Anglicans and Catholic Church [article]

philologos

Stephentlig wrote: »

Not at all Jakkass, as the statement clearly says:"the Catholic Church is responding to the many requests that have been submitted to the Holy See from groups of Anglican clergy and faithful in different parts of the world who wish to enter into full visible communion."

I have no issue with Catholicism, what I do have issue with is with policy changes made in order to grasp members who are traditionally from other churches. As for groups like the Traditional Anglican Communion, I understand that, however I do not understand why there is a need to create a separate Anglican rite in order to undermine the teachings of the Church of England or any other national church.

Ironically it also undermines the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on celibacy. It produces a relativism in the church where one set of standards are applied to one, and another to others.

Stephentlig wrote: »

I trust our Holy Fathers response is a great move towards unity, and its called Holy obedience, I'm over the moon. If it happened the other way around Jakkass, No Catholic would bother, as it would mean they'd be leaving Mother Church who is the ark of salvation.

There were other churches before Roman Catholicism even existed.

Stephentlig wrote: »

I'm so happy, that I feel like gathering up all the anglicans I can and throwing a party, getting out my guitar and singing "Give thanks to the Lord always and again I say give thanks, give thanks to the Lord always and again I say give thanks, give thanks, give thanks and again I say give thanks."

I think we need to do better than this. This is unification done in the wrong interest. I don't believe sucking congregants of differing denominations into the Roman Catholic Church is going to solve any of our issues.

Stephentlig

I have no issue with Catholicism, what I do have issue with is with policy changes made in order to grasp members who are traditionally from other churches. As for groups like the Traditional Anglican Communion, I understand that, however I do not understand why there is a need to create a separate Anglican rite in order to undermine the teachings of the Church of England or any other national church.

Ironically it also undermines the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on celibacy. It produces a relativism in the church where one set of standards are applied to one, and another to others.

they havnt changed anything, they are just doing what they did with the eastern Catholics as I've mentioned. celibacy is church practice not dogma.

There were other churches before Roman Catholicism even existed.

then the burden on you is to show me which early church father before the reformation agreed with you on that one Jakkass. because both ignatius and St.Polycarp ( who was ordained bishop by the apostle St.John ) disagree with you Jakkass.


"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

however the above response is a debate for another day.

I think we need to do better than this. This is unification done in the wrong interest. I don't believe sucking congregants of differing denominations into the Roman Catholic Church is going to solve any of our issues.

the Catholic church is only responding to their request.

philologos

Stephentlig wrote: »

then the burden on you is to show me which early church father before the reformation agreed with you on that one Jakkass. because both ignatius and St.Polycarp ( who was ordained bishop by the apostle St.John ) disagree with you Jakkass.

The Hebrew Church of James, the Gentile Church of Paul, the Mar Thomas Church in India, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Nazarenes amongst other Christian groups were not Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism didn't come onto the scene before the Romans legalised Christianity in the Roman Empire, and they wanted to formalise it as the legal church of the State.

Stephentlig wrote: »

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

Catholic meaning "universal" in that context. In the Nicene Creed at Anglican Churches we say that we are a part of the catholic and Apostolic church. I.E We are a part of the universal church of the Apostles which is Christianity. It's impossible to hold any other consensus as James was a part of the Hebrew church, Paul the church of the Gentiles, Thomas the church in India, and Barnabas and Jude the Armenian church. How could that all have been the Roman Catholic church when the Roman Catholic church didn't come into fruition until Roman toleration of Christianity?

Stephentlig wrote: »

"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

Likewise.

Stephentlig

The Hebrew Church of James, the Gentile Church of Paul, the Mar Thomas Church in India, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Nazarenes amongst other Christian groups were not Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism didn't come onto the scene before the Romans legalised Christianity in the Roman Empire, and they wanted to formalise it as the legal church of the State.

I dont see that in scripture, but I do see ( matt 16) where Christ first established his Catholic church upon St.Peter.

really, then I suppose these texts of church fathers quite cleary stating that peter has been given the authority are wrong then?



“Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven...'” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).


“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail...” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

“By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.” Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235).

“'...thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church' ... It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness...If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).
“...folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid...” Firmilian, Epistle To Cyprian, Epistle 75(74):17(A.D. 256).

philologos

Stephentlig wrote: »

I dont see that in scripture, but I do see ( matt 16) where Christ first established his Catholic church upon St.Peter.

I see this reference bandied around the whole time. Nowhere does this refer to the Roman Catholic Church, considering the Roman Catholic Church postdates Christianity by so long it is very difficult for me to piece the two together. Infact I would say it is an anachronism. Jesus was concerned with Christianity, not with the petty denominational disputes of our day.

In Mark chapter 9 he deals with people who weren't formally in Apostolic circles preaching Jesus' name:

Mark 9:38-41 wrote:

John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.

Even if the Roman Catholic Church was the mother church, which I don't regard to be the case, people outside it which practice the faith are practising legitimate Christianity.

As for the Church Fathers, I regard them as fallible men, and I consider their writings as being inferior to Holy Scripture. They are indeed useful, but they are not the final say on any matter of doctrine or of belief in Christianity.

Stephentlig wrote: »

really, then I suppose these texts of church fathers quite cleary stating that peter has been given the authority are wrong then?

This makes the assumption that I regard Peter as the leader of the Roman Catholic Church. I regard Peter as the Apostle assigned to take care of the Christian Church in its first generation. I don't regard him as Pope.

Stephentlig wrote: »

“Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven...'” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

I don't dispute this. This doesn't lead me closer to regarding the Catholic Church as the one true church.

Stephentlig wrote: »

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail...” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

“By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.” Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235).

“'...thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church' ... It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness...If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).
“...folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid...” Firmilian, Epistle To Cyprian, Epistle 75(74):17(A.D. 256).

See above. I have no issue with any of these quotations. They do not explicitly refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The Bible doesn't either. Rather we are dealing with the Christian church in general. I.E universal church = catholic.

universal church does not equal Roman Catholicism exclusively.

BrianCalgary

Matthew 16
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

I would argue that the rock on which the church is built is the fact that "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

And it is not Peter. And yes I think the RC church Fathers are wrong.

Jesus is talking about the answer that Peter gave. It has bee revealed by my Father, and you are Peter and upon this rock (me being the Christ) is what the church will be built on.

Stephentlig

Jakass its absolutle madness to reject the fathers teachings who were closest to the apostles, even when such a request to follow this oral tradition is within Scripture: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." Here paul is teaching us to obey oral tradition and Scripture.
Because 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is so troubling to the sola Scriptura position, Protestants often argue that the oral tradition Paul is referring to had to come from the mouths of the apostles. Their argument further goes that, since all the apostles are deceased, we no longer have to follow oral tradition. This argument, however, cannot be proven from Scripture (which should be possible if sola Scriptura were true) and, in fact, is contrary to Scripture. See for example, 2 Timothy 2:2 where Paul (1st generation) instructs Timothy (2nd generation) to teach others the faith (3rd generation) who will be able to teach others also (4th generation). Such an argument is also inconsistent with the very meaning of tradition (in Greek, "paradosis") which means "to hand on" from one generation to the next.

to qoute Mark 9 goes to show that if we do it in the name of Jesus, we do it in the name of his Catholic church which he built upon Peter, its universal, whether the title be roman/eastern catholic, all answer to Peter, and he is the head of the church on earth.



Peter built the church in Rome.
"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him." Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth." Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out." Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)
"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.'" Gaius, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

Stephentlig

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Matthew 16
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

I would argue that the rock on which the church is built is the fact that "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

And it is not Peter. And yes I think the RC church Fathers are wrong.

Jesus is talking about the answer that Peter gave. It has bee revealed by my Father, and you are Peter and upon this rock (me being the Christ) is what the church will be built on.

Brian, nobody argues that Christ isnt the rock, he is, but he builds his church upon peter also and confers this rock authority upon him, the greek word for for this is tautee, meaning ''This same'' Rock.

philologos

Stephentlig wrote: »

Jakass its absolutle madness to reject the fathers teachings who were closest to the apostles, even when such a request to follow this oral tradition is within Scripture: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." Here paul is teaching us to obey oral tradition and Scripture.

I don't reject them entirely, I consider them subordinate to the Bible which contains all things necessary for salvation. It seems a bit troublesome allowing the breakaway Anglicans to use the Book of Common Prayer when the 39 Articles are included:

6. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be
proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be
thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those
canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Stephentlig wrote: »

Because 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is so troubling to the sola Scriptura position, Protestants often argue that the oral tradition Paul is referring to had to come from the mouths of the apostles. Their argument further goes that, since all the apostles are deceased, we no longer have to follow oral tradition. This argument, however, cannot be proven from Scripture (which should be possible if sola Scriptura were true) and, in fact, is contrary to Scripture. See for example, 2 Timothy 2:2 where Paul (1st generation) instructs Timothy (2nd generation) to teach others the faith (3rd generation) who will be able to teach others also (4th generation). Such an argument is also inconsistent with the very meaning of tradition (in Greek, "paradosis") which means "to hand on" from one generation to the next.

I believe that tradition is useful, I do not believe it to be 100% infallible though. I base my faith on the Scriptures, traditions may accompany this but it is by no means more important.

Stephentlig wrote: »

to qoute Mark 9 goes to show that if we do it in the name of Jesus, we do it in the name of his Catholic church which he built upon Peter, its universal, whether the title be roman/eastern catholic, all answer to Peter, and he is the head of the church on earth.

Nowhere in the Biblical text does it mention the Roman Catholic Church. It would be a gratuitous assumption to do so.

Stephentlig wrote: »

Peter built the church in Rome.
"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him." Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth." Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out." Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)
"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.'" Gaius, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

These quotes do not prove your point. I personally have a copy of Eusebius' Church History, and I find it to be an interesting read, but nowhere do the texts you have quoted suggest that there were no other churches that predate Roman Catholicism. The truth is that there were other churches, and the truth is that it is far more accurate to render the term "catholic" by it's original meaning which is universal. Funny how the user of the term has been turned into something divisive over time.

Stephentlig

I don't reject them entirely, I consider them subordinate to the Bible which contains all things necessary for salvation. It seems a bit troublesome allowing the breakaway Anglicans to use the Book of Common Prayer when the 39 Articles are included:

The burden is on you then Jakkass, to just give me ( as tempted as you and many other will be to qoute a lot ) your best qoute out of the bible that says it contains all things necessary for salvation.

Nowhere in the Biblical text does it mention the Roman Catholic Church. It would be a gratuitous assumption to do so.

you say you accept the term Catholic and yet nowhere in the Bible is the word ''catholic'' used at all. the catholic church was established with Peter, then Peter built the church in rome, doesnt matter whether its called roman catholic or eastern Catholic we are all in obedience to Peter at rome and we are all Catholic since Christ founded his church when he built it upon Peter in Scripture.

These quotes do not prove your point. I personally have a copy of Eusebius' Church History, and I find it to be an interesting read, but nowhere do the texts you have quoted suggest that there were no other churches that predate Roman Catholicism. The truth is that there were other churches, and the truth is that it is far more accurate to render the term "catholic" by it's original meaning which is universal. Funny how the user of the term has been turned into something divisive over time

I'm showing that Peter built the church in rome, Catholism always existed, since christ founded the church upon St.Peter, does not matter whether its called roman or eastern, its catholic and we all are under his authority on earth.

philologos

Stephentlig wrote: »

The burden is on you then Jakkass, to just give me ( as tempted as you and many other will be to qoute a lot ) your best qoute out of the bible that says it contains all things necessary for salvation.

I'll use a couple. I'm not limited.

The first being that the Scriptures contain all things that are profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and teaching in righteousness:

2 Timothy 3:16 wrote:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness

What does righteousness come from?

Romans 4:3 wrote:

For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

How are we saved? -

Romans 3:23-25 wrote:

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus

Through the grace of Jesus Christ! We aren't saved by any works of our own, we aren't saved by tradition, we aren't saved by any of these things. However, by accepting and understanding the Gospel, we gain life itself.

Stephentlig wrote: »

you say you accept the term Catholic and yet nowhere in the Bible is the word ''catholic'' used at all. the catholic church was established with Peter, then Peter built the church in rome, doesnt matter whether its called roman catholic or eastern Catholic we are all in obedience to Peter at rome and we are all Catholic since Christ founded his church when he built it upon Peter in Scripture.

I accept the word catholic in it's original context meaning universal. I do not accept the word "Catholic" as a means of distinguishing one set of Christians as being profoundly more orthodox than the other. It reminds me of Paul's assessment of the church at Corinth:

1 Corinthians 1:12-13 wrote:

What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Personally I am fed up of the denominational tit for tats that go on in the church. We should be far more interested in encouraging belief in Jesus Christ than meaningless point-scoring between denominational groups.

Stephentlig wrote: »

I'm showing that Peter built the church in rome, Catholism always existed, since christ founded the church upon St.Peter, does not matter whether its called roman or eastern, its catholic and we all are under his authority on earth.

Your point makes no sense.

All your point amounts to is that universalism always existed. Yes, the Christian Church existed from the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and the roots were there beforehand. However, we have no evidence that the Roman Catholic Church always existed. That is the issue, not the issue that Christianity existed as a concept.

I believe Jesus has authority over me, not any Pope.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

prinz

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally I am fed up of the denominational tit for tats that go on in the church. We should be far more interested in encouraging belief in Jesus Christ than meaningless point-scoring between denominational groups..

Then you probably shouldn't engage in it...

Jakkass wrote: »

Stephen, whether we like it or not, the Catholic Church are making an unwelcome intervention in Anglican affairs. If this happened the other way around I can only imagine the uproar.

A bit like PDN earlier. First response is some kind of score keeping/them versus us. It seems to me that for the people involved it will be very welcome seeing as how they are pursuing the RCC.

Jakkass wrote: »

Ironically it also undermines the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on celibacy. It produces a relativism in the church where one set of standards are applied to one, and another to others..

I wondered about this. It could prove a poisoned chalice to the RCC in the long run.

Stephentlig wrote: »

I dont see that in scripture, but I do see ( matt 16) where Christ first established his Catholic church upon St.Peter.

IMO that quote is often taken out of context. I think reading over and over that what Jesus meant is that His church would be established upon men such as Peter, not exclusively upon Peter himself. Peter showed himself to be a man of incredible faith, loyalty, willingness to follow Jesus etc, but also to be a man in the imperfect sense. IMO it was more a case of 'my church will be built upon men like you Peter'.

Stephentlig wrote: »

If it happened the other way around Jakkass, No Catholic would bother, as it would mean they'd be leaving Mother Church who is the ark of salvation.

I think you'd be in for a suprise. I think many Catholics would bother if the RCC moved the goalposts in the morning.

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe Jesus has authority over me, not any Pope.

Amen on that, but many Catholics would also agree I suspect. The Pope is a servant, not the master.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

philologos

prinz wrote: »

Then you probably shouldn't engage in it...

I'm not engaging in it. The Pope is engaging in a tit for tat through trying to convert Anglicans to Catholicism. Surely Christianity is just that, Christianity...

prinz wrote: »

A bit like PDN earlier. First response is some kind of score keeping/them versus us. It seems to me that for the people involved it will be very welcome seeing as how they are pursuing the RCC.

I'm quite happy for Catholics to worship in the Catholic Church. I have no interest to convert Catholics to Protestantism.

prinz wrote: »

Amen on that, but many Catholics would also agree I suspect. The Pope is a servant, not the master.

I actually agree with the Pope on many issues, but not this one unfortunately.

prinz

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not engaging in it. The Pope is engaging in a tit for tat through trying to convert Anglicans to Catholicism....

The article doesn't say anything about the Pope trying to convert people

It does mention the RCC facilitating those Anglicans who have willingly approached the RCC first. If this announcement was made out of the blue then yes it would be a bit like trying to tempt people to convert, but it seems to be a response to those who were already willing to convert. If the RCC didn't make these concessions would the same people stay in the Anglican church? I doubt it.

Clemens

I understand the point of view that the protestants are not part of the Catholic Church, even though I don't necessarily agree. It is understandable to me because of the fact that protestants left the Roman Catholic Church.

But what I don't understand is how for example the Greek Orthodox Church could be outside the Catholic Church? What is such a view based on?

When the Catholic Church split in 1054 it was indeed a split. It doesn't mean the Roman Catholic church would be "more catholic" than the Eastern church, or if it does, how do you explain it?

PDN

prinz wrote: »

The article doesn't say anything about the Pope trying to convert people

It does mention the RCC facilitating those Anglicans who have willingly approached the RCC first. If this announcement was made out of the blue then yes it would be a bit like trying to tempt people to convert, but it seems to be a response to those who were already willing to convert. If the RCC didn't make these concessions would the same people stay in the Anglican church? I doubt it.

Actually I saw a report today that says the archbishop of Canterbury has signed off on these new arrangements: http://www.zenit.org/article-27269?l=english

That seems to me a bit like a turkey helping to set the dinner table for Christmas - but each to their own.

prinz

PDN wrote: »

Actually I saw a report today that says the archbishop of Canterbury has signed off on these new arrangements: http://www.zenit.org/article-27269?l=english

That seems to me a bit like a turkey helping to set the dinner table for Christmas - but each to their own.

Is there anything else he could do? Would it serve any useful purpose if he didn't sign off? It's courtesy I suppose, but I mean it's not like they need his permission to do this, or do they? I think it would be great for the RCC to have some new thinking and input. Might shake them up a bit.

Slav

Clemens wrote: »

I understand the point of view that the protestants are not part of the Catholic Church, even though I don't necessarily agree. It is understandable to me because of the fact that protestants left the Roman Catholic Church.

But what I don't understand is how for example the Greek Orthodox Church could be outside the Catholic Church? What is such a view based on?

When the Catholic Church split in 1054 it was indeed a split. It doesn't mean the Roman Catholic church would be "more catholic" than the Eastern church, or if it does, how do you explain it?

Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches see Orthodox as a number of schismatic Churches and therefore outside of the Catholic Church.

Orthodox Churches see Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches as schismatic and/or heretical Churches and therefore outside of the Catholic Church.

So their views on the boundaries of the Catholic Church are different and don't intersect.

wolfsbane

For those who want to examine what the Church Fathers actually taught about Peter being the rock:
The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18
http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html

philologos

prinz wrote: »

Is there anything else he could do? Would it serve any useful purpose if he didn't sign off? It's courtesy I suppose, but I mean it's not like they need his permission to do this, or do they? I think it would be great for the RCC to have some new thinking and input. Might shake them up a bit.

Isn't it possible to have good ecumenical relations without this?

What the Anglican Church needs right now is not to merge with Catholicism, or even merge elements of the church to Catholicism, but to shake out the cobwebs and be clear on certain issues rather than leaving them utterly ambiguous.

prinz

Jakkass wrote: »

Isn't it possible to have good ecumenical relations without this?

I thought this was a good example of ecumenism.

Jakkass wrote: »

What the Anglican Church needs right now is not to merge with Catholicism, or even merge elements of the church to Catholicism, but to shake out the cobwebs and be clear on certain issues rather than leaving them utterly ambiguous.

It seems they already have decided on a clear path on these issues. I don't see how they can continue on when their feelings obviously go as deep as they do on the problems. If they don't join the RCC they will more than likely just form a splinter group/new church IMO.

BrianCalgary

I am seeing an upswell in the Anglican church of Canada amongst University and Bible College students.

The appeal is in the richness of the liturgy and it's historical significance. Mostly conservative Christians who are looking for richness rather than feel good fluff.

Rev Hellfire

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but basically issue here is that Roman Catholic church is facilitating those who wish to move, its not actually going out and witnessing (is that the right word) and actively entering a community.

If all religions are open doors on a road, your complaint is basically they've opened theirs a bit wider than the rest ?

wolfsbane

prinz wrote: »

The article doesn't say anything about the Pope trying to convert people

It does mention the RCC facilitating those Anglicans who have willingly approached the RCC first. If this announcement was made out of the blue then yes it would be a bit like trying to tempt people to convert, but it seems to be a response to those who were already willing to convert. If the RCC didn't make these concessions would the same people stay in the Anglican church? I doubt it.

I agree. The pope is responding in a pastoral way to those who are obviously of his own kind.

Talk of an Annexation is overdone - they are Sudeten Catholics, ready to embrace their leader.

Nodin

fryup wrote: »

Well it is poaching, they've been cunningly doing it for years esp in the UK amongst the establishment.

The ultimate goal is to regain the british throne.

Why wouild they bother? It's the US that rules the waves these days.

Stephentlig

Jakkass wrote: »

I'll use a couple. I'm not limited.

The first being that the Scriptures contain all things that are profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and teaching in righteousness:


What does righteousness come from?


How are we saved? -


Through the grace of Jesus Christ! We aren't saved by any works of our own, we aren't saved by tradition, we aren't saved by any of these things. However, by accepting and understanding the Gospel, we gain life itself.



I accept the word catholic in it's original context meaning universal. I do not accept the word "Catholic" as a means of distinguishing one set of Christians as being profoundly more orthodox than the other. It reminds me of Paul's assessment of the church at Corinth:


Personally I am fed up of the denominational tit for tats that go on in the church. We should be far more interested in encouraging belief in Jesus Christ than meaningless point-scoring between denominational groups.



Your point makes no sense.

All your point amounts to is that universalism always existed. Yes, the Christian Church existed from the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and the roots were there beforehand. However, we have no evidence that the Roman Catholic Church always existed. That is the issue, not the issue that Christianity existed as a concept.

I believe Jesus has authority over me, not any Pope.

I havnt any money left for internt so I'm in a cafe, I'll make this quick.

you say Jesus is your only authority of course he is, and every kingdom needs a prime minister, thats who papa is. your problem is that you cant get one early church father prior to the reformation that agrees with you that the Pope is the authority on earth.

as for your qoute from scripture.

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.


2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.


2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.


2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.


2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.


2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.


2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.
James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.


Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.


2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.
Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.


2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.



you can read more on this jakkass and ask John Salza, Catholic apologist any questions you wish, if you are really sure of yourself and open to the truth then you'll give him a bell and ask him. he is a nice man and I now and again mail him too.


I dont have the time for big debates as my financial situation has forced me off the computer ( maybe thats a good thing ).


I love you and you shall be in my prayers.
I ask for yours also.
God bless and take care
Stephen.

Stephentlig

forgot to give you website.

www.scripturecatholic.com

homer911

Stephentlig wrote: »

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

Actually it was the Jews some time after 100AD. I don't believe the word "Protestant" had been invented then...