Episcopal and Anglican, are protestant?

[thecolorsblend]

I have no such expectations.

But I am clear that the Catholic church's current stance rejects those in other churches and treats them as second-class Christians.

In what way are Anglicans treated as "second-class Christians" by the Catholic Church?

 

[Paidiske]

In what way are Anglicans treated as "second-class Christians" by the Catholic Church?

It's not just Anglicans, it's basically everyone except the Orthodox.

It's the language used of us, the way official policies exclude or discourage treating us as members of the one body of Christ, and so on.

Until the day I can take communion alongside you in your church, and you can take communion alongside - or indeed from my hand - in my church, that's rejection of us.

 

[concretecamper]

 

[thecolorsblend]

It's not just Anglicans, it's basically everyone except the Orthodox.

It's the language used of us, the way official policies exclude or discourage treating us as members of the one body of Christ, and so on.

Until the day I can take communion alongside you in your church, and you can take communion alongside - or indeed from my hand - in my church, that's rejection of us.

So you don't want the Catholic Church to change for you.

Rather, all you want is simply for the Catholic Church to change for you?

Do the Church's standards and expectations count for anything here?

 

[Paidiske]

So you don't want the Catholic Church to change for you.

Rather, all you want is simply for the Catholic Church to change for you?

Do the Church's standards and expectations count for anything here?

I said I didn't expect it. Doesn't mean I don't think it should.

I think the Catholic church is wrong on this. And - to come back around to the OP, I guess - I'm free to think that.

 

[thecolorsblend]

As general statement, let me say that I am pained by our separation. I came to traditional Christianity through a small ACNA parish near my old house. I was gradually introduced into an entire universe of theology and tradition that I never knew existed during my evangelical days. There was no going back after that.

But I came to a crossroads. I had to choose. Catholicism or Anglicanism. In the end, I decided that being separated from Canterbury would bother me less than being separated from Rome. So I joined the Catholic Church.

I say this to point out that being separated from the Anglicans is not exactly a bowl of cherries for us Catholics. But until these major problems can be sussed out, any "unity" between us would be entirely illusory, and probably dishonest.

 

[lambofgod43985889]

Are you referring to Deuteronomy 5:6-9, by any chance?

yes

 

[Albion]

Considering that entire parishes and waves of people took advantage of this becasue of what they saw going on within Anglicanism, I would say the Church did what She could, and many took advantage of Her offer.

'Entire parishes' and 'waves' LOL

Catholics really owe it to themselves not to keep on fooling themselves about this. There are an estimated 115,000,000 Anglicans in the world and the number of those that went over to the Catholic Church because of the "Ordinariate" amounted to no more than a few thousand.

And many of them are writing about how bitterly disappointed they are because they feel they were misled about the deal and also because they are looked down upon by Catholic parishioners and mistreated by the Catholic hierarchy.

 

[thecolorsblend]

yes

Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
-- Deuteronomy 5:8

Well, that seems pretty cut and dried, doesn't it? I certainly hope you don't have any photos of yourself, your family, your pet(s) or anything else. Otherwise... well, that would be an image and apparently those are always Double Plus Ungood.

If you have a cloud full of pics, now is the time to start emptying it out, eh?

 

[Concord1968]

Until the day I can take communion alongside you in your church, and you can take communion alongside - or indeed from my hand - in my church, that's rejection of us.

In fairness, you can't do that in ANY church that practices closed communion. Including the LCMS church I attend.

 

[D.A. Wright]

In fairness, you can't do that in ANY church that practices closed communion. Including the LCMS church I attend.

My church welcomes anyone to communion.

 

[Paidiske]

In fairness, you can't do that in ANY church that practices closed communion. Including the LCMS church I attend.

True... and I have just as much of a problem with the practice elsewhere.

 

[lambofgod43985889]

Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
-- Deuteronomy 5:8

Well, that seems pretty cut and dried, doesn't it? I certainly hope you don't have any photos of yourself, your family, your pet(s) or anything else. Otherwise... well, that would be an image and apparently those are always Double Plus Ungood.

If you have a cloud full of pics, now is the time to start emptying it out, eh?

he dislikes images of him, it leads people to pray and adore an image, what is the point on playing too near to the cliff? is similar for a woman wearing to little clothes.

 

[Albion]

he dislikes images of him, it leads people to pray and adore an image, what is the point on playing too near to the cliff? is similar for a woman wearing to little clothes.

For people who are familiar with churches that have no images and not with ones that do...it may seem as you say here.

But the truth of the matter is that having an image within sight does not at all make the ordinary person think of worshipping it.

 

[thecolorsblend]

he dislikes images of him, it leads people to pray and adore an image, what is the point on playing too near to the cliff? is similar for a woman wearing to little clothes.

Um, no. And now you're subtracting from Sacred Scripture by claiming that Deuteronomy 5:8 only refers to God Himself. The verse specifies things in Heaven, on Earth and in the seas.

Because of that, I imagine you have no photographs of yourself or your family. Because that would be a violation of scripture, yes?

Although, Exodus 25:18 shows a clear command from God to create graven images of cherubim (e.g., things in Heaven). Does that passage conflict with Deuteronomy 5:8, you think?

 

[D.A. Wright]

But the truth of the matter is that having an image within sight does not at all make the ordinary person think of worshipping it.

So it's okay for the not-so-ordinary person to be tempted by church fixtures?

 

[Albion]

So it's okay for the not-so-ordinary person to be tempted by church fixtures?

If that unusual person is tempted by a stained glass window, he is likely to be tempted by the sight of a hundred other things that exist in ANY church, including items that none of us consider wrong to have there.

 

[D.A. Wright]

Um, no. And now you're subtracting from Sacred Scripture by claiming that Deuteronomy 5:8 only refers to God Himself. The verse specifies things in Heaven, on Earth and in the seas.

Because of that, I imagine you have no photographs of yourself or your family. Because that would be a violation of scripture, yes?

Although, Exodus 25:18 shows a clear command from God to create graven images of cherubim (e.g., things in Heaven). Does that passage conflict with Deuteronomy 5:8, you think?

Couldn't this indicate that the violation of the commandment is not complete with out the worshipful adoration of the image? Just a question. Try to remain calm.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Couldn't this indicate that the violation of the commandment is not complete with out the worshipful adoration of the image? Just a question. Try to remain calm.

Now that's an interesting idea. If I follow the basic principle that it looks like you're suggesting, it seems that we should be more thoughtful about scripture and more careful in our analysis than making easy, snap judgments based on a single verse over and against the totality of Sacred Scripture.

If I'm interpreting you correctly, I must say that this is a kind of revolutionary idea and, if implemented, it could change the way Sacred Scripture is read and understood forever.

Very interesting idea. Good on you.

 

[D.A. Wright]

Now that's an interesting idea. If I follow the basic principle that it looks like you're suggesting, it seems that we should be more thoughtful about scripture and more careful in our analysis than making easy, snap judgments based on a single verse over and against the totality of Sacred Scripture.
If I'm interpreting you correctly, I must say that this is a kind of revolutionary idea and, if implemented, it could change the way Sacred Scripture is read and understood forever.
Very interesting idea. Good on you.

I was just trying to be somewhat subdued since you seem poised to pounce, lately. The idea of taking the commandment itself in its totality (as opposed to objecting to only the erecting of images) is no new notion to me.

Of course, if you're of a mind to present evidence from the "totality of Sacred Scripture" that would suggest that it is, after all, acceptable to fashion images and pray to, bow to, and/or otherwise venerate them, I'm perfectly willing to consider that.