homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Pope: Other denominations not true churches (Page 6)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Pope: Other denominations not true churches
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, your thoughts, Barnabas, are much the same as mine. There is no Baptist Church; there are Baptist churches, and they associate in various ways. So a local congregation isn't quite the Church in all its fullness, it needs its links with others.

Ecclesial communities looks like a roundabout way of saying 'churches' or 'churchoids.' Things which are like churches, but which we don't want to call that.

I don't mind, in that I'm happy to be slapdash about all these things. We can't nail God down, and can't be precise about the things of God: eucharist, salvation, church, prayer, etc.

But I suppose I react negatively when I detect that someone is using words in a clever and unnatural way in order to be precise about the things of God, and in a way that promotes themselves at the expense of Christian unity.

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

Ecclesial communities looks like a roundabout way of saying 'churches' or 'churchoids.' Things which are like churches, but which we don't want to call that.

It is, pretty much, a way of saying what a lot of Protestants mean when they say 'church', yes. It implies the absence of some things Catholics sometimes mean when they say 'church', such as bishops ordained in the apostolic succession and the seven sacraments. But, presumably, most Protestants don't feel this as a lack. As I said above, I really can't see what the problem is.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
With Protestants you rather get "we are all fine living as separate parts"[...]

I agree that such a view exists, but for clarity would state that it certainly isn't my view.

I think that the True Church can be divided - that is, I think that this is a possibility rather than an impossibility - but not in the least that it ought to be divided, or that it should be at all tolerable that it is divided. I don't think that we are fine as we are.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Young fogey
Shipmate
# 5317

 - Posted      Profile for Young fogey   Author's homepage   Email Young fogey   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
Recidite is a plural imperative. It means "Fall away!" or "Lapse!" or "Come to naught!"

Plebians isn't Latin, as far as I know. Maybe it's supposed to be English. "Fall away, rabble!"

RP, my struggle with your post is simply that I don't know any Catholics who have been so violently suppressed as you describe.

It comes from the pig-Latin phrase recidite plebians gero rem imprialem, or "go away plebians I am on imperial business". As it is pig Latin and your Latin is probably better than mine there would be little point in pulling the grammatical structure of the phrase to bits - I need a username, it was a quick think that did the job, nothing more intellectual than that and no hidden meaning intended on my part.
<more pedantry> I think you mean dog Latin. Pig Latin is a kind of American slang, I think from the 1940s, things like ixnay for nix (noun and verb for saying no to something, Pennsylvanian German from German nichts) and 'Amscray!' for another bit of dated slang, 'Scram!' No, I was never in the cast of 'Annie'. From those examples you can see how the game works. </more pedantry>

As Catholic as I am I've known and acknowledge people who've been treated shittily by representatives of the holy, Catholic, apostolic and Roman church. Many RC priests' people skills suck.

--------------------
A conservative blog for peace

Posts: 961 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Yes, your thoughts, Barnabas, are much the same as mine. There is no Baptist Church; there are Baptist churches, and they associate in various ways. So a local congregation isn't quite the Church in all its fullness, it needs its links with others.

Ecclesial communities looks like a roundabout way of saying 'churches' or 'churchoids.' Things which are like churches, but which we don't want to call that.

I don't mind, in that I'm happy to be slapdash about all these things. We can't nail God down, and can't be precise about the things of God: eucharist, salvation, church, prayer, etc.

But I suppose I react negatively when I detect that someone is using words in a clever and unnatural way in order to be precise about the things of God, and in a way that promotes themselves at the expense of Christian unity.

I like churchoids! That really is neat - probably too neat for the CDF. That sort of fearless felicitous invention probably has to be heresy for several centuries before passing into common parlance.

I think you're being a little grumpy by the way, but given some of the crap we have to take from our "elders and betters" it's not surprising. Funny isn't it? Congregational ecclesiology really can't get too worked up about this stuff. I guess we're just used to folks calling us names.

--------------------
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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I've already said I'm not offended by the language because I have a technically-minded approach to these things. But plainly, many people are. The CDF et al could avoid that by rephrasing, but instead they choose to repeat the offence. I notice you are at pains to show the multiple meanings of the word church, and even to go so far as to identify the meaning of validity as a Catholic-oriented term. I appreciate that, and I think your denomination [Razz] would make further headway if they took the same approach.

