|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pope: Other denominations not true churches
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, because the Roman Catholics are so much more exclusivist than the Anglo-Catholics who separate the Christian world into First-Class Christians Who Have The Apostolic Succession And Valid Sacraments And Who Are Therefore Catholics With A Large C, and Second-Class Christians without these things such as Free Church Protestants ...
Not to mention the near-universal Christian exclusivism which separates the world into Christians, who are RIGHT about God, and everyone else who isn't (although they may have some hints or glimmerings of the truth).
Yeah, Ricardus, they are more exclusivist. The plain fact is that Anglicans do have the Apostolic Succession -- which The Rat cites as necessary for True Churchiness -- which makes the rank hypocrisy and rewriting of history on the part of the RCC all the more obvious. I do not particularly care what they think about us, since we have, evidently, a better grasp of Reading for Comprehension than anyone in that crowd.
If I didn't think that having the Historic Episcopacy meant something, I wouldn't care about being Catholic. I do think it's important. But unlike our Roman brethren, I won't divide the world into The Church and mere-schmeer-ptui "ecclesial communities." That, to me, is a token of their basic insecurity, that they have to bolster their own status by trying to dismiss others.
And if you don't believe Christianity is the truth, why do you describe yourself as a member of a Christian denomination?
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
In these days of the internet (and look at the Anglican Communion and TEC if you want an example), I'm unclear as to why the RCC would release a document that was only meant for internal use.
One can't do something and then say, "Well, that was only meant for us," without some kind of explanation given with the document.
It's now all over. I've had a family member who is Anglo-Catholic and lapsed e-mail me and say, "So why should I go back to church? I'm apparently not good enough."
And I'm stumped as to how to explain to him why the Pope said what he did and that he can still believe in Catholic doctrine.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
moveable_type
Shipmate
# 9673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
It's now all over. I've had a family member who is Anglo-Catholic and lapsed e-mail me and say, "So why should I go back to church? I'm apparently not good enough."
Well, if they accept the authority of the Pope to that extent, they should go directly to Rome and get it over with.
Posts: 1062 | From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moveable_type:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
It's now all over. I've had a family member who is Anglo-Catholic and lapsed e-mail me and say, "So why should I go back to church? I'm apparently not good enough."
Well, if they accept the authority of the Pope to that extent, they should go directly to Rome and get it over with.
Because if you have to go through a year of classes to be confirmed, and one already believes what they are going to teach, it's a waste of time.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Because if you have to go through a year of classes to be confirmed, and one already believes what they are going to teach, it's a waste of time.
One could always take up tatting, and thereby do something constructive with those yawning hours.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Yeah, Ricardus, they are more exclusivist. The plain fact is that Anglicans do have the Apostolic Succession -- which The Rat cites as necessary for True Churchiness -- which makes the rank hypocrisy and rewriting of history on the part of the RCC all the more obvious. I do not particularly care what they think about us, since we have, evidently, a better grasp of Reading for Comprehension than anyone in that crowd.
Do you think all Anglicans agree with your definition of the Apostolic Succession and think it as essential to their identity as you do?
quote:
If I didn't think that having the Historic Episcopacy meant something, I wouldn't care about being Catholic. I do think it's important. But unlike our Roman brethren, I won't divide the world into The Church and mere-schmeer-ptui "ecclesial communities." That, to me, is a token of their basic insecurity, that they have to bolster their own status by trying to dismiss others.
Why do you think the billion RCs care about the 70 million Anglicans, if it's really about insecurity?
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It's all second-guessing God; that's what irks me. God will save whoever God pleases to save, and will not be bound by the latest generation of theologians in the RCC.
This is getting nigh-on-ridiculous. People are attacking a caricature of the RCC straight out of a Chick tract.
The RCC has one of the most 'open' positions on the salvation of people beyond its own bounds (and, for that matter, the bounds of the Christian faith) of any Christian church.
It's difficult to know what the RCC actually believe about this, if the claim is that doctrinal truths proclaimed by the popes are infallible then either they are not infallible or it is still necessary to be an actual member of the RCC to be saved.
quote:
"With faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin . . . Furthermore, we declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff." Unam Sanctam
"It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)
"Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith, and have not, to their misfortune, separated themselves from the structure of the Body, or for very serious sins have not been excluded by lawful authority." (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, encyclical, June 29, 1943; Denzinger 2286)
And note these next are errors, so the opposite is RCC doctrine:
"In the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way toi eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation." (Pius IX, "Syllabus," or Collection of Modern Errors, Section III; Denzinger 1716)
"We must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no wise are in the true Church of Christ." (Pius IX, "Syllabus," or Collection of Modern Errors, Section III; Denzinger 1717)
"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful--who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32)--he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.[42] For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, is as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal." (Paul VI, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), November 21, 1964)
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
RP, my struggle with your post is simply that I don't know any Catholics who have been so violently suppressed as you describe.
Really? I'm surprised if that's true. I've met loads of Catholics, or ex-Catholics, or lapsed Catholics, who will tell you that they have been damaged or excluded or abused by what they see as the hypocrisy or authoritarianism of the Catholic church. I mean loads, dozens of them, easily more than all the other people I've met who said that they have been damaged or abused or excluded by all other churches put together. (And my own Dad was one of them)
Almost invariably I find that what they say the RCC teaches is not what the Catechism says, or what the Pope says, or what my Catholic friends say. But they do exist, and there are a great many of them.
Only fair to say that most of them have been from working-class Irish families, very often northern Irish. Maybe there is something rotten in the teaching of that part of the RCC that isn't reflected in other communities. And its still only a minority of people I know who were brought up in such churches.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I thought it would be due to the information age through the spread of knowledge, when enough Roman Catholics would see the papal claims for what they are, a hidebound example of the doctrine of man and precisely that which Christ spoke against being made the ecclesiology of the Church - "it shall not be so among you".
Myrrh
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
? What the problem? Orthodox hold that RCC papal claims about Petrine primacy succession are man made doctrines and it's clear from Christ's words on the subject that His description of the what the Church shouldn't be is exactly what the RCC claims it is.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The apostolic succession in communion with St Peter is supposed to be the realized sign of Christian unity, after all.
the realized sign of Christian unity? Really? Not the fruits of the Spirit? Not the love we are supposed to have for one another?
When Jesus said "by this shall all men know that you are my disciples..." was he talking about holding to an ontological theory of the ordained Presbyterate, or believing in the ncessestity of the tactile Apostolic succession, or acknowledging the Bishop of Rome as the ordinary ruler of every church on earth?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
RP, my struggle with your post is simply that I don't know any Catholics who have been so violently suppressed as you describe.
Really? I'm surprised if that's true. I've met loads of Catholics, or ex-Catholics, or lapsed Catholics, who will tell you that they have been damaged or excluded or abused by what they see as the hypocrisy or authoritarianism of the Catholic church. I mean loads, dozens of them, easily more than all the other people I've met who said that they have been damaged or abused or excluded by all other churches put together. (And my own Dad was one of them)
Almost invariably I find that what they say the RCC teaches is not what the Catechism says, or what the Pope says, or what my Catholic friends say. But they do exist, and there are a great many of them.
Yes and you can see echoes of it in this thread in comments of the "the Catholic Church says my church is not a real church etc" variety. I'm tempted to say that neither the Catholic Church nor its doctrines should be blamed for people setting up doctrinal straw men and then taking offence at them.
But then I ask where do these misconceptions come from? Why are these defective myths being perpetuated?
In part I think it comes down to problems in communicating the subtlety and inclusive nature of Catholic teaching in a world prone to sound bites and bed-rock simplification.
Take the particular piece of Catholic ecclesiology under discussion, for example. Words and terms such as "necessary" for salvation and "subsists in" are actually being used as "terms of art" in a purist and very precise Latin sense ie as technical terms. Yet they are being understood in their popular sense. So non-Catholics are left with the understandable sense that they are being told that that their churches aren't true churches and that is a Bad Thing. The truth is that their churches are not the Catholic Church by definition. We want them to be in full communion with the Catholic Church for we should all be one in Christ. But in the end the Holy Spirit is working in those other churches and they are instruments of salvation too - because it is God who decides who is saved.
So "impaired communion" with the Catholic Church it is - which is a comment on the nature of the relationship, which falls short of full communion. That is not any sort of derogatory comment on any of the non-Catholic churches - unless you imply "impaired" as referring only to the non-Catholic side of the equation. It certainly isn't meant in that way but I can see how that meaning might be read into it. It's easier to understand the worst from what are subtle and nuanced statements - and react accordingly.
Similarly, it's often said that the Catholic Church at a parish level is a very different animal to the "institutional" Catholic Church. At the parish and individual level that has a good,compassionate, charitable and pastoral side but it can also have a dark side. Nevertheless the failures of its individual followers in charity and compassion does not mean that the Catholic Church is bad/evil/intolerant/authoritarian etc.
To say otherwise is to apply far too general and uncharitable a meaning to "By their fruits shall you know them" and to disparage the good of the Catholic Church along with the bad. What it means is that some or even many of its number have fallen short of the teachings of Christ in applying those teachings. In a real sense they have missed the message.
But have we managed to communicate the message if such misunderstandings exist?
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
Do you think all Anglicans agree with your definition of the Apostolic Succession and think it as essential to their identity as you do? ...Why do you think the billion RCs care about the 70 million Anglicans, if it's really about insecurity?
I think Anglicans (and others) who have actually read the documentation on the Historic Episcopate (traditionally known as the Apostolic Succession) certainly agree. There is no question: We have it, we have always had it, and the mere fact that someone in Rome says "You don't, Just Because I Say So" is hardly sufficient authority for those of us who don't accept his claims to authority in the first place.
When you remove that irrelevancy -- given that it's not based on anything but prejudice and turf battles -- the facts speak for themselves.
Not all Anglicans think it's particularly important, I grant you. But we still have it, and I doubt that most of them would idly throw it away.
I don't think most RCs care particularly about Anglicans, or about other Christians in general. However, I think most ordinary unbigoted RCs accept us, or would if they knew more.
The essential problem is with those members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy who demand absolute obedience on everything, who condemn inquiry, who oppose independent thought. Of course they don't like us; we don't accept "Because I Say So" as an answer. Big surprise there.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Clarification: I don't think most ordinary Roman Catholics in the pews care that much about doctrinal differences; they just care about whether someone or something is "Catholic" or not. That's what I meant about their views on other Christians.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Clarification: I don't think most ordinary Roman Catholics in the pews care that much about doctrinal differences; they just care about whether someone or something is "Catholic" or not. That's what I meant about their views on other Christians.
The converse could be said with equal justice about most ordinary Episcopalians, Anglicans, Orthodox and indeed most of Christianity, as far as I can see.
[ 12. July 2007, 03:38: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Yes and you can see echoes of it in this thread in comments of the "the Catholic Church says my church is not a real church etc" variety. I'm tempted to say that neither the Catholic Church nor its doctrines should be blamed for people setting up doctrinal straw men and then taking offence at them.
But then I ask where do these misconceptions come from? Why are these defective myths being perpetuated?
In part I think it comes down to problems in communicating the subtlety and inclusive nature of Catholic teaching in a world prone to sound bites and bed-rock simplification.
Take the particular piece of Catholic ecclesiology under discussion, for example. Words and terms such as "necessary" for salvation and "subsists in" are actually being used as "terms of art" in a purist and very precise Latin sense ie as technical terms. Yet they are being understood in their popular sense. So non-Catholics are left with the understandable sense that they are being told that that their churches aren't true churches and that is a Bad Thing. The truth is that their churches are not the Catholic Church by definition. We want them to be in full communion with the Catholic Church for we should all be one in Christ. But in the end the Holy Spirit is working in those other churches and they are instruments of salvation too - because it is God who decides who is saved.
So "impaired communion" with the Catholic Church it is - which is a comment on the nature of the relationship, which falls short of full communion. That is not any sort of derogatory comment on any of the non-Catholic churches - unless you imply "impaired" as referring only to the non-Catholic side of the equation. It certainly isn't meant in that way but I can see how that meaning might be read into it. It's easier to understand the worst from what are subtle and nuanced statements - and react accordingly.
Similarly, it's often said that the Catholic Church at a parish level is a very different animal to the "institutional" Catholic Church. At the parish and individual level that has a good,compassionate, charitable and pastoral side but it can also have a dark side. Nevertheless the failures of its individual followers in charity and compassion does not mean that the Catholic Church is bad/evil/intolerant/authoritarian etc.
To say otherwise is to apply far too general and uncharitable a meaning to "By their fruits shall you know them" and to disparage the good of the Catholic Church along with the bad. What it means is that some or even many of its number have fallen short of the teachings of Christ in applying those teachings. In a real sense they have missed the message.
But have we managed to communicate the message if such misunderstandings exist? [/QB][/QUOTE]
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Young fogey
Shipmate
# 5317
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by meow:
I wonder what ecumenical work then means in the eyes of the pope... trying to convert us to the one true faith?
Essentially.
--------------------
A conservative blog for peace
Posts: 961 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
RP, my struggle with your post is simply that I don't know any Catholics who have been so violently suppressed as you describe.
Really? I'm surprised if that's true. I've met loads of Catholics, or ex-Catholics, or lapsed Catholics, who will tell you that they have been damaged or excluded or abused by what they see as the hypocrisy or authoritarianism of the Catholic church. I mean loads, dozens of them, easily more than all the other people I've met who said that they have been damaged or abused or excluded by all other churches put together. (And my own Dad was one of them)
Almost invariably I find that what they say the RCC teaches is not what the Catechism says, or what the Pope says, or what my Catholic friends say. But they do exist, and there are a great many of them.
Only fair to say that most of them have been from working-class Irish families, very often northern Irish. Maybe there is something rotten in the teaching of that part of the RCC that isn't reflected in other communities. And its still only a minority of people I know who were brought up in such churches.
Ken, you are right. There are lots of horrible childhood stories that I and friends can recall -- many of these involve nuns in charge of schools and classrooms. Ireland got a strong dose of this; so did France, and parts of America. And of course we could go back to James Joyce and the ferula-wielding Jesuits.
Most of the horror stories I can think of, though, were about discipline rather than doctrine. Kids were smacked for scoffing food before Mass, not for believing the wrong thing about the filioque clause.
Nowadays, in any event, it is all a lot more gentle; the children are offered Pray as you go, aka "God on your Pod" and those praise songs beloved by our Max.
I wonder how this will all change as what looks like a wave of traditionalism washes over the bow of Peter's boat.
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
When I walked into the churchhouse this evening for our Wednesday gathering, the discussion was on this topic. Or at least my churchmates' understanding of how it all will work out.
So, like, a return to the Latin Mass? When most priests don't speak Latin these days and so will be reciting stuff in a language they don't speak?
A return to the attitude of the Latin Mass as well? Like, the priest with his back to the people, maybe even behind a screen or something, just offering a Mass between him and God and the people are just sort of there... why?
To eat the styrofoam wafer? They could do that anywhere, the stuff can be consecrated and sent out to them. To make a confession before the Mass? You can do that by telephone. To put money in the collection bag? You can also mail that in.
So the recent headlines are all about how the Pope doesn't think all those upstart churches out there are r-e-a-l-l-y the Lord's Church? Well, hot diggetty dog, the majority of my pewmates don't think the Pope is part of the One True Church either. Tit for tat.
I'm not sure why that aspect of it made headlines today anyway. Hasn't the Catholic Church thought that forever? Why is that new news?
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Why on earth does 'the [RC] Church is an indispensable part of salvation' imply 'only members of the RCC can be saved'? You do understand that 'the plan of salvation' means God's plan of salvation for all of creation through Jesus Christ, right? Although even if it meant 'God's plan for me', Trisagion's words wouldn't imply Catholic exclusivism. That the RCC existing is an indispensible part of my salvation doesn't entail that I cannot be saved if I am not an RC.
I think I'm following all this, but there does seem something extremely odd about the way language is being used, and therefore about the communication of the RCC.
Quoting my paraphrase of Trisagion you say quote:
Why on earth does 'the [RC] Church is an indispensable part of salvation' imply 'only members of the RCC can be saved'?
Yes, it could be that the RCC is indispensable in the sense that it must simply be there, somewhere. It could be possible to be saved by membership of a Baptist church, if and only if, the RCC continues somewhere, perhaps far overseas.
This is a pretty counterintuitive idea. It seems natural to think that the way we are saved by the Church is by belonging to it, but I can see the possibility that we are saved by the right church even though we belong to the wrong one.
You then pointed out that what Trisagion had said was that the RCC is indispensable for God's plan of salvation. I can see this is a bit different, too. God might really need the RCC, but still be able to do a bit of saving round the edges of it, as it were, by other means. Crumbs from the table. This, though is hardly friendly to those in other denominations.
I looked at Good Catholic Lad's link to the CDF's 'Response to Some Questions ..' Here are some more examples of language being used for definition rather than communication. At first sight the article is in a user friendly question and answer style. Why do we say Christ's Church 'subsists in' the RCC rather than just say 'is'? And the answer is that they want to acknowledge that there are numerous elements of sanctification and truth outside the RCC. But this friendly thought is at once withdrawn. Not only do these gifts properly belong inside the structures of the RCC - they've gone astray and we want them back - but nonetheless 'subsists in' means 'full identity' with.
And you say that's not exclusivist?
The message many RCs are giving on this thread is that people are only getting offended because they are misinterpreting the RCC's statements and doctrines. The offended are accused of interpreting the statements of the RCC uncharitably.
I think this is misplaced. The reason I care about what the RCC thinks is that I regard it as part of Christ's Church. They are my brothers and sisters. I am not out of communion with them, though they are out of communion with me. At a local and personal level I value my relationships with RCs.
In this context, the recent remarks of B16 and those they build on are surely calculatedly wounding. To use the word 'church' of the Orthodox but not the various Episcopal churches and to justify this use, this is surely not only offensive but intended to be offensive. (And I say this as a Baptist. I get the very clear message from the RCC that I am totally off the scale.)
As Jengie lamented, there is never an 'in our opinion.' This is not Christian speaking to Christian. There is no respect. It is just the RCC ordering the world. From the outside it is arcane, intimidating and destructive.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I went into a medieval country church in england once which obviously was once RC but has been Anglican sionce th reformation. In the visitors' book was a comment from a visiting catholic that said words to the effect of, 'we want our church back.'
That's RC unity - getting it all back into Roman ownership and jurisdiction.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I went into a medieval country church in england once which obviously was once RC but has been Anglican sionce th reformation. In the visitors' book was a comment from a visiting catholic that said words to the effect of, 'we want our church back.'
unfortunately 500 years too late but they made a good point
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Yeah, Ricardus, they are more exclusivist. The plain fact is that Anglicans do have the Apostolic Succession -- which The Rat cites as necessary for True Churchiness -- which makes the rank hypocrisy and rewriting of history on the part of the RCC all the more obvious.
I think there's a bit more to it than lack of apostolic succession, otherwise the Orthodox and the Union of Utrecht would count ... Besides whatever Apostolicae Curae may say, it appears that Anglican priestly converts are only conditionally (re-)ordained.
quote:
If I didn't think that having the Historic Episcopacy meant something, I wouldn't care about being Catholic. I do think it's important. But unlike our Roman brethren, I won't divide the world into The Church and mere-schmeer-ptui "ecclesial communities."
No, merely into churches that offer valid Eucharists and churches that don't, which is the same thing in implication. At any rate, ISTM "your Eucharists are invalid" implies "your church is defective" even if you don't actually say it, in the same way that "your cakes are awful" implies "you're a bad cook".
quote:
And if you don't believe Christianity is the truth, why do you describe yourself as a member of a Christian denomination?
I do believe Christianity is the truth. I don't personally mind exclusivism, I just get annoyed at fellow-Anglicans who take monstrous offense at RC exclusivism while maintaining exclusivist positions of their own.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The apostolic succession in communion with St Peter is supposed to be the realized sign of Christian unity, after all.
the realized sign of Christian unity? Really? Not the fruits of the Spirit? Not the love we are supposed to have for one another?
Yes. These rhetorical oppositions are so terribly tiresome. As if a specific realized sign (=sacrament) of Christian unity meant that Christians cannot be united in the Spirit and communal love. In fact, of course, it's just the other way around: such a realized sign is given precisely to focus all the various kinds of Christian unity one can think of.
The absurdity of ken's questioning becomes perhaps clear once on applies it to secular matters: are the national flag and anthem truly the symbols of national unity, shouldn't it rather be working for the good of the state and appreciation for one's compatriots? Yes, they are indeed the symbols, but in a healthy nation with citizen of proper patriotic disposition there simply is no opposition here. Flag and anthem are simply the focus of all the different ways in which one loves one's country practically.
The special character of the sacrament (realized sign) is that unlike for flag and anthem, it brings about what it symbolizes. It is as if flag and anthem would somehow bring about land, citizenship, and parliament, realizing what they symbolize. This does not mean that all must be well: the flag can be torn, the anthem can be sung at the wrong occasion, the land can be in strife, citizenship can be a burden, parliament useless, etc. And just so it can be with the sacrament of holy orders and Christian unity, that's humanity for you. But unlike for secular matters, for this we have Christ's Divine guarantee that somehow and in some way it will pull through to the end. And that is a grace worth celebrating.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hamletta
Shipmate
# 11678
|
Posted
quote:
To eat the styrofoam wafer? They could do that anywhere, the stuff can be consecrated and sent out to them. To make a confession before the Mass? You can do that by telephone. To put money in the collection bag? You can also mail that in.
Oh, get bent. You just insulted not only every Catholic, but every Anglican/Episcopalian and Lutheran on this board.
And I don't recall Church of Christ doctrine being all puppies and ice cream, either. Wasn't so long ago they were teaching that everyone except them was goin' to hell, and that's way beyond what Papa Ratzi said.
That said, being a Lutheran and all, I don't give a flyin' flip what any ol' pope says. And neither should you. It's a frickin' legal brief, people; a dictionary entry.
Posts: 108 | From: Nashvegas | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
Mind you, I'm going off of NPR reports and overheard conversations -- but there seems to be some attention paid right now to the possibility of the return of the Latin Mass.
If there is to be some sort of return to the ancient ways of doing a Mass, where the people are shrugged back by a priest doing practically secret stuff with his back turned to the people, maybe even on the other side of a blinkin' screen, speaking a language they don't know , and sadly often the priest can't speak, either, fer goodness sakes -- like, the Mass or the Host or whatever is too hoooooly for any of the common rabble to witness --
If that ever comes back around again it might as well be styrofoam wafers and called-in confessions. I hope that ground isn't lost.
(PS, I'll bring your suggestion that we include puppies in our assemblies before the elders...)
[ 12. July 2007, 09:08: Message edited by: Janine ]
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Mind you, I'm going off of NPR reports and overheard conversations -- but there seems to be some attention paid right now to the possibility of the return of the Latin Mass.
If there is to be some sort of return to the ancient ways of doing a Mass, where the people are shrugged back by a priest doing practically secret stuff with his back turned to the people, maybe even on the other side of a blinkin' screen, speaking a language they don't know , and sadly often the priest can't speak, either, fer goodness sakes -- like, the Mass or the Host or whatever is too hoooooly for any of the common rabble to witness --
If that ever comes back around again it might as well be styrofoam wafers and called-in confessions. I hope that ground isn't lost.
(PS, I'll bring your suggestion that we include puppies in our assemblies before the elders...)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) Turning Towards the Lord
[put in a tinyurl title. It is indeed your friend]
[ 12. July 2007, 09:48: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As if a specific realized sign (=sacrament) of Christian unity meant that Christians cannot be united in the Spirit and communal love. In fact, of course, it's just the other way around: such a realized sign is given precisely to focus all the various kinds of Christian unity one can think of.
The absurdity of ken's questioning becomes perhaps clear once on applies it to secular matters: are the national flag and anthem truly the symbols of national unity, shouldn't it rather be working for the good of the state and appreciation for one's compatriots? Yes, they are indeed the symbols, but in a healthy nation with citizen of proper patriotic disposition there simply is no opposition here. .
Don't be silly IngoB. If you read back what you wrote you'd know perfectly well that you don't believe it to be true. Your emphasis on the word "the" says that it the only one that counts, and that's not what you meant. Just as you know perfetly well that flags and anthems are not "the" symbols of national unity by a long shot.
(this isn't a language difference is it? Your not thinkng in German or whatever and translating into English? )
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
If there is to be some sort of return to the ancient ways of doing a Mass, where the people are shrugged back by a priest doing practically secret stuff with his back turned to the people, maybe even on the other side of a blinkin' screen, speaking a language they don't know , and sadly often the priest can't speak, either, fer goodness sakes -- like, the Mass or the Host or whatever is too hoooooly for any of the common rabble to witness --
Mind you, I would be offended if the priest was looking at me during the liturgy... "Look towards God, dumbass!"
Janine, the way I see it, had things been done in a different way, it would be more like secular theatre and less like worship. My priest is like me, and he represents our community during the liturgy. If I get to look eastwards, because with that physical way I turn my spiritual self towards God, then so does he. We are all together here, during the liturgy... The priest is not doing something so that I can see... The priest along with me prays to the Lord.
Allow me to speak as someone whose priests looks eastwards, prays in ancient Greek, and says some prayers in secret.
I think you over-intellectualise Christianity by thinking that the people must be able to hear and understand every single word the priest says... Liturgy is much much wider than words. Deaf people can participate, babies can participate, I can participate if I am in a foreign country and I don't speak the language... I don't go to the liturgy to understand every single word. I get there to get "liturgized" and this is too amazing to be limited to what the intellect understands.
Praying those dreadful prayers so that the rest of the people can hear sounds pretty awful to me. It's a very serious thing, and while my priest is sweating so that God can accept our offering, I pray in secret as well. Why do you find that so appalling? Is it for cultural reasons? or theological reasons? I know I would find the exact opposite of what we do in church to be improper for Christian worship...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Clarification: I don't think most ordinary Roman Catholics in the pews care that much about doctrinal differences; they just care about whether someone or something is "Catholic" or not. That's what I meant about their views on other Christians.
The converse could be said with equal justice about most ordinary Episcopalians, Anglicans, Orthodox and indeed most of Christianity, as far as I can see.
No, I don't think it could. Not round here anyway. People in the CofE pew do not, on the whole, reject things because they are not "Anglican". And many of us would be quite happy to attend churches of other denominations if circumstances required.
I think that's generally true of Protestant churchgoers, with some obvious exceptions in small sects that think they are the only True Church on Earth, and some of the higher-up Anglo-Catholics (& maybe Lutherans) who get worked up about the Apostolic Succession. Most of us identify much more with Christianity - or if we are being sectarian with Protestant or Evangelical or Charismatic Christianity - than with a denomination.
That may not have been true a couple of generations ago when most people associated themselves with one denomination or another and there were large numbers who were culturally Methodist or Baptist or whatever. But in these days of small (and therefore often very committed) attendences cultural Anglicanism or Methodism and so on are all but dead.
One difference between us and the Catholics - you still see large numbers of (mainly Irish) people who will say they are Catholics without ever going to church or expressing much intellectual assent to Christian doctrine.
In that, they (and of course our new Muslim fellow-citizens) stand out in overwhelmingly secular Britain. But the evidence is that the later generations born of immigrants largely conform to local habits. Religion goes through a period of being "for the children", then it becomes a matter of weddings and funerals and occasional festivals, then falls off the radar altogether, as it has for the majority of the once-Protestant English.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Mind you, I'm going off of NPR reports and overheard conversations -- but there seems to be some attention paid right now to the possibility of the return of the Latin Mass.
If there is to be some sort of return to the ancient ways of doing a Mass, where the people are shrugged back by a priest doing practically secret stuff with his back turned to the people, maybe even on the other side of a blinkin' screen, speaking a language they don't know , and sadly often the priest can't speak, either, fer goodness sakes -- like, the Mass or the Host or whatever is too hoooooly for any of the common rabble to witness --
If that ever comes back around again it might as well be styrofoam wafers and called-in confessions. I hope that ground isn't lost.
(PS, I'll bring your suggestion that we include puppies in our assemblies before the elders...)
No and thrice no. The 1962 Missal (for that is I think what you refer to) will simply be celebrated as an alternate form of the Roman Rite. The other far more widely used form of Roman Rite is the Mass celebrated all over the world. Believe me, Novus Ordo Masses in the language of whomever are alive and well.
Screens are not part of either form of the Roman Rite. I think you have us confused with the Orthodoxen* there. But then I suspect we don't share a common understanding of the Sacraments or or the Real Presence either.
And once upon a time Latin was the vernacular. Then it was a language spoken by educated persons.
At some point it became an instrument of torture for children:
"Latin is a language,
As dead as dead can be.
First it killed the Romans
And now it's killing me."
*Thanks, andreas1984 ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 12. July 2007, 10:04: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
[Allow me to speak as someone whose priests looks eastwards, prays in ancient Greek, and says some prayers in secret.
Hmmm, just like the Lord's supper in the Gospels and Epistles.
Not.
It's no wonder some people think the Mass is totally outside Biblical truth.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
[Allow me to speak as someone whose priests looks eastwards, prays in ancient Greek, and says some prayers in secret.
Hmmm, just like the Lord's supper in the Gospels and Epistles.
Not.
It's no wonder some people think the Mass is totally outside Biblical truth.
Some people would be quite wrong there.
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
If there is to be some sort of return to the ancient ways of doing a Mass, where the people are shrugged back by a priest doing practically secret stuff with his back turned to the people, maybe even on the other side of a blinkin' screen, speaking a language they don't know , and sadly often the priest can't speak, either, fer goodness sakes -- like, the Mass or the Host or whatever is too hoooooly for any of the common rabble to witness --
Mind you, I would be offended if the priest was looking at me during the liturgy... "Look towards God, dumbass!"
Surely God is omnipresent so it doens't matter which way he looks? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Not in Latin, but at Exeter Cathedral the other week the first eastward facing mass I've attended in a long while. OK it was in English but strangely moving for all that.
I don't see anything wrong with it as long as people are taught what is going on. The 'normal' Eucharist is pretty weird to for those not in the know.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151
|
Posted
All of which reminds me of the old joke about 'What the Church of England stands for' to which the witty response was 'Because there's only one seat, and the Pope's sat on it'.
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceesharp
Shipmate
# 3818
|
Posted
I expect this will be ridiculed as a hissy fit or, more likely, ignored but I have to say the I've had enough.
It is clear that entrenched anti-catholicism and bigotry are not ever going to go away, here or in the real world. This thread has made me weep, and I am not going to have anything to do with the Ship any more.
If you want to regard this as just another ITIWASACWS then do so, but maybe some people who profess Christ should examine their consciences in the light of the Gospel.
Christine.
Posts: 629 | From: West Midlands, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Surely God is omnipresent so it doens't matter which way he looks?
It takes two to tango. In our salvation, the synergy takes place between the God that saves and us that are saved. God alone is not enough for people to get saved. It takes their co-operation with God, and essentially this is what God calls us for: to be His partners in creation and life, to be equal with Him.
Man is physical and spiritual at the same time and in order for the unconscious and subconscious problems we have to get solved, conscious effort is to be made. So, by turning towards the East, knowing that this is the most ancient tradition of the church, we "log in" to the spiritual realm and connect with God through a physical means. This makes our meeting with God more efficient. The fact that God is omnipresent is not all it matters here. God approaches me but unless I approach Him back nothing happens.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
"And once upon a time Latin was the vernacular. Then it was a language spoken by educated persons."
This is actually a misconception. As someone who knows a little about the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages it was actually the case that the latin spoken in the liturgy (when it changed from greek to latin with the exception of the Kyrie of course) was completely different to that spoken by the majority of the population and would have been as difficult to understand then as it is now.
Latin has always been meant as a sacred language set apart. Well that it what I have argued in the past and I have heard Michael Lang argue it as well
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The message many RCs are giving on this thread is that people are only getting offended because they are misinterpreting the RCC's statements and doctrines. The offended are accused of interpreting the statements of the RCC uncharitably.
I think this is misplaced. The reason I care about what the RCC thinks is that I regard it as part of Christ's Church. They are my brothers and sisters. I am not out of communion with them, though they are out of communion with me. At a local and personal level I value my relationships with RCs.
In this context, the recent remarks of B16 and those they build on are surely calculatedly wounding. To use the word 'church' of the Orthodox but not the various Episcopal churches and to justify this use, this is surely not only offensive but intended to be offensive. (And I say this as a Baptist. I get the very clear message from the RCC that I am totally off the scale.)
hatless
I've italicised a couple of quotes which I think are questionable, but left in a context which seems to me to be fair comment. Surely if there is calculation in this, it is not directed to the thoughts of those outside Catholicism, but those inside? Offence has certainly been taken by those outside Catholicism, but I just can't see how that has been deliberately provoked.
Remembering back to the whole medieval document thing and the uproar in Islam, I'm much more inclined to believe that BXVI has a taste for precision. In terms of predicting the public response to any direct utterances, or those made with his permission, I'm sure he has advisers on how things may play. But it's pretty clear that he doesn't have a Catholic equivalent on an Alistair Campbell-type spin doctor about his person. Many of us would regard that as a "good thing".
On the second italicised quote, yes I do understand the impression, but I'm not quite sure how justified it is. I think we nonconformist anabaptist memorialists mostly get ignored. We're the bastard children of a bastard child. But I'm not ashamed of the questionable legitimacy of our spiritual parents. I find much which is wholly admirable and truthful in them. There are indeed elements of sanctification and truth in our midst, mixed up as everywhere with less attractive stuff. Well that's what I find anyway. But I give God the glory for those elements. I'm also happy to acknowledge that the historical preservations of Orthodoxy and Catholicism church provided the substance both of our agreed understandings and the issues over we still protest. But that's as far as I can go. The means and mediation of grace are ultimately a matter for the sovereignty of God. The wind of the Spirit blows where it wills.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
So, by turning towards the East, knowing that this is the most ancient tradition of the church, we "log in"
What I mean to say is that in ordinary life most of the people are not connected with God consciously. In order to do that, we can make use of the conscious change that can take place with eastwards pray. If one does that every time one prays, if one consciously turns to the East, signifying a turn to the Sun of Justice Himself, then our connection with the spiritual realm can get activated in an efficient manner.
I am concerned as to which extent Western denominations preserve in their life the connection between the physical and the spiritual. It would seem to me that a break has taken place, and that the ancient know-how is lost. Is this true? Have you somehow separated the physical from the spiritual realm?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Barnabas, 'calculatedly wounding' may be a phrase too far, but there is an astonishing indifference, publicly at least, to the effect of his words. And I don't see any words of regret from RCs on this thread. Indeed Csharp feels the whole discussion is distressingly anti-Catholic, and I'm very sorry about that.
Defining the word church to exclude some is not just a matter of precise definition. Think of someone insisting on precision in what it means to be British, or civilised, or a lady, or 'one of us.' It is an aggressively discriminatory act.
All talk of belonging and who is in or out, who is acceptable and who is not, touch deep feelings. Heavens, I get upset by RC statements about salvation, and I don't think of salvation like that at all! It's just a way of talking about our opinions of one another.
As Ken said, denominationalism amongst Protestant Brits is pretty much dead. If a Baptist moves to a new town it's fifty fifty at best that she'll remains a Baptist. We are happy, and think it's 'Christian' and healthy to say that one is as good as another. When the biggest of us all not only won't play happy families, but say we're not even proper families, it comes across as bullying.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Surely if there is calculation in this, it is not directed to the thoughts of those outside Catholicism, but those inside? Offence has certainly been taken by those outside Catholicism, but I just can't see how that has been deliberately provoked.
Remembering back to the whole medieval document thing and the uproar in Islam, I'm much more inclined to believe that BXVI has a taste for precision. In terms of predicting the public response to any direct utterances, or those made with his permission, I'm sure he has advisers on how things may play. But it's pretty clear that he doesn't have a Catholic equivalent on an Alistair Campbell-type spin doctor about his person. Many of us would regard that as a "good thing".
That's spot on from my perspective.
quote:
On the second italicised quote, yes I do understand the impression, but I'm not quite sure how justified it is. I think we nonconformist anabaptist memorialists mostly get ignored. We're the bastard children of a bastard child. But I'm not ashamed of the questionable legitimacy of our spiritual parents. I find much which is wholly admirable and truthful in them. There are indeed elements of sanctification and truth in our midst, mixed up as everywhere with less attractive stuff. Well that's what I find anyway. But I give God the glory for those elements. I'm also happy to acknowledge that the historical preservations of Orthodoxy and Catholicism church provided the substance both of our agreed understandings and the issues over we still protest. But that's as far as I can go. The means and mediation of grace are ultimately a matter for the sovereignty of God. The wind of the Spirit blows where it wills.
That's gracious indeed.
I'm not that comfortable with the phrase "ecclesial communities" either. But that term along with "the Church" or "church" are being used in a precise theological sense to summarise a whole series of positions on the Apostolic succession, about the primacy of the Pope and so on. See for us, the Church means the Catholic Church. All of Orthodoxy is a church that would be the Church, except for a disagreement over the role and office of the Pope - and from my perspective it's a small difference too. (Let's say I remain hopeful.)
And most of the rest of you are my fellow Christians, part of the Body of Christ, working out your own path to salvation. "Ecclesial communities", while I don't like it as a phrase, describes your community in Christ in a "church" sense. It isn't the Catholic concept of church though.
And the rest who aren't Christians are people of good will whose willingness to listen and debate I respect. I don't think you'd be here if that comment "people of good will" couldn't be fairly applied to you.
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Duo Seraphim said
quote:
And most of the rest of you are my fellow Christians, part of the Body of Christ, working out your own path to salvation. "Ecclesial communities", while I don't like it as a phrase, describes your community in Christ in a "church" sense. It isn't the Catholic concept of church though.
And the rest who aren't Christians are people of good will whose willingness to listen and debate I respect. I don't think you'd be here if that comment "people of good will" couldn't be fairly applied to you.
And that is gracious too, and much appreciated. Indeed, I could ask for nothing more than what you say here: "And most of the rest of you are my fellow Christians, part of the Body of Christ, working out your own path to salvation. "
Taken together with your expression of discomfort over the phrase 'ecclesial communities' I am fully persuaded of your goodwill and respect. There is no problem.
But it isn't what your hierarchy is saying.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
And it doesn't seem to be what the hierarchy say to people like me who were brought up in the Catholic Church and who have since left.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by C#:
I expect this will be ridiculed as a hissy fit or, more likely, ignored but I have to say the I've had enough.
It is clear that entrenched anti-catholicism and bigotry are not ever going to go away, here or in the real world. This thread has made me weep, and I am not going to have anything to do with the Ship any more. ...
This sort of attitude still manages to startle me, after all these years.
Let's see. The Pope, or one of the Usual Suspects here on the Ship, makes remarks that denigrate other Christian denominations, generally or specifically, and makes unsustainable negative claims about us.
Non-Roman Catholics then disagree with some aspect of those remarks and claims.
In response, certain Roman Catholics immediately begin to shriek about "bigotry," "anti-Catholicism," ask when the accusations of eating babies are going to begin, etc., all because non-Roman Catholics have had the absolute effrontery to disagree with the untruthful things said about us.
Well, here's a news flash: If we all agreed with all the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, we would (I feel certain) all convert. We don't, so we haven't. We are actually entitled to disagree. If you can't deal with that, perhaps you're not best served by an open discussion.
I love some aspects of the Roman Catholic Church, but I deeply oppose certain aspects of Roman Catholic doctrine. (Obviously.) I don't think rigid authoritarianism is the way to go, and I think the notion of papal infallibility is about as heretical as you can get.
That doesn't make me "anti-Catholic." I'll be happy to discuss all my real-life and online prayer and interaction with friends and family who happen to be members of the Church of Rome, if you're interested.
But if you're going to fling around mass accusations of "bigotry" at those who disagree with the Pope and certain RC zealots here, then permit me to suggest that you're as guilty of prejudice as those you accuse.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
[Allow me to speak as someone whose priests looks eastwards, prays in ancient Greek, and says some prayers in secret.
Hmmm, just like the Lord's supper in the Gospels and Epistles.
Not.
It's no wonder some people think the Mass is totally outside Biblical truth.
Oh of course, Biblical Truth!
And the Lord's Supper was celebrated in King James English too!
I will repent of my wicked ways and stop going to the Catholic Mass which obviously only pretends to be biblical!
Oh wait
Max
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
quote:
And it doesn't seem to be what the hierarchy say to people like me who were brought up in the Catholic Church and who have since left.
Saved?
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
