Know church history well but stay protestant

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Albion. Even you believe in transubstantiation.
Why would you say, or assume, such a thing?

Had you considered how demeaning it is to God to tell Him, that he can’t possibly make something look different?
No one has told him that He cannot do something, but your argument about these two alleged miracles doesn't carry it out when the one cancels the other.

Im guessing He is so annoyed that people have so little faith, once in a while He shows it for what it is!
That could be, but does it apply in this particular case?
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
On the other hand, if the science does prove a change in the elements to literal flesh and blood, the doctrine of Transubstantiation is disproved and a significant part of the Roman Catholic Church's theory of Sacred Tradition and "ecumenical" councils other than the original seven along with it.

In answer to your post:
1/ the above is Nonsense
2/ you believe in transubstantiation, if you believe in the miracle of Cana. Do anglicans still believe in it? God can choose to make the changed substance look as He wills.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,005
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,140.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
2/ you believe in transubstantiation, if you believe in the miracle of Cana. Do anglicans still believe in it?

The miracle of Cana is not transubstantiation in the sense of neo-Aristotelian metaphysics which is invoked to explain real presence in the Eucharist. Ie. A change in the "substance" of something (what it is) without a change in its "accidents" (how it appears to the senses). In the miracle of Cana the people saw and tasted the wine and perceived it as wine.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
2/ you believe in transubstantiation, if you believe in the miracle of Cana.
I'm thinking that either you are determined to assert the RC belief rather than discuss this further or else you don't really know what Transubstantiation means. Or both.

Do anglicans still believe in it?
A few do, but I don't know any personally. Because you spoke earlier as if you were familiar with the Articles of Religion, I assumed that you would know that Transubstantiation is rejected by the Articles...and in the liturgy itself, according to the historic Book of Common Prayer.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The miracle of Cana is not transubstantiation in the sense of neo-Aristotelian metaphysics which is invoked to explain real presence in the Eucharist. Ie. A change in the "substance" of something (what it is) without a change in its "accidents" (how it appears to the senses). In the miracle of Cana the people saw and tasted the wine and perceived it as wine.
Ignoring what I see as a philosophical smoke screen:
The point I make is God made the universe, he can choose to make substance to change, and to make it appear how he wishes, our senses are easily fooled.

It is credulity only, that allows others to assume what God says “ is” his flesh, cannot be his flesh because it still appears as bread.

Where I dispute with Albion, he says a eucharistic miracle disproves transubstantiation.

What I said about Eucharistic miracles is entirely consistent with it. On some occasions he choose to draw back the curtain a little on our senses so we see what the Eucharistic actually is. My view is He does it to silence doubting Thomases .
The Eucharist is always his flesh. God only permits us our senses to see it on rare occasions to help with unbelief.

They are something I study. Fascinating forensics.

I believe! Help my unbelief!

Own up @Paidiske if it looked like flesh and blood you probably wouldn’t want to take it! We are all squeamish. God has spared you that! He left it looking like bread!

so for me, the attack on transubstantiation is based on credulity only “ it still looks like bread” . My answer is Trust him! If he says it is “flesh” who are we to argue? Not me.

so I then leave it to such as Anglicans to explain.
Do they consider the forensics wrong or a fraud?
Else what do they consider it is?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,005
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,140.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Ignoring what I see as a philosophical smoke screen:

Not at all. Transubstantiation is not just a claim about what happens in the Eucharist, it is a claim about the appropriate (neo-Aristotelian) metaphysics with which to articulate that. I accept real presence in the Eucharist, and reject the metaphysics.

The point I make is God made the universe, he can choose to make substance to change, and to make it appear how he wishes, our senses are easily fooled.

Sure.

It is credulity only, that allows others to assume what God says “ is” his flesh, cannot be his flesh because it still appears as bread.

While I concede the point that God can make things appear however he wishes, I don't generally think God deliberately deceives us by making something appear to be what it is not. I do not believe that what God says "is" his flesh is some sort of delusion in which flesh only appears to us as bread. Christ is received by us spiritually in the Eucharist.

Where I dispute with Albion, he says a eucharistic miracle disproves transubstantiation.

I think his point is that, given transubstantiation is, by definition, a change in substance without a change in accidents, a Eucharistic miracle in which the accidents change is, by definition, not transubstantiation.

so I then leave it to such as Anglicans to explain.
Do they consider the forensics wrong or a fraud?
Else what do they consider it is?

I can only speak for myself, but as far as the forensics of claimed Eucharistic miracles, to be blunt, I simply don't care very much. I know the grace of Christ received in the sacraments, and my interest is in celebrating and receiving the sacrament in community with others. I'm not interested in this or that claim of some inexplicable thing involving consecrated elements divorced from that sacramental reception in community. Other people can obsess about that if they choose, but my work is elsewhere.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The philosophy is secondary to a simple belief. The discussions can get too clever Matthew 11:25

He son of “ I am who am” says it “IS” him. It “ is” his body.
Not he is “ in it” or “ with it” but it really “ is” Him.

But We know it still looks like bread.
So the doctrine of transubstantiation is just a simple statement of faith based only on what He says. That It can look like something else, therefore appearance is deceiving and therefore appearance is not necessarily the substance that is.
But It is Him, without looking like Him.
That’s all the dogma says.

The first Christians believed it without question. We know that because The romans believed Christians were cannibals , because under torture they said they ate His flesh.

Simple fishermen would not have used later metaphysics to describe it. They would have used a statement of faith: it still looks like bread after blessing, but it is now the body of Jesus himself. That is all transubstantiation says. It just uses big words to say it.

I always had a problem with this as an Anglican.

Nowhere in the bible does it say “ he took the bread , gave the blessing, broke it, and filled it with the Holy Spirit” as He did when He breathed on the apostles.

He took the bread, gave a blessing and the Son of “ I am who IS” said this “ IS” my body. “Is” not “ represents” or “ contains” or is “ joined with”. Just “is”

So methinks theologians get too clever for their own good. They should trust Him more, and trust their own reason less, which is what Matt 11:25 is in essence saying.

I think Eucharistic miracles pull back the curtain of unbelief, so all can see what it really is. God wants us to believe this again. God can choose what it looks like on a case by case basis. It doesn’t change what it is.
I doubt anglicans respect Fatima, but the indifferences and sacriliges against our Lord in the Eucharist are a part of the message.

You care enough to answer @Paidiske and I thank you for that.


Not at all. Transubstantiation is not just a claim about what happens in the Eucharist, it is a claim about the appropriate (neo-Aristotelian) metaphysics with which to articulate that. I accept real presence in the Eucharist, and reject the metaphysics.



Sure.



While I concede the point that God can make things appear however he wishes, I don't generally think God deliberately deceives us by making something appear to be what it is not. I do not believe that what God says "is" his flesh is some sort of delusion in which flesh only appears to us as bread. Christ is received by us spiritually in the Eucharist.



I think his point is that, given transubstantiation is, by definition, a change in substance without a change in accidents, a Eucharistic miracle in which the accidents change is, by definition, not transubstantiation.



I can only speak for myself, but as far as the forensics of claimed Eucharistic miracles, to be blunt, I simply don't care very much. I know the grace of Christ received in the sacraments, and my interest is in celebrating and receiving the sacrament in community with others. I'm not interested in this or that claim of some inexplicable thing involving consecrated elements divorced from that sacramental reception in community. Other people can obsess about that if they choose, but my work is elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
The philosophy is secondary to a simple belief. The discussions can get too clever Matthew 11:25

He son of “ I am who am” says it “IS” him. It “ is” his body.
Not he is “ in it” or “ with it” but it really “ is” Him.

But We know it still looks like bread.
So the doctrine of transubstantiation is just a simple statement of faith based only on what He says. That It can look like something else, therefore appearance is deceiving and therefore appearance is not necessarily the substance that is.
But It is Him, without looking like Him.
That’s all the dogma says.

The first Christians believed it without question. We know that because The romans believed Christians were cannibals , because under torture they said they ate His flesh.

Simple fishermen would not have used later metaphysics to describe it. They would have used a statement of faith: it still looks like bread after blessing, but it is now the body of Jesus himself. That is all transubstantiation says. It just uses big words to say it.

I always had a problem with this as an Anglican.

Nowhere in the bible does it say “ he took the bread , gave the blessing, broke it, and filled it with the Holy Spirit” as He did when He breathed on the apostles.

He took the bread, gave a blessing and the Son of “ I am who IS” said this “ IS” my body. “Is” not “ represents” or “ contains” or is “ joined with”. Just “is”

So methinks theologians get too clever for their own good. They should trust Him more, and trust their own reason less, which is what Matt 11:25 is in essence saying.

I think Eucharistic miracles pull back the curtain of unbelief, so all can see what it really is. God wants us to believe this again. God can choose what it looks like on a case by case basis. It doesn’t change what it is.
I doubt anglicans respect Fatima, but the indifferences and sacriliges against our Lord in the Eucharist are a part of the message.

You care enough to answer @Paidiske and I thank you for that.

Just so you know, to paraphrase the Coptic Confiteor Ante Communion said by the priest before communicating himself and then the laity, I believe and confess until the last breath that the Eucharist is truly the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, with his flesh and blood being actually and physically present. I also disagree with the Lutherans that it is “in, with and under the species of bread and wine” because I do not believe we can properly say that the body and blood of our Lord, the sacred medicine of immortality, is ever “under” anything else.

I am not sure about the Thomistic theory of transubstantiation, unless the word is simply used, like how you used it, to refer to the water our Lord transformed into wine at the wedding feast in Cana. If we applied Thomistic, Scholastic theology, as found in the Summa and based on the ideas of the Philosopher (Aristotle) and the Commentator (Averroes), what occurred at Cana would be a metamