Anglicans and Catholic Church [article]

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...

PDN

homer911 wrote: »

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

The deutero-canonical books were used in the Diaspora, not in Palestinian synagogues. Therefore they were not included among the books that both Jesus and His hearers would have understood by 'the Scriptures'.

homer911

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.

As a protestant, may I say that I dont believe that protestants would argue that this means exclusive - you are relying on the argument of others without critical analysis. Nobody would argue that if the bible does not talk about a particular topic, then we can have no opinion on it, or have no idea what God's will is for us on the subject. the Bible in this case has to be "useful" (providing direction), supported by our own consciences, prayer and meditation

Deise Tom

Is there any up to date website, where a list of all Church of Ireland Clergy can be found, listing what parishes they serve in.

offdechain

yes happy days thanks

philologos

Here is a list of the dioceses, parishes info, and rectors.

Deise Tom

Jakkass wrote: »

Here is a list of the dioceses, parishes info, and rectors.

I am aware of that website and was wondering if there was any better. That one does not give all the info i would have hoped to get, things such as names, addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers and maybe the same for retired clergy. I know most catholic diocesian websites have the details on theres and was hoping there would be something similar for the Church of Ireland.

Thanks by the way for that link.

philologos

It gives names, addresses and telephone numbers like the other ones. Click the diocese, and the parish you want, and the contact information for the minister will be there including phone and email.


If you'd like more detail, this can be found in the Church of Ireland Directory, if you request one via their main offices they should be able to send one out to you.

Deise Tom

Jakkass wrote: »

It gives names, addresses and telephone numbers like the other ones. Click the diocese, and the parish you want, and the contact information for the minister will be there including phone and email.


If you'd like more detail, this can be found in the Church of Ireland Directory, if you request one via their main offices they should be able to send one out to you.

Thanks

ShotgunPaddy

PDN wrote: »

It's announcing a change in the rules to specifically promote the transfer of groups of Anglicans into the RC Church. As such it is clearly hoping to

I would see it as similar to Arsenal saying, "We're going to change our wage structure and disciplinary policy to facilitate any Chelsea players that want to join us next season." You can dress such an announcement up however you like - but in the end its essentially a poaching exercise.

Not that I've any problems with that, I believe in the survival of the fittest when it comes to religion, and I'm happy for all churches to do what they can (obviously nothing immoral or dishonest) to attract members.

Really!

The Vatican was petitioned repeatedly by conservative Anglican groups begging for an arrangement that would preserve Anglican liturgical tradition, culture and customs while still permitting affiliation to Rome. Conservative Anglican Bishops were pushed away by the liberals who refused to accommodate their views. They were told to get stuffed so now they have gone over to Rome. Whose fault is that?

Ultravid

ShotgunPaddy wrote: »

Really!

The Vatican was petitioned repeatedly by conservative Anglican groups begging for an arrangement that would preserve Anglican liturgical tradition, culture and customs while still permitting affiliation to Rome. Conservative Anglican Bishops were pushed away by the liberals who refused to accommodate their views. They were told to get stuffed so now they have gone over to Rome. Whose fault is that?

Why is it that liberals are happy to tolerate any view, just so long as it coincides with their own?

I think a good exchange would be for us to take their orthodox people, and they can have our liberals, hippies, and dissenters. After all, I think most dissenters would be happier in the CoE where they can have their homosexuality, abortions, contraception and whatever else tickles their fancy.

We are going to see a showdown pretty soon in the Catholic Church - there is a big separation of sheep and goats coming up and long, long, long overdue. The sooner the better. Cos right now, the goats are trampling over the sheep and doing untold damage and have been allowed to do so for the last forty years or so. Get out, now, is what I say to them.

Deise Tom

Ultravid wrote: »

Why is it that liberals are happy to tolerate any view, just so long as it coincides with their own?

I think a good exchange would be for us to take their orthodox people, and they can have our liberals, hippies, and dissenters. After all, I think most dissenters would be happier in the CoE where they can have their homosexuality, abortions, contraception and whatever else tickles their fancy.

We are going to see a showdown pretty soon in the Catholic Church - there is a big separation of sheep and goats coming up and long, long, long overdue. The sooner the better. Cos right now, the goats are trampling over the sheep and doing untold damage and have been allowed to do so for the last forty years or so. Get out, now, is what I say to them.

There could well be proven to be a King Goat in the Capital who likes to tell people what to do and who appears to have no interest in anyones opinion other than his own.

Ultravid

Deise Tom wrote: »

There could well be proven to be a King Goat in the Capital who likes to tell people what to do and who appears to have no interest in anyones opinion other than his own.

Pope Benedict is no goat. He is simply standing firm on the Church's perennial teaching, which is his duty (cf. Mt. 16:18).

This is the Catholic Faith. There are essentially two choices: 1. learn about it and make a decision for Christ, or 2. Don't bother to learn about why the Church teaches what it does, and continue in one's sinful ways.

The Church, teaching with Christ's authority (cf. Lk. 10:16)*, offers the narrow way of salvation which is everlasting life , but which few find (cf. Mt. 7:14. The world offers the wide, easy descent to perdition.

The fact is, few Catholics were ever taught the Faith: not at home, nor school, nor in church. I taught myself with good Catholic books and websites, such as these:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/
http://www.catholic.com/library/faith_tracts.asp

* http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/LK1016.TXT

Deise Tom

Ultravid wrote: »

Pope Benedict is no goat. He is simply standing firm on the Church's perennial teaching, which is his duty (cf. Mt. 16:18).

This is the Catholic Faith. There are essentially two choices: 1. learn about it and make a decision for Christ, or 2. Don't bother to learn about why the Church teaches what it does, and continue in one's sinful ways.

The Church, teaching with Christ's authority (cf. Lk. 10:16)*, offers the narrow way of salvation which is everlasting life , but which few find (cf. Mt. 7:14. The world offers the wide, easy descent to perdition.

The fact is, few Catholics were ever taught the Faith: not at home, nor school, nor in church. I taught myself with good Catholic books and websites, such as these:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/
http://www.catholic.com/library/faith_tracts.asp

* http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/LK1016.TXT

wasnt referring to the pope.

Ultravid

Deise Tom wrote: »

wasnt referring to the pope.

Who were you referring to?