Female ordination

[Root of Jesse]

"One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic," perhaps.

No difference in what you said and what I said. One faith, one church, one baptism.

Uh...yes, there was.

Um...elaborate?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well if you think there are any of those, you'll have to quote them, because I can't think of any.

Unless you mean the ones where I disagree with Catholic teaching - like the angel's greeting to Mary being proof that she is queen of heaven. In cases like that I do dispute that that is the "plain meaning" of Scripture.

That's one. See? That's why Scripture Alone doesn't work. You prove it yourself. The Church has taught for 2000 years that Hail Mary indicates Mary's royalty as Queen Mother, and your denomination, taking it out of the setting the Church has provided, says "no, it doesn't mean that." And it does so throughout Scripture.

 

[Strong in Him]

You don't believe ALL of what Christ taught.

Oh?
Which bits don't I believe?

You confess to the religion of someone other than Christ,

Nope; there is no one other than Christ.
I am a Christian.

namely, the founder of your denomination.

Nope.
John Wesley did not found a new religion
Anyway, as I currently go to a Methodist/URC church and am a joint member, I do not have a single denomination. Also, I was brought up, baptised, confirmed and married in the Anglican church.

Which is exactly what St. Paul was addressing to the Corinthians. He was speaking against denominationalism.

He was speaking against people following different leaders and making it a source of division, certainly.
The only difference being that I hate denominations. I have belonged to several different ones precisely so that no one can put a label on me; I am a Christian, full stop. I could walk away from church tomorrow and join the Salvation Army, the Baptists or no one at all - and I would still belong to Christ.

Your denomination reflects Christianity through the lens of your denomination founder.

Nonsense.
I've been a Christian for over 40 years; I've worshipped in a Methodist church for around 20.
Maybe there are some in the Methodist church who believe that John Wesley could do no wrong; I assure you that I am not one of them.
Being a Methodist/URC LEP, we adopt some URC practices, and next year will have a URC Minister. I am a member of both denominations and will be for as long as I remain at the church. I may yet join the Salvation Army; who knows? My faith in Christ does not change depending on which church building I happen to be in.

 

[Albion]

Negotiate with a monk? LOL. Why would the Church negotiate the Truth?

The sale of Indulgences is hardly "the truth."

Regarding some of the abuses that Luther was trying to address, in his own way, the Church was already in the process of reforming. The Church is always in a process of reforming.

What a sure-fire excuse. It exonerates all wrongdoing on a non-stop and never ending basis.

 

[Strong in Him]

That's one.

You've been told that it is, certainly.

If the angel had said, "greetings Mary, queen of heaven"; I'd believe it.
But the angel didn't say that - all we have is your argument "the angel greeted her as 'favoured' and 'full of grace', that must mean she was someone very important, even royalty. And there are some verses in Rev 12 which speak of a woman who must be Mary; put those together, and you have it that Scripture teaches that Mary is queen of heaven."
1+1 = 4.

Since I am not supposed to believe what Christ said, show me where Jesus gave his mother, or addressed her by, the title of queen of heaven. Not, "well he said this which must mean this"; the words "Mother, you are the queen of heaven."

 

[zoidar]

If you believe what Jesus told the apostles, that he would send an advocate to guide the Church in all Truth, then you would know that the Canon is the Canon, and cannot be changed. You also would want to know the rationale for choosing what were chosen. Mainly, they chose what was used in liturgy.

I'm not that familiar with how the cannon got put together. I got some basic knowledge on the NT cannon, not much on the OT.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Oh?
Which bits don't I believe?



Nope; there is no one other than Christ.
I am a Christian.



Nope.
John Wesley did not found a new religion
Anyway, as I currently go to a Methodist/URC church and am a joint member, I do not have a single denomination. Also, I was brought up, baptised, confirmed and married in the Anglican church.



He was speaking against people following different leaders and making it a source of division, certainly.
The only difference being that I hate denominations. I have belonged to several different ones precisely so that no one can put a label on me; I am a Christian, full stop. I could walk away from church tomorrow and join the Salvation Army, the Baptists or no one at all - and I would still belong to Christ.



Nonsense.
I've been a Christian for over 40 years; I've worshipped in a Methodist church for around 20.
Maybe there are some in the Methodist church who believe that John Wesley could do no wrong; I assure you that I am not one of them.
Being a Methodist/URC LEP, we adopt some URC practices, and next year will have a URC Minister. I am a member of both denominations and will be for as long as I remain at the church. I may yet join the Salvation Army; who knows? My faith in Christ does not change depending on which church building I happen to be in.

Why are you a Methodist? Or URC? As opposed to Baptist or some other?

 

[Paidiske]

You don't believe ALL of what Christ taught. You confess to the religion of someone other than Christ, namely, the founder of your denomination.

This is an egregiously ugly accusation. You claim to be engaging respectfully with those with whom you disagree, but this shows something else.

 

[Fervent]

I'm not that familiar with how the cannon got put together. I got some basic knowledge on the NT cannon, not much on the OT.

They essentially got canonized together. There was no agreement on the scope of the OT canon until about the 2nd century even among Jews(at which point they "closed" their considerations to include what is in the Protestant OT based on placing a primacy on Hebrew originality.) Traditionally, the Septuagint is the primary basis for the OT canon throughout church history until Luther and other Protestants decided to go with the Masoretic texts based on the Jewish canon, which is where the dispute between Catholics and Protestants come from.

 

[Root of Jesse]

This is an egregiously ugly accusation. You claim to be engaging respectfully with those with whom you disagree, but this shows something else.

Its not an accusation, its actually quite human. Paul accused the Corinthians of the same thing, and its something most Catholics do, as well. I find it in myself every day and constantly strive to do better.. None of us is perfect.. But every denomination shaves off something of the complete teaching of Christ. I do respect you, as I would a different political party, even if I disagree with what you believe. You keep telling me I'm wrong, I'm telling you the same thing, respectfully. But you have Christ, so we have, at least, common ground.
Besides that, were talking about what your faith teaches, vs. mine, not personal.

 

[Paidiske]

Its not an accusation,

Of course it is. "You don't believe ALL of what Christ taught" is a charge of wrongdoing (or at least, wrongbelieving) which is exactly what an accusation is.

But every denomination shaves off something of the complete teaching of Christ.

I don't know that I agree with this. We may interpret it differently, we may build on it in different ways, but the we all receive the same gospels.

Besides that, were talking about what your faith teaches, vs. mine, not personal.

You might perceive this conversation as "not personal," but I find it deeply personal.

 

[Fervent]

This is an egregiously ugly accusation. You claim to be engaging respectfully with those with whom you disagree, but this shows something else.

He's Catholic, it is official Catholic teaching that they are the authentic church and all others are in error. Would you prefer he hide behind a false ecumenicalism?

 

[Paidiske]

Would you prefer he hide behind a false ecumenicalism?

If we can't hold our own positions with integrity, and yet interact respectfully with others, what does that say about our positions? If our positions lead us to, inevitably, denigrate others, what does that say about our positions?

 

[Fervent]

If we can't hold our own positions with integrity, and yet interact respectfully with others, what does that say about our positions? If our positions lead us to, inevitably, denigrate others, what does that say about our positions?

There's nothing disrespectful about stating an honest conviction. Is it disrespectful to tell an pantheist there is only one way to God and that their belief is in error? False agreement is more disrespectful than honest contention.

 

[Albion]

It's not a false "ecumenicalism" to choose respectful terms when speaking of or to other Christians who would, logically enough, be insulted to read or hear themselves being described as not Christian.

That's exactly what happened.

Certainly, members of the Catholic Church here (who often take offense merely at the use of the terms Roman Catholic or Church of Rome) would be offended to be described this way: "You confess to the religion of someone other than Christ, namely, the founder of your denomination."

 

[Fervent]

It's not a false "ecumenicalism" to choose respectful terms when speaking of or to other Christians who would, logically enough, be insulted to read or hear themselves being described as not Christian.

That's exactly what happened.

Certainly, members of the Catholic Church here (who often take offense merely at the use of the terms Roman Catholic or Church of Rome) would be offended to be described this way: "You confess to the religion of someone other than Christ, namely, the founder of your denomination."

It is a false ecumenicalism if he truly is of the belief that all non-Catholics are in error. Would it be disrespectful for me to not include a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon as Christians despite their protests to the contrary?

 

[Albion]

It is a false ecumenicalism if he truly is of the belief that all non-Catholics are in error.

You are missing the point entirely. It is not about what he thinks of members of other Christian churches; it's about what he says about them in public, including in posts directed at them.

Would it be disrespectful for me to not include a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon as Christians despite their protests to the contrary?

How could NOT doing what we are talking about be considered the equivalent of it?

 

[Paidiske]

It's one thing to lay out the points on which we disagree, and explore the reasons for disagreement.

It's another thing entirely to make personal accusations about not believing or following Christ.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Of course it is. "You don't believe ALL of what Christ taught" is a charge of wrongdoing (or at least, wrongbelieving) which is exactly what an accusation is.



I don't know that I agree with this. We may interpret it differently, we may build on it in different ways, but the we all receive the same gospels.



You might perceive this conversation as "not personal," but I find it deeply personal.

Well, we know how you take offense at thing you personally perceive as offensive. It wasn't an accusation, but a conviction of all of us.

To your last, we've sorta gone off the rails, but I can't help you. You have accused the Catholic Church of that 70s stuff, misogyny. So if were tossing accusations, let's go. But it was aimed at what the Catholic Church teaches, the whole banquet, vs. what most others teach, which is something less. Orthodox excluded.

 

[Fervent]

You are missing the point entirely. It is not about what he thinks of members of other Christian churches; it's about what he says about them in public, including in posts directed at them.



How could NOT doing what we are talking about be considered the equivalent of it?

This is the thing, he's simply being direct about what the Catholic church officially declares and only soft-peddles because they don't have the authority to maintain it anymore. It's no different from excluding fringe groups based on conviction, except fringe groups don't have the numbers to force their inclusion. If he honestly believes that non-Catholics are outside of Christ it's better he say so than soft-peddle.

It's one thing to lay out the points on which we disagree, and explore the reasons for disagreement.

It's another thing entirely to make personal accusations about not believing or following Christ.

If he truly believes that only Catholics are true Christians, why should we try to force him to hide that? Certainly, we can disagree with his assessment but he's entitled to whatever conviction he wants.