Clarifications issued by the CDF are not primarily intended for informing the wider world about Catholic theology. They are primarily intended to sort Catholics out! It's interesting that every single document of the Vatican now gets so much attention by the press, but why precisely should all Vatican documents be dumbed down and PC-ified to a level where everybody understands and nobody complains? If people have such great interest in the RCC, then they should inform themselves sufficiently to understand what she says. The RC faith and the RCC herself are generally just not simple enough to be compressed into smooth soundbites. Deal.

--------------------
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
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Maybe so many people get their knickers in a knot because they feel judged by the Church and secretly worry that her teaching is right!
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh no, now I'll have a bunch of angry Anglicans and mudfrogs after me for sure [Eek!] [Ultra confused] [Eek!] [Ultra confused]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Its possible.

Do you think Roman Catholics get so upset with Jack Chick because they fear his teachings are correct?

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Chick is a dick, but funny in an absurd way if one can keep one's humour.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Its possible.

Do you think Roman Catholics get so upset with Jack Chick because they fear his teachings are correct?

[Killing me] I don't care who you are, that's funny!

L Sv K. 'Fess up now, you hear?

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Whoops! X-posted, L Sv K. I see you did 'fess up (in a way) ....

--------------------
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
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Barnabas62 said to me
quote:
I think you're being a little grumpy by the way,
How can I resist? You know I can't! Oh, all right then, yes I am being unduly grumpy, and its an indulgence. I shall try to cultivate that against which there is no law. [Smile]

Thanks.

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
but why precisely should all Vatican documents be dumbed down and PC-ified to a level where everybody understands and nobody complains?

Because there are ways of presenting the same information and arguments that don't cause offence to those people you claim to be reaching out to as ecumenical partners with a view to eventual reunion.

I guess that's not an important issue to you, so I take it you wouldn't be unhappy if I called you a fuckwit according to my earlier definition every time I think you've made a mistake? I won't do that of course, but I hope you get the point.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lovely post, hatless. That nice Duo may be along shortly suggesting this sort of indulgence for your confessed one. But too late! James 5:16 will do nicely!

--------------------
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
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What do I say about the Church?
I believe the Church is all those who are 'in Christ' and I believe that The Salvation Army is not 'a church' per se but is an 'evangelical movement that is an integral but distinctive part of the Universal Christian Church.

That said, I believe that the Army is a denomination in its own right - clergy, doctrines, a central authority - but if there were suddenly to be a worldwide decree that forced all denominations to come under the Bishop of Rome, then TSA would easily (if not happily) fit in as an Order within the Catholic Church.

Jesuits, Franciscans, Salvationists...

Yes, I can see it now. General Booth would have to be made a saint in order for Salvationists to accept the new authority over us.

Hmmm, a brass band playing in St Peter's Square and tambourines, flags and shouts of "Hallelujah!" inside the basilica.

Hey, are you Romans prepared for such a style of worship?

--------------------
"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
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh Mudfrog you know they are (ready for the S.A. band)! It sounds like a good vision to me -- the beatific vision, perhaps. You have only erroneous doctrines to lose, you have a Church to gain!
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Because there are ways of presenting the same information and arguments that don't cause offence to those people you claim to be reaching out to as ecumenical partners with a view to eventual reunion.

Actually, I don't think that this is true. The basic point here is simply that the Vatican thinks other denominations are in one way or the other deficient. No amount of explanation or sweet-talking obfuscation can insure that members of those denominations won't take offense.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I guess that's not an important issue to you, so I take it you wouldn't be unhappy if I called you a fuckwit according to my earlier definition every time I think you've made a mistake? I won't do that of course, but I hope you get the point.

Yeah, it's a crap analogy. A proper analogy to this CDF clarification would be that in a public blog intended to discuss theological matters with friends from your denomination, you refer to me as "follower of those deficient RC doctrines". And guess what, that would indeed not be a concern for me at all. In fact, I would consider that as an entirely fair description - given that I think you are honestly mistaken about whose doctrines are deficient.

--------------------
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
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Oh Mudfrog you know they are (ready for the S.A. band)! It sounds like a good vision to me -- the beatific vision, perhaps. You have only erroneous doctrines to lose, you have a Church to gain!

Pray tell what our erroneous doctrines are. (and before you suggest it, our non-scramental stance is not doctrinal but practical).

--------------------
"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
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Actually, I don't think that this is true. The basic point here is simply that the Vatican thinks other denominations are in one way or the other deficient. No amount of explanation or sweet-talking obfuscation can insure that members of those denominations won't take offense.

I agree to an extent, but expressing things that way limits the potential offence to the actual facts over which the Catholics and the rest disagree - and we might make some headway towards reunion out of that because it's focussed on the issues.

That's not what I'm getting at. It's that the CDF is choosing to express its beliefs as to the nature of other communities in a way that unnecessarily implies things the technical language does not intend. The Catechism acknowledges that the word church has many meanings. It's hard then not to see the act of denying the word to insufficiently-Catholic communions as insulting, and this seems particularly strange as it's apparently being done in the interests of technical precision!

Consider the case of the Church of England. My understanding is that the Catholic Church's view of the CofE could be stated in the following ways:

1. The Church of England is a Church that maintains many of the marks of the Catholic Church that she inherited from the pre-Reformation Church, but is deficient in several areas particularly in having lost her Catholic orders.

2. The Church of England cannot properly be called a Church. This is because a Church requires Catholic orders and the Church of England doesn't have them. Of course, according to the other definitions of the word church, which we acknowledge and happily use, the Church of England would be a Church but we're not going to call her one.

My contention is that 1 is less misleading than 2, less likely to cause offence, and more likely to lead to a fruitful discussion.

quote:
Yeah, it's a crap analogy.
It's a fair cop. I tried my best.

quote:
A proper analogy to this CDF clarification would be that in a public blog intended to discuss theological matters with friends from your denomination, you refer to me as "follower of those deficient RC doctrines".
No, that's a crap analogy because you've missed the point. That would be the equivalent of my 1 above.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
That Matthew Parker was consecrated archbishop according to the proper forms, with the proper intentions evident, and by qualified bishops is a fact.

Given that the Thirty-Nine Articles deny that the consecration of bishops is a sacrament, I find it rather hard to believe that the intent was there.

--------------------
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
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Given that the Thirty-Nine Articles deny that the consecration of bishops is a sacrament, I find it rather hard to believe that the intent was there.

Firstly, that's not true. They don't deny that at all - to be honest they're ambiguously worded so you can think what you like about five of the sacraments but can't deny baptism and the eucharist.

Secondly, it doesn't make sense to say that, because the specific intent to perform a sacramental action isn't usually cited as a requirement, just the intent to do what the Church does - if one's understanding of what the Church does is wrong, that's not necessarily a barrier. See the Catholic teaching on baptism carried out in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit by denominations that don't believe in sacraments, for example.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Was Parker consecrated though by any bishop in who had been consecrated by the Roman Catholic Church? My understanding was that he'd been consecrated by a mixture and Edwardine and Henrician bishops and that the Catholic Marian bishops had refused to participate. In what sense therefore can we as Anglicans say that strict AS has been maintained and that the Branch Theory is valid?

[ 13. July 2007, 09:12: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

--------------------
"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
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Sorry, couldn't even get it right on editing [Hot and Hormonal] - last post should have read "consecrated by a mixture of Edwardine and Henrician bishops"]

--------------------
"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
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Firstly, that's not true. They don't deny that at all - to be honest they're ambiguously worded so you can think what you like about five of the sacraments but can't deny baptism and the eucharist.

Yes, but the question isn't how they can be interpreted, but how they would have been understood at the time.
quote:
Secondly, it doesn't make sense to say that, because the specific intent to perform a sacramental action isn't usually cited as a requirement, just the intent to do what the Church does - if one's understanding of what the Church does is wrong, that's not necessarily a barrier. See the Catholic teaching on baptism carried out in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit by denominations that don't believe in sacraments, for example.
Which churches baptise but don't believe in sacraments?

--------------------
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
Malin

Shipmate
# 11769

 - Posted      Profile for Malin   Email Malin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Brethren for one. Exclusive Brethren baptise everyone (my group were divided between infant and adult baptism) before they can take part in the Lord's Supper/communion. These are seen as two separate events - baptism for its own sake as a witness to faith in Christ; and then later on (weeks, months or potentially years) to ask to take part in the Lord's Supper which is agreed by the men in the meeting (or not) depending on whether they think you understand it properly. But they are very strictly memorialist and very, very anti-sacramental.
Posts: 1901 | From: Norwich | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, but the question isn't how they can be interpreted, but how they would have been understood at the time.

But if the intent was to state that ordinations were not sacraments, Cranmer, Parker et al made a thoroughly inept job of it. I can only conclude it's a skillfully written piece of fudge, and the meat is there in the affirmation of baptism and eucharist as sacraments.

quote:
Which churches baptise but don't believe in sacraments?
There are plenty of churches that believe baptism has no salvific effect, that it's nothing more than a public affirmation of faith. I'll try and draw up a list if you like but it's probably not worth the effort.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
hamletta
Shipmate
# 11678

 - Posted      Profile for hamletta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm starting to re-think this, only because I looked up ELCA Bp. Mark Hanson's statement just to see his reaction:
quote:
The Vatican's statement, "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church" ("Responses to Questions"), does not appear to change previously stated positions. It does, however, restate known positions in provocative ways that are before us in the ongoing U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic bilateral dialogue.

[...]

The anguished response of Christians around the world to the Vatican's statement, however, clearly indicates that what may have been meant to clarify has caused pain.

Bp. Hanson's a big boy, and he's also president of the Lutheran World Federation, which engages in ecumenical dialogue with anybody and everybody.

If a guy who works in this milieu every day says, "Dude, that's harsh!" maybe there's something to the idea that the tone was a bit off.

Posts: 108 | From: Nashvegas | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Which churches baptise but don't believe in sacraments?

I'll second Malin's Brethren example - the Exclusive's tend to believe in 'household' ie: infant baptism but state that, whilst it may get you "into the outer courts" (ie: give you some kind of mysterious spiritual head-start in life), faith alone can save you. The Open Brethren, along with the Baptists, practise believer's baptism only and deny that it or the Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Communion has any sacramental effect (the Baptists' traditional designation for both is 'ordinance'); in addition, all of the house churches I've encountered have had basically the same theology as Baptists and OBs on the subject - believers' baptism only, Baptism and Communion are not sacraments.

--------------------
"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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
My contention is that 1 is less misleading than 2, less likely to cause offence, and more likely to lead to a fruitful discussion.

There is a fundamental difference between your statements 1 and 2, as much as you have tried to make them sound alike by careful wording, and the RCC considers this difference to be essential. The difference concerns the question "What is Church?" Unfortunately, 1 is simply false according to the RC answer to that question and saying so nevertheless would amount to a lie about an important religious teaching - which is the worst kind of lie according to St Augustine. So no matter how useful it would be to say something like 1, the RCC has no choice but to say something like 2. One may not do evil to achieve good.

--------------------
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
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I guess that means the canonisation of Pope Paul VI is right out, then.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918

 - Posted      Profile for multipara   Author's homepage   Email multipara   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Doesn't matter, he is among the saints anyway (and we're all getting there)

m

--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi

Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Greyface

Don't think you're going to win. Anglicans belong to a networked ecclesial community. The argument remains about the legitimacy and authority of the network and the network leaders.

Interestingly enough, using that sort of language, I'm very happy to acknowledge that the Catholic church is a networked ecclesial community with excellent references for its legitimacy but, unfortunately, overweening claims about its authority.

Its not about the blooming labels at all, really, but it is about our apparently irreconcilable differences over legitimacy and authority. Well, lets get on with sanctification and truth ..

--------------------
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
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918

 - Posted      Profile for multipara   Author's homepage   Email multipara   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Crossposted with Barnabas62: yes, and that means ALL of us.

m

--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi

Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't think you're going to win.

Agreed. I've never managed to change Ingo's mind about anything.

Mind you, Ingo, with that last argument I'm quite looking forward to you having to consistently refer to my branch of the Church as the Ecclesial Community of England - or commit a grave sin.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
recidite_plebians
Shipmate
# 12793

 - Posted      Profile for recidite_plebians     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
Recidite_plebians wrote, "Allow me to explain." Followed by a long sad story.
[Tear]
Your story reminded me of the story of a friend of mine. My friend worked hard for his church. He was continually running around trying to help people and do what he thought was right. But he messed up politically and stepped on some toes.

Suddenly, everything he did was wrong. A clergy member (who later became pope) publicly renounced him. No one would have anything to do with him.

One of his former friends actually framed him for a crime and had the civil authorities try him. The court found him guilty and executed him on a cross.

The reason you are not acceptable to the church isn't all the stuff you've been through. It's because, having walked where Jesus walked, having suffered what Jesus suffered, you turned against you enemies and fought against them as you felt they deserved. But that's not the Christian way.

Jesus turned and forgave his enemies. He called us to do the same. Yes, that's bullshit, but it's also Christianity. If your willing to forgive us our many sins, your welcome back.

Forgive me for being blunt but:

1. It's an over-simplification of the whole theology of redemption, and I'm not going there...

2. You don't know your facts. I highlighted SOME of what has taken place in my life, and it is far more complex than that. This isn't the time or place for some huge great big "'fess up" and "mea culpa" about the events of my life. I used some details of my own experiences to highlight my treatment at the hands of the clergy as I am one of literally hundreds of thousands of people world wide who have experienced the same. I used the example to give authority to my claims as I have been accused of being hostile to the RCC. I would suggest that the RCC has been hostile to me.

3. You are in no position to make any sort of judgement or statement such as you have, no matter how well intentioned it may be. I asked the church for support on many occasions through my difficulties and received precisely none. Again, I won't be going into huge amounts of detail to recount each one.

Why should I just forgive and forget? It will not make the blindest bit of difference to the way the church perceives me. The RCC does not want reconciliation, it wants domainance. I have said, this is nothing to do with compassion or humanity on their part but the arrogant belief that it is God on earth. They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The RCC may think of itself as the external discipline and inter locutor of grace. It presumes too much. It may believe, or promote the belif, that it is only interested in the salvation of souls. On its way down the path to hell it may have started out that way but what has happened is the narrow-minded, rule bound hierarchy where individual and corporate ambition and lust for power has peverted its mission. Forgiving it what it has done to me will not stop it from doing the same to me again, and again, and again. I have no desire to fight it, or see it change, I don't care if it goes up in flames quite frankly. You cannot tell me I am welcome back if I forgive it when its own clergy treat me like I am something they have stepped in. I am not aceptable to the church because I don't fit its narrow ideals, it is as simple as that. Until it sees the world and humanity for what it is far too many of us who the church ought to be reaching out to are just going to be left outside in the cold.

Jesus spent his time with the tax collectors, the sinners, the sick, the lame. The church is more interested in telling us that we shouldn't be tax collectors, siners, sick, and lame. It is too busy creating volumes of canon law to legislate agains the tax collectors et al. It is too busy with its layers of buraucracy on how to deal with and process its canon laws on the tax collectors et al. It is too busy defining who are and are not the tax collectors et al. It is too busy finding ways of casting the first stone. It is too busy arguing about who should be the stone throwers-in-chief. The stone-throwers-in-chief are too busy in their fancy clothes in their fancy palaces, with their cooks, cleaners, secretaries, private staff, their finances, their repositories of jewels, art, their cocktail receptions and parties and their engagement with the great and good of civic society to even know who the tax collectors et al are to invite them down from the tree and ask if they can share enter their house and bring peace upon it.

Posts: 591 | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
Quercus
Shipmate
# 12761

 - Posted      Profile for Quercus   Email Quercus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Mind you, Ingo, with that last argument I'm quite looking forward to you having to consistently refer to my branch of the Church as the Ecclesial Community of England - or commit a grave sin.

No, that's still fine under definition 4(ii)(b) of 'Church': a group of alleged Christians who've managed to organise themselves but are not Some of Us (courtesy title only).
[Razz]

--------------------
"I meant," said Iplsore bitterly, "what is there in this world that makes living worthwhile?"

Death thought about it. CATS, he said eventually, CATS ARE NICE.

Posts: 321 | From: Up on a hill | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't think you're going to win.

Agreed. I've never managed to change Ingo's mind about anything.

Mind you, Ingo, with that last argument I'm quite looking forward to you having to consistently refer to my branch of the Church as the Ecclesial Community of England - or commit a grave sin.

He'll have you for that "the", Greyface. You might hope to get away with "An Ecclesial Community of England."

Alternatively, you could join hatless and me in our independent congregational assemblies and learn how to take the condescension and the unintended insults with a smile (or a grump). Its really good for humility [Biased]

--------------------
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
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
He'll have you for that "the", Greyface. You might hope to get away with "An Ecclesial Community of England."

Thanks for pointing that out. It was unforgivably sloppy of me, and I hope you won't be offended at the implication that your own congregations are not themselves ecclesial communities of england, albeit ones that are seriously deficient in capitalisation.
quote:
Alternatively, you could join hatless and me in our independent congregational assemblies and learn how to take the condescension and the unintended insults with a smile (or a grump). Its really good for humility [Biased]
I admit it sounds attractive. What's the beer like? [Biased]

[ 13. July 2007, 11:14: Message edited by: GreyFace ]

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
The RCC does not want reconciliation, it wants domainance. I have said, this is nothing to do with compassion or humanity on their part but the arrogant belief that it is God on earth.

That would indeed be a very arrogant, nay blasphemous, belief. Do you have the tiniest thread of evidence that the RCC holds it?

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Mind you, Ingo, with that last argument I'm quite looking forward to you having to consistently refer to my branch of the Church as the Ecclesial Community of England - or commit a grave sin.

Sure, when that is appropriate: like for example if the CDF should ever ask me to write a clarification on Anglican ecclesial matters. Otherwise I will follow the usual customs of politeness and use the names and titles this ecclesial community of England uses for herself. Just like I would simply address an Anglican priest as "Father", without launching into a discussion of the status of his orders. I think the Vatican's treatment of the ABC during his recent visits has not been a source of complaints, has it? (Other than from RC rad trads...) All this ado remains precisely what it has been from the beginning: pointless seeking of offense.

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
He'll have you for that "the", Greyface. You might hope to get away with "An Ecclesial Community of England."

Thanks for pointing that out. It was unforgivably sloppy of me, and I hope you won't be offended at the implication that your own congregations are not themselves ecclesial communities of england, albeit ones that are seriously deficient in capitalisation.

[Killing me] Seriously deficient in capital would be more like it!

Beer.

You might have a problem with hatless "oop North" if his congo are "strict and particular" but I wouldn't have thought that was very likely [Biased] . The beer's normally good there.

You can get Adnams in a lot of Norwich pubs. One of our groups meets in a pub. Since my heart trouble I just drink wine, but I do miss a glass of beer.

--------------------
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
Petrified

Ship’s ballast
# 10667

 - Posted      Profile for Petrified   Email Petrified   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can feel the first schism coming in AECoE
But at least it's about something important - beer

--------------------
At this time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock.
SoF a "prick against Bigotterie"

Posts: 540 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Strictly speaking, in beer terms hatless has to be considered a southerner because he's the wrong side of Masham.

I remember an encounter with some Adnams Broadside at a beer festival once. Well, I say remember, I think I do. Well, I say I think I do, I don't actually remember it much at all. Must have been good stuff.

What was this thread about again? Oh yeah, the AECoE. Nice one, petrified. Do you want to be Arch-not-bishop of the South or the North?

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
recidite_plebians
Shipmate
# 12793

 - Posted      Profile for recidite_plebians     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
The RCC does not want reconciliation, it wants domainance. I have said, this is nothing to do with compassion or humanity on their part but the arrogant belief that it is God on earth.

That would indeed be a very arrogant, nay blasphemous, belief. Do you have the tiniest thread of evidence that the RCC holds it?
Blasphemous eh? Whooptie shit, better watch out for those bolts of lightening. Recalling the scene from the Life of Brian now... Jehova, Jehova, Jehova.

Actually, more pertinently and more to the point, do you have a single shred of evidence that it doesn't?

There are none so blind as will not see. Come on, wake up. You are sleepwalking here. The RCC is possibly one of, if not the, most corrupt and political organisation on earth. Ask yourself, what other organisation wants to impose its own discipline on everyone it comes into contact with, even those who want nothing to do with it? Who else has the arrogance to publish documents telling people who are nothing to do with it how they should perceive themselves in light of its own understanding of their own errors? And you call me arrogant?

The only way that the RCC can once again become the "church" of the Petrine mandate and the apostolic succession it must dismantle itself, divest itself of all of its pretentions, and reform. This was the hope of Vatican 2, a hope that went unrealised and a potential that went unfulfilled. To do this would have meant the relinquishment of power from the centre, and when powerful, ambitious men have power they are not going to give it up without a fight that will destroy the institution that supports their power base. Perhaps this is what must happen for the RCC to once again be the church of Christ.

Posts: 591 | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Xposted. Couldn't help noticing IngoB's "this". And this

quote:
All this ado remains precisely what it has been from the beginning: pointless seeking of offense.
Not "all". And not "precisely" either. But I do agree that a lot of the ado has been that.

En passant, IngoB, do you have an opinion about the use of the term "ecclesial community" as opposed to "ecclesiastical community". Is it a novel term? Does it represent a clarification? See this previous post and this explanation. I've enjoyed the diversion but I was asking a serious question.

--------------------
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
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:


Actually, more pertinently and more to the point, do you have a single shred of evidence that it doesn't?


I don't have a shred of evidence that Billie Piper doesn't believe herself to be the true Dalai Lama. Your point is what? When you've given up this crusade, why not go and investigate the concept of 'burden of proof'?

quote:

There are none so blind as will not see. Come on, wake up. You are sleepwalking here. The RCC is possibly one of, if not the, most corrupt and political organisation on earth.

Really, believe me, it's not. I've worked in and with real political organisations.

You do have a certain point about imposing church discipline on non-members. I've made the same point on the Ship. It is worth being aware, however, that this is not a uniquely RC vice. It is, after all, not the RCC in the UK which thinks its bishops ought to sit by right in an unelected legislative chamber. But this thread isn't about the position of churches in pluralist democracies, it is about the RCC's beliefs about other churches. And surely the RCC is perfectly entitled to believe what it likes about other churches. As an Anglo-Catholic, I'm sad that the curia believes what it seems to about Anglicans*, but such is their perogative.

*My own view, rejecting Apostolicae Curae (not least because, were its principles consistently applied, virtually every sacrament administered everywhere by anyone would be thrown into doubt), is that Anglicans are in a similar position to that IngoB describes the Orthodox as being in.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The principle structure of the RCC is precisely what the Lord Himself set up for His followers to be part of in their earthly pilgrimage.

I have trouble believeing that someone as intelligent as you can really believe that.

I have trouble believeing that someone as intelligent as you can believe that the Pope really believes that.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't. I'm pretty sure he recognises that the basic structures of the Catholic church grew and altered during the first few generations of Christians and were not explicitly prescribed either by Jesus or the Apostles.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766

 - Posted      Profile for Dumpling Jeff   Email Dumpling Jeff   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Recidite_plebians wrote, "Forgive me for being blunt but:"

You have no need for for forgiveness. It's nice to see that we're in agreement.

I'm sorry that you feel I was judgmental. The only judgment I made was that you were continuing your just fight against the RCC instead of forgiving it because you thought you would be treated poorly time and again. (This continued poor treatment I agree would almost certainly happen.)

No "real" man would put up with such treatment. Fighting is the only "real" option. But then I'm not a "real" man.

I also was (and am) mistreated by the RCC church. The RCC is never going to like me. I lowered my expectations and moved on with my life. I left the hatred behind.

--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon

Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
Imagine you have served the church for years, been as faithful a practitioner as you can, been an active member of your parish. Then your marriage breaks down. You aren't entirely free of all guilt, but the majority of the reason is that your former wife got bored and buggered off with someone else because she wanted more fun out of life than than the marriage would provide.

That's pretty much what happened to me.

quote:

Then your parish priest asks you not to serve mass any more, or be so active in the various things in the parish because people talk and it would likely bring scandal on the church.

That is not at all like what happened to me. Quite the opposite. Yet again something someone has posted on this Ship has given me cause to thank God I am a Protestant.

quote:

By this time you have met someone else, settled down again, had a family.

Unfortunatly that has not happened to me. But I still live in hope.

quote:

You want to have your children baptised, only the priest is uncomfortable with this.

I know its too late now, but you should have complained to the Bishop. This is not and never has been Roman Catholic doctrine.

And your priest is obnviously a small-minded bigot. Who is refusing the direct commands both of his church and Jesus.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools