PDA

View Full Version : Holy See Welcomes Anglican Christians into Catholic Church



megimoo
10-20-2009, 10:17 AM
The prayers of millions have been answered and Christian history has been made on October 20, 2009. 'May They Be One'
snip

Cardinal William Joseph Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; and Archbishop Augustine DiNoia, Secretary of the Congregation for the Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, the Vatican Congregations who will oversee Anglican Christians entering into the full communion of the Catholic Church.

ROME (Catholic Online) - In an absolutely stunning announcement on the morning of October 20, 2009, the Holy See has, by Apostolic Constitution, provided the canonical vehicle for Anglican Christians to be received into full communion with the Catholic Church. Throughout the evening expectations rose throughout the world along with the fervent prayers of millions who have longed to see this day.

Many Catholics have watched in prayer with hopeful, heartfelt longing for their Christian brethren in the Anglican Communion. Many Anglican Christians have suffered from the ravages of their community from within brought about by moves away from Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Now,there is a way to the safe harbor of the Catholic Church.

This morning the Vatican offered a lifeline into the Ark of Peter for Anglican Christians who wish to avail themselves of the invitation. Expectations had been that, in response to the formal petition of the “Traditional Anglican Communion” for a vehicle for corporate entry into full communion, the Holy See would offer a juridic structure under Canon Law similar to the “personal prelature” which is the global organizing vehicle for the ecclesial movement Opus Dei.

In essence it provides a “floating” global Diocese wherein the prelature has its own Bishops and its own priests while welcomed alongside of the existing Dioceses of the Catholic Church.

However, the announcement from Rome is much farther reaching and, for Vatican watchers, nothing short of spectacular in its implications for Anglican Christians seeking a place in the Church captained by the successor of Peter.

"The Anglican Communion Will Now Essentially Have It's Own 'Cannon Law' Within The Greater Catholic Church,Welcome Back Brethren !"

Pope Benedict XVI has offered to establish “Personal Ordinariates”, the structure offered for those in the military, within which to care for Anglicans, lay and clergy, while enabling them to maintain the liturgical and spiritual unique distinctives of their tradition.

That is correct, the Roman Catholic Church by way of an “Apostolic Constitution” will provide the process which will allow for Anglican Christians to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church.

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=34677
....................................

linda22003
10-20-2009, 10:46 AM
[B][SIZE="3"]
"The Anglican Communion Will Now Essentially Have It's Own 'Cannon Law' Within The Greater Catholic Church,Welcome Back Brethren !"


"Cannon" law? They're getting us back by shooting at us? :eek:

Gingersnap
10-20-2009, 11:14 AM
Whoa - let's get a grip here.

The RCC has had a "back door" for traditional Anglicans for quite a while now. The Catholic Church recognizes the Anglican Use. This is a traditional and liturgical branch that emphasizes the particular English heritage of some Continuing Anglicans. It's decidedly Anglo-Catholic.

This announcement isn't so much the creation of something new as it is the expansion of already existing authorities. Now Anglicans who wish to join Rome but to retain at least the outward structures of Anglicanism will be able to do so under the guidance of personal ordinariates. This structure will accommodate Anglican clergy (married or not) who have converted and who wish to retain an Anglican identity within the RCC.

This is not the much desired Anglican Rite.

This announcement will encourage some Anglo-Catholics to convert and it will cheer some very conservative Roman Catholics who will now have the opportunity to attend a much more reverential mass. The fundamental issues that underlie the schism are not really addressed here. That will disappoint some and it will mean no difference at all to others. It will mightily annoy Canterbury, however, so that's a plus. :D

FlaGator
10-20-2009, 11:16 AM
I must look in to this. I wonder how the two bodies operating within the same structure can cope with two extremely divergent views on Justification?

Gingersnap
10-20-2009, 11:37 AM
I must look in to this. I wonder how the two bodies operating within the same structure can cope with two extremely divergent views on Justification?

They can't which is why this isn't a real unification nor a separate rite. It's for people who can accept the RCC's authority on doctrine and theology but who want an Anglican flavor to their liturgy.

Rockntractor
10-20-2009, 11:48 AM
"Cannon" law? They're getting us back by shooting at us? :eek:

Linda Numbers and Mr. Moo. Happy together!:)

linda22003
10-20-2009, 12:42 PM
Suffice it to say I'm not swimming the Tiber for Megi. I'm not swimming it for any reason.

PoliCon
10-20-2009, 12:54 PM
They can't which is why this isn't a real unification nor a separate rite. It's for people who can accept the RCC's authority on doctrine and theology but who want an Anglican flavor to their liturgy.

It's political not theological.

GrumpyOldLady
10-20-2009, 01:30 PM
I must look in to this. I wonder how the two bodies operating within the same structure can cope with two extremely divergent views on Justification?

What do you think their 'extremely divergent' views on justification are?

Catholics and Lutherans - justification statement 1999
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea1.asp


Two key Protestant slogans are "justification by grace alone" and "justification by faith alone." (These do not contradict each other since they are speaking on different levels of what causes justification.)

Catholics have never had trouble affirming the first slogan, though Protestants commonly believe they do. But both Catholics and Lutherans often have wrongly thought that Catholics must reject the second slogan.

This confusion is based on a misreading of canon 9 of Trent's Decree on Justification, which rejects the proposition that "the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will" (emphasis added).

As a careful reading of this canon shows, not every use of the formula "faith alone" is rejected, but only those that mean "nothing else is required," etc. If one acknowledges that things besides the theological virtue of faith are required, then one's use of the "faith alone" formula does not fall under the condemnation of Trent.

The classic Catholic alternative to saying that we are saved "by faith alone" is to say that we are saved by "faith, hope, and charity." It is, however, possible for these two formulas to be equivalent in meaning.

When Martin Luther was busy messing around with the bible, he added the words 'faith alone'.
Sola scriptura is a Luther invention.

Anglican - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(theology)#Anglican


Justification, the establishment of a relationship with God through Christ, and sanctification go hand in hand. In historic Anglicanism, the eleventh article of the Thirty-Nine Articles made it clear that justification cannot be earned, "We are accounted righteous before God... not for our own works or deservings".[29]

Both Catholics and Anglicans believe that justification cannot be earned.
So where's the problem??

Gingersnap
10-20-2009, 01:30 PM
It's political not theological.

How well I know but it's more than mere politics. It's also a strategic move involving the Magisterium of the RCC and that is theological. However, relatively few cradle Catholics understand the role of the Magisterium so it's a good bet that very few disaffected Anglicans will give it a moment's thought.

megimoo
10-20-2009, 01:49 PM
Linda Numbers and Mr. Moo. Happy together!:)Get a grip,that will never happen .What a simple little mind old numbers has .She even made a little 'whitty' one all by herself !

PoliCon
10-20-2009, 02:18 PM
Linda Numbers and Mr. Moo. Happy together!:)

rotflol! Moo has to accept her now cause the Pope says so! :D

FlaGator
10-20-2009, 02:19 PM
What do you think their 'extremely divergent' views on justification are?

Catholics and Lutherans - justification statement 1999
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea1.asp



When Martin Luther was busy messing around with the bible, he added the words 'faith alone'.
Sola scriptura is a Luther invention.

Anglican - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(theology)#Anglican



Both Catholics and Anglicans believe that justification cannot be earned.
So where's the problem??

It is my understanding that Catholics believe that salvation can be lost, thus the penances after confession. If someone has to do penances to regain salvation then that would be a work and Paul told us that salvation is by faith alone.

Sola Scriptura has nothing to do specifically with salvation. I think you meant Sola Fide. Sola Scriptura says that Scripture is the only true source of authority and when church doctrine deviates from Scripture then the church has erred. Christ himself told us that belief in him was the only requirement to salvation. Paul also taught in Romans that all else (good works, baptism, etc) are outward symbology to publicly proclaim our faith (by their works you shall know them). We do these things because the Holy Spirit drives us to do them, not because we need them for salvation.

megimoo
10-20-2009, 02:48 PM
What do you think their 'extremely divergent' views on justification are?

Catholics and Lutherans - justification statement 1999
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea1.asp



When Martin Luther was busy messing around with the bible, he added the words 'faith alone'.
Sola scriptura is a Luther invention.

Anglican - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(theology)#Anglican



Both Catholics and Anglicans believe that justification cannot be earned.
So where's the problem??

In writing lectures on Psalms, Romans, and Galatians from 1513 to 1516 Luther came to the conclusion, fundamental to Protestant theology, that man depends for his salvation on the sheer grace of God, made available through the sacrificial death of Christ.
....................................
Christ is not primarily the terrible judge who condemns sinners, but the redeemer upon the cross. Man has only to believe and to accept in trust what God has done to be forgiven, even though sin is never entirely taken away.
..........................
This was to become the central doctrine of Luther's creed: the doctrine of justification by faith.

"Salvation is GODS Gift to Us Through Faith In The Christ !"
...............................
and again :
The critical point at which Luther's position diverged from that of the Catholic Church was in his absolute denial of man's ability to do anything whatsoever toward his own salvation.
...................................
The Church taught that through grace man is given by God the ability to fulfill His commandments. Since man is free to reject this grace, if he accepts it instead and performs good works, his deeds are meritorious.
.....................................
But Luther affirmed that when good deeds are performed with an eye to reward they are damnable sins.
........................................
Junker Jorg:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Martin_Luther

Gingersnap
10-20-2009, 03:02 PM
Both Catholics and Anglicans believe that justification cannot be earned.
So where's the problem??

Justification is hardly the only issue separating Anglicans and Roman Catholics. Most Continuing Anglicans
agree with the 39 Articles. While there is some latitude on what an individual may privately think about some of these issues, many of them concern fundamental doctrinal differences. Essentially, differences that frame a wholly Reformed viewpoint. A viewpoint that is not shared by Rome.

Many Catholics naturally long for a time when all Christians become Catholics (specifically Roman Catholics). There's nothing wrong with having a pious wish like this but Catholics probably need to understand that there is nothing particularly compelling about it to people in a reformed faith.

It's completely possible to adhere to a reformed view of Christianity while retaining the reverential attitude toward liturgy, prayer, and the habits daily life that were characteristic of the RCC before VCII. ;)

FlaGator
10-20-2009, 03:10 PM
Justification is hardly the only issue separating Anglicans and Roman Catholics. Most Continuing Anglicans
agree with the 39 Articles. While there is some latitude on what an individual may privately think about some of these issues, many of them concern fundamental doctrinal differences. Essentially, differences that frame a wholly Reformed viewpoint. A viewpoint that is not shared by Rome.

Many Catholics naturally long for a time when all Christians become Catholics (specifically Roman Catholics). There's nothing wrong with having a pious wish like this but Catholics probably need to understand that there is nothing particularly compelling about it to people in a reformed faith.

It's completely possible to adhere to a reformed view of Christianity while retaining the reverential attitude toward liturgy, prayer, and the habits daily life that were characteristic of the RCC before VCII. ;)

That whole authority of the Pope thing is a major stumbling block for me. I'm Sola Scriptura

linda22003
10-20-2009, 04:01 PM
Exactly. He's a nice old guy in a dress and he has pretty red shoes, but he has nothing to do with me.

FlaGator
10-20-2009, 04:19 PM
Exactly. He's a nice old guy in a dress and he has pretty red shoes, but he has nothing to do with me.

Are you talking about the pope or Megi?

;)

linda22003
10-20-2009, 04:24 PM
Are you talking about the pope or Megi?

;)

The pope. I've never pictured Megi as someone who actually owns shoes.

megimoo
10-20-2009, 04:53 PM
That whole authority of the Pope thing is a major stumbling block for me. I'm Sola Scriptura

It sounds like to me at least that Christ intended his church to continue after St Peter with a succession of his followers Shepherding his Flocks !

Papal continuity
NIV© And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

NAS© "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

ISV© I tell you that you are Peter, and it is on this rock that I will build my congregation, and the powers of hell will not conquer it.

GWT© You are Peter, and I can guarantee that on this rock I will build my church. And the gates of hell will not overpower it.

KJV And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

AKJ And I say also to you, That you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

ASV And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

BBE And I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock will my church be based, and the doors of hell will not overcome it.

DRB And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

DBY And I also, I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and hades' gates shall not prevail against it.

ERV And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

WBS And I say also to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

WEY And I declare to you that you are Peter, and that upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the might of Hades shall not triumph over it.

WEB I also tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

YLT 'And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it;
..................................................
Papal Lineage Table
ST. PETER ca.33 - ca.67 ST. LINUS ca.67 - ca.76
ST. CLETUS ca.76 - ca.91 ST. CLEMENT I ca. 91- ca.100
ST. EVARISTUS ca. 100 - ca. 105 ST. ALEXANDER I ca.105 - ca.115
ST. SIXTUS I ca.115 - ca.125 ST. TELESPHORUS ca.125 - ca.138
ST. HYGINUS ca.138 - 140 ST. PIUS I ca.140 - ca.154
ST. ANICETUS ca.155 - ca.166 ST. SOTER ca.167 - ca.175
ST. ELEUTHERIUS ca.174 - ca.189 ST. VICTOR I ca.189 - 199
ST. ZEPHYRINUS ca. 99 - ca.217 ST. CALIXTUS I ca.217 - ca.222
ST. URBAN I ca.222 - ca.230 ST. PONTIAN 230 - 235
ST. ANTERUS 235-236 ST. FABIAN 236-250
ST. CORNELIUS 251-253 ST. LUCIUS 253-254
ST. STEPHEN I 254-257 ST. SIXTUS 257-258
ST. DIONYSIUS 259-268 ST. FELIX I 269-274
ST. EUTYCHIAN 275-283 ST. CAIUS 283-296
ST. MARCELLINUS 296-304 ST. MARCELLUS I 308-309
ST. EUSEBIUS 309 or 310 ST. MILTIADES 311-314
ST. SYLVESTER I 314-335 ST. MARK 336
ST. JULIUS I 337-352 LIBERIUS 352-366
ST. DAMASUS I 366-384 ST. SIRICIUS 384-399


SNIP,SNIP,`SNIP,`SNIP,`SNIP,`SNIP,`SNIP,`SNIP,`SNI P


BENEDICT XIV 1740-1758 CLEMENT XIII 1758-1769
CLEMENT XIV 1769-1774 PIUS VI 1775-1799
PIUS VII 1800-1823 LEO XII 1823-1829
PIUS VIII 1829-1830 GREGORY XVI 1831-1846
PIUS IX 1846-1878 LEO XIII 1878-1903
ST. PIUS X 1903-1914 BENEDICT XV 1914-1922
PIUS XI 1922-1939 PIUS XII 1939-1958
John Paul I 1978
John Paul II 1978-2005
Benedict XVI 2005—

Total: 266 Popes in,The Shoe's of The Fisherman, from St Peter to Benedict XVI .

http://www.cfpeople.org/Books/Pope/poptab.htm

Gingersnap
10-20-2009, 05:21 PM
We just don't think Rome has lock-down on succession. ;)

Bubba Dawg
10-20-2009, 05:24 PM
Is Holy See Latin for Gentleman's C? :confused:

hampshirebrit
10-20-2009, 05:45 PM
The pope. I've never pictured Megi as someone who actually owns shoes.

LMAO.

Best putdown ever. :D:D:D

JB
10-20-2009, 06:21 PM
"Cannon" law? They're getting us back by shooting at us? :eek:WTF. Could someone timeout this freaking troll behavior. Every freaking thread. Pass a few up, you'll get better mileage out of the others.

Damn you're annoying.

FlaGator
10-20-2009, 06:45 PM
It sounds like to me at least that Christ intended his church to continue after St Peter with a succession of his followers Shepherding his Flocks !

http://www.cfpeople.org/Books/Pope/poptab.htm (http://www.cfpeople.org/Books/Pope/poptab.htm)


And where do you get the idea that I said otherwise? I believe that there is a succession that followed Peter but where did id say that it would follow directly from Peter. Also when the Great Schism happened, how do you know that the line of succession didn't go East to Constantinople? Peter was first the Bishop of Antioch and then the Bishop of Rome but Rome was not the center of Christian activity. That was still the middle east and western asia.

linda22003
10-20-2009, 09:00 PM
WTF. Could someone timeout this freaking troll behavior. Every freaking thread. Pass a few up, you'll get better mileage out of the others.

Damn you're annoying.

Don't read my posts. I'll live with that, somehow.

PoliCon
10-20-2009, 11:07 PM
That whole authority of the Pope thing is a major stumbling block for me. I'm Sola Scriptura

I can't be sola Scriptura because I know that before the bible was - there was a church. I'll grant that things need to be verified by scripture - but there is more to life and this walk than scripture. As for the Pope - I'll give him first amongst equals - but the idea of papal infallibility makes me wanna laugh myself to death. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
10-20-2009, 11:17 PM
[SIZE="2"]

It sounds like to me at least that Christ intended his church to continue after St Peter with a succession of his followers Shepherding his Flocks !

Papal continuity <snip>
KJV And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

<snip> Moo dear boy - you're going to have to learn the importance of CONTEXT. Lets examine that passage in context shall we?


Mat 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Mat 16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
Mat 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Mat 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.



The Rock upon which the church shall be built is the confession that Peter made - Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Peter is named Petros - or PIECE OF ROCK in the Greek - where as the church is built upon PETRA - which is MASS OF ROCK. If anyone has any doubts as to this - read just 5 verses further and the foundation of the Roman church is named by Christ to be SATAN. If the church is built on Peter it's built on sand because Peter screwed up royally and repeatedly. I'm not saying he wasn't first amongst the apostles - but he was a human being and a VERY flawed one at that. The church is built on a FIRM foundation - the revelation and confession that Jesus is the Christ - the very Son of God.

JackKetch
10-20-2009, 11:19 PM
I can't be sola Scriptura because I know that before the bible was - there was a church. I'll grant that things need to be verified by scripture - but there is more to life and this walk than scripture. As for the Pope - I'll give him first amongst equals - but the idea of papal infallibility makes me wanna laugh myself to death. :rolleyes:

I wonder if you understand what papal infallibility really means. Most people, including many if not most Catholics,
don't.

PoliCon
10-20-2009, 11:55 PM
I wonder if you understand what papal infallibility really means. Most people, including many if not most Catholics,
don't.

it mean that when the Pope is speaking 'from the throne' on matters of faith or morals he cannot speak error - which is bullshit because popes for generations have contradicted each other. :rolleyes:

I know very well what it means - I know it's origins - and I know the arguments that were made both for and against it at Vatican I.

Rockntractor
10-21-2009, 12:06 AM
Is Holy See Latin for Gentleman's C? :confused:

Holy see holy do.

GrumpyOldLady
10-21-2009, 08:11 AM
It is my understanding that Catholics believe that salvation can be lost, thus the penances after confession. If someone has to do penances to regain salvation then that would be a work and Paul told us that salvation is by faith alone.

I found this from an official Catholic site http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm
- as opposed to non catholic sites that just want to bash. (Jack Chick comes to mind)
It seems pretty good at explaination.
I didn't see anything that said Catholics believe that penance after confession regains salvation.
I did see it say something about penance being an outward sign of what is inside and that it is 'healing'.

As for what Catholics say about 'being saved' - The Catholic Response from Catholic Answers - "As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."

Catholics do not believe in 'once saved always saved'.
Neither do I.
If you proclaim to be Christian and then go out murdering someone and think you'll get to heaven anyways so it doesn't matter- then you have turned your back on Christ and you go to hell. Judas comes to mind.

Penances after confession have nothing to do with 'regaining salvation' according to the Catholic Church.
(I think that's what they are saying)
This is what I found on what they officially believe about Confession.
Confession (http://www.catholic.com/library/Confession.asp)
History of Penance (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9512frs.asp)

Penance - From their catechism -


All Christ’s faithful are obliged by divine law, each in his or her own way, to do penance. However, so that all may be joined together in a certain common practice of penance, days of penance are prescribed. On these days the faithful are in a special manner to devote themselves to prayer, to engage in works of piety and charity, and to deny themselves, by fulfilling their obligations more faithfully and especially by observing the fast and abstinence which the following canons prescribe. (CIC 1249)

One of many bible contradiction - James 2:17 'faith without works is dead'
That would be a fun thread ... bible contradictions.

I'm thinking that the Anglican and Catholic views on 'justification' aren't in conflict at all. If Catholics really thought you could buy your way into heaven with works, then they wouldn't believe that children could get into heaven. Afterall, they are too young to do 'works'. And they wouldn't believe that old people or disabled people could get into heaven. They are incapable of works. But the Catholics definatley believe they can get into heaven.

I'm just not seeing where they believe you have to do works to get into heaven. Sorry.

GrumpyOldLady
10-21-2009, 08:21 AM
I'm not giving you a hard time, PolCon. I'm honestly curious ...


popes for generations have contradicted each other. :rolleyes:

I'd LOVE to see exactly which popes have contradicted other popes declarations ex-cathedra on faith.
If you have those .... please post them. Thanks.


If the church is built on Peter it's built on sand because Peter screwed up royally and repeatedly.
You'd best take that up with Christ then because he did say he was building his church upon Peter.
Matthew 16:18
Peter is human. He made big mistakes. We all do.
But I'm not sure where in scripture we see him making theological mistakes.
If you have those ... please post them. Thanks.


but there is more to life and this walk than scripture.
AMEN. Scripture even agrees with you.
It says that Christ taught so much that all the books in the world couldn't hold what he taught and did.
That's a lot of missing information, isnt' it.

GrumpyOldLady
10-21-2009, 08:23 AM
A long time ago I was in the US Army as a Chaplain Assistant. We had to learn the basics about a bunch of different religions. Everything from Catholic to Baptist to Hindu to Jewish to Wiccan. There were A LOT of people coming in with strange notions about the different religious beliefs. They had gotten their education through their own bigoted religious leaders and 'hate tracts' like Jack Chick. They were all in for a rude awakening when they actually learned and educated themselves about what those different groups REALLY believed. Kinda shook their little worlds up a bit.

That's why I'm interested. Finding out what people REALLY believe as opposed to what people think those people believe kind of stuck with me all these years.

bflavin
10-21-2009, 09:17 AM
Firstly, while this is a big thing, what I think is bigger about it is that it gives a means to brind the SSPX (Traditionalist Catholic group that broke off after Vatican II) back into the Church. That would be fantastic if the idea of a personal ordinariate like this would be applied to the SSPX when/if both parties come to agreement on the few doctrinal issues remaining.

Secondly, for the Sola Scriptura folks:

1) Keep in mind that there was a Church before there was a Bible, thus establishing that Tradition is, and has always been, an integral key to the Faith.

2) Prove to me that the Bible truly is the Word of God, without using the Bible as proof.

The idea here is to, obviously, not use the Bible as proof it is what it says it is. I could write on a piece of paper, "This is the Bible and is the Word of God.", and we would have to assume that the piece of paper is the Bible because it says it is. So, how do you know that the Bible is the Word of God?

BTW, I'm an ex-seminarian from the Catholic Church. I have a vested interest in this debate. ;)

GrumpyOldLady
10-21-2009, 09:27 AM
SSPX (Traditionalist Catholic group that broke off after Vatican II)
I'm pretty sure they subscribe to the papal bull Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V and his declaration ex cathedra that the Mass must never change. Pope Paul VI definately changed the mass. He proclaimed it to be 'the same' as the Pre-Vatican II Mass. But that was a lie. It's night and day different. The fact that protestants sat on the board to change the mass is an astounding fact that the Catholic Church doesn't advertise to it's followers.

bflavin
10-21-2009, 09:37 AM
I'm pretty sure they subscribe to the papal bull Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V and his declaration ex cathedra that the Mass must never change. Pope Paul VI definately changed the mass. He proclaimed it to be 'the same' as the Pre-Vatican II Mass. But that was a lie. It's night and day different. The fact that protestants sat on the board to change the mass is an astounding fact that the Catholic Church doesn't advertise to it's followers.

That sounds right.

Really, the biggest problem with VII was that the council was hijacked by leftists towards the end that wrecked everything. Some Msgr. or Bishop by the last name of Bugini (I think) was the biggest player in that fiasco. The Mass as originally intended by the council really didn't deviate much from the traditional Mass.

I've been attending the old Mass for the last 3 years or so and prefer it greatly to the new Mass. Wife and I actually got married using the old Mass (FWIW, a few pics of the wedding and the church are here (http://http://www.flickr.com/photos/freestyle26/sets/72157606649244150/). Beautiful church.)

Times are changing in the Church, though. A lot more seminarians are more tradition-minded compared to seminarians that went through in the 60's through the mid-90's. Give it 20 or 30 years and we will start seeing a lot of good things going on.

Gingersnap
10-21-2009, 11:18 AM
I'm thinking that the Anglican and Catholic views on 'justification' aren't in conflict at all. If Catholics really thought you could buy your way into heaven with works, then they wouldn't believe that children could get into heaven. Afterall, they are too young to do 'works'. And they wouldn't believe that old people or disabled people could get into heaven. They are incapable of works. But the Catholics definatley believe they can get into heaven.

I'm just not seeing where they believe you have to do works to get into heaven. Sorry.


I have no problem with the RCC but the Anglican church isn't Roman (although it is catholic in the normal sense). Catholics have views on the role of penance, sin, justification, and the afterlife that are at odds with the Via Media. That's fine - for them and for us.

However, tweaking existing Church administrative and liturgical structures to be more superficially appealing to angry, disappointed, or wounded conservative Anglicans isn't very helpful to Anglicans. If the SSPX can use this change to reunite with Rome and if Rome will accept them as a vital thread in the tapestry of the church, I think that's great. We have a large SSPX community on the plains out here and they have built a beautiful church.

We need to solve this problem ourselves and we have the means to do so. Tagging along behind (or within) the RCC isn't going to get it done and looking to crumbling mainline Protestant bodies isn't useful either. We need to look to own history and traditions. ;)

GrumpyOldLady
10-21-2009, 03:21 PM
2) Prove to me that the Bible truly is the Word of God, without using the Bible as proof.
Impossible.

Genesis creation contradicts itself.

Adam and Eve, taken from Summerian texts.

Moses, highly educated Egyptian royalty, took the 10 commandments (with the exception of 'keep holy the sabbath) from the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

Noahs' Ark, also taken from Summerian texts.

Moses told eveyrone not to commit adultry but then told his soldiers they should kill all their captives except the young virgin girls who they could keep to play with. How very God-like. :rolleyes:

Davids Psalms, some come from Egyptian songs to the Sun God Ra written by Akhenaton.
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/psalm104.html (I have a book on this that tells more)
The pagan songs came first. Psalms came second.

Onanism. Poor Onan was forced to marry his dead brothers wife and to make offspring with her.
He 'withdrew' early and later was found dead. Probably had a massive heart attack from the stress
he was under. But the peasants said it was God punishing him for 'spilling his seed'.

Johns famous (and beautiful) 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God) is from Plato. Plato's teachings were known through that area at that time.

Too many bible contradictions to even being to post -
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

The bible was mostly finalized around 350 by the early Catholic Church.
Obviously the bible was written by humans and put together by humans.

It has parts that were INSPIRED by God - IMHO. But it wasn't written by God.
If God had writen it, all sorts of junk wouldn't be in it that is.
IMHO there is too much human influence and interference to be an incorrupt 'Word of God'.

PoliCon
10-21-2009, 05:55 PM
I'm not giving you a hard time, PolCon. I'm honestly curious ...


I'd LOVE to see exactly which popes have contradicted other popes declarations ex-cathedra on faith.
If you have those .... please post them. Thanks.

Take a moment and read through all the papal BULLS that have been issued over the ages - Bulls by their very nature and definition are ex-cathedra statements. But they don't talk about those any more.



You'd best take that up with Christ then because he did say he was building his church upon Peter.
Matthew 16:18
Peter is human. He made big mistakes. We all do.
But I'm not sure where in scripture we see him making theological mistakes.
If you have those ... please post them. Thanks.
You are quite welcome to believe that if you like - and you can claim that the RCC is built on Peter - and that could well be the case - but the Church universal is not built on old Jelly legs - deny me thrice - get thee behind me satan - Simon Petros. It is built upon the Petra which is the revelation given by God to Peter that Jesus is the Christ - the very Son of God. Amusing that the RCC teaches and preaches that to deny Peter as the foundation of the church is to go into damnation - like I need Peter to know Jesus. :rolleyes:



AMEN. Scripture even agrees with you.
It says that Christ taught so much that all the books in the world couldn't hold what he taught and did.
That's a lot of missing information, isnt' it. I verify all my beliefs with Scripture. :)

PoliCon
10-21-2009, 05:56 PM
A long time ago I was in the US Army as a Chaplain Assistant. We had to learn the basics about a bunch of different religions. Everything from Catholic to Baptist to Hindu to Jewish to Wiccan. There were A LOT of people coming in with strange notions about the different religious beliefs. They had gotten their education through their own bigoted religious leaders and 'hate tracts' like Jack Chick. They were all in for a rude awakening when they actually learned and educated themselves about what those different groups REALLY believed. Kinda shook their little worlds up a bit.

That's why I'm interested. Finding out what people REALLY believe as opposed to what people think those people believe kind of stuck with me all these years.

I got my religious education through studying the teachings of the different churches for myself. :cool:

GrumpyOldLady
10-21-2009, 06:22 PM
you can claim that the RCC is built on Peter -

Not me. Them.
THEY claim it was built on peter.
Scripture sure looks that way.
And yes, Peter failed miserably many times.
That's all I'm saying.
It's built on Peter .. and he fails.

GrumpyOldLady
10-21-2009, 06:23 PM
I got my religious education through studying the teachings of the different churches for myself. :cool:
VERY smart fella!
Never believe what people say about other religions.
Go to the source and find out for yourself.
And even then .. question that source.

I'm preaching to the choir, I can see that.
Smart PoliCon. Very smart. THUMBS UP to you!

PoliCon
10-21-2009, 06:37 PM
Not me. Them.
THEY claim it was built on peter.
Scripture sure looks that way.
And yes, Peter failed miserably many times.
That's all I'm saying.
It's built on Peter .. and he fails.

then if Peter failed miserably - the foundation of the RCC is weak - shifting sand.

PoliCon
10-21-2009, 06:39 PM
VERY smart fella!
Never believe what people say about other religions.
Go to the source and find out for yourself.
And even then .. question that source.

I'm preaching to the choir, I can see that.
Smart PoliCon. Very smart. THUMBS UP to you!

I spent years a while back doing RC apologetics in chatrooms and on more than one web forum. Most people assumed I was a RC priest.

megimoo
10-21-2009, 09:57 PM
Not me. Them.
THEY claim it was built on peter.
Scripture sure looks that way.
And yes, Peter failed miserably many times.
That's all I'm saying.
It's built on Peter .. and he fails.

What do you think that the Christ had in mind when he said ""I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. "? Was it just an expression or a prediction ?

There is a book that you may be interested in ?
The Tomb of St Peter by Margherita Guarducci
Chapter 1 Buried Tombs
It describes the first discovery of The Vatican Necropolis !
....................
The Vatican Necropolis, also known as the Scavi, lies under the Vatican City, at depths varying between 5 and 12 meters below the basilica. The Vatican sponsored archeological excavations under Saint Peter's in the years 1940 - 1949 which revealed parts of a necropolis dating to Imperial times.The work was undertaken at the request of Pope Pius XI who wished to be buried as close as possible to Peter the Apostle. Peter is said to be buried there due to its proximity to the Circus of Nero where he was martyred. It is also home to the Tomb of the Julii, which has been dated to the third or fourth century.
...........................

http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Necropolis/JW/TheBonesofStPeter-2.htm#buried

bflavin
10-22-2009, 05:38 AM
then if Peter failed miserably - the foundation of the RCC is weak - shifting sand.

So if the foundation of the Catholic Church is weak, what does that say about every protestant denomination that split off of the Church?

People fail. It's a fact of life. No one is perfect. Peter was a human being, just like every other Pope that came after him.

The foundation of the Catholic Church is Christ himself, who appointed Peter to be the head of the Church Militant, or the Church on Earth. Christ has said that he will not leave his Church, and thus far is looks like he hasn't.

PoliCon
10-22-2009, 06:22 AM
So if the foundation of the Catholic Church is weak, what does that say about every protestant denomination that split off of the Church? Well if Rome were the foundation of the protestant church - well that's one thing - but since it's not - well then.. . . .


People fail. It's a fact of life. No one is perfect. Peter was a human being, just like every other Pope that came after him. yup


The foundation of the Catholic Church is Christ himself, who appointed Peter to be the head of the Church Militant, or the Church on Earth. Christ has said that he will not leave his Church, and thus far is looks like he hasn't.yup

bflavin
10-22-2009, 07:22 AM
Well if Rome were the foundation of the protestant church - well that's one thing - but since it's not - well then.. . . .
yup
yup

How is Rome not the foundation? If it wasn't for the Catholic Church, the Protestant churches would not exist.

PoliCon
10-22-2009, 07:53 AM
How is Rome not the foundation? If it wasn't for the Catholic Church, the Protestant churches would not exist.

If not for the RCC - the reformation never would have happened - true - but that only means that it never would have had to happen. :)

bflavin
10-22-2009, 07:56 AM
If not for the RCC - the reformation never would have happened - true - but that only means that it never would have had to happen. :)

Ah ha. Now I see where you are going, I think.

So PoliCon, I'm curious...which particular religious tradition do you subscribe to?

megimoo
10-22-2009, 08:16 AM
I have no problem with the RCC but the Anglican church isn't Roman (although it is catholic in the normal sense). Catholics have views on the role of penance, sin, justification, and the afterlife that are at odds with the Via Media. That's fine - for them and for us.

However, tweaking existing Church administrative and liturgical structures to be more superficially appealing to angry, disappointed, or wounded conservative Anglicans isn't very helpful to Anglicans. If the SSPX can use this change to reunite with Rome and if Rome will accept them as a vital thread in the tapestry of the church, I think that's great. We have a large SSPX community on the plains out here and they have built a beautiful church.

We need to solve this problem ourselves and we have the means to do so. Tagging along behind (or within) the RCC isn't going to get it done and looking to crumbling mainline Protestant bodies isn't useful either. We need to look to own history and traditions. ;)
I don't see the Popes actions as tweaking ! I believe that his intent was to provide a 'safe place' for Conservative Anglicans to worship as they always have.Rome has little interest in converting Anglicans to Christianity as some of you are already better Christians than we are !

GrumpyOldLady
10-22-2009, 09:15 AM
then if Peter failed miserably - the foundation of the RCC is weak - shifting sand.
Ah .. but he came back even stronger and died for Christ.
So is it built on shifting sand, or is it built on someone who overcame his human failings to die for Christ?
Good question. Good discussion. Dunno the answer though ...


[SIZE="2"]What do you think that the Christ had in mind when he said ""I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. "? Was it just an expression or a prediction ?

Since you ask what I think ... I think Christ was saying that He wanted Peter in charge of things after He died and ascended to heaven. Someone has to be in charge. Peter was the closest to Christ and so it makes sense. (like when Christ told Peter to go catch the fish and he'd find coins to pay the temple tax for both Christ and Peter .. no one else, etc) As for the 'the gates of hell shall not prevail' ... that means that IN THE END, Hell won't win over the church. There will be battles that will be won and lost, but in the end the war will be won by the church.

That's what I figure anyways. It's as good of an interpretation as any I suppose.


Well if Rome were the foundation of the protestant church - well that's one thing - but since it's not - well then.. . . .
It kinda is. The Bible comes from the Catholics. 350 AD they put it together.


If not for the RCC - the reformation never would have happened
Well .. if not for Martin Luther being a sexaholic it wouldn't have happened.
Have you read some of the things he said?
"if the wife is unwilling then take the maid' ... etc etc
Sick guy. Unbalanced even.
Those that wanted 'reforming' were aghast at what he wanted to do to the bible.
I have a book with their quotes in it. I'll see if I can dig it up and post some of it.

megimoo
10-22-2009, 09:59 AM
Ah .. but he came back even stronger and died for Christ.
So is it built on shifting sand, or is it built on someone who overcame his human failings to die for Christ?
Good question. Good discussion. Dunno the answer though ...



Since you ask what I think ... I think Christ was saying that He wanted Peter in charge of things after He died and ascended to heaven. Someone has to be in charge. Peter was the closest to Christ and so it makes sense. (like when Christ told Peter to go catch the fish and he'd find coins to pay the temple tax for both Christ and Peter .. no one else, etc) As for the 'the gates of hell shall not prevail' ... that means that IN THE END, Hell won't win over the church. There will be battles that will be won and lost, but in the end the war will be won by the church.

That's what I figure anyways. It's as good of an interpretation as any I suppose.


It kinda is. The Bible comes from the Catholics. 350 AD they put it together.


Well .. if not for Martin Luther being a sexaholic it wouldn't have happened.
Have you read some of the things he said?
"if the wife is unwilling then take the maid' ... etc etc
Sick guy. Unbalanced even.
Those that wanted 'reforming' were aghast at what he wanted to do to the bible.
I have a book with their quotes in it. I'll see if I can dig it up and post some of it.

I once went to a Christian Dramatisation of St. Peter speaking to a small group of early Christians meeting in the catacomb's in Rome during Nero's persecutions . The man playing St. Peter and the rest were dressed as they would have been in period clothing and they weren't actors but just amateur players but they were really believable .

Peter bitterly regretted his denying The Christ and player had real tears in his eyes as he portrayed Peter .He longed die to be with Christ but knew that he must continue for the sake of his brethren and the gospel.That play left an lasting impression more for the actors passions and for his obvious love of Christ.

It also left me with a better understanding of the man that was the Fisherman Peter !A bold rough man with a tendency to push and pull his way through a life's problem as a fisherman would.He did the things he did for his love of Jesus and in his way was trying to protect Christ when he struck off the mans ear.

He didn't understand that Jesus had to die and he actively tried to prevent his death .Jesus lashed out at him in righteousness and Peter was hurt and shamed so he withdrew but never stopped loving Jesus.

His voice and passion as he portrayed a bemoaned Peter's not being with Jesus would rend your heart and draw tears .They,all of the apostles, were drawn to and struck with an overwhelming passion for the Christ so much so that they were willing to die for him and his words.

The Church isn't built on sand ,it's built on love of Christ in St.Perter and his Brethren .

PoliCon
10-22-2009, 06:00 PM
Ah ha. Now I see where you are going, I think.

So PoliCon, I'm curious...which particular religious tradition do you subscribe to?

Christian.

PoliCon
10-22-2009, 07:01 PM
Ah .. but he came back even stronger and died for Christ.
So is it built on shifting sand, or is it built on someone who overcame his human failings to die for Christ?
Good question. Good discussion. Dunno the answer though ...Sure he died for Christ. But he still screwed up repeatedly even after Christ died. Took James to put him in his place at the council of Jerusalem.




Since you ask what I think ... I think Christ was saying that He wanted Peter in charge of things after He died and ascended to heaven.Okay - if that's the case - why didn't Peter take up residence and head the church in Jerusalem which was clearly the center of Christianity? Instead he left the center of the church - the heart of the church and went missionary. Not that that is a bad thing - but - hardly the head of the church.


Someone has to be in charge. of everything? James was in charge in Jerusalem remember?


Peter was the closest to Christ and so it makes sense. I hate to break it to you - but they didn't call John 'beloved' because Christ liked Peter better.


(like when Christ told Peter to go catch the fish and he'd find coins to pay the temple tax for both Christ and Peter .. no one else, etc) You might wanna go and look the passage up - Christ had no interest in paying that tribute - but Peter opened his mouth - stuck his foot in and Christ once again gave him a way out.




As for the 'the gates of hell shall not prevail' ... that means that IN THE END, Hell won't win over the church. There will be battles that will be won and lost, but in the end the war will be won by the church.My dear - if you're looking for the church to win battles - good luck to ya. Myself - I look to Christ to win. His is the victory.


That's what I figure anyways. It's as good of an interpretation as any I suppose. there you hit gold - it is an interpretation - and one of many.



It kinda is. The Bible comes from the Catholics. 350 AD they put it together. My dear - there was no capital C catholic Church in 350. There was just the church of which Rome was first amongst equals. Which is why Nicaea happened without the pope even being involved.



Well .. if not for Martin Luther being a sexaholic it wouldn't have happened.
Bullocks. The reformation was going to happen with or without Luther. It didn't start with Luther and did not finish with him either. He was just one of many key players who recognized the MASSIVE corruption in the RCC at the time. FURTHERMORE - Luther had no interest what ever in breaking with the church. He only did so when the church forced it to happen.

Have you read some of the things he said?
"if the wife is unwilling then take the maid' ... etc etc
Sick guy. Unbalanced even. N more or less so than King David - or Moses - or Peter - or 90% of the Popes. Hell John XII turned the Lateran palace into a brothel.

Those that wanted 'reforming' were aghast at what he wanted to do to the bible. And what is it that he wanted to do to the Bible? I'm betting you don't know what you think you know about it :)

I have a book with their quotes in it. I'll see if I can dig it up and post some of it.I can quote mine too - but I'll refrain. :p

PoliCon
10-22-2009, 07:02 PM
I once went to a Christian Dramatisation of St. Peter speaking to a small group of early Christians meeting in the catacomb's in Rome during Nero's persecutions . The man playing St. Peter and the rest were dressed as they would have been in period clothing and they weren't actors but just amateur players but they were really believable .

Peter bitterly regretted his denying The Christ and player had real tears in his eyes as he portrayed Peter .He longed die to be with Christ but knew that he must continue for the sake of his brethren and the gospel.That play left an lasting impression more for the actors passions and for his obvious love of Christ.

It also left me with a better understanding of the man that was the Fisherman Peter !A bold rough man with a tendency to push and pull his way through a life's problem as a fisherman would.He did the things he did for his love of Jesus and in his way was trying to protect Christ when he struck off the mans ear.

He didn't understand that Jesus had to die and he actively tried to prevent his death .Jesus lashed out at him in righteousness and Peter was hurt and shamed so he withdrew but never stopped loving Jesus.

His voice and passion as he portrayed a bemoaned Peter's not being with Jesus would rend your heart and draw tears .They,all of the apostles, were drawn to and struck with an overwhelming passion for the Christ so much so that they were willing to die for him and his words.

The Church isn't built on sand ,it's built on love of Christ in St.Perter and his Brethren .

Tell me - is Peter more important than Christ in the church?

Bubba Dawg
10-22-2009, 07:13 PM
Christian.

Well said, Poli.

PoliCon
10-22-2009, 07:36 PM
Well said, Poli.

It's the truth.