|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pope: Other denominations not true churches
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
your ER analogy is simply bizarre.
I thought it was rather good. Rather accurate, too.
I found it innacturate, irrelevant to this discussion, and insulting.
IO see the Holy Spirit blessing people in and through churches that are not in Communion with Rome. Hundreds of millions of people hjave come to Christ through the evangelisatin of those churches. IngoB is writing off that work of God as a diseased limb or a paralysed spine. That is foul.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Seeing as we seem to be baring our souls here... quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
Allow me to explain. 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. 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. You find that you are no longer asked to assist the parish in any way, the parish priest barely acknowledges you after mass, won't return your calls or talk to you or counsel you other than to insist you seek an annulment. You suddenly find yourself in an akward position of being a 1-dimentional problem for the parish.
Snap, except I was part of a house church at the time (having left the CC about a dozen or so years before) and the elders subsequently made me a housegroup leader.
quote:
You move away, stop going to church, then try and go back a little while after somewhere else.
Did that for a bit, then went back to my old church. quote:
By this time you have met someone else, settled down again, had a family.
Been fortunate enough to have been able to do that.
I'm torn between, like Ken, feeling glad I'm no longer Catholic when I read stories like yours, but also acknowledging that it is I think fairly atypical of the Catholic Church today - it's just that that particular priest sounds like a total bastard.
--------------------
"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
|
|
recidite_plebians
Shipmate
# 12793
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[qb] 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. [/qb
Did he now?
Can you point me to where He created the distinction between Bishops and Archbisops? or the bit about suffragan diocese and Metropolitans? or the role of Vicars General or Canons Major and Minor? The bit about creating 3 distinctions of Monseignor perhaps?
Can you point me to the biblical tract where He created "Cardinal Princes" maybe?
Can you point me to the bit where He mandated a buraucratic Curia? A Vatican Bank?
Can you tell me where He mandated a Code of Canon Law?
The descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost did one thing and one thing only, and that was invest the recipients with the faculties we come to think of as the "Ordinary of the Priesthood". It was a man-made divice that then set up the rank structure of priestly ordination beneath it and witheld from many of its own ordained the full faculties. To be perfectly honest I'm not even sure the RCC has the mandate to do anything but ordain to the full "ordinary" all of its clerics and then impose a standard discipline as to when those powers (especially pertaining to ordination)may be used and for the diocesan bishop to be "primus inter pares" amongst his own.
To suggest that the RCC looks anything like what Jesus created, let alone intended, is laughable. In fact comments like that deserve little more than ridicule and derision as the nonesense they are.
Posts: 591 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
All this ado remains precisely what it has been from the beginning: pointless seeking of offense.
I didn;t take offences. I started reading this thread with a "so what?" attitude. Bears, woods, whatever. I know the Pope doesn't think Protestant churches are real churches. If he did he probably wouldn't be Pope.
But then some people started saying really quite offensive things that went way beyond what the Pope said. So I ended up feeling offended.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
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.
The definition in question that you refer to:
- ecclesial - pertaining to the Church as a mystery, the Body of Christ, and the People of God;
- ecclesiastical - pertaining to the Church as a structured institution.
The term "ecclesial community" (and its Latin counterpart) are already found in Dominus Iesus (2000), Ut Unum Sit (1995), Communionis Notio (1992), Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), and Unitatis Redintegratio (1964, Vatican II). My instinct is that the choice of "ecclesial" rather than "ecclesiastical" has not the significance in these documents that you try to attribute to it. Not because it is denied that your community partakes in the mystery of Christ, rather to the contrary: RC are used to identify "Church as a structured institution" with "Church as a mystery". The distinction is a technical one, one talks about two aspects of the same thing, not a real one. So when Lumen Gentium (1964, Vatican II) talks about "ecclesiastical communities", then it is not in any contradiction to Unitatis Redintegratio of the same Council, it simply talks about an organisational aspect. (If the distinction is intended at all, it may well be that the terms were simply - perhaps sloppily - taken as synonymous.)
ken, I believe that, I'm very sure that the pope believes that, and I said "principle structure" for good reason: the power to bind and loosen to all apostles, the keys only to St Peter, and the apostolic succession. That's the principle governing structure of the Church Militant. The details of how that principle is realized have developed, but the principle remains till Christ returns.
--------------------
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
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
is it Catholic or nothing for you recidite_plebians ?
