State, a grab for political power based on Divine favour. As long as the RCC argues from natural moral law, the common good, social and cultural tradition (including religious tradition as part of that), etc. she is fine though. There's nothing wrong per se with the RCC being a political agent in that way. Likewise, as long as you attack the propositions of the RCC on these political terms (natural moral law, common good, ...) you are simply acting as a political agent. But if you start to bring in your disbelief in RC teachings, disgust at the RC hierarchy, or perhaps a rejection of religion altogether, etc. then you are breaching the separation of Church and State. On political matters, it should be for you irrelevant whether the RCC supports policies because she studies the bible, sucks up to Vatican oligarchs or snorts magic mushrooms. That's internal Church business, religion stuff. Rather, the question is what the Church proposes, in political terms.
quote:CANON XVI. If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end, unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Session VI)
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I must admit though that I would find it difficult to take lessons from someone not even sure of his own salvation
quote:I of course affirm salvation by grace, though possibly not whatever you might mean by that...
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Goodness me, whatever happened to the idea of salvation by grace....?
quote:Total agreement, I dislike state Churches of all kind, whether it is the formal integration of the Anglican Church with government in the UK, the state protecting the national Orthodox churches in many Eastern countries, or the state collecting money for the Churches through taxes in several countries (like in Germany for the RCC). All this has to go.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The problem is that in the UK, where you, Marvin and I live, there is no separation of Church and State. How can you not have religion explicitly mixed with politics when Bishops sit in Parliament ex officio?
quote:Ah, I see. You understand salvation purely in eschatological terms. Of course, that is a rather limited view. The biblical view is more comprehensive:
Originally posted by IngoB
CANON XVI. If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end, unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Session VI)
Since special Divine revelation is very rare, and since I prefer to take lessons from those whose heresies do not doom them, I'm quite OK myself with learning from those who are not so sure of their salvation.
quote:(2 Corinthians 5:17)
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.
quote:What does it mean to be "in Christ" and how do you know that you are? Is being "in Christ" something that happens all of a sudden, say on reciting the sinner's prayer, or is it something that develops over time? How do you know? What makes your theology of "being in Christ" the right one?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:(2 Corinthians 5:17)
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.
There are many other verses which speak of assurance, but that one will do for now.
quote:I can think that you are wrong without thinking your error is sufficiently fundamental to be a heresy. The CCC defines heresy as "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same". If my list of truths
Originally posted by IngoB:
If I am wrong about doctrine, in your opinion, then I am a heretic. If I am wrong about ecclesiastic governance and authority, in your opinion, then I am a schismatic. If you say that I'm wrong, but not heretic or schismatic, then what precisely am I supposed to be wrong about?
quote:I knew that would happen. Thank God that's over, then.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
quote:That sort of thing is inevitable.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The knee-jerks you get against predestination will knock your head off.
Planned before the foundation of the world no doubt
quote:Gotta ask, because I'm baffled - what do you mean by "including you in my intentions"? Given that praying the rosary comes with (I think) set words, how do you do non-set stuff while praying the rosary?
Originally posted by loggats:
I'll be sure to include you all in my intentions the next time I pray the rosary.
quote:THANKYOU.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I can think that you are wrong without thinking your error is sufficiently fundamental to be a heresy.
...
Schism, is defined by the CC in Cathocentric terms ("the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him"), but if we can take a more neutral meaning of "refusing to be part of the real Church", then obviously I can't think you a schismatic if I think (as I do) that the RCC is as much 'real Church' as my communion.
quote:How about "Oh do piss off, you old grump"?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Surrounded as I am by reasonable debate, enthusiastic proof-texting, climbdowns and apologies (in Hell???) and a smattering of strawmen, there are times when a Hellhost would be cheered up by some old-fashioned invective.
quote:It's the work of the Holy Spirit, which inevitably is experiential. It's experiential in the same sense that my consciousness is experiential. So someone may say that, because I am appealing to experience, I could be deluded. But could someone say that I am deluded about my own claim to being conscious? They may not say that, because they see actions that could only be performed by someone who is conscious, and they make an inference based on their own experience of consciousness. But such outward actions do not define my own consciousness, nor is my experience of myself dependent on its outward expression.
Originally posted by mousethief
What does it mean to be "in Christ" and how do you know that you are? Is being "in Christ" something that happens all of a sudden, say on reciting the sinner's prayer, or is it something that develops over time? How do you know? What makes your theology of "being in Christ" the right one?
quote:The rosary is basically a sequence of Aves, Paters and Glorias with the possibility of including a host of other prayers (like the Fatima prayer, or including relevant portions from Scripture etc). These are prayed while meditating upon a series of Mysteries to do with the Life and Passion of Christ and His Mother.
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:Gotta ask, because I'm baffled - what do you mean by "including you in my intentions"? Given that praying the rosary comes with (I think) set words, how do you do non-set stuff while praying the rosary?
Originally posted by loggats:
I'll be sure to include you all in my intentions the next time I pray the rosary.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:Agreed. But then I'm not in the habit of calling everybody who disagrees with me on some minor religious point a heretic. Your point is valid, perhaps on occasion worth recalling when things get heated, but still a bit ... trivial?
Originally posted by Eliab:
I can think that you are wrong without thinking your error is sufficiently fundamental to be a heresy.
quote:That's simply because you generalized wrongly from the CCC, it should rather be: "the refusal of submission to the relevant church authorities or of communion with the members of the church subject to them". I refuse to submit to ++Welby in any form or fashion (other than possibly being impressed by his arguments) or to have communion with Anglicans. So clearly, by a sensible generalization of the definition I'm a schismatic in Anglican terms. You want to bring into play the rather different approaches to church that we have. But they do not really come into play for the label "schismatic". What comes into play is simply that I do not buy into your version of church, practically and pragmatically speaking, for whatever reason.
Originally posted by Eliab:
The church is divided, in my view, so you are a schismatic in the sense that you are in schism with people whom you ought to be in communion with, but then, so am I, and so is every Christian, and few of us are placed to do much about it. I don't, and can't, think of you as a schismatic in the way you think that of me, because I don't make the same sort of claims for my church as you do for yours.
quote:He has you there, SPK.
I wasn't 'lecturing', I was asked a question and I tried to answer it.
quote:There is an important difference in that I don't think you should submit to my church authorities. I don't think you are any less part of real and proper Church because you don't. Whereas you do think that I should submit to +++Francis, and that I would be more part of the true Church if I did.
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's simply because you generalized wrongly from the CCC, it should rather be: "the refusal of submission to the relevant church authorities or of communion with the members of the church subject to them". I refuse to submit to ++Welby in any form or fashion (other than possibly being impressed by his arguments) or to have communion with Anglicans. So clearly, by a sensible generalization of the definition I'm a schismatic in Anglican terms.
quote:I've got my eye on you, Mister...
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[I actually posted a Host warning then had to delete it because I remembered just in time that this was Hell.]
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Where's deano when you actually need him?
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Two pages and nobody has mentioned the size of loggats' penis, which is causing him to feel inferior.
quote:Does not compute...
Originally posted by orfeo:
Where's deano when you actually need him?
quote:I must be missing something, but from what I understand about the RCC, they basically have to say this if they hold the doctrinal positions they hold. They've painted themselves into a logical corner.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
As an evangelical, I'm not offended by the RCC proclaiming what it deems to be the truth about the gospel. I disagree, quite strongly, on how the RCC perceives the gospel at times, but I'm not offended.
I might get a tad narked though if a Catholic suggests that my faith is somehow defective because I'm not a Catholic. Just sayin'.
quote:There was a fair amount of criticism about the foot washing. But it was not from anti-Catholic shipmates, but from Catholics who know more about the proper exercise of Canon Law than the new Pope.
Originally posted by Justinian:
And then when a new Pope (or even an old one) swaggers onto the world stage, expects everyone to kiss his ring he gets mocked or castigated. On the other hand when he does something that might demonstrate (rather than lecture) about genuine virtues, such as the recent foot washing, they get praised for it. You are talking about rudeness - remember that the rudeness in this case was started by the Pope himself.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Sweet vindication!
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I think few identifiable groups escape criticism here (actually, I think that the Orthies get off lightly),
quote:Correct. As long as there is more than one Christian grouping in the world with certain membership conditions (see below), everybody is a schismatic to someone. That is precisely the sinful systemic state of affairs that Christ asks us to overcome.
Originally posted by Eliab:
If I called you a schismatic for not being an Anglican, I'd be calling myself a schismatic for not being a Methodists, and the Methodists schismatic for not being Pentecostals, etc, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I've got my eye on you, Mister...
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[I actually posted a Host warning then had to delete it because I remembered just in time that this was Hell.]
Mind you, this thread could confuse a bloke.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:Being a nice fuckwit doesn't stop him being a fuckwit.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
You are obviously a nice person, loggats.
quote:Indeed. And we need to overcome it by tearing down the systemic barriers between us - namely, the membership conditions that we create to exclude one another.
Originally posted by IngoB:
As long as there is more than one Christian grouping in the world with certain membership conditions (see below), everybody is a schismatic to someone. That is precisely the sinful systemic state of affairs that Christ asks us to overcome.
quote:Yes, Anglican clergy do have some authority, but not an authority which undermines a Christian's ability and right to think for himself.
Originally posted by IngoB
Do you assign any authority to Anglican clergy in ecclesiastic, doctrinal or liturgical matters?
quote:I also refuse to 'submit' to ++Welby, because, as he himself has said, he is not a pope. His recent sermon about the danger of putting one's trust in "hero leaders" is very true. In others words, he is saying to us: "For goodness sake, grow up! And take responsibility for your own actions and lives."
I refuse to submit to ++Welby in any form or fashion (other than possibly being impressed by his arguments) or to have communion with Anglicans.
quote:There is a fundamental difference between someone doing it differently and someone doing it wrongly.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Correct. As long as there is more than one Christian grouping in the world with certain membership conditions (see below), everybody is a schismatic to someone. That is precisely the sinful systemic state of affairs that Christ asks us to overcome.
Originally posted by Eliab:
If I called you a schismatic for not being an Anglican, I'd be calling myself a schismatic for not being a Methodists, and the Methodists schismatic for not being Pentecostals, etc, etc.
I think your Anglican wishy-washiness does not get you around my definition of schismatic. So let me ask you:
Do you assign any authority to Anglican clergy in ecclesiastic, doctrinal or liturgical matters? Or is it merely the case that traditionally somebody has to dress up fancy on occasion to deal with services and the like? Because if you assign any authority, then the first part of my definition grips, for I do not.
Furthermore, do you assign any significance to sharing communion with others? Or is that an entirely optional matter for you that everybody can take or leave as they wish? Because if this has any significance to you, then the second part of my definition grips, for I will neither share communion in your place nor see it fit that you share it in mine.
I do think that there are people out there for whom "schismatic" is really a meaningless term. Some "post-church" Christians, perhaps some Quakers, I don't know. But I think for most Anglicans this is simply not true. Rather, their avoidance of the label "schismatic" is - ironically - a kind of implicit doctrinal statement concerning the supposed nature of the Church. However, that avoidance is a performative act, not something that follows logically from the definition of the word. That is to say, Anglicans can very well identify schismatics and their not doing so is a statement - but not one that rejects the definition of "schismatic" but rather one that relies on it just as much as those who use the word for other purposes.
quote:Indeed. I get the impression that some of the RCs who post most frequently are on the conservative side and some are also converts.
Originally posted by Zach82:
While certain Roman Catholic shipmates here have a habit of questioning the sincerity and piety of Protestants, or the existence of genuine Christian faith in Protestants, that's not usually what the Roman Catholic leadership gets up to. It's not what most Roman Catholics get up to.
quote:I'm not a schismatic. I have never been part of your Church so I've never schismed from it. I follow Christ though, according to the Gospel. I consider everyone a brother or sister if they do the same. How am I a schismatic?
Originally posted by IngoB:
As long as there is more than one Christian grouping in the world with certain membership conditions (see below), everybody is a schismatic to someone.
quote:Whenever there is a standard to which one is being held, and one is not meeting it, two basic actions are possible: shaping up to meet the standard, or removing the standard. Personally, I reject the latter unity of the lowest common denominator.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Indeed. And we need to overcome it by tearing down the systemic barriers between us - namely, the membership conditions that we create to exclude one another.
quote:I know precisely how much I've been thinking for myself since becoming RC some years ago. It is plenty, and best I can tell from my interactions here, plenty more than most people in supposedly "freer" denominations do. I work as professional scientist. Perhaps that's why I find such political rallying cries mildly ridiculous. To think for yourself, to be free in your work, is in the sciences not somehow at odds with knowing what is the case and what isn't, and indeed with knowing whose voice is authoritative and whose isn't. Rather it is precisely this knowledge which sets one free, which enables one to think.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Yes, Anglican clergy do have some authority, but not an authority which undermines a Christian's ability and right to think for himself.
quote:I have never claimed to do so, quite to the contrary. But the RCC has its official side, and I am consciously investing considerable effort in staying compatible with that side in what I say here. That is a claim I do make about myself. Whether the same is true for all those other RCs that purportedly inspire you I cannot say.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You make a big noise on the Ship, but you don't represent the Catholic Church.
quote:I watched that video and did not see any sign of shared communion. Not that this would be impossible, since the pope as the head of the Church can grant dispensation from canon law to himself and others. I however cannot do so. But perhaps you are confused what "sharing communion" means? It means practically speaking the receiving of the consecrated bread (and possibly wine) in the celebration of the Eucharist, which is considered to be the key symbol for the oneness of a Christian community in their life, faith and worship. It does not mean merely any praying together. I have of course no problems praying with Anglicans (*), or for that matter even in taking part myself in say an Anglo-Catholic mass (as long as that does not replace my going to RC mass, or result in scandal for other RCs somehow). I just won't have communion with them because that would set a false sign of a oneness that does not exist.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In fact, you are not even an obedient Catholic submissive to the Pope, because the former Pope certainly "had communion" with the Archbishop of Canterbury - see here, for example. He set an example you refuse to follow, and he certainly didn't insult the Anglican Church as you feel at liberty to do. Shame on you, miserable rebel.
quote:Doing what I can to further The Cause* (as I very much respect IngoB and if anyone thinks I'm fooling you're not yet a fool and as my recent Warmers thread bit the dust early) it is time to post:
Originally posted by IngoB:
To think for yourself, to be free in your work, is in the sciences not somehow at odds with knowing what is the case and what isn't, and indeed with knowing whose voice is authoritative and whose isn't. Rather it is precisely this knowledge which sets one free, which enables one to think.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:And now for something completely different? I trust the cure there more than the diagnosis. I think it is high time that the world switched to a sustainable economic model that does not primarily rely on fossil fuels (in particular oil) for energy. The changes necessary for that will to a large degree address any ACC - as much as we can address that. The main conceptual value of ACC in this context is for me simply that it rules out some easy-stupid solutions (like investing in dirty coal power), and makes us do what we should be doing anyway (going for innovation at the cost of some hardship).
Originally posted by moron:
So: anticipating your disclaimers I still would LOVE to hear your take on Anthropogenic Climate Change.
quote:Does the Netherlands have a problem with an overabundance of short lesbians?
However, as mentioned, unless you are a Dutchman worrying whether your dykes are tall enough
quote:If there's one thing worse than rational debate in Hell, it's incredibly lame jokes in Hell.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:Does the Netherlands have a problem with an overabundance of short lesbians?
However, as mentioned, unless you are a Dutchman worrying whether your dykes are tall enough
quote:You're speaking from the softer reality of the 21st century in the west where the RCC influence is merely one of many. And that, only after secularism fought hard to wrest it out of the cold dead hand of prelates and religionists of every stripe.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I see no particular reason why the RCC should not try to influence the laws of the land towards what she thinks is right. I see no particular reason why you then should not contest the political propositions of the RCC in the political sphere.
quote:Dead Horse begone! there's a board for that. it ain't this one. so uddup-shay on the bortion-ay.
Originally posted by loggats:
That Galway case had everything to do with malpractice, and nothing to do with the Church.
Which isn't to say setting out to commit abortion is ever acceptable.
quote:On matters of faith and morals, indeed that was, is and will be the only appropriate response (within limits set by the authoritativeness claimed - not all papal/Church pronouncements are created equal). And non-RCs were, are, and will be rather unconcerned by that. Whereas many RCs were, are, and will be ignoring it. I'm not aware of any time in history where the words of pope/Church had this universal dictatorial sway that you propose, not over the people, much less over the worldly governments. Even during the heyday of Christendom it was far from clear who was calling which shots, kings, nobles or pope, and the peasants weren't exactly contemplating the latest word from Rome. Furthermore, it is blatant anachronism to go back to the end of the Victorian age and compare the utterances of the papacy back then with the political correct sensibilities of today. The original Kulturkampf was not a distant memory; and Germany had an emperor back then and was about to unleash a war that would trash Europe to an unimaginable degree, and yet all that would pale against disasters to be unleashed by future political dictatorships. After all the crap that has gone down in the last 100+ years, pope and Church can talk differently today as much as anybody else, on just worldly judgement. The issues the Church may have internally with coherence of teaching across this time span are a different matter. I think that they are a largely unresolved matter, but not one that touches core doctrine (where it would really hurt) much less infallible dogma. But you are not of the SSPX, so frankly I doubt that you are really interested in those matters but for cheap rhetoric.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
A mere hundred or so years ago, you IngoB, if you were quoting the pontiffs of the times, would be asserting how wrong it was for Catholics to expect the 'dangerous liberty' of being free to make political, social and religious choices for themselves. If the Pope has pronounced, the Bull issued, the encyclical published, it is for the people to obey. No other response is acceptable.
quote:Should there be no membership conditions, then? Atheists can be called Christians, or demon worshippers, or anamists? Who are we to say they're not Christians, you know, deep down?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Indeed. And we need to overcome it by tearing down the systemic barriers between us - namely, the membership conditions that we create to exclude one another.
quote:Yes in retrospect, perhaps, because the contents of the "what matters" box has gotten progressively whittled away. Well, and the contents of the actual belief state of many denominations has progressively faded.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Of course, most denominations arose because someone thought that an issue was incredibly important and that someone was doing it wrongly. But I freely admit that to me an awful lot of the differences between denominations look pretty trivial and only worthy of being labelled as 'different', rather than 'wrong'.
quote:What few there are, are all Scotsmen.
Originally posted by moron:
there are apparently all too few 'true' scientists in this world;
quote:Really, what is the distinct, irreconcilable theological difference between the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada? Or the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Presbyterian Church—USA, the United Church of Christ, and the ELCA? History? Geography? Anything else?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Yes in retrospect, perhaps, because the contents of the "what matters" box has gotten progressively whittled away. Well, and the contents of the actual belief state of many denominations has progressively faded.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Of course, most denominations arose because someone thought that an issue was incredibly important and that someone was doing it wrongly. But I freely admit that to me an awful lot of the differences between denominations look pretty trivial and only worthy of being labelled as 'different', rather than 'wrong'.
quote:If I'm going to argue that the Church has divisions...well, hate to break it to ya, but it does. Do they really matter? I'm not sure. Should they? No.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That to me sounds like a rather sloppy ecclesiology. If you're going to argue that the Church is divided then you might as well argue that Christ is divided. As for what constitutes a real theological difference this depends upon what view one has of the faith, whether it is maximalist or minimalist.
quote:Well, I'm Anglican. Insert jokes about our belief state here...
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Yes in retrospect, perhaps, because the contents of the "what matters" box has gotten progressively whittled away. Well, and the contents of the actual belief state of many denominations has progressively faded.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Of course, most denominations arose because someone thought that an issue was incredibly important and that someone was doing it wrongly. But I freely admit that to me an awful lot of the differences between denominations look pretty trivial and only worthy of being labelled as 'different', rather than 'wrong'.
quote:My experience of atheists, demon worshippers and animists doesn't extend to every single one of them, but the ones I do know are consistent in not claiming to be Christians in the first place.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Should there be no membership conditions, then? Atheists can be called Christians, or demon worshippers, or anamists? Who are we to say they're not Christians, you know, deep down?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Indeed. And we need to overcome it by tearing down the systemic barriers between us - namely, the membership conditions that we create to exclude one another.
quote:Some atheists might say 'cultural Christian' and some might say they are legally Christian (e.g., in countries where one has to have a religion [and being non-religious isn't an option]) and some might say they are in a particular denomination because they haven't got themselves removed from the denomination's membership rolls yet (or the denomination won't remove them, lots of atheists in the Catholic church). But those senses of being Christian aren't, I think, what anyone here is considering as true membership.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My experience of atheists, demon worshippers and animists doesn't extend to every single one of them, but the ones I do know are consistent in not claiming to be Christians in the first place.
"No membership conditions" doesn't mean everybody is a member, it just means that everybody who wants to be a member is.
quote:As far as I'm concerned, answering that question is a privilege reserved for God. It's way above the pay grade of you, me, or anyone else currently trying to look through the dark glass and plot a course through this vale of tears.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So, who's in the kingdom now and who's out? Who has eternal life and who doesn't? Who's united, included in that and who is excluded?
quote:As I just said, that's not our question to answer. The shepherd knows his sheep and the sheep know their shepherd, there's no need for all the sheep to go around deciding for themselves who is and isn't a true member of the flock.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
But those senses of being Christian aren't, I think, what anyone here is considering as true membership.
quote:Such is the stuff of religious wars and making human bonfires in town squares.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Furthermore, do you assign any significance to sharing communion with others? Or is that an entirely optional matter for you that everybody can take or leave as they wish? Because if this has any significance to you, then the second part of my definition grips, for I will neither share communion in your place nor see it fit that you share it in mine.
quote:OTOH, one could resort to the mark of the raddle.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:As I just said, that's not our question to answer. The shepherd knows his sheep and the sheep know their shepherd, there's no need for all the sheep to go around deciding for themselves who is and isn't a true member of the flock.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
But those senses of being Christian aren't, I think, what anyone here is considering as true membership.
quote:And a far better world this would be if people actually viewed the world this way.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:As I just said, that's not our question to answer. The shepherd knows his sheep and the sheep know their shepherd, there's no need for all the sheep to go around deciding for themselves who is and isn't a true member of the flock.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
But those senses of being Christian aren't, I think, what anyone here is considering as true membership.
quote:This is far more true for more schisms than people generally believe. The seed might be theological, but the fertiliser is political.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think it's hard to justify the existence of the Church of England on any deep theological ground, certainly in its earliest form. It was all about asserting local political control,
quote:How can you be assured of this, when the devil is capable of appearing as an angel of light?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What I am saying is that I can be assured of the reality of God in my life, and this is just as valid as being assured of the reality of my own self.
quote:Do you assign any political authority to the US Congress? You might agree that it is constituted according to law, with the consent of the governed, composed of men and women of conspicuous wisdom and virtue, and generally correct in its deliberations, and yet not authoritative over you because you aren't American. And you are not under any moral obligation to become American. The question of authority is inseparable to the question of jurisdiction.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Do you assign any authority to Anglican clergy in ecclesiastic, doctrinal or liturgical matters? Or is it merely the case that traditionally somebody has to dress up fancy on occasion to deal with services and the like? Because if you assign any authority, then the first part of my definition grips, for I do not.
quote:Of course I think sharing communion is significant. And I think your church is in error about it. But we hit the jurisdiction thing again here. Much as I disagree with Catholic policy, I recognise that making the policy about who to share communion with given the divisions with Christianity is a matter within Catholic jurisdiction. I don't make the rules for other denominations – when I go to a Catholic church, I would personally be happy to take communion, but as I'm within someone else's jurisdiction, I'll follow their rules, just as I'll follow US law when visiting the USA, even though I'd personally prefer to be driving on the other side of the road. If I thought that I, or my church, had a universal jurisdiction, I'd think you schismatic for not being in communion with me, just as, if I thought my country had a universal empire, all foreigners would be rebels. But since I think neither, I can live with the fact that you do and believe things differently from me, without thereby holding you responsible for dividing the Body of Christ.
Furthermore, do you assign any significance to sharing communion with others? Or is that an entirely optional matter for you that everybody can take or leave as they wish? Because if this has any significance to you, then the second part of my definition grips, for I will neither share communion in your place nor see it fit that you share it in mine.
quote:Absolutely. I certainly intend that. But I do genuinely believe what my implicit statement suggests, so it is not just a statement. Given what I believe about the church, me calling you a schismatic would be utterly inappropriate. It would misrepresent what I believe.
Rather, their avoidance of the label "schismatic" is - ironically - a kind of implicit doctrinal statement concerning the supposed nature of the Church.
quote:You know this how?
Originally posted by no prophet:
The devil doesn't have to bother appearing in magical ways and doesn't bother because this persuades people that there is actually a battle between good and evil, zombies and vampires, so just does everything rather lazily, within the actions of other people.
quote:Didn't the Apostle excommunicate a man for doinking his mother-in-law? St. Paul must have been a schismatic then, eh?
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Anyone who excommunicates someone else who calls themselves a Christian is schismatic.
quote:Well, seeing as this is hell...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"Doinking" We do have such lovely replacement words for sex, don't we?
quote:Looking through a dark glass does not render you blind. And the Lord has provided shepherds to lead you through the valley of tears to green pastures. You are simply in denial; a wayward sheep running alone through the wild, pretending that becoming a sheep is the end rather than the means.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As far as I'm concerned, answering that question is a privilege reserved for God. It's way above the pay grade of you, me, or anyone else currently trying to look through the dark glass and plot a course through this vale of tears.
quote:You are mangling John 10. Note that not all sheep in the sheepfold are His, but only those that He calls by name, and who follow His voice and flee strangers. And there are thieves and robbers and wolves around to capture or kill the other sheep. How to follow Christ's voice and avoid the thieves, robbers and wolves is precisely what is under discussion here. And I think you are dangerously wrong about that.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The shepherd knows his sheep and the sheep know their shepherd, there's no need for all the sheep to go around deciding for themselves who is and isn't a true member of the flock.
quote:Where have I spoken against practical charity that allows this: "The service was held in Holy Trinity Roman Catholic Church, Regina, because the Anglican Cathedral was not available due to ongoing construction work?" Nowhere. In fact, my usual place of worship when back in Germany (Altenberg cathedral) is constantly shared by the RCs and Lutherans. That does not mean that I have to be confused about the very real and spiritually significant differences between RCs, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc.
Originally posted by no prophet:
For example, the Anglican bishop of Qu'Appelle was recently ordained in a Roman Catholic cathedral in the see city of Regina, Saskatchewan (look for the short description of Robert Hardwick's consecration down the page).
quote:Well, thanks for making my point for me. The simple fact is that you are under a strict moral obligation to be part of one Church. So in your analogy we all would be explicitly commanded to become American. The entire world, one nation. And if I stay a citizen of for example Germany instead, then precisely according to the authority of statehood and jurisdiction I would be committing a specific evil. This specific evil is exactly what is called "schism". You can avoid being accused of this evil in basically one way: you have to pretend that it is not America, but some kind of super-state, that we are being called to join. And I say, you are fudging. There's no indication whatsoever in either scripture or tradition that Christ wanted us to join some abstract ideal. His Church was concrete from the start. So if you want to argue that we do not all have to become Americans, but rather that we can remain in our nations yet join a super-state, then fine. But it must be a super-state like the EU, with serious and concrete powers over the member states. So I do not mean a "British" type of EU, but one that is if at all stronger than what we see now. Of course, the RCC is precisely such a "super-state", and I indeed think that you need to join it, or commit a specific evil called "schism".
Originally posted by Eliab:
Do you assign any political authority to the US Congress? You might agree that it is constituted according to law, with the consent of the governed, composed of men and women of conspicuous wisdom and virtue, and generally correct in its deliberations, and yet not authoritative over you because you aren't American. And you are not under any moral obligation to become American. The question of authority is inseparable to the question of jurisdiction.
quote:...and here...
Originally posted by IngoB:
your Anglican wishy-washiness
quote:...and absolutist views worthy of the Taliban
Originally posted by IngoB:
You are simply in denial; a wayward sheep running alone through the wild, pretending that becoming a sheep is the end rather than the means.
quote:- I really start to understand why some people turn virulently anti-Catholic.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course, the RCC is precisely such a "super-state", and I indeed think that you need to join it, or commit a specific evil called "schism"
quote:- I really start to understand why some people turn virulently anti-Catholic. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course, the RCC is precisely such a "super-state", and I indeed think that you need to join it, or commit a specific evil called "schism"
quote:But Christ did NOT create either The Church (meaning Christendom) or the Roman Catholic Church: there was no church is Christ's time. You may well choose to argue that with "tu cui petrus et super hanc petram..." but this is a red herring. Not only does this not indicate that Peter (Simon Bar Jonah) was being seen as the "rock" but there is specifically no mention of succession, apostolic or otherwise. Christ's only instructions to Peter were to "feed my lambs, feed my sheep" and a further assurance that whatever sins were forgiven in his (Christ's) name on earth would be forgiven in heaven - nothing there about creating a temporal power with its own army, etc, etc, etc
posted by loggats
But isn't the argument here that Christ created the Church to be precisely this kind of supranationlal body, with apostolic ministry (and the transmission of grace) passed down in lines of succession? Ignoring the historical reality seems pretty disingenuous - and calling Christ's intentions for his Church "worthy of the Taliban" is way off the mark.
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
...and absolutist views worthy of the Taliban
quote:- I really start to understand why some people turn virulently anti-Catholic.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course, the RCC is precisely such a "super-state", and I indeed think that you need to join it, or commit a specific evil called "schism"
quote:My God, with that much wishful thinking the sky's the limit. If anything outside the echo chamber of your own denomination is construed as persecution, prepare to be persecuted.
But isn't the argument here that Christ created the Church to be precisely this kind of supranationlal body, with apostolic ministry (and the transmission of grace) passed down in lines of succession? Ignoring the historical reality seems pretty disingenuous - and calling Christ's intentions for his Church "worthy of the Taliban" is way off the mark.
quote:Same here - many of my best friends are RCs. None of them agree with their church on such things as contraception and gay marriage. They just hope the hierarchy will catch up one day.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I like Roman Catholics*; I dislike the Roman Catholic Church*. Where does that leave me?
* by and large
quote:We lived in Malta for a few years. That must be the most solidly RC country on earth, but there were an awful lot two-child families with a two-three year gap between children around. I don't believe the Maltese are better at arithmetic than anyone else.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Same here - many of my best friends are RCs. None of them agree with their church on such things as contraception and gay marriage. They just hope the hierarchy will catch up one day.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I like Roman Catholics*; I dislike the Roman Catholic Church*. Where does that leave me?
* by and large
quote:The historical reality is that there is more than one church that is part of the original apostolic succession regime.
Originally posted by loggats:
But isn't the argument here that Christ created the Church to be precisely this kind of supranationlal body, with apostolic ministry (and the transmission of grace) passed down in lines of succession? Ignoring the historical reality seems pretty disingenuous
They always have to have reasons, a complete narrative for the way they are, for it is by a narrative process they came to be that way, rather than just be born in to it.quote:Ingo does not want to be embraced. He just wants to be admired. His post betray an almost childish yearning for recognition of his "certitudes" and his "intelligence" (which is, most of the time, just very clever rhetoric).
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We MUST embrace him in his hostility.
quote:I would not agree with that view of the Orthodox. In fact, I quite admire them.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As with the Orthodox and any other arbitrarily, mysteriously, untestamental, unapostolic closed paraChristian denomination of Christians.
quote:agreed. They need to continuously reassure themselves. So yes, I ought to be more tolerant.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Proselytes are always the worst
quote:Yes, I share that. And the frequently experienced hostility of many Orthodox towards RCs and other Christians does hurt.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I admire the East more than the West theologically I find.
quote:well, you're a brave man. Few people would have the guts to undergo this "process" in their spiritual quests.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I have been both deprogrammed and deconstructed, a process that accelerated last year again.
quote:Hence why ecumenism with Protestants is pointless. All they want is the affirmation of their own relativistic mush.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm really baffled. Heaven forbid that anyone should believe that the communion they belong to is the Church Christ founded etc. Heaven forbid that anyone should reject branch theory as the sloppy ecclesiology for what it is. Heaven forbid that anyone should believe the Church to be visible rather than some vague invisible entity. To be offended by any of that is the sign of an oversized ego.
quote:Indeed. I've always been mistrustful of such ecumenism. It does more harm than good. Back when I was still a Roman Catholic I always thought true ecumenism was something akin to the Good Friday prayers. I still do.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:Hence why ecumenism with Protestants is pointless. All they want is the affirmation of their own relativistic mush.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm really baffled. Heaven forbid that anyone should believe that the communion they belong to is the Church Christ founded etc. Heaven forbid that anyone should reject branch theory as the sloppy ecclesiology for what it is. Heaven forbid that anyone should believe the Church to be visible rather than some vague invisible entity. To be offended by any of that is the sign of an oversized ego.
quote:
God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
quote:The benefits are entirely spiritual, namely sacramental. If Christ is the physician then the sacraments are medicine.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Ad Orientem -
Perhaps you would be so good as to read my post again, and this time properly.
Clue: the phrase "spiritual paradise"
By the way... perhaps you would like to let us all know what the real benefits of visible unity are? (After all, one would have thought that an obsession with 'visible' and 'institutional' would imply some kind of acknowledgement of 'visible' and 'institutional' - i.e. material - benefits.)
A short list will suffice...
quote:And all you want is us to fall into line and submit to Rome.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:Hence why ecumenism with Protestants is pointless. All they want is the affirmation of their own relativistic mush.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm really baffled. Heaven forbid that anyone should believe that the communion they belong to is the Church Christ founded etc. Heaven forbid that anyone should reject branch theory as the sloppy ecclesiology for what it is. Heaven forbid that anyone should believe the Church to be visible rather than some vague invisible entity. To be offended by any of that is the sign of an oversized ego.
quote:Frankly, you don't seem too spiritually well to me. You keep barfing up arrogance and condescension.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:The benefits are entirely spiritual, namely sacramental. If Christ is the physician then the sacraments are medicine.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Ad Orientem -
Perhaps you would be so good as to read my post again, and this time properly.
Clue: the phrase "spiritual paradise"
By the way... perhaps you would like to let us all know what the real benefits of visible unity are? (After all, one would have thought that an obsession with 'visible' and 'institutional' would imply some kind of acknowledgement of 'visible' and 'institutional' - i.e. material - benefits.)
A short list will suffice...
quote:Well, I'll leave that for others to judge. However, one could argue that those who feel all offended and self-righteous etc. their massive egos are saying "Look at me, please approve of me. Me me me!"
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:Frankly, you don't seem too spiritually well to me. You keep barfing up arrogance and condescension.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:The benefits are entirely spiritual, namely sacramental. If Christ is the physician then the sacraments are medicine.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Ad Orientem -
Perhaps you would be so good as to read my post again, and this time properly.
Clue: the phrase "spiritual paradise"
By the way... perhaps you would like to let us all know what the real benefits of visible unity are? (After all, one would have thought that an obsession with 'visible' and 'institutional' would imply some kind of acknowledgement of 'visible' and 'institutional' - i.e. material - benefits.)
A short list will suffice...
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Beautiful utterly blithe, blissfully invincibly ignorant projection Ad Orientem.
Mine. Not yours of course.
quote:I think I've conceded (and if I haven't, I do now) that you have at least the beginnings of a justification for thinking me schismatic. You do think that your Church has universal jurisdiction, that I should join it, that I could join it, and that 'schism' is the sin I'm committing in refusing to join it.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, thanks for making my point for me. The simple fact is that you are under a strict moral obligation to be part of one Church.
quote:Ad Orientem speaks of a 'spirituality' which bears no discernible fruit in reality, and which has no positive effect on society (in fact, rather a negative effect, if history teaches us anything).
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
The benefits are entirely spiritual, namely sacramental. If Christ is the physician then the sacraments are medicine.
quote:Really? Look to the lives of the saints.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Ad Orientem speaks of a 'spirituality' which bears no discernible fruit in reality, and which has no positive effect on society (in fact, rather a negative effect, if history teaches us anything).
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
The benefits are entirely spiritual, namely sacramental. If Christ is the physician then the sacraments are medicine.
The Bible however...
ken Ad Orientem mousethief IngoB Evangelical Anglican
quote:Not at all. I am following through the logical implications of the idea that we should all be united in a visible and institutional church.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
I'm sorry but you're talking bollocks unless, of course, you're arguing that the Church should wield temporal power.
quote:If the pope, for example, expects me to submit to him, then I require him to be my servant. Actually: my slave. I require him therefore to submit to me, because, according to Christ, "whoever desires to be great shall be your servant."
“You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
quote:This is just some sort of political messianism, no better than chiliasm or zionism.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We are the New Jerusalem. We are to embrace the world. We are to fully realise the kingdom of heaven.
I KNEW you'd say that Ad Orientem. I've repeated those ancient Christian errors. And in my naďve (WOW, that's impressive predictive text!) hubris I'm repeating another I'm sure. And if I'm wrong the harm is what? Am I not to be spent?
quote:That's the problem, you will insist on assuming, won't yer! Visible unity equals earthly paradise? Not only does it not follow (as with all your conclusions, it would seem) but it's plainly false as any right reading of the sacred scriptures will show. And what if pagan Rome says no? Does that then mean visible unity is down the khazi? The Church is visible so that we might know where to go to be saved and thus spiritual unity is expressed visibly too mainly through the sacraments. In fact the Church is a sacrament and you, of course, are merely expressing typical non-sacramentalist views.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Not at all. I am following through the logical implications of the idea that we should all be united in a visible and institutional church.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
I'm sorry but you're talking bollocks unless, of course, you're arguing that the Church should wield temporal power.
'Visible' and 'institutional' are words which describe, not the spiritual, but the material and the empirical. So therefore if 'visible' and 'institutional' are so important, then presumably it must be because the church is supposed to have some kind of role here on earth, given that it is (according to you) supposed to be constituted along the lines of outward conformity, which is characteristic of the world.
So if this really is the will of God, then one would assume that society would have been greatly blessed when everyone was part of a single visible and institutional church. Nothing to do with politics, but with a moral and spiritual influence on society. But what do we see when we study history? Brutal wars, corruption, disease, exploitation, poverty and so on.
I find it rather telling that you interpret my comments as suggesting that I am advocating the church as the wielder of temporal power. Who said anything about power? That's the problem with people like you. It's all about power.
This is the real agenda behind this carnal and worldly understanding of enforced and conformist outward unity. It's about power and control of people's lives. It is about as far removed from the gospel of Christ as it is possible to imagine.
Think of what Jesus said in Mark 10:
quote:If the pope, for example, expects me to submit to him, then I require him to be my servant. Actually: my slave. I require him therefore to submit to me, because, according to Christ, "whoever desires to be great shall be your servant."
“You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Of course, that's not going to happen, because these ecclesiastical power structures are not built along truly authentic Christian lines, but are worldly.
The Church is too precious and too important to be run by worldly power structures.
me too, I'm with you there.
quote:I am a mirror.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
your near constant hostility
quote:A pleasure.
Originally posted by loggats:
Reading this thread affirms me in my Catholic faith. Thank you.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:How virulently anti-Catholic is this place? Not enough, evidently.
Originally posted by loggats:
Reading this thread affirms me in my Catholic faith. Thank you.
quote:I'm happy for you. It would be hypocritical of me not to be, because I respect other people's choices. I assume that you do the same, and do not attempt to impose your particular "cup of tea" on others?
Originally posted by loggats
Reading this thread affirms me in my Catholic faith. Thank you.
quote:In a restaurant I am very happy for someone to eat beef while I choose to eat chicken. Does my eating chicken mean that I am being "virulently anti-beef"?
“You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
quote:In short, yes.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Does the Orthodox church hold that the Catholic church is in error and should return to their fold as the Catholics do?
quote:While believing that the Catholic church does contain a unique fullness of Truth in Christ (why else would I be Catholic?) and wishing quite sincerely that you would experience that same opportunity to know Him through His Church, I wouldn't take it upon myself to judge your (honest and earnest) decision to follow Him in some different way.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:I'm happy for you. It would be hypocritical of me not to be, because I respect other people's choices. I assume that you do the same, and do not attempt to impose your particular "cup of tea" on others?
Originally posted by loggats
Reading this thread affirms me in my Catholic faith. Thank you.
Or is it a case of flagrantly rebelling against our Lord's words? :
quote:In a restaurant I am very happy for someone to eat beef while I choose to eat chicken. Does my eating chicken mean that I am being "virulently anti-beef"?
“You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
quote:How cute.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:In short, yes.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Does the Orthodox church hold that the Catholic church is in error and should return to their fold as the Catholics do?
quote:Mate. That'll only happen when you become part of my church because it's only my church that contains the unique fullness of Truth in Christ.
Originally posted by loggats:
While believing that the Catholic church does contain a unique fullness of Truth in Christ (why else would I be Catholic?) and wishing quite sincerely that you would experience that same opportunity to know Him through His Church, I wouldn't take it upon myself to judge your (honest and earnest) decision to follow Him in some different way.
Ultimately "soul by soul and silently" the Kingdom's shining bounds increase (I've come from a funeral, that hymn was sung) - and I hope we'll all be part of it in the end.
quote:You are, of cooourrsssee, absolutely right.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
It's really not quite as simple as that is it, Orfeo? We believe the truth to be a person and only the truth saves. How then can we come to know the truth if we don't know who Christ is? This is why it was necessary to address those heresies which appeared over the centuries and why it was necessary for such to go into schism. It's no different today.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:Also, this is the kind of arty, ultimately meaning-free sentence that I get paid quite decent sums of money to strip bare and rewrite. Equating human beings, even divine ones, with abstract conceptual nouns is not a route to plain speaking.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
We believe the truth to be a person and only the truth saves.
quote:So what, specifically, did EE get wrong in his / her reply to you? In what way was it a false dichotomy?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
EE,
You're very good at creating false dichotomies. Please continue, you're merely strengthening my own view.
quote:Oh I haven't finished yet. Anything to harden your spiritual arteries. Glad to be of service...
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
EE,
You're very good at creating false dichotomies. Please continue, you're merely strengthening my own view.
quote:So Jesus went around healing people, blessing them, teaching them and delivering them from the power of evil. But what did all these people have in common? They thought He was just a man! Outrageous! What a bunch of evil, hell-bound, damnable, reprobate, proto-Arian heretics!! Surely these theological retards should not have been blessed but sent packing to the incinerator. I mean, goodness me, how difficult is it to get your trinitarian theology right, FFS?!
When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.
quote:It either contains THE fullness of Truth in Christ, whatever that may be, or it doesn't. Unless, somehow, there can be other unique fullnesses of etc? Unique according to the vessel? And you'd be a Catholic because that's what you were born 999 times out of a thousand.
While believing that the Catholic church does contain a unique fullness of Truth in Christ (why else would I be Catholic?) and wishing quite sincerely that you would experience that same opportunity to know Him through His Church, I wouldn't take it upon myself to judge your (honest and earnest) decision to follow Him in some different way.
quote:No, I think he's suggesting theological precision comes a distant second to doing what Jesus said.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
EE seems to suggest that what we believe doesn't matter compared to what we do.
quote:Were they accepted by the whole Church? They certainly weren't accepted by all Christians at the time, were they? And wasn't the fruit simply unity, in the sense of there now being an official Church position, the arguing against of which was now considered to be an act of schism / heresy? Personally, I'm not in favour of that kind of unity.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Why were to great councils of the Church considered ecumenical? because they were accepted by the whole Church and by the fruits thereof.
quote:I think EE's reply to this was fair, to be frank.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
We believe the truth to be a person and only the truth saves. How then can we come to know the truth if we don't know who Christ is?
quote:Very droll.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I didn't realise that 'selective' was a synonym for 'accurate'. We learn something new every day...
quote:You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
EE seems to suggest that what we believe doesn't matter compared to what we do.
quote:A circular argument, as you well know.
Why were to great councils of the Church considered ecumenical? because they were accepted by the whole Church...
quote:The fruits being...?
...and by the fruits thereof.
quote:Oh yes, MPCn&SB, oh yes. I remember reading that most Christians live like 'practical atheists', I think the phrase was. We say we believe, and then live in a way that firmly suggests otherwise...
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Our beliefs ARE what we do. What we do is what we actually, truly, really believe. What we say is absolutely meaningless. Unless it heals, encourages, hurts, excludes of course.
quote:It would probably help if you stopped blaming me for your hostility. It wouldn't rankle so much except for the mealy mouthed "I'm so evil" stuff, which doesn't seem to get applied to how you treat me.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We are either hostile or counter-hostile. Who shall save us from this body of death?
quote:Catholics aren't the only Christians in the 21st century who believe they are eating the body and blood of Christ. Hating to break it to you, and so on.
Originally posted by loggats:
I read a blog post recently that included this tidbit about Catholic communion - "The truth is that Catholics can never be ‘fit into’ modern Christianity, for no matter how socially acceptable the prayer, music, Scripture, or declarations of faith in the Liturgy, we will always wrap it up by eating God."
quote:Heh I know that, I still think it's a substantially defining feature of Catholicism (especially in comparison to most protestants).
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Catholics aren't the only Christians in the 21st century who believe they are eating the body and blood of Christ. Hating to break it to you, and so on.
Originally posted by loggats:
I read a blog post recently that included this tidbit about Catholic communion - "The truth is that Catholics can never be ‘fit into’ modern Christianity, for no matter how socially acceptable the prayer, music, Scripture, or declarations of faith in the Liturgy, we will always wrap it up by eating God."
quote:Quotes file.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is a matter of eternal regret that none of the Gospels record the answers of the thief on the cross when Jesus enquired how he felt about TULIP and the filioque.
Amen.
quote:Some do. WHich is why when an RC priest invites those in the congregation who wish to share in the body and blood as understood by the (RC) church, I feel free to do so.
Originally posted by loggats:
quote:Heh I know that, I still think it's a substantially defining feature of Catholicism (especially in comparison to most protestants).
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Catholics aren't the only Christians in the 21st century who believe they are eating the body and blood of Christ. Hating to break it to you, and so on.
Originally posted by loggats:
I read a blog post recently that included this tidbit about Catholic communion - "The truth is that Catholics can never be ‘fit into’ modern Christianity, for no matter how socially acceptable the prayer, music, Scripture, or declarations of faith in the Liturgy, we will always wrap it up by eating God."
Apologies for my profound ignorance (but you knew I wasn't all that clever anyway) - do Anglicans accept transubstantiation?
quote:Go wank somewhere else you ignorant troll.
Originally posted by loggats:
quote:Heh I know that, I still think it's a substantially defining feature of Catholicism (especially in comparison to most protestants).
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Catholics aren't the only Christians in the 21st century who believe they are eating the body and blood of Christ. Hating to break it to you, and so on.
Originally posted by loggats:
I read a blog post recently that included this tidbit about Catholic communion - "The truth is that Catholics can never be ‘fit into’ modern Christianity, for no matter how socially acceptable the prayer, music, Scripture, or declarations of faith in the Liturgy, we will always wrap it up by eating God."
Apologies for my profound ignorance (but you knew I wasn't all that clever anyway) - do Anglicans accept transubstantiation?
quote:I'll let the Anglicans answer for themselves.
Originally posted by loggats:
Apologies for my profound ignorance (but you knew I wasn't all that clever anyway) - do Anglicans accept transubstantiation?
quote:
He was the Word, that spake it:
He took the bread and brake it;
And what that Word did make it,
I do believe and take it. John Donne
quote:T.U.L.I.P.
Originally posted by Albertus:
And how long are you prepared to wait for us to exhaust all the possible (official and unofficial) answers to that one?
TULIP has been mentioned a couple of times but I've forgotten what it means and can't work it out. Please would someone remind me?
). I'm sorry.quote:Are you share that you do not share the faith with others outside the Roman Catholic Church, how do you know that?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If we don't share communion it's because we don't share the same faith.
quote:All you seem to do is write posts about me 'wanking' and my penis. You're creepy and I probably won't have much to do with you round here.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:Go wank somewhere else you ignorant troll.
Originally posted by loggats:
quote:Heh I know that, I still think it's a substantially defining feature of Catholicism (especially in comparison to most protestants).
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Catholics aren't the only Christians in the 21st century who believe they are eating the body and blood of Christ. Hating to break it to you, and so on.
Originally posted by loggats:
I read a blog post recently that included this tidbit about Catholic communion - "The truth is that Catholics can never be ‘fit into’ modern Christianity, for no matter how socially acceptable the prayer, music, Scripture, or declarations of faith in the Liturgy, we will always wrap it up by eating God."
Apologies for my profound ignorance (but you knew I wasn't all that clever anyway) - do Anglicans accept transubstantiation?
quote:This is hell, a lot of wanking goes on here. You need to pop over to Purg for a decent conversation.
Originally posted by loggats:
All you seem to do is write posts about me 'wanking' and my penis. You're creepy and I probably won't have much to do with you round here.
quote:Indeed. Which leads one to conclude that being "virulently anti-Catholic" basically boils down to treating them the same way they treat us.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
[some Roman Catholics] want to be acknowledged as brothers and sisters in Christ by Christians not in communion with the See of Rome
and
They want to be able to tell those Christians not in communion with the See of Rome that they are not really their brothers and sisters in Christ.
quote:...err, more-or-less right words Zach, wrong attribution; should be
posted by Zach 82
He was the Word, that spake it:
He took the bread and brake it;
And what that Word did make it,
I do believe and take it. John Donne
quote:I thought it was rather an apt analogy.
Originally posted by loggats
All you seem to do is write posts about me 'wanking' and my penis. You're creepy and I probably won't have much to do with you round here.
quote:I've never called anybody here (or anywhere else) a heretic. I know you guys use this place as a safezone for slagging one another off and you've got your agendas to push, but don't act like I've been anathematising people left right and centre.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:I thought it was rather an apt analogy.
Originally posted by loggats
All you seem to do is write posts about me 'wanking' and my penis. You're creepy and I probably won't have much to do with you round here.
In fact, all this stuff about "my monolithic religious organisation is the true one, and anyone who is not in it is a miserable little heretic" speaks to me of rather macho penis comparison (especially considering that these kinds of claims are usually made by men - who also frequently have a moral obsession with matters sexual).
quote:I thought the whole point of irresistible grace was that I had no such option.
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you need to be given the option of damnation to feel better, Calvin certainly thinks you have it.
quote:Oh what bullshit. If you refuse to speak to your brother for 40 years that doesn't affect your shared parenthood.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If we don't share communion it's because we don't share the same faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've got a very good word for all this crap, EE-DOLATRY.
quote:It's not bullshit. One must confess the same faith first. They go hand-in-hand.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Oh what bullshit. If you refuse to speak to your brother for 40 years that doesn't affect your shared parenthood.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If we don't share communion it's because we don't share the same faith.
quote:I don't accept it.
Originally posted by loggats:
Apologies for my profound ignorance (but you knew I wasn't all that clever anyway) - do Anglicans accept transubstantiation?
quote:I don't have to be Anglican. RC's would consider us Orthodox to be schismatic. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. Why? Simply because I believe they're wrong. Given that, why get all upset? And as far as Protestantism is concerned, well, we would consider Protestantism and Roman Catholicism to merely be two sides of the same coin.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Perhaps I've missed something here, Jengie Jon, and I haven't read all the posts written by RCs on this thread, but I've yet to come across an RC or an Orthodox Christian in real life who has treated me as anything other than a fellow Christian - despite my not belonging to the same Church.
You'll know enough about RC and Orthodox ecclesiology to appreciate that being a Christian and being in the Church aren't necessarily synonymous - as they are in more Protestant understandings of Church.
So most of the time we're talking past each other as we each mean different things by the same terminology.
Ad Orientem, for instance, finds that Anglicans take umbrage or get upset very easily whenever Orthodox get on their ecclesiological high-horse. He can't understand why this is. If he were an Anglican, though, then he'd immediately realise why. He's not an Anglican, of course, which is fine, but I would at least expect him to have sufficient empathy to put himself in someone else's shoes and consider how he might feel if someone were to effectively 'de-Church' him in their attitudes and response.
Ok, I recognise that all of this is a circular argument and it all depends on where one stands.
But there are ways of looking at this and ways of talking about this that don't elide the very real differences that exist but equally respect the views of all concerned. I know this is Hell and that's not how things work down here, but just saying ...
quote:So I speak out against using religion to control other people's lives. I speak out against ecclesiastical arrogance. I speak out against using theology that does not fit reality, and thus, according to the Great Gamaliel, I am apparently obsessed with myself!
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Bloody hell, EE. I'm not a Roman Catholic but listening to you is enough to make me reach for my rosary and take the next flight to Rome.
It's all ME, ME, ME with you, isn't it, EE?
MY tongues, MY Bible, MY hot-line to heaven, MY interpretation of scripture, MY ever-so-clever logic and exposition.
You might well be right, but even if you were I find your posting style and arrogance so off-putting that I'd rather slit my wrists, join the National Secular Society or go off and live on St Patrick's Purgatory for the next 16 years rather than listen to the torrent of bullshit that spills out of your brain ...
quote:You may consider that to be the case but that doesn't make it true or accurate. This protestant has major issues on every level with being equated to Catholicism.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
[QUOTE], we would consider Protestantism and Roman Catholicism to merely be two sides of the same coin.
quote:"My mother decided I'm not part of her family anymore. But I know she's wrong, so it doesn't bother me..."
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't have to be Anglican. RC's would consider us Orthodox to be schismatic. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. Why? Simply because I believe they're wrong.
quote:1. Gamaliel we have cross posted on this one before. Your experience is yours, others mileage clearly varies - including mine at my wife's nephew's funeral (aged 19), of all places. It could be an aberration if it were not for comments I've heard elsewhere, most recently from a hospital chaplain who'd been dissed by the local RC priest.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
1. Perhaps I've missed something here, Jengie Jon, and I haven't read all the posts written by RCs on this thread, but I've yet to come across an RC or an Orthodox Christian in real life who has treated me as anything other than a fellow Christian - despite my not belonging to the same Church.
2. Ok, I recognise that all of this is a circular argument and it all depends on where one stands.
3. But there are ways of looking at this and ways of talking about this that don't elide the very real differences that exist but equally respect the views of all concerned. I know this is Hell and that's not how things work down here, but just saying ...
quote:Ditto.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:You may consider that to be the case but that doesn't make it true or accurate. This protestant has major issues on every level with being equated to Catholicism.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
[QUOTE], we would consider Protestantism and Roman Catholicism to merely be two sides of the same coin.
quote:I'm not at all getting this from EE's recent comments; I think he's raising some important issues (granted, in a rather polemical manner but, hey, this is the Hell board!). In fact, I think he's being refreshingly blunt and to the point.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Bloody hell, EE. I'm not a Roman Catholic but listening to you is enough to make me reach for my rosary and take the next flight to Rome.
It's all ME, ME, ME with you, isn't it, EE?
MY tongues, MY Bible, MY hot-line to heaven, MY interpretation of scripture, MY ever-so-clever logic and exposition.
quote:Like ExclamationMark - and those I cross-posted with - , I'd protest (pun intended) against this characterisation. At least for me, a key point about protestantism is that having a worldwide church institution is not the goal. Unity among Christians means something other than us all being part of the same institutional system. Whereas, of course, RCCism and Orthodoxy (is that the correct noun?) believe there should be and indeed is such an institution.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And as far as Protestantism is concerned, well, we would consider Protestantism and Roman Catholicism to merely be two sides of the same coin.
quote:And it does raise the epistolary challenge of John; if we don't love the brother we see, how can we love the God we don't see. Or whoever says he loves God but does not love his brother is a liar. Or something like that.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Oh what bullshit. If you refuse to speak to your brother for 40 years that doesn't affect your shared parenthood.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If we don't share communion it's because we don't share the same faith.
quote:Exactly which bit of the Nicene Creed is it that you think I'm not confessing?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:It's not bullshit. One must confess the same faith first. They go hand-in-hand.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Oh what bullshit. If you refuse to speak to your brother for 40 years that doesn't affect your shared parenthood.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If we don't share communion it's because we don't share the same faith.
quote:For a start the West has added to it, that's even before we get to the sacraments etc.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Exactly which bit of the Nicene Creed is it that you think I'm not confessing?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:It's not bullshit. One must confess the same faith first. They go hand-in-hand.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Oh what bullshit. If you refuse to speak to your brother for 40 years that doesn't affect your shared parenthood.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If we don't share communion it's because we don't share the same faith.
quote:Way to not answer the question.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:For a start the West has added to it, that's even before we get to the sacraments etc.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Exactly which bit of the Nicene Creed is it that you think I'm not confessing?
quote:Definitely. The target you've just painted on your arse is quite, quite clear.
Originally posted by loggats:
I'd always thought the major impediments between any kind of reconciliation between the 'two lungs' of the Church were the East's refusal to acknowledge the primacy of Rome in anything but name, general political dissent, a bitter refusal to forgive the events of 1204, and rampant internal racism.
(was that post Hellish enough?)
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Definitely. The target you've just painted on your arse is quite, quite clear.
Originally posted by loggats:
I'd always thought the major impediments between any kind of reconciliation between the 'two lungs' of the Church were the East's refusal to acknowledge the primacy of Rome in anything but name, general political dissent, a bitter refusal to forgive the events of 1204, and rampant internal racism.
(was that post Hellish enough?)
quote:Ha! We are not your missing lung, thank you very much. The analogy we find odd to say the least. Of course, primacy as defined by Vatican I is a stumbling block though it's not as if we have an issue with primacy per se but rather the nature of it. As far as the bishop of Rome is concerned the position of Orthodoxy has always been the same: first confess the orthodox faith, then we can discuss primacy.
Originally posted by loggats:
I'd always thought the major impediments between any kind of reconciliation between the 'two lungs' of the Church were the East's refusal to acknowledge the primacy of Rome in anything but name, general political dissent, a bitter refusal to forgive the events of 1204, and rampant internal racism.
(was that post Hellish enough?)
quote:'Reconciliation' in this context being an entirely technical term, utterly devoid of any sentiment associated with the normal use of the word, and lacking any relationship to reality.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
As long as it remains it will always be one of the major stumbling blocks to any kind of reconciliation.
quote:Bloody hell. That's worse than certain Irish people who still can't forgive and forget the Battle of the Boyne!
Originally posted by Loggats
...a bitter refusal to forgive the events of 1204...
quote:I have already stated that I understand the Orthodox complaint about the filioque and think they're onto something, from what little I know about the topic.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Orfeo,
It's not that it's an "unnecessary extra" but rather a damn heresy as far as the East is concerned and thus was never accept by the East. It also amounts to an act of gross unilateralism by the West, completely foreign to the conciliar nature of the Creed. As long as it remains it will always be one of the major stumbling blocks to any kind of reconciliation. But it would wrong to reduce our differences with the West to the Filioque. There are many other stumbling blocks, all of which must be addressed before any kind of communion can be achieved and until they are addressed it cannot be considered that we confess the same faith.
quote:Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
As far as the bishop of Rome is concerned the position of Orthodoxy has always been the same: first confess the orthodox faith, then we can discuss primacy.
quote:Pope JP 2 only officially 'apologised' for it in 2004.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Bloody hell. That's worse than certain Irish people who still can't forgive and forget the Battle of the Boyne!
Originally posted by Loggats
...a bitter refusal to forgive the events of 1204...
quote:something silly
Originally posted by Evensong:
Reading this thread affirms me in my Anglican faith. Thank you.
quote:I never have and never will make any judgements as to the state of any persons soul. You will never succeed in trying to draw me into making such judgements. The issue here is the faith delivered once to the saints and its preservation from error. Anything else is not the same faith. As for those other stumbling blocks here are a few remembering, of course, that I'm lumping all the West into one basket for convenience sake: the nature of the sacraments and the priesthood, governance and ecclesiology, purgatory, indulgences, the scholastic method, the liturgical desolation of the West. These are to name but a few.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I have already stated that I understand the Orthodox complaint about the filioque and think they're onto something, from what little I know about the topic.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Orfeo,
It's not that it's an "unnecessary extra" but rather a damn heresy as far as the East is concerned and thus was never accept by the East. It also amounts to an act of gross unilateralism by the West, completely foreign to the conciliar nature of the Creed. As long as it remains it will always be one of the major stumbling blocks to any kind of reconciliation. But it would wrong to reduce our differences with the West to the Filioque. There are many other stumbling blocks, all of which must be addressed before any kind of communion can be achieved and until they are addressed it cannot be considered that we confess the same faith.
As to the other stumbling blocks, spell them out. I want to know why you think I'm not going to heaven. If you DO think I'm going to heaven then, in all seriousness, shut the fuck up.
quote:Add to that penal substitution as well.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:I never have and never will make any judgements as to the state of any persons soul. You will never succeed in trying to draw me into making such judgements. The issue here is the faith delivered once to the saints and its preservation from error. Anything else is not the same faith. As for those other stumbling blocks here are a few remembering, of course, that I'm lumping all the West into one basket for convenience sake: the nature of the sacraments and the priesthood, governance and ecclesiology, purgatory, indulgences, the scholastic method, the liturgical desolation of the West. These are to name but a few.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I have already stated that I understand the Orthodox complaint about the filioque and think they're onto something, from what little I know about the topic.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Orfeo,
It's not that it's an "unnecessary extra" but rather a damn heresy as far as the East is concerned and thus was never accept by the East. It also amounts to an act of gross unilateralism by the West, completely foreign to the conciliar nature of the Creed. As long as it remains it will always be one of the major stumbling blocks to any kind of reconciliation. But it would wrong to reduce our differences with the West to the Filioque. There are many other stumbling blocks, all of which must be addressed before any kind of communion can be achieved and until they are addressed it cannot be considered that we confess the same faith.
As to the other stumbling blocks, spell them out. I want to know why you think I'm not going to heaven. If you DO think I'm going to heaven then, in all seriousness, shut the fuck up.
quote:There is a huge difference between believing something matters and judging a persons soul. These differences certainly do matter.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you're not making judgements about the state of souls, then "the issue" really isn't much of an issue at all, is it? It's a lot of pointless squabbling over something that no-one is prepared to say actually matters in the eternal scheme of things.
Which is where I started.
quote:Do they? Not much if you ask me. They're mostly arguments over fuck all.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:There is a huge difference between believing something matters and judging a persons soul. These differences certainly do matter.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you're not making judgements about the state of souls, then "the issue" really isn't much of an issue at all, is it? It's a lot of pointless squabbling over something that no-one is prepared to say actually matters in the eternal scheme of things.
Which is where I started.
quote:Look, they're important because they allow one group of humans to feel superior to another, because largely through an accident of birth they've got TheTruth(TM) and those other people haven't.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Okay then, if these differences don't affect our eternal destiny, how come they are so important that they make sharing communion an impossibility? What does 'we don't share the same faith' really mean, if it doesn't have implications as to people's eternal destiny?
quote:Now hang on a moment. I never said that. All I said was that I'm not willing to judge the state of a persons soul.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Okay then, if these differences don't affect our eternal destiny...
quote:Then you're getting remarkably close to doing so! Clearly you think you (and your church) are correct and I (along with my church) am wrong. That's fine, but you also think the differences are such that we don't have the same faith, and thus may not share communion. In addition, you think this might well affect our eternal destinies, which (given that you clearly think you are right) can only mean my eternal security with God is in peril. I see no other conclusion to what you're saying...
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:Now hang on a moment. I never said that. All I said was that I'm not willing to judge the state of a persons soul.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Okay then, if these differences don't affect our eternal destiny...
quote:Good.
Originally posted by L'organist:
@ Orfeo
I have a question: what is "living crap"?
My mind is coming up with some very disturbing images...
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Clearly you think you (and your church) are correct and I (along with my church) am wrong. That's fine, but you also think the differences are such that we don't have the same faith, and thus may not share communion. In addition, you think this might well affect our eternal destinies, which (given that you clearly think you are right) can only mean my eternal security with God is in peril.
quote:But there is a subtle yet important difference in saying that one is in peril or in danger of and saying one is damned. The later I'm unwilling to do because ultimately that is God's judgement alone.
I see no other conclusion to what you're saying...
quote:There's a distinction there big enough for a weasel, yes.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Clearly you think you (and your church) are correct and I (along with my church) am wrong. That's fine, but you also think the differences are such that we don't have the same faith, and thus may not share communion. In addition, you think this might well affect our eternal destinies, which (given that you clearly think you are right) can only mean my eternal security with God is in peril.
quote:But there is a subtle yet important difference in saying that one is in peril or in danger of and saying one is damned. The later I'm unwilling to do because ultimately that is God's judgement alone.
I see no other conclusion to what you're saying...
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:Ah, I don't know if this darned site is better down here. Sometimes a fluffy discussion is just the ticket.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...a darned site better down here.
quote:Those who think that heaven - the presence of God - is defined fundamentally in terms of conformity to a set of dogmas, as embodied in an external institution, are blind to the love of God. In fact, it's worse than that. It's a deep-seated refusal to love. It's a refusal to reach out to the other. Their church is a kind of idol, by which they objectify their own personal conceit, and through this idol they are actually worshipping themselves. Hence they can only accept and affirm those who conform to this idol, because their co-religionists do not challenge that elemental conceit, but affirm it.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Clearly you think you (and your church) are correct and I (along with my church) am wrong. That's fine, but you also think the differences are such that we don't have the same faith, and thus may not share communion. In addition, you think this might well affect our eternal destinies, which (given that you clearly think you are right) can only mean my eternal security with God is in peril.
quote:When one gets to his age, it's called a 'lucid interval'.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Please note and attend: Marvin is having one of his insanely insightful spiritual moments.
You tell em dude
quote:Mind your manners, sonny.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
When one gets to his age, it's called a 'lucid interval'.
I agree completely. quote:I didn't really post anything profound, merely insulted Marv, which I think he's used to by now
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
When I'm agreeing with EE, Marvin, Eversnog and Matt something's odd, if nothing else.
Makes me feel all non-hellish, which won't do at all. I'm having a good ranty time this afternoon and don't want it spoiling, thank you very much!
quote:Yes, me too. I'm familiar with this line of thinking from groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, but not from RCC and Orthodox Church folks!
Originally posted by Laurelin:
It's instructive to realise that some Orthodox and some RCs really do genuinely believe that my soul is in peril because I am not part of their church.
I'm not upset, just genuinely ... WTF.
quote:But they wouldn't generally be so exclusivist as to say you have to join their particular church, would they? Maybe that's not really a significant softening of the position, though...
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Of course many fellow evangelicals believe that it's the RCs who are in danger of hell-fire.
quote:Some (including myself) do - but official teaching from the c of E does not define it - but it does accept that we 'believe (we) are eating the body and blood of Christ'.
Originally posted by loggats:
quote:Heh I know that, I still think it's a substantially defining feature of Catholicism (especially in comparison to most protestants).
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Catholics aren't the only Christians in the 21st century who believe they are eating the body and blood of Christ. Hating to break it to you, and so on.
Originally posted by loggats:
I read a blog post recently that included this tidbit about Catholic communion - "The truth is that Catholics can never be ‘fit into’ modern Christianity, for no matter how socially acceptable the prayer, music, Scripture, or declarations of faith in the Liturgy, we will always wrap it up by eating God."
Apologies for my profound ignorance (but you knew I wasn't all that clever anyway) - do Anglicans accept transubstantiation?
quote:Just so that there's no confusion, when I brought it up in a previous post I meant that it was one of our beefs with the RC along with purgatory, which is linked to it. No doubt, like yourself, we believe indulgences are nonsense.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
- Indulgences. I ask you.
quote:Whatever you believe indulgences to be probably is nonsense - the Church's actual teaching isn't.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:Just so that there's no confusion, when I brought it up in a previous post I meant that it was one of our beefs with the RC along with purgatory, which is linked to it. No doubt, like yourself, we believe indulgences are nonsense.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
- Indulgences. I ask you.
Don't worry, loggats, I'm perfectly aware of what the RC teaches concerning indulgences as opposed to the many misconceptions that do the rounds. I was a traditionalist RC myself once (SSPX, FSSP; belonged to the confraternities associated with both priestly societies). Fulfilled the conditions for an indulgence on many occasions. I say "nonsense" because I no longer believe in purgatory and thus indulgences too.
quote:Fair enough, hope somebody here finds that post interesting! Funnily enough I was fairly lapsed till I moved to the UK (studying there) and met a girl who was very involved with the SSPX. I never really got into their particular variety of trad hysteria but did reconnect with the Church and spent the better part of three years attending mass at Brompton Oratory.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Of course, we believe that we are the Catholic Church.quote:The SSPX and FSSP aren't sedevacantists.
Originally posted by loggats:
Well yeah I guess stuff being spouted by sedes wouldn't worry you too much since you've left the Church.
(the CATHOLIC Church, that is)
quote:The FSSP certainly isn't.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:The SSPX and FSSP aren't sedevacantists.
Originally posted by loggats:
Well yeah I guess stuff being spouted by sedes wouldn't worry you too much since you've left the Church.
(the CATHOLIC Church, that is)
quote:Williamson was always a question mark but then he was expelled from the society some while ago now. Fellay is a man of good will, I believe.
Originally posted by loggats:
quote:The FSSP certainly isn't.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:The SSPX and FSSP aren't sedevacantists.
Originally posted by loggats:
Well yeah I guess stuff being spouted by sedes wouldn't worry you too much since you've left the Church.
(the CATHOLIC Church, that is)
The SSPX is a lot muddier.
quote:On a grass roots level, I think a lot of SSPX parishioners are far too happy to live in little pseudoCatholic ghettos. Their anti-Conciliar rhetoric is damaging because it neglects a lot of the great things that came from the Council (including a sense of dialogue with non-Catholics) and an inability to return to the Church under Pope Benedict (who was in many ways a very trad friendly pontiff) speaks volumes.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:Williamson was always a question mark but then he was expelled from the society some while ago now. Fellay is a man of good will, I believe.
Originally posted by loggats:
quote:The FSSP certainly isn't.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:The SSPX and FSSP aren't sedevacantists.
Originally posted by loggats:
Well yeah I guess stuff being spouted by sedes wouldn't worry you too much since you've left the Church.
(the CATHOLIC Church, that is)
The SSPX is a lot muddier.
quote:For me the only way one can say such things is if the Church is - essentially - meaningless. She is then just a kind of social device, an institution in the regular sense. That has a kind of importance, just as a football club has an importance, but not one that actually means something for salvation.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
It's instructive to realise that some Orthodox and some RCs really do genuinely believe that my soul is in peril because I am not part of their church. I'm not upset, just genuinely ... WTF. ... My concept of God's grace is much bigger than His church. The LORD is bigger than His church, I mean. He is perfectly fair and perfectly just. He will ensure that all those who come to Him, will.
quote:Many people responded to his intelligence and, as you've no doubt realised by reading his books, his views are essentially (and profoundly) Roman Catholic. I owe a lot to him in terms of my own journey of faith.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
To understand the trad mentality you have to understand that they were essentially persecuted after Vatican II. In many places they still are today. Trads have long memories. Vatican II deserves its own thread but for me Vatican II isn't the cause of the problem, it's merely the symptom of a much older problem. As for Benedict I always thought he was a breath of fresh air and I still do. I am very saddened that he resigned and even more saddened by his declining health. To me he often sounded almost Orthodox.
quote:I'll allow salvific, but not placist. And I don't care if it is obvious, even to a moron.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
However I must take virulent exception to the Church being salvific in any parochial way of course, or God would be placist.
quote:My dear, I don't think we'll ever know the answer to that question ...
Originally posted by comet:
I wonder what a Hell board would be like on a Ship that isn't populated by Freaks...
quote:Since we are in Hell, I'll turn this up a notch.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:For me the only way one can say such things is if the Church is - essentially - meaningless. She is then just a kind of social device, an institution in the regular sense. That has a kind of importance, just as a football club has an importance, but not one that actually means something for salvation.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
It's instructive to realise that some Orthodox and some RCs really do genuinely believe that my soul is in peril because I am not part of their church. I'm not upset, just genuinely ... WTF. ... My concept of God's grace is much bigger than His church. The LORD is bigger than His church, I mean. He is perfectly fair and perfectly just. He will ensure that all those who come to Him, will.
If there is some kind of crucial contribution of Church to salvation, then obviously getting Church wrong must have a negative impact on one's chances for salvation. One cannot deny the latter without denying the former. And I do think that God wants us to come to Him through the Church, with the Church and in the Church. The Church is not just some kind of social add-on. She is not interchangeable. And if you lack the right kind, or worse, lack her altogether, then that is less favourable than if you have her. Otherwise why would God provide her? That is not to say that every non-Christian is doomed. That is not to say that every non-RC is doomed. But it is saying that here is something truly of consequence to salvation.
FFS, I don't think the Bride of Christ is meaningless. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Far from it!!!!! quote:That's fine, they are real words, albeit in a language few here would understand.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Well Johnny English I now unforgettably know what Welsh for foxtrot oscar is but can't bring myself to use it.
quote:Gam, you're not the only one finding this thread tedious. The hosts do too. This isn't Purg and we've had over a hundred posts in the last 24 hours on this one thread, few of which have had much Hellish content. Snark, yes, but little one wouldn't find on allegedly better behaved boards.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Let's get one thing clear.
I find the apparently endless bickering between the RCs and the Orthodox as to which of them really constitutes the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church to be very tedious.
What I also find exceptionally tedious is the kind of I'm-ever-so-right-and-oh-so-biblical posturing of twats like EE.
I'm sure certain RCs and Orthodox could send me running towards the National Secular Society. I've come across some online who'd have that effect on me if I met them in real life, I'm sure.
EE might not have that effect on me in real life but he does here because he's an arrogant twat.
quote:At least I have a viewpoint. You wouldn't know how to put a coherent thought together if you tried. The best you can do is "ah dear, it's all so ambiguous. We just don't really know. And anyway I mustn't actually think, because that's being sooo 'cold' and 'Spock-like'."
Originally posted by Gamaliel
What I also find exceptionally tedious is the kind of I'm-ever-so-right-and-oh-so-biblical posturing of twats like EE.
...
EE might not have that effect on me in real life but he does here because he's an arrogant twat.
...
A plague on all their houses. On EE's because he thinks he's Spock
quote:Shorter.
Originally posted by comet:
I wonder what a Hell board would be like on a Ship that isn't populated by Freaks...
quote:Oh yeah? I ran a Sung Calvinist Communion at Easter in my shack. And don't get me started about baptism. We go all out for that.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
What the bloody blue blazes is phyletism?
And the only bloody reason I go on about being low church and unsacramental, Gamaliel, is because of the twats who think I am outside the frickin' camp because of it.
In any case, I'm a hell of a lot more sacramental than those cold, calculating Calvinists.
quote:EE: You are truly of the "I'm-ever-so-right-and-oh-so-biblical" brigade.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:At least I have a viewpoint. You wouldn't know how to put a coherent thought together if you tried. The best you can do is "ah dear, it's all so ambiguous. We just don't really know. And anyway I mustn't actually think, because that's being sooo 'cold' and 'Spock-like'."
Originally posted by Gamaliel
What I also find exceptionally tedious is the kind of I'm-ever-so-right-and-oh-so-biblical posturing of twats like EE.
...
EE might not have that effect on me in real life but he does here because he's an arrogant twat.
...
A plague on all their houses. On EE's because he thinks he's Spock
I dread to think what your tax returns must look like. "Sorry, Mr Taxman, that I drew pretty pictures and wrote a load of my impenetrable doggerel in the boxes, but I couldn't answer the questions logically, because that would be 'cold' and I don't want to hurt your precious feelings by seeming to be like Mr Spock. Please understand Mr Taxman, that I want to communicate with you in a 'warm' and cuddly manner. Love, Gammy xx"
Dear Social Services, please do something about Gamaliel.
He seriously needs help.
I mean seriously...
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
quote:Phyletism? You'll have to explain that one to me. As for caeseropapism that's always been one of our beefs with the pope who, after all, claims to be a king.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On a Purgatorial note, Laurelin, of course Calvinism and Roman Catholicism are related in the way you describe. The Orthodox will tell you that. They see Calvinism as simply a late flowering of late medieval Scholasticism. And they're right. There's something coldly calculating about both.
The Orthodox escape that particular trap but then they fall for different pitfalls of their own - such as phyletism and Caesaropapism and other ills beside.
quote:If you are a Simpsons fan, the Itchy and Scratchy cartoon "Porch Pals" that was made after Marge went after violence in cartoons is a good approximation ;-)
Originally posted by comet:
I wonder what a Hell board would be like on a Ship that isn't populated by Freaks...
quote:Unnecessary.
Originally posted by comet:
I wonder what a Hell board would be like on a Ship that isn't populated by Freaks...
quote:Was your birth name Bell+Howell? You're a great projector.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You certainly present a very interesting psychological study for anyone interested in the mechanics of self-delusion. Or perhaps you're just trying out paraconsistent logic (i.e. non-logic).
quote:Oh my fucking God. "Spiritually raped"? Are you from this planet? You need to take a bottle of chill pills and call us in the morning of the Parousia.
It's obvious to anyone with half a brain cell, that being concerned about the issues I listed is actually a concern for other people, and not simply for myself. But, hey, if you really think that caring for others involves making sure they are pushed around and spiritually raped and pillaged by a bunch of control freaks, then I pity you.
quote:What makes you think we don't?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
After all, there's nothing stopping a Catholic Christian and Orthodox Christian from "loving one another"!
quote:This is fucking stupid and you must know it. Yes the world is rent with endless problems. And yet you're here wasting your (and our) time on a fucking discussion board. You must not care about solving the problems of the world. Or, perhaps, one can discuss stuff like this and argue and disagree and still care about the world's problems. Which is it, fuckwit?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The world is rent with endless problems and these two religious obsessives are wanking about whose is the correct arse to kiss.
quote:Oh FFS don't you have a web browser that can connect to Google?
Originally posted by Laurelin:
What the bloody blue blazes is phyletism?
quote:Completely empty.
Originally posted by comet:
I wonder what a Hell board would be like on a Ship that isn't populated by Freaks...
quote:I think you're overreaching. Remember, we use this to rant about the Freaks out there in the rest of the world as well as the locals.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Completely empty.
Originally posted by comet:
I wonder what a Hell board would be like on a Ship that isn't populated by Freaks...
quote:Since you are neither RC nor neo-Calvinist, let me run the logic past you once more. (One never knows, you might still experience a rigorous and systematic thought about faith...) If being in the Church contributes significantly to one's salvation, then getting it wrong (or not being in the Church at all) must significantly lower one's chances of salvation. If Church membership does not contribute significantly, then one's salvation is not endangered upon getting this wrong. You seem to say that the latter is the case, hence you imply that the Church is meaningless (for salvation).
Originally posted by Laurelin:
FFS, I don't think the Bride of Christ is meaningless.
quote:Arrogant and condescending - and bound to switch the listener off immediately. I didn't read another word after that.
Originally posted by IngoB:
(One never knows, you might still experience a rigorous and systematic thought about faith...)
quote:Ingo, that's just stupid. I can resolve it by pointing at the brackets you inserted in one place and not the other.
Originally posted by IngoB:
You seem to say that the latter is the case, hence you imply that the Church is meaningless (for salvation).
You now protest that the Church is meaningful. This sets up a contradiction in your thoughts. You may be able to resolve it, but that will require you to make some clear distinction and careful arguments.
quote:What you need to understand about IngoB is that he doesn't care what anybody here thinks. He really doesn't. He never has. Hanging out here and sneering at what he perceives as the illogic of everybody else is just one of his hobbies.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Arrogant and condescending - and bound to switch the listener off immediately. I didn't read another word after that.
Originally posted by IngoB:
(One never knows, you might still experience a rigorous and systematic thought about faith...)
quote:Fine, if that floats his boat. I, for one, switch off reading the moment he starts looking down on the rest of us.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:What you need to understand about IngoB is that he doesn't care what anybody here thinks. He really doesn't. He never has. Hanging out here and sneering at what he perceives as the illogic of everybody else is just one of his hobbies.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Arrogant and condescending - and bound to switch the listener off immediately. I didn't read another word after that.
Originally posted by IngoB:
(One never knows, you might still experience a rigorous and systematic thought about faith...)
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
(One never knows, you might still experience a rigorous and systematic thought about faith...)
Amusing, to be lectured on matters of faith and practice. I bet many of your fellow RCs don't think rigorously and systematically about their faith. Because most people don't. Not because they're stupid, but because they're not intellectuals. And not being an intellectual doesn't mean a person is stupid. How do you think the ordinary person in the street/pew approaches these things? quote:That's not exactly what I said, but I can't be arsed to go over it again. I will say this: I believe that your Church is misleading on some matters, which is why I won't join it.
If Church membership does not contribute significantly, then one's salvation is not endangered upon getting this wrong. You seem to say that the latter is the case, hence you imply that the Church is meaningless (for salvation).
quote:I'm not maligning Scholasticism. But very few people in the church are Scholastics. As I said, very few people in the church are intellectuals - that applies to your Church as much as it does mine. Do you seriously think God minds?
That is what the unjustly maligned Scholasticism is all about.
quote:WTF ...
But in doing so, you will leave a blind spot where in fact you could have known better. And if you do that often enough, then all will become dark to you, a mystery not of Divine but your own making.
quote:Nonsense. That's NOT what I believe what Christianity is about. Have you forgotten the Holy Spirit? He makes dead people come alive.
And if you grow up in such man-made darkness, then it will seem to you that the remaining feelings of goodwill and decent behavior is what Christianity is about, and hence is what requires defending.
quote:You are either playing games with me, because this is Hell, or you actually believe this. I have no idea what you're talking about. What friggin' darkness? Last year a close friend of mine died, unexpectedly and tragically. I sat vigil at her hospital bedside, watching her die, watching her gasp for every laboured breath. I presume that your Roman Catholic faith sustains you when you face that kind of trial, the normal suffering that we all must face sooner or later, that your faith gives you strength and peace and consolation and helps you make some kind of sense of the cosmic mess. Well, it won't surprise you to learn that so does mine. So I have no idea what you mean by 'darkness'.
But you are caught in a different kind of wrong, and in a way, a much darker one ...
quote:Oy. Stop with the pyschoanalysis. I can't speak for EE but you can't just lump the two of us together like that! I personally am not suspicious of 'a more realised or developed eschatalogy in general'.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
From my experience - and I can only speak from that - those evangelical and charismatic outfits that try to rectify that lack tend to go overboard in an authoritarian and overly prescriptive way ... which tends to make evangelicals like EE and Laurelin suspicious of anything that smacks of a more realised or developed eschatology in general.
quote:Well, that’s just bloody depressing, innit.
I think Laurelin's outrage here is fuelled by a very Western understanding of salvation - inevitably. If Ad Orientem is saying that there's no ultimate certainty that South Coast Kevin, for instance, as a Christian in a non-Orthodox setting is going to be saved then he is equally saying that there's no ultimate guarantee that he as an Orthodox believer is going to be saved either.
I would ask why he bothers, but I'm just too flaming Purgatorial to go all-out Hell on this. I know why he bothers. I just disagree about the end result. quote:‘There it is’, meaning what? That their approach shouldn’t be critiqued? The Orthodox can keep their ultimate uncertainty. It's not my problem.
The Orthodox aren't Calvinists and aren't into 'assurance of salvation' in a Wesleyan way either. Certain Prots might not like that, but there it is.
If you think it’s all that and a bag of chips, you’re blinkin' welcome to it. I much prefer the Wesley paradigm, and come to that Calvin’s, with his 'perseverance of the saints'.quote:That does rather depend on what "getting it wrong" actually means. For that matter, it depends on what "the Church" actually is. For one thing, I don't think "the Church" can be restricted to any one institution - it's all of them. It's the bodies of believers making up the Body of Christ, to be found wherever two or three (or more) are gathered in Jesus' Name. Nothing less.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If being in the Church contributes significantly to one's salvation, then getting it wrong (or not being in the Church at all) must significantly lower one's chances of salvation.
quote:While there may indeed be some small smattering of truth in your Bulverism, it doesn't follow that "once bitten, twice shy" holds true as a general rule.
Originally posted by Gamaliel
If he wants to play the amateur psychologist, then so can the rest of us. My judgement would be that because he's suffered in the past (as I and many others here have too) from overly controlling and interfering church-systems he projects that onto anything else that smacks to him as having similar checks and balances - however lightly (rather than tightly) they might be applied.
Consequently, he'll rail at me for what he sees as control-freakery and trying to regulate other people's spiritual lives - which certainly isn't what I'm about - or he'll project his former bad experiences onto other traditions - such as Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
quote:Why not indeed - after all, the RCC is a vehicle/channel of grace and salvation. And so is the Orthodox Church.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's perfectly consistent with the more 'incarnational' and sacramental approach taken by more Catholic/Orthodox Christians that they see the Church itself as a vehicle/channel of grace and salvation. Why wouldn't they?
quote:Aww, bless.
Originally posted by loggats:
The RCC doesn't claim to be the only one, just the best.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:Don't put yourself out of the running too easily. There's such a thing as false modesty, you know.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can't decide whether Evensong, Evensong or Evensong is the biggest pain in the arse.
quote:Except there seems to be a remarkable degree of civility and even camaraderie between some of our Orthodox and Roman Catholic brethren on this thread. It's us protestants who are copping all the flak, I guess because we fundamentally don't 'get' the claims to exclusivity. We can't really navigate the terrain that such claims occupy. I can't, anyway...
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:Aww, bless.
Originally posted by loggats:
The RCC doesn't claim to be the only one, just the best.
And now Ad Orientem will show up to say that no, the Orthodox Church is the best!
And the two of you can once more have another ding-dong about why the other is wrong.
quote:Which just goes to show that you don't actually pay much attention to what I say, despite the liberty you take in passing judgment on me and my supposed 'attitude'.
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Sure, I know you're a universalist...
quote:And that is why I went to great lengths to defend my position, discuss it at length and ask questions about the entire subject, even going so far as to introduce a Kerygmania thread, which then had to be shut down, because you and a few others hijacked it, due to the fact that you could not defend your position biblically, as required by the rules of that board.
What I was objecting to back in our exchanges on that topic wasn't your laying claim to the practice but the placing of yourself beyond any reach of reason, discussion or even questioning.
quote:Given that this thread started because of comments being made on the thread about the Pope saying that Jesus cannot be found outside the RCC, that's simply false.
Originally posted by loggats:
The RCC doesn't claim to be the only one, just the best.
quote:LOL! This made me laugh.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Didn't we have a Hell thread about Catholic-v-Orthodox a few years ago, along the lines of who's got the biggest willy ("The Petrine Pecker-v-the Byzantine Behemoth" IIRC)?
quote:That wasn't actually aimed at you.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not saying you're clueless, Laurelin nor anything of the kind.
quote:Like I said, too much bloody mansplainin', and that WAS aimed at you. Not just you, but definitely you as well.
I have said that you use far too many smilies though and that you really ought to invest in a dictionary or an encyclopaedia.
quote:Neither can I, nor do I want to. But I won't tolerate being treated like a fluffy ditz all in pink.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
We can't really navigate the terrain that such claims occupy. I can't, anyway...
quote:Do please feel free to elaborate.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
Yeah, EE definately has a fascination with bashing the bishop.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
quote:This is fucking stupid and you must know it. Yes the world is rent with endless problems. And yet you're here wasting your (and our) time on a fucking discussion board. You must not care about solving the problems of the world. Or, perhaps, one can discuss stuff like this and argue and disagree and still care about the world's problems. Which is it, fuckwit?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
The world is rent with endless problems and these two religious obsessives are wanking about whose is the correct arse to kiss.
quote:Well, you keep on bringing the old five finger shuffle up, don't yer!
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Do please feel free to elaborate.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
Yeah, EE definately has a fascination with bashing the bishop.
). quote:Gamaliel can take whatever view he likes about smilies, but it doesn't matter. We Hellhosts are the de facto smilie monitors and they don't float our boat, as a rule.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:That wasn't actually aimed at you.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not saying you're clueless, Laurelin nor anything of the kind.
quote:Like I said, too much bloody mansplainin', and that WAS aimed at you. Not just you, but definitely you as well.
I have said that you use far too many smilies though and that you really ought to invest in a dictionary or an encyclopaedia.
And I'll use as many effing smilies as I like, even in Hell. Who died and made you the smilie monitor?
quote:And hands.
Gamaliel: In the interests of balance, though, I'd certainly agree, EE, that the business about persecuting people and even chopping their fingers off for not using the right digits in the right order wasn't exactly Russian Orthodoxy's finest hour.
Religion can certainly mess with people's heads.
quote:Oh, you don't know what mansplaining is? Then LOOK IT UP, idiot!
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@ Laurelin, I don't know what 'mansplainin' is ... but if you think I was being sexist, far from it. This has got nothing to do with gender and everything to do with the ability to look things up online or in a dictionary.
Simple.
quote:Oh, you don't know what mansplaining is? Then LOOK IT UP, idiot!
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@ Laurelin, I don't know what 'mansplainin' is ... but if you think I was being sexist, far from it. This has got nothing to do with gender and everything to do with the ability to look things up online or in a dictionary.
Simple.
quote:Hee hee hee!!!
Originally posted by Gamaliel
If you think you won that argument then you're more self-deluded than I thought. Karl Liberal Backslider and others were all over you. We mauled you and you were too obdurate even to notice.
quote:Karl borrowed my sig, you're nicking my popcorn - before I know it someone will be taking the pissa
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Do please carry on. I wouldn't want all this precious popcorn to go to waste....
quote:This was incredibly weird. Thanks for trying though.
Originally posted by Leaf:
Aw, diddums. Did the cute widdle twoll have fun with the widdle Purg thread?
Posts a bullshit Hell thread alleging anti-Catholicism... then posts a bullshit Purg thread "seeking discussion about the perpetual virginity of Mary" to provide fodder for the bullshit Hell thread?
Crawl back to whatever echo chamber you crawled out of. Or you could, you know, learn to discuss things. But I don't think that's why you're here, is it?
quote:She's definately got some kind of problem, that one. Comes across as a right old battle axe.
Originally posted by loggats:
Well we've had a feminist barrage already; Catholic devotion to Our Lady, Virgin Mother of God = infantilization of female sexuality.
quote:I'm glad you gave her an articulate, well-thought response on the other thread. The sheer number and intelligence of your arguments are simply overwhelming.
Ad Orientem: She's definately got some kind of problem, that one. Comes across as a right old battle axe.
quote:Let me give you a clue, here. Writing LONGER posts isn't going to do it.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think I need to make myself clearer.
quote:Remind me to send you some Tori Amos CDs.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Like for like, innit. I mean, never heard sl much crap in all my life. Come on! Virginity equals mistreatment of women? Silly mare!
quote:Cheers. I could use them as coasters.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Remind me to send you some Tori Amos CDs.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Like for like, innit. I mean, never heard sl much crap in all my life. Come on! Virginity equals mistreatment of women? Silly mare!
)quote:That was before he ever joined the Ship.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I, for one, switch off reading the moment he starts looking down on the rest of us.
quote:Yes. It was intentionally so. Again I say, you are a fuckwit.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Oh the irony of this comment!!!!
Delicioooouuuussssss....!
quote:BOOM.
Originally posted by St Deird:
Oh, you don't know what mansplaining is? Then LOOK IT UP, idiot!
Or are dictionaries reserved for us lesser mortals who don't know what your words mean?
quote:Because you're impervious to logic and reasoning.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If you really think you "mauled me" then how come your non-arguments have utterly failed to convince me, have utterly failed to make even the slightest dent in my spiritual practices, and have only served to strengthen me in my convictions on this subject?
quote:Oh dear, a mildly sarcastic comment reflecting the previous poster's comment - and in Hell, too. Quick, let's muster some faux outrage to make our brainless sloth appear morally virtuous.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Arrogant and condescending - and bound to switch the listener off immediately. I didn't read another word after that.
Originally posted by IngoB:
(One never knows, you might still experience a rigorous and systematic thought about faith...)
quote:The brackets defined what sort of "meaningful" I'm talking about in the following. If Church is fantastically meaningful for your social and cultural life, then that is nice for you but of no more relevance to my argument than that you are the president of your local lawn bowls club.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ingo, that's just stupid. I can resolve it by pointing at the brackets you inserted in one place and not the other.
quote:Actually, I'm rather interested in what people here think, and I've always been. Just not in what they think about me.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
What you need to understand about IngoB is that he doesn't care what anybody here thinks. He really doesn't. He never has.
quote:First, I was talking about a specific meaningfulness, see my response to orfeo above. Second, I do not agree that spiritual growth and addressing injustice in the world are unrelated to one's salvation.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Yes, logic fail, IngoB. One can think it not necessary for one's salvation to be part of a church, but also think it tremendously important for other reasons, e.g. spiritual growth or addressing injustice in the world.
quote:Life is too short to run after people. I have a few things to offer. If you don't like them, or if you don't like their packaging, then I'm sure that you can find something more to your taste elsewhere.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
If you do, maybe give some thought to how you're coming across here...?
quote:I find it remarkable that you find that remarkable. Anyway, to make a martial arts analogy: All motion is contract - expand - contract - expand ... Great force and speed hence comes from supple looseness. Most people can do neither, their muscles are in a state of perpetual half-tension, with little dynamic range. Likewise, I find my life has expansive times of flow and looseness, of relaxation and opening, followed by contractive times of acceleration and power, of constriction and closing. I have learned to embrace this, and it makes my life interesting and on its own terms, rather successful. Of course, there are many different rhythms in life, and religion moves in years or decades, not fractions of seconds like punches. But all the same, a few years back I was very flowing, now I'm hammering home. You may say I'm going too hard and fast now, I say I have an exciting life. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
From past observation, my understanding is that he converted to the RCC, and his particular method is to try to swallow every bit of official teaching *whole*. All at the same time.
quote:Nope. It's because they have something to say but it doesn't take long to do it. Time to move along .....
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
they get a relatively easy ride on these boards because of their antiquity and exotic charm. And some of them have earned a lot of respect too.
quote:You really don't get it.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Oh dear, a mildly sarcastic comment reflecting the previous poster's comment - and in Hell, too. Quick, let's muster some faux outrage to make our brainless sloth appear morally virtuous.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Arrogant and condescending - and bound to switch the listener off immediately. I didn't read another word after that.
Originally posted by IngoB:
(One never knows, you might still experience a rigorous and systematic thought about faith...)
quote:Oh the irony again!!!
Originally posted by mousethief
Because you're impervious to logic and reasoning.
boo hoo hoo...quote:Oh come off it. It wasn't YOUR argument, was it? It's the argument you were attributing to someone else!
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:The brackets defined what sort of "meaningful" I'm talking about in the following. If Church is fantastically meaningful for your social and cultural life, then that is nice for you but of no more relevance to my argument than that you are the president of your local lawn bowls club.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ingo, that's just stupid. I can resolve it by pointing at the brackets you inserted in one place and not the other.
quote:This explains a lot.
Originally posted by comet:
Good. Use your aggressive feelings, minions. Let the hate flow through you.
quote:I'm not sure they do. ISTM that Hell is here so that if you think someone is a twat, there's a space to tell them that, if you want.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
These Boards work that way.
quote:I hope you're right.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Gamaliel is spectacularly unsuited to Hell.
quote:And I hope you're clued in enough to recognise I am talking about his ability to take part in this message board, not the eternal state of his soul about which I am not qualified to make comment.
Originally posted by loggats:
quote:I hope you're right.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Gamaliel is spectacularly unsuited to Hell.
quote:I know I know
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:And I hope you're clued in enough to recognise I am talking about his ability to take part in this message board, not the eternal state of his soul about which I am not qualified to make comment.
Originally posted by loggats:
quote:I hope you're right.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Gamaliel is spectacularly unsuited to Hell.
I only run one Hell.
quote:No, no, no. PLEASE NO!
Originally posted by comet:
I was enjoying the vitriol, actually. Things have been awfully tame lately. Stick around. Let it out.
quote:Seems like what most people think about their own church. Common ground !
Originally posted by loggats:
The RCC doesn't claim to be the only one, just the best.
quote:So Gammy was the one speaking in tongues all along!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
Gam: Pplplplplplplplp
quote:You run an eternal soul?
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I hope you're clued in enough to recognise I am talking about his ability to take part in this message board, not the eternal state of his soul about which I am not qualified to make comment.
I only run one Hell.
quote:Gamaliel, if you're going to mangle my name, at least do it correctly. It's Deird. With an EI.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fair call on not looking things up in dictionaries or on-line, Dierdy Wierdy but at least I was able to put two-and-two together from the context of Laurelin's comments and get the gist of what she was referring to.
quote:This is probably the wrong board for this speculation but your comment made me wonder if for a Hell Host the Hell of the afterlife would look like an endless pointless argument on a Hell Board.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I hope you're clued in enough to recognise I am talking about his ability to take part in this message board, not the eternal state of his soul about which I am not qualified to make comment.
I only run one Hell.
quote:Speaking only for myself, that isn't so. A Hellish afterlife would consist of the everlasting debate in The Styx about what belongs in Ecclesiantics. If anything here makes my eyes bleed, that's it.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:This is probably the wrong board for this speculation but your comment made me wonder if for a Hell Host the Hell of the afterlife would look like an endless pointless argument on a Hell Board.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I hope you're clued in enough to recognise I am talking about his ability to take part in this message board, not the eternal state of his soul about which I am not qualified to make comment.
I only run one Hell.
quote:Let's just say the previews are unpleasant.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
This is probably the wrong board for this speculation but your comment made me wonder if for a Hell Host the Hell of the afterlife would look like an endless pointless argument on a Hell Board.
quote:Really?
Originally posted by comet:
I'm not really the emperor. Promise. I'm much cuter.
quote:Do you doubt comet's claim to be more attractive than the corpse-like Emperor Palpatine (a bar so low that even I could clear it), or is this the prelude to a creepy round of "this thread is useless without pictures"?
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:Really?
Originally posted by comet:
I'm not really the emperor. Promise. I'm much cuter.
quote:Don't knock it. It keeps you in a (sort of) job!
Originally posted by comet:
Hell: a bunch of wordy, anal-retentive, humorless, uptight freaks endlessly debating the minutia of imagined denominational differences.
Oh, wait...
quote:I might have a thing about corpses ... so in that case, it's no contest
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:Do you doubt comet's claim to be more attractive than the corpse-like Emperor Palpatine (a bar so low that even I could clear it), or is this the prelude to a creepy round of "this thread is useless without pictures"?
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:Really?
Originally posted by comet:
I'm not really the emperor. Promise. I'm much cuter.
Just for information, you understand.
quote:then perhaps the non-Catholics around here would have less reason to be pissed off with you all the damn time.
he wasn't "tearing Catholic theology apart" (which would pretty much constitute tearing Christianity apart - and that can't happen because the Word of God is inviolate and that's what the Church seeks to express)
quote:Mare?
Posted by Ad Orientem
Like for like, innit. I mean, never heard sl much crap in all my life. Come on! Virginity equals mistreatment of women? Silly mare!
quote:Or, say, species...
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:Mare?
Posted by Ad Orientem
Like for like, innit. I mean, never heard sl much crap in all my life. Come on! Virginity equals mistreatment of women? Silly mare!
Hm....
Unless I have solid evidence I try not to assign things to people I don't know: political views, religious persuasion, gender, etc, etc
quote:You've been here three months and reckon you know what is reasonable on The Ship? What you say may be what you expect, but that's about as far as it goes. Some mislead, some deceive, some simply use a favourite image as avatar.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I think it's reasonable to assume that if a poster has an avatar of a woman then the said poster is a woman too.
quote:Nope
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I think it's reasonable to assume that if a poster has an avatar of a woman then the said poster is a woman too.
