Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
"By their fruits shall ye know them."

---

Yes, indeed! That's a, if not the, bottom line for me, too.

quote:

---

Are you telling me that the fruits immediately prior to (and, for that matter, immediately following) the Reformation were good?

---

If looking at the fruits is worthwhile, then looking at all of them is. Why would we confine ourselves to one unhappy small sliver of time as though it were normative? Over two millennia I have no trouble defending the fruits of the Catholic church. They include the foundation of our civilization and the preservation of the written sources of our Greco-Roman heritage. They include magnificent music, architecture, and art. They include monasticism and mysticism. They include great saints. I admire the ideals that these various elements of the Catholic experience uphold. I warm to many devout Roman Catholics whom the church has molded and who personify those ideals.

---

quote:

---

By contrast, my impression is that Protestant ideals are more superficial, and a number of Protestant sects cultivate personality traits that I find downright repugnant.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by noneen:
while i don't agree with aologon (excuse spelling!! ), the following statement makes me want to eat the computer in frustration !!

quote:

---

Why aren't you RC then?

---

why do people (including those of us christians who are still human, and not perfected ) feel like we can't admire the best in those who are different to us, .... why the need to insist people choose sides of a fence !?!?

its one thing to insist that a person choose their position on a particular argument (!) ... but another to insist they choose their church/ faith immediately, simply as part of an on-going argument (discussion !!)

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

And Schweitzer moved easily among Catholics,

---

What a fascinating statement! I'm not sure how it fits into the argument, though. I can't think you mean "Moves easily among Catholics" means "Practically RC already"! For the record, I "move easily among Catholics".

My own point is - as I'm sure you know - that the best Protestant Christians match the best Catholic and Orthodox Christians because they are good Christians. The worst of all of them make one's flesh creep, and often, interestingly, in denominationally differentiated ways. But - for me, at least - to a remarkably similar degree.

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posted                          

quote:

---

I find it curious that someone who is in a denomination that is essentially protestant should espouse the virtues of Catholicism whilst thinking that the ideals of huge parts of their own tradition are superficial.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Do you mean catholic, not Catholic? And you're a protestant if you're not either Orthodox or Roman. Fairly simple.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Alogon:

quote:

---

And Schweitzer moved easily among Catholics,

---

What a fascinating statement! I'm not sure how it fits into the argument, though. I can't think you mean "Moves easily among Catholics" means "Practically RC already"! For the record, I "move easily among Catholics".

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Do you mean catholic, not Catholic? And you're a protestant if you're not either Orthodox or Roman. Fairly simple.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Alogon:
quote:

And Schweitzer moved easily among Catholics,


What a fascinating statement! I'm not sure how it fits into the argument, though. I can't think you mean "Moves easily among Catholics" means "Practically RC already"! For the record, I "move easily among Catholics".


That would be the castors.

---

"EX-TER-MIN-ATE! EX-TER-MIN-ATE!!"

ChastMastr:

quote:

---

If by "Protestant" someone means "not having Apostolic Succession and Sacraments and the lot"

---

quote:

---

For his sake we have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that we may gain Christ
and be found in him, not having a righteousness of our own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
The tragedy of the sixteenth century was that the periodic or even constant reformation process this time resulted in large-scale schism, and once that had taken place the inevitable polarisation led to some extremely nasty outcomes.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I have been known to comment that if you scratch an Englishman and you will find some protestant bigotry not too far from the surface (and no, I am not Irish - I do not have a drop of Irish blood in me). This anti-Catholic nonsense is in the blood, and the misconceptions and untruths seem to be passed on with mother's milk to every English child. Just as anti-protestant anti-British nonsense is passed on to every Irish child. And this, I am sure, is replicated in situations throughout the world.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Do you mean catholic, not Catholic? And you're a protestant if you're not either Orthodox or Roman. Fairly simple.

---

Unless, of course, you're Coptic.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
ChastMastr,
Well, by catholic, I mean the widespread, universal, invisible church. The one I talk about when I say the creeds.

---

quote:

---

Catholic, on the other hand, I see as being shorthand for Roman, which came out of what the church fathers formed when they started shifting from the position of "no salvation outside the church" being true by definition (because the church was made up of all who were saved) to a postion of it meaning "no salvation outside the bishops". It's when the universality became a limiting factor, not a description.

---

quote:

---

I started a thread once questioning what was so great about AS, which you may remember, so you can probably guess that I'm not all that sold on the idea. And as for ACs etc claiming the AS, I'd say that I view that as some protestants getting cold feet and wanting to emulate something which they're not, and if they really wanted to be Catholic they'd cross the Tiber.I suppose that to put it another way, I view Catholicity (your definition) arising as a sort of excuse to justify Catholicism (my definition). It wasn't needed much anymore once one big church was formed, and then people who aren't Catholic (my definition) decided to rehash the left-behind concept because that way they could get the name 'Catholic' without really being so.

As far as I see it, if you're Anglican, you're a member of a church which has, "Be of good conduct, Master Ridley, and play the man. For today..." in its history, so like it or not, you're protestant.

---

quote:

---

[10].In the present situation of the lack of unity among Christians and of the confident quest for full communion, the Catholic faithful are conscious of being deeply challenged by the Lord of the Church. The Second Vatican Council strengthened their commitment with a clear ecclesiological vision, open to all the ecclesial values present among other Christians. The Catholic faithful face the ecumenical question in a spirit of faith.

The Council states that the Church of Christ "subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him", and at the same time acknowledges that "many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside her visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner dynamism towards Catholic unity".

---

quote:

---

Ingo, I suppose that's where "semper reformanda" comes in.

---

quote:

---

The Catholic Church thus affirms that during the two thousand years of her history she has been preserved in unity, with all the means with which God wishes to endow his Church, and this despite the often grave crises which have shaken her, the infidelity of some of her ministers, and the faults into which her members daily fall. The Catholic Church knows that, by virtue of the strength which comes to her from the Spirit, the weaknesses, mediocrity, sins and at times the betrayals of some of her children cannot destroy what God has bestowed on her as part of his plan of grace. Moreover, "the powers of death shall not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18). Even so, the Catholic Church does not forget that many among her members cause God's plan to be discernible only with difficulty. Speaking of the lack of unity among Christians, the Decree on Ecumenism does not ignore the fact that "people of both sides were to blame",13 and acknowledges that responsibility cannot be attributed only to the "other side". By God's grace, however, neither what belongs to the structure of the Church of Christ nor that communion which still exists with the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities has been destroyed.Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
The tragedy of the sixteenth century was that the periodic or even constant reformation process this time resulted in large-scale schism, and once that had taken place the inevitable polarisation led to some extremely nasty outcomes.

---

Let's be fair to the reformers as well though. The tragedy of the sixteenth century was that it's hard to imagine what else but a catastrophic schism followed by the wholesale slaughter of entire people could have shaken the Roman Catholic Church out of its near catatonic state. It was shock therapy, and as far as I can see it was necessary. That's not the issue for me, at all. The issue for me is that frankly, with the reforms from Trent to Vatican II the reformation is by any objective standards over and done with. Mission accomplished, time to return to Mother Church who is once more looking holy and healthy. Yet, there are plenty of "Protestants" still around. I think the Protestatants have protested themselves into a plethora of tight little corners and are now themselves growing increasingly stiff and stale. This is a truly sad irony of history. And unfortunately I don't see what could possibly be used as "shock therapy" to shake the Protestants out of it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by U:
The direction of this debate, whilst very informative about so many different aspects of Christian history that I don't know about, sort of highlights my point. A very simple request, to love, and a very simple action, forgiving, has been made so very very complex. Would I be wrong in suggesting that many individuals would take a look at the Christian world and describe it as extremely daunting and not have a clue which way to turn?

What would people say is the one basic absolute fundamental of Christianity and all things Christian?

I think it is U (hence my name ). ie Christianity is all about You. Placing you before me. Being a ewe (no sexism intended, just most flocks of sheep are primarily ewes) in a flock of sheep lead by Jesus, saying eww to all things evil and saying to God "I choose YOU, I love YOU".

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Surely if you're Anglican, you're both Protestant and Catholic - or better still Reformed and Catholic? At least, that's how I understand it...

---

And I as well. I only quibble with the term Protestant if it's being meant as not having Apostolic Succession and definitely valid, real-presence-not-just-a-symbol, Sacraments. (The issue of whether the Lutherans do or don't has been another thread -- I'm thinking more of the further end of the Protestant matrix where there is an active disbelief in either AS or in more-than-symbolic, almost "magical" Sacraments or in priests as specifically Sacramental, etc. etc. etc.)

I think Reformed and Catholic is closer to my understanding. But in any case the words are only pointing to concepts and whatever words are used, these are the concepts to which I adhere. And while I know we disagree (I know ken does, for example, though I am often more on the same page with him than many other posters otherwise. Hi ken! ) I don't think it need be with rancor.

David

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Christianity is about loving God first and above all, utterly and completely - and because of your love of God, loving your neighbour as yourself, so that you can deepen your love of God even more ... and so on in a virtuous circle.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Christianity is about loving God first and above all, utterly and completely - and because of your love of God, loving your neighbour as yourself, so that you can deepen your love of God even more ... and so on in a virtuous circle.

---

This works for me, but it's hardly universal. For some people, loving their neighbor is the first step -- or rather being loved by their neighbor, and loving that neighbor in return -- and it's through other people that they discover God. I see absolutely no reason to insist that loving God comes first, especially when in so many people's experience this is simply not the case.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But I took DS to mean first, not in the sense of "chronologically prior", but first as in "most importantly".

---

quote:

---

... because of your love of God, loving your neighbour as yourself ...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I don't know if you understand that the way your post was worded really does come across, at least to me, as saying that if someone really loves Jesus, then they will have no real ties to any family on earth, with the corollary that if someone has real ties to any family on earth then they -- that is, I, and quite a wide range of people including your fellow Shipmates -- must not really love Jesus. Do you understand how that might come across?

...

quote:

---

I wish I could just assume blamelessness and speak freely as I would wish for anyone around me because that is what a true christian is, blameless, without sin, forgiven...

---

How do you mean "blameless" and "without sin" here? Because I don't think many of us here would claim to be actually sinless or assume that others here on Earth are.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I agree with you, CB, but what you said is not what Duo said.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by U:
The direction of this debate, whilst very informative about so many different aspects of Christian history that I don't know about, sort of highlights my point. A very simple request, to love, and a very simple action, forgiving, has been made so very very complex. Would I be wrong in suggesting that many individuals would take a look at the Christian world and describe it as extremely daunting and not have a clue which way to turn?

What would people say is the one basic absolute fundamental of Christianity and all things Christian?

I think it is U (hence my name ). ie Christianity is all about You. Placing you before me. Being a ewe (no sexism intended, just most flocks of sheep are primarily ewes) in a flock of sheep lead by Jesus, saying eww to all things evil and saying to God "I choose YOU, I love YOU".

---

No - Christianity is about loving God first and above all, utterly and completely - and because of your love of God, loving your neighbour as yourself, so that you can deepen your love of God even more ... and so on in a virtuous circle.

How was saying a number of incorrect things about Catholics and the Catholic Church and asking whether we were Christian an expression of that principle?

Have we managed to convince you that we Catholics are Christian? Have you in fact learned something? Or are you going to fudge it by saying that it's all too "daunting". Step up to the mark, U and take some responsibility for the contentious nature of the OP.

---

I fully agree with all points of view expressed on this post and that each individual firmly believes in what they are saying and it is not wrong because noone (as far as I can see) is intentionally lying.

I do not know enough about church history to enter into any details about the ideas expressed about the various histories of various churches. I in no way mean this insultingly, but I don't care to know. In my opinion people are placing far too much stock in themselves, their choices, their insititutions and what they do and not enough stock in Jesus or God. The discussion herein is beyond the realm of the vast majority to enter into and as such is beyond the reach of ordinary individuals to whom Jesus wanted His lessons to be given. Whilst such discussions may have a place in everyday life for those who wish it, it will not help anybody who does not already have an intrinsic knowledge of and interest in the institutions man created to house God rather than vice versa. It is way too complex because man created it not God, and whilst God would do His best to ensure His Word is not lost in the intricacies of the institutions, that will only become harder for normal average everyday individuals to see unless a major simplification occurs. I hope you don't see that as side-stepping because I am not trying to. As I said I do not have the knowledge to argue with you.

Oh, and U in my description is about choosing YOU God, above and beyond all others and from You, through You and in you loving you neighbours and you friends and even you enemies, and coincidence number 234563 in the list is the word tu, Latin for you that connects the cross to the letter and means you, but that's an aside and just part of my personal beliefs as are everything I have said herein.

And Duo, in answer to a question you may or may not be thinking, RC is no worse or better than other churches. I think that given the time and position RC has had, any church would head down the same path RC has. I do however feel that RC is the greatest responsibility to the world to show them Christ and correct any mistakes they are making, because it is from RC that others sprang and RC has the greatest claim over tradition. And despite all the arguments why intercession by friends is not a bad thing, I still think it BETTER to go to Jesus and from Jesus be filled with the Holy Spirit and in that that perform God's will. But these are just my beliefs and as has been said, to each their own

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by U:
I fully agree with all points of view expressed on this post and that each individual firmly believes in what they are saying and it is not wrong because noone (as far as I can see) is intentionally lying.

---

Did you just say that, if someone expresses a point of view, if they believe it and they're not lying, then you agree with them?

That doesn't make sense. If I believe that milk is good for you, and someone else believes that it's bad for you, you can't agree with both of them. You can disagree with both, and you can be agnostic on the subject, but you surely can't believe in both. Unless, of course, you're the White Queen. She could do it easily, before breakfast.

quote:

---

I do not know enough about church history to enter into any details about the ideas expressed about the various histories of various churches. I in no way mean this insultingly, but I don't care to know.

---

quote:

---

The discussion herein is beyond the realm of the vast majority to enter into and as such is beyond the reach of ordinary individuals to whom Jesus wanted His lessons to be given.

---

quote:

---

Whilst such discussions may have a place in everyday life for those who wish it, it will not help anybody who does not already have an intrinsic knowledge of and interest in the institutions man created to house God rather than vice versa. It is way too complex because man created it not God, and whilst God would do His best to ensure His Word is not lost in the intricacies of the institutions, that will only become harder for normal average everyday individuals to see unless a major simplification occurs.

---

quote:

---

And Duo, in answer to a question you may or may not be thinking, RC is no worse or better than other churches.

---

quote:

---

Viewing the Catholic Church as a whole from my perspective looks like a spiritual equivalent of the ancient Roman Empire that does more to keep people out of Heaven than guide them in.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by U:
I fully agree with all points of view expressed on this post and that each individual firmly believes in what they are saying and it is not wrong because noone (as far as I can see) is intentionally lying.

---

Did you just say that, if someone expresses a point of view, if they believe it and they're not lying, then you agree with them?

That doesn't make sense. If I believe that milk is good for you, and someone else believes that it's bad for you, you can't agree with both of them. You can disagree with both, and you can be agnostic on the subject, but you surely can't believe in both. Unless, of course, you're the White Queen. She could do it easily, before breakfast.

quote:

---

I do not know enough about church history to enter into any details about the ideas expressed about the various histories of various churches. I in no way mean this insultingly, but I don't care to know.

---

Then why did you ask a question about the Catholic Church? To ask, then say, "Don't tell me, I don't want to know" -- what's the point of that?

quote:

---

The discussion herein is beyond the realm of the vast majority to enter into and as such is beyond the reach of ordinary individuals to whom Jesus wanted His lessons to be given.

---

It might be beyond you, but that doesn't mean it's beyond the reach of other people. Don't project your limitations onto other people. It isn't nice.

quote:

---

Whilst such discussions may have a place in everyday life for those who wish it, it will not help anybody who does not already have an intrinsic knowledge of and interest in the institutions man created to house God rather than vice versa. It is way too complex because man created it not God, and whilst God would do His best to ensure His Word is not lost in the intricacies of the institutions, that will only become harder for normal average everyday individuals to see unless a major simplification occurs.

---

Except that the Church was founded by Jesus and is led by the Holy Spirit. So your statement that it's created by man and not by God is just wrong. Do you think God is too simple to do something complex?

quote:

---

And Duo, in answer to a question you may or may not be thinking, RC is no worse or better than other churches.

---

Then why on earth did you say this in your OP?

quote:

---

Viewing the Catholic Church as a whole from my perspective looks like a spiritual equivalent of the ancient Roman Empire that does more to keep people out of Heaven than guide them in.

---

It seems to me, U, that you owe every Roman Catholic on the ship an apology. Your self-professed ignorance is not an excuse to be rude.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by U:
I fully agree with all points of view expressed on this post and that each individual firmly believes in what they are saying and it is not wrong because noone (as far as I can see) is intentionally lying.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by U:
I don't think you understood any of what I wrote but I will accept full blame for not explaining myself well enough. I can however not explain myself any better so I fail. Sorry. No, not sarcastic, not hurtful, just stating a fact and apologising for my shortcoming.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by U:
And despite all the arguments why intercession by friends is not a bad thing, I still think it BETTER to go to Jesus and from Jesus be filled with the Holy Spirit

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Surely if you're Anglican, you're both Protestant and Catholic - or better still Reformed and Catholic? At least, that's how I understand it...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But I took DS to mean first, not in the sense of "chronologically prior", but first as in "most importantly".

---

Duo said:

quote:

---

... because of your love of God, loving your neighbour as yourself ...

---

And this causality implies that love of God comes chronologically first. I agree with you, CB, but what you said is not what Duo said.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by U:
I do not know enough about church history to enter into any details about the ideas expressed about the various histories of various churches. I in no way mean this insultingly, but I don't care to know.

---

quote:

---

people are placing far too much stock in themselves, their choices, their insititutions and what they do and not enough stock in Jesus or God.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by U:
I fully agree with all points of view expressed on this post and that each individual firmly believes in what they are saying and it is not wrong because noone (as far as I can see) is intentionally lying.

---

Did you just say that, if someone expresses a point of view, if they believe it and they're not lying, then you agree with them?

That doesn't make sense. If I believe that milk is good for you, and someone else believes that it's bad for you, you can't agree with both of them. You can disagree with both, and you can be agnostic on the subject, but you surely can't believe in both. Unless, of course, you're the White Queen. She could do it easily, before breakfast.

quote:

---

I do not know enough about church history to enter into any details about the ideas expressed about the various histories of various churches. I in no way mean this insultingly, but I don't care to know.

---

Then why did you ask a question about the Catholic Church? To ask, then say, "Don't tell me, I don't want to know" -- what's the point of that?

quote:

---

The discussion herein is beyond the realm of the vast majority to enter into and as such is beyond the reach of ordinary individuals to whom Jesus wanted His lessons to be given.

---

It might be beyond you, but that doesn't mean it's beyond the reach of other people. Don't project your limitations onto other people. It isn't nice.

quote:

---

Whilst such discussions may have a place in everyday life for those who wish it, it will not help anybody who does not already have an intrinsic knowledge of and interest in the institutions man created to house God rather than vice versa. It is way too complex because man created it not God, and whilst God would do His best to ensure His Word is not lost in the intricacies of the institutions, that will only become harder for normal average everyday individuals to see unless a major simplification occurs.

---

Except that the Church was founded by Jesus and is led by the Holy Spirit. So your statement that it's created by man and not by God is just wrong. Do you think God is too simple to do something complex?

quote:

---

And Duo, in answer to a question you may or may not be thinking, RC is no worse or better than other churches.

---

Then why on earth did you say this in your OP?

quote:

---

Viewing the Catholic Church as a whole from my perspective looks like a spiritual equivalent of the ancient Roman Empire that does more to keep people out of Heaven than guide them in.

---

It seems to me, U, that you owe every Roman Catholic on the ship an apology. Your self-professed ignorance is not an excuse to be rude.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by U:
And despite all the arguments why intercession by friends is not a bad thing, I still think it BETTER to go to Jesus and from Jesus be filled with the Holy Spirit

---

It's not an either/or thing. Catholics are allowed to pray to Jesus (and the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the whole Trinity) as well.

Praying to saints isn't a substitute for prayer to God - it is, for some, an aid and an encouragement in prayer. It isn't an obligation, it is a privilege.

You don't have to do it yourself, and if it is a problem for you, then you probably shouldn't (I almost never do). However because you are a Christian, and therefore share in all that Christ is and has done, you have that freedom if you want to exercise it. If you ever feel it would be helpful to you to say something to a fellow Christian who is now with the Lord, you can do so. Some traditions find it helpful.

I'm not entirely convinced by the answers to the 'call no man father' question. Yes, I can see that a strictly literal reading is ruled out (I don't think I break the command by addressing certain classes of judge as 'Master' or 'My Lord', for example), but Jesus did, I assume, mean something by saying this.

I think there is a clear encouragement here to move away from honours and titles in the church. A priest who is concerned for his own status and for the way in which he is addressed probably isn't doing the job he is called to, and if you look hard enough, you can probably find such priests in all denominations. Probably Catholics more than most for the sole reason of their having more opportunity for such abuse to be noticed - but everyone who has tried to dominate their own little workplace, church or household by force of personality is in the same trap.

But on the other hand, we are commanded that we should in humilty esteem others more highly than ourselves, and that means treating them with appropriate, and culturally conditioned, respect. It seems obviously right to me for Christians to grant honour to leaders of the church, in order to honour our Lord, even if it would be wrong for the leaders to insist on any such thing.

We don't use respectful titles much in everyday life, so addressing a priest as "Father" can jar, simply because it is unusual outside particular traditions. I'm sure it becomes familiar soon enough - moving from a school where the teachers were "Mr [whatever]" to one where they were "Sir" felt strange to me for about a week - then it was natural. Addressing a judge as "Master" felt strange exactly once - then it was just another formal title. If I ever move to a church where the priest is "Father" I'll get used to it - and it will be the proper way to show the respect that is due to him as a minister of God, and that I ought to be showing to my priest however he is customarily addressed.

---

Thankyou and I agree

The main problem that I can see is that the people of the Church themselves made up these titles. Jesus didn't call anyone on earth His Father and asked us not to, He called those who taught His way His Disciples therefore for us to do so doesn't really fit into any of what we know he taught and MIGHT be causing more harm than good...

--------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U

Today's post brought to you by the letter U because I like U

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by U:
I think you owe me an apology for trying to force me to believe I am being insulting though it is not intended that way.

---

quote:

---

I pray you can see that I am not trying to be insulting no matter what preconceived notions you have of the nature of this thread.

I never said that RC was worse, I was ASKING. I was stating wrongs as I saw them based on the fundamental truth of Jesus and an intimate knowledge of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and ASKING for input. Do I have to explain every single letter? Is it not enough that I make a blanket statement that I don't mean offense and am sorry if anyone takes it that way because it is definitely not intended that way?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by U:
I thought I did answer ChastMastr, and Josephine, since you seem to have passed judgement on me and are demanding that I apologise I would ask that you please read this with the following in mind "Judge not lest ye be judged". Please also remember that I have not in any way made any intentionally offensive statements about Roman Catholicism, I have always said that I am ASKING, not TELLING.

---

quote:

---

If you choose to read the OP with the view that I am making statements about Roman Catholicism there is nought I can do to change that view except the reminder above.

---

quote:

---

There are 3 major Catholic beliefs that I don't understand how fit into the Word?

---

quote:

---

First of all, Mary who birthed Jesus. God chose her to be a vessel for His son into this world but in no way did He place her above any other women, the focus was all on His Son, not her. Why then is she so intrinsically a part of so many prayers in Catholicism?

---

quote:

---

Thirdly, it is said that the only way to Heaven according to Catholicism is through the Roman Catholic Church.

---

quote:

---

I hope you can see that as people have addressed what I've written I have merely stated the conclusions I have drawn directly related to those statements to ask for any further input.

---

quote:

---

If you believe milk is good for you and you drink it and it keeps you healthy, that is true. If you start to believe that milk is bad for you and it starts making you sick, that also is true. If you then belief it is healthy again and it keeps you well, again it is true. Were you ever wrong?

---

quote:

---

I wasn't asking about the Catholic Church, I was asking about Christianity and how it applies to the Catholic Church. You presumed to answer the question from the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church. What's the point of me asking a question if you don't answer it or make up another question and answer that one?

---

quote:

---

I think you owe me an apology for trying to force me to believe I am being insulting though it is not intended that way.

---

quote:

---

I pray you can see that I am not trying to be insulting no matter what preconceived notions you have of the nature of this thread.

---

quote:

---

I was stating wrongs as I saw them based on the fundamental truth of Jesus and an intimate knowledge of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and ASKING for input.

---

quote:

---

Is it not enough that I make a blanket statement that I don't mean offense and am sorry if anyone takes it that way because it is definitely not intended that way?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:

As far as I see it, if you're Anglican, you're a member of a church which has, "Be of good conduct, Master Ridley, and play the man. For today..." in its history, so like it or not, you're protestant.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by U:
the people of the Church themselves made up these titles. Jesus didn't call anyone on earth His Father and asked us not to, He called those who taught His way His Disciples therefore for us to do so doesn't really fit into any of what we know he taught and MIGHT be causing more harm than good...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

We don't use respectful titles much in everyday life, so addressing a priest as "Father" can jar, simply because it is unusual outside particular traditions.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by U:
I was stating wrongs as I saw them based on the fundamental truth of Jesus and an intimate knowledge of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and ASKING for input.[/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Anglicanism has throughout its history had both catholic and protestant elements,

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
And as for your claim that you're not trying to be insulting, I'm afraid that being effortlessly insulting is not really any nicer. Could you please try not be insulting?
T.

---

Patience! I remember saying plenty of insulting things about gay people in my closeted days. Maybe U. is a closet Catholic on the verge of opening the door. Being fascinated with the apparently forbidden is a classic symptom.

[ 21. February 2006, 15:28: Message edited by: Alogon ]

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.