There are after all plenty of churches where being divorced and remarried isn't considered a scandal, and wouldn't prevent you playing a full part in the work of the church, and which would be happy to baptise your children.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
IO see the Holy Spirit blessing people in and through churches that are not in Communion with Rome.
I do, too. In fact, I see the Holy Spirit at work outside of Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Hundreds of millions of people hjave come to Christ through the evangelisatin of those churches. IngoB is writing off that work of God as a diseased limb or a paralysed spine. That is foul.
I did no such thing. The analogy was intended to illustrate a point about church governance. Evangelisation was not the point! No analogy captures all aspects of a situation accurately, or the analogy would simply be the reality.
--------------------
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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
There are after all plenty of churches where being divorced and remarried isn't considered a scandal, and wouldn't prevent you playing a full part in the work of the church, and which would be happy to baptise your children.
There are deep issues that have to do with authority. recidite_plebians spoke of Pentecost. In Orthodox terms, we all struggle to get our personal Pentecost, and those who have reached that point can guide others on their way to getting born from above. In those terms, deacons, priests, bishops, are supposed to be part of the community rather than impose a supernatural authority-power over the community. This is all good and holy, but real life shows things are not what they are supposed to be by Orthodox standards.
I have heard of married/divorced priests being treayed as second-class (or should that be tenth-class? you get the point...) people, I have heard of bishops oppressing their priests, of laity not having the nerve to stand up for justice in front of their bishops, etc etc.
So, when the structures are disfunctional, this has to be pointed out. What's the point of admiring power and majesty, when these things are of human origin and they are opposing the powerlessness and humility of God? In the end, all these things not only show how far the doers are from God, but also prevent people that seek God from finding Him.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
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?
.....
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
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'?
Moot point here. Since the RCC has a long established tradition of claiming that it/its Bishop of Rome represents God on earth then those claiming it doesn't do need to provide proof that the RCC has changed and is no longer claiming such a thing.
It also has a long history of being argued against on this point and many like the following Free Presbyterians of Cork have collections of examples to remind them of the RCC's "very arrogant, nay blasphemous belief" -
quote:
(The following is a brief outline of some of the claims of the Pope. These are facts which should be studied and their implications thought through very carefully indeed. There is no misrepresentation - Rome speaks for herself.
1) "We the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland, prostrate at the feet of your Holiness, humbly offer you our warmest congratulations on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee of your ordination to the priesthood… our thoughts go back to that great event fifty years ago by which your Holiness was taken from amongst men and appointed for men in the things that pertain to God, was made a minister of Christ and a dispenser of His mysteries, received power over the real and mystical body of our Saviour and became a mediator between God and man - another Christ." Address to Pope Pius Xll in 1949:-
Note: Although we are including these offending words ("a mediator between God and men - another Christ") in relation to the Pope…if you read the address carefully, they actually refer to him as a mere priest…and so is believed of every priest including your local "Father" But they do but "set the scene" for the blasphemies to come.
2) Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) wrote: "We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God." (1 Book of Gregory 9 Decret. c.3)
3) The Lateran Council addressing Pope Julius II in an oration delivered by Marcellus said: "Take care that we lose not that salvation, that life and breath which thou hast given us, for thou art our shepherd, thou art our physician, thou art our governor, thou art our husbandman, thou art finally another God on earth." (Council Edition. Colm. Agrip. 1618)
4) Pope Nicholas said of himself: "I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do…wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, what do you make of me but God? Again, if prelates of the Church be called of Constantine for gods, I then being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be above all gods. Wherefore, no marvel, if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea with the precepts of Christ." (Decret. par. Distinct 96 ch. 7 edit. Lugo 1661)
continued on:([qb]WHO DOES THE POPE CLAIM TO BE?)
See St Mark of Ephesus for the Orthodox summary of its view about the papal claims.
Also see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 882 in which the Vicar of Christ [vicar=stand in for someone who is absent] claims supreme unhindered power over the universal Church. By implication not even Christ Himself can hinder the application of this power.
Also see Unam Sanctam in which Boniface VIII unpacks this claim by explaining that Christ and His Vicar are not two heads, like some monster, but One.
This "blasphemous" claim came to flower from Nicholas I's use of the false decretals written to bolster this view of the papacy, but denounced by Photios and Pope John VIII at the Ecumenical 8th; although about a century later the RCC went back to the Nicholas 8th council which had been anathematised and continued on the path of this "blasphemous" claim.
So, have you any proof that the RCC no longer infallibly teaches this doctrine?
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
recidite_plebians
Shipmate
# 12793
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
is it Catholic or nothing for you recidite_plebians ?
There are after all plenty of churches where being divorced and remarried isn't considered a scandal, and wouldn't prevent you playing a full part in the work of the church, and which would be happy to baptise your children.
To an extent yes.
I have no problem with the theology of the RCC, only its practices. That falls into 2 parts as far as my ability to be reconciled with the RCC is concerned.
First is the issue of the validity of my former marriage. I am not going to suggest to my wife that we are not properly married simply because the RCC sees it that way and so I will not persue an anulment (even though I would likely get on on the basis of my ex's maturity and understanding of the sacramental commitment being flawed) having re-married. Had I felt it appropriate I would have done so before that.
If the RCC were what it ought to be the local bishop could pronounce the former debacle null and void without the need for formal tribunals and subsequent automatic appeals to Rome. The fact that that is currently required is just power play on the part of the RCC and "jobs for the boys". It's part of the tiers of hierarchy that should not, and do not need to exist and which ought to be dismantled if the church is to be a "church" in my understanding of the word (and hence why I find it ironic that the least "churchlike" of all should be telling everyone else that they should stop pretending).
The second is the attitude of clergy generally. They suffer from what I could only describe as the "catholic paradigm" whereby everyone expects obedience to the rule of law that the RCC expects. Neither priests nor people are neulogoically wired to comprehend the concept that not everyone sees the world in the dogmatic, authoritarian way they do. Just look at the responses of some of the posters on eher that ignore the points being made to them by going on to fulminate on the answers to the uestions they wished they had been asked rather than responding to what has actually been said to them.
That being said, the culture of catholicism in regards everything except the contempt they show everyone not as perfect as they withstanding, is so great as to be compelling. I just wish they could see past the aggrandizing of it all and look into the hearts of man rather than the trappings of power and privilige.
Posts: 591 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
All I can say is: I didn't much care what the Pope said last week, and I still don't care this week.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
ken, I believe that, I'm very sure that the pope believes that, and I said "principle structure" for good reason: the power to bind and loosen to all apostles, the keys only to St Peter, and the apostolic succession. That's the principle governing structure of the Church Militant. The details of how that principle is realized have developed, but the principle remains till Christ returns.
If you're referring to Matthew 16 then firstly Christ didn't give the keys there and then but was saying that they would be given at a future time, and they were given to all which is the power to bind and loose, to forgive and to damn.
To separate out keys from their function is sloppy proof texting, but anyway, as Matthew 18 covers, Christ elaborates on this theme and when Peter thinks about it he comes back with a question on it - and this is the heart of the matter here - how many times should he forgive?
And the answer he gets is yer bog standard Christian teaching, do not judge, do not condemn, forgive, forgive and then forgive some more.
And, the RCC claim about Peter is false, he was one of those to whom Christ explained what the Church should not be - "it shall not be so among you". The description of what it should not be is precisely, but precisely, what the RCC has created of itself.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
All I can say is: I didn't much care what the Pope said last week, and I still don't care this week.
My only reason for caring at all is the ugly mess - the fallout from such unnecessary statements of which most of what's been said here is a good example.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
All I can say is: I didn't much care what the Pope said last week, and I still don't care this week.
My only reason for caring at all is the ugly mess - the fallout from such unnecessary statements of which most of what's been said here is a good example.
Well, isn't it better that everybody knows exactly what's what, so we can proceed without laboring under any delusions?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Also see Unam Sanctam in which Boniface VIII unpacks this claim by explaining that Christ and His Vicar are not two heads, like some monster, but One.
Unam Sanctam is quite balanced and sane if you follow the reasoning. A bit fierce, perhaps, but in those times of distress and universal brouhaha, a little rigour went a long way.
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
All I can say is: I didn't much care what the Pope said last week, and I still don't care this week.
My only reason for caring at all is the ugly mess - the fallout from such unnecessary statements of which most of what's been said here is a good example.
Well, isn't it better that everybody knows exactly what's what, so we can proceed without laboring under any delusions?
Exactly. Though I think the audience for this document was not so much other churches as it was certain theologians (and bishops) who were stretching "subsists in" to a greater degree than the CDF thought warranted.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks for the reply IngoB - I'll look at the other docs and may get back if a supplementary occurs to me. I appreciate your findings and I also think we are talking about two aspects of the same thing. But not in the same way at present.
--------------------
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
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Also see Unam Sanctam in which Boniface VIII unpacks this claim by explaining that Christ and His Vicar are not two heads, like some monster, but One.
Unam Sanctam is quite balanced and sane if you follow the reasoning. A bit fierce, perhaps, but in those times of distress and universal brouhaha, a little rigour went a long way.
And our reply is still the same....:
quote:
"It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism— the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God." St Mark of Ephesus, Pillar of the Orthodox Church(aka "the Greeks" of Unam Sanctam)
Potted background:
(St. Mark of Ephesus: A True Ecumenist)
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
r_p,
the Ship is certainly a place for people to vent their rage, but at last here in Purgatory you will have to forgive me for trying to draw conclusions from what you vent. And the only conclusion I can draw from much of what you've said is that any RC who does not share your rage must be either willfully blind, stupid, or corrupt. Is there some other alternative that I have not considered?
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
brackenrigg
Shipmate
# 9408
|
Posted
The Anglo-Catholic wing regularly pray for the Pope, are Forward In Faith, believe in transubstatiation etc., have continued singing mass (if not saying it) in Latin for the last 30-odd years, and yet they are not full members.
What else do we have to do to become a full member apart from go to Rome?
It is only the folk-masses and guitars that keep us from joining them, and Papa Razzi is doing his best to do away with them.
Posts: 196 | From: s yorks | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
Quote From today's Tablet:
"Indeed, the CDF under Cardinal William Levada seems no more solicitous towards the Church's ecumenical partners than his predecessor was. It has rather unnecessarily reiterated the verdict of the CDF's Declaration Dominus Iesus in 2000 that Protestant and Anglican "ecclesial communities" are not proper Churches because they lack the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. Apart from giving an impression of arrogance, this sweeps away decades of progress in ecumenical dialogue that had been exploring precisely how to overcome such theological differences. Why chill the ecumenical atmosphere like this?" endquote
I have nothing more to add.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brackenrigg:
It is only the folk-masses and guitars that keep us from joining them, and Papa Razzi is doing his best to do away with them.
And the people. My dear!
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
FCB wrote, "Is there some other alternative that I have not considered?"
Yes. Some of us are very forgiving. I also have suffered from the RCC's sins.
Yet I remember that the Church is largely composed of sinners. I hope Christ forgives my sins, and I in turn, am willing to put up with a lot of crap.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
IngoB is writing off that work of God as a diseased limb or a paralysed spine. That is foul.
The main problem with the analogy, which I don't think IngoB has realised, is that you've got the body of Christ with a paralyzed leg, a missing arm, a diseased limb and a dicky ticker. But the rest of the body is absolutely fine and functionally normally. Which is not true: even if we accept IngoB's analogy what he hasn't realised is that the body can't work, can't pick up or handle anything, etc. What is objectionable about the analogy is that it's as if the eye can say to the leg 'I don't need you' or to the arm 'I don't need you'.
IngoB wants to deduce from his analogy that the state of the body of Christ has no implications for the functioning of the RCC. Whereas what he should deduce is that the RCC is in a pretty bad state.
To sum up: IngoB is saying, like the curate, that parts of his egg are very good.
Dafyd
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Whereas what he should deduce is that the RCC is in a pretty bad state.
Actually, I think he made this point himself.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
FCB wrote, "Is there some other alternative that I have not considered?"
Yes. Some of us are very forgiving. I also have suffered from the RCC's sins.
Hmmmm. I don't think I am particularly forgiving (and certainly not very forgiving), so I guess I'm stuck with blind, stupid or corrupt as my options.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
IngoB wants to deduce from his analogy that the state of the body of Christ has no implications for the functioning of the RCC. Whereas what he should deduce is that the RCC is in a pretty bad state.
To sum up: IngoB is saying, like the curate, that parts of his egg are very good.
Don't put words into my mouth, at least not so stupid ones.
I had Christ after a bad car crash in the emergency room with a paralyzed leg, a smashed arm, a severed hand and malfunctioning internal organs. A doctor may diagnose that Christ's lungs luckily didn't collapse. But that doesn't mean that He's ready for a triathlon, not by a long shot. Christ is substantially in bad shape, and as I already wrote, He could become "healthy" again if all those sick body parts are removed - but in that case "healthy" only as a cripple. To be truly healthy as He should be, He needs healing - not mutilation.
--------------------
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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Lol. People healing Christ. That's a new one. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Hey cool, I don't think that I've ever made an analogy that was misunderstood in so many different ways. It's almost as if people are trying damned hard to misunderstand it. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear man, do you understand what you are typing? How can you write these things about Jesus? How on earth, no matter what point you think you are making, how can you use such imagery for the Healer of mankind, for the One that makes us whole? Don't you realize how much that imagery sucks?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
So, Andreas, do you think one should never say that the body of Christ needs healing (and where did Ingo ever say that we heal Christ's body?)? Or are you just cruising for opportunities to disagree with Ingo?
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
FCB, I notice that today you are using inflammatory language. You attributed rage to the guy with the strange nickname a while ago, and now you speak of cruising. I don't know if I should reply to you now, or if I should wait until you get back to normal.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
IngoB
This may not be all you were intending to say, but this is what I got personally from your analogy.
The church is the body of Christ. It's divisions are a continuing wound and disfigurement. And Christ is identified with his church. He gave himself so that it might exist. He laid down his life for his friends. And his friends are divided from one another. That is a tragedy. It weakens the body of Christ in the world. We are today his hands, his feet, his head, his heart. Our divisions therefore wound his body. Prevent it displaying in full, the fullness of the resurrection life.
I am sure I have not fully "got" you and I can see why some Shipmates have found some of the wording unhelpful. It's a bit like reading a CDF document ...
--------------------
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
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
FCB, I notice that today you are using inflammatory language. You attributed rage to the guy with the strange nickname a while ago, and now you speak of cruising. I don't know if I should reply to you now, or if I should wait until you get back to normal.
If it helps, I'll rephrase my question: are you just looking for opportunities to disagree with Ingo?
Certainly there is nothing inflammatory about the word "looking."
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
IngoB has made many posts about that. Only tonight did I respond to that. Is this me looking for opportunities to disagree?
I think your(pl) mistake is that you apply Jesus' prayer to the institutions that bear the Christian name. I do not think that Jesus was praying for such a unity, and I could never imagine a prayer from Jesus not being fulfilled by the Father. So, as far as I am concerned, Jesus' prayer has been fulfilled and will continue to be fulfilled till He returns in Glory.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
Andreas,
Fine. I see your point, though it seems to me closer to a kind of Free Church ecclesiology than an Orthodox one (i.e. a complete disjunction between the body of Christ and ecclesiastical institutions). But this may simply show my lack of understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology.
Still -- just to be clear -- Ingo was not suggesting that we are the ones who heal Christ. I presume he thinks that in the end it is only God who can bring about the wholeness of Christ's body.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear FCB,
I think that it is worth searching the way our churches and cultures view institutions, but anyway.
Aside from who is supposed to heal Christ, the idea of a Christ in need seems unacceptable to me. Christ is in no need whatsoever even when we think he is poor. A Christ in need of healing is not Jesus.
I also think that especially in this thread we need to examine Jesus' prayer as recorded in John more carefully. For whom does He pray? What is the content of His prayer?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Christ is in no need whatsoever even when we think he is poor. A Christ in need of healing is not Jesus.
Matthew 25:34-40 would seem to say something different.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
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?
Could I bring an Electric Guitar? Tamborines are wayyy too old fashioned for my Catholic Church!
Max
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
FCB, those verses crossed my mind, but what are you saying? We have Christ talking with the Samaritan woman for example. While he was hungry before he met her, he is satisfied by the time his disciples return. The same approach he takes when Satan asks him to turn stones into bread. What was his need? If he was in need of food or of followers or of glory or of anything else, it would have been very easy that he satisfied his needs. In my view Jesus acts in complete freedom and in that freedom He calls us as well. We are called to be like Him, full of richness even when the world thinks we are afflicted, with living water, even if the world thinks we are thirsty.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
How can you write these things about Jesus? How on earth, no matter what point you think you are making, how can you use such imagery for the Healer of mankind, for the One that makes us whole? Don't you realize how much that imagery sucks?
We are the Body of Christ on earth. I am, you are, ken is, Gordon Cheng, and even Myrrh... But this Body is sick here on earth - weak, twisted, bruised, divided, and torn. To deny this is to deny reality. We can - and ought - contribute to making it less so. We are true moral agents and this is our Christian duty. Of course, all the good we achieve in this and any other matter is by the grace of God. (Are you suggesting to read more St Augustine? How ... curious.) You could try to work this into the analogy by talking about the immune system being supported by psychological disposition of the Head. Whatever. Grace was not the point of my analogy, and it doesn't have to serve all possible purposes at once.
Barnabas62, you have understood one important part of my analogy very well, but ignored the other entirely. Or perhaps you simply do not accept that part, namely where the "substance" of Christ's body is.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
May I point out on the FCB Andreas1984 that to my eyes one of you is showing distinct hyper Calvinistic tendencies while the other seems to have adopted proof texting. I am not sure what either of these argument techniques are doing in an exchange between a Roman Catholic and an Orthodox but am interested to note there use.
Oh and as liberal Reformed Churches has spent ages proving that there was no single pattern to the early church. No this has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism, its just that so many of our brethren have claimed to be recreating the pure early church just as Jesus left it, that it rather got in the way of integrity within debate. I really am not sure what Roman Catholics think they are doing reviving this idea.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
Perhaps someone can tell me how to use scripture without proof texting. We Catholics are pretty new to using this so-called "Bible."
[ 13. July 2007, 19:44: Message edited by: FCB ]
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
When Jesus prays to the Father that His disciples are one like They are One, he describes for whom He is praying. He says that He gives them His peace, that they will be having joy that cannot be taken from them, that whatever they ask from the Father, He will fulfill, that they will be having eternal life, etc etc. Are we like that? To what extent are we like that? Because, in my view, the prayer for union refers to those people.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
This feels strange:
The maxim I was taught is that a text should not be cited without reference to context and to wider references. In particular that text is part of a parable which reflects on judgement day.
Christ is pictured as a ruler judging people. He as a ruler can takes the kindnesses done and the hurts inflicted on his followers as done to him, this is similar to the actions of earthly rulers. If her majesty's ambassador is insulted is that not an insult to her majesty? What about Saving Private Ryan, is not the ideas in that similar. Christ is behaving as an earthly potentate and accepting what happens to his followers as if it happened unto him. To go further and think it means Christ is injured could well be argued as stretching a apocalyptic parable too far.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
To go further and think it means Christ is injured could well be argued as stretching a apocalyptic parable too far.
Well, the non-apocalyptic Acts 9:4 seems to imply that Christ can suffer in his members. Colossians 1:24 can also be interpreted in the same way. I really did not think that the idea that Christ suffers in his members was a controversial idea, but apparently I was wrong (not the first time).
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Barnabas62, you have understood one important part of my analogy very well, but ignored the other entirely. Or perhaps you simply do not accept that part, namely where the "substance" of Christ's body is.
I suppose that is because I believe there is a great miracle at work here. That God is working His purpose out despite the disfigurement our divisions cause. Our church leader says concerning the church. "It is God's plan A and He has no plan B". And so that may be where I think your analogy breaks down. If I break out of the analogy, in the life of the world to come, the only wounds which will be visible for all eternity are those of Christ. As the hymn writer puts it
"Those wounds yet visible above
In beauty glorified"
So I think Christ lives today both in and despite the wounds to his body. We cannot kill him, or the newness of life there is in him. His wounds are a part of his resurrection life in us. They are a reminder that, for the present, the kingdom is, and is not. They are a reminder of our kinship in him and with one another. And also of our pigheadedness and our frailty. But I still believe God will be all in all.
I suppose I am talking about essence, rather than substance, because, essentially, that is what I see.
--------------------
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
|
|
Davy Wavy Morrison
Shipmate
# 12241
|
Posted
As others have said here and elsewhere, many of us who are Protestant are very thankful that the Pope and the Vatican have said what they have said, even though we disagree strongly. Too many non-RCs have had their heads in the sand for a long time when it comes to ecumenism and church union (and by that I mean outward union of denominations, not the unity for which Jesus prayed and which all true believers have).
Friendly relationships between Catholics and Protestants are to be applauded, but not if we play make-believe and fail to acknowledge the very serious differences in doctrine which exist. It is tragic that a basic understanding of salvation is at stake and yet we say so many conflicting things on the subject. One church claiming to be the only true church doesn't help matters, but it is better to know that this is official Roman Catholic belief than to stumble about in the dark.
Posts: 406 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The maxim I was taught is that a text should not be cited without reference to context and to wider references. In particular that text is part of a parable which reflects on judgement day.
And is the context and wider references of a parable that reflects on judgement day?
Is Jesus reflecting upon judgement day just to give his disciples some information on the end of the world? Or is apocalyptic, like prophecy, actually about the present state of affairs?
Dafyd
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Don't put words into my mouth, at least not so stupid ones.
I apologise.
Nevertheless, I suggest that if your analogy is being widely misunderstood, that might mean that the analogy is not a very good one.
Dafyd
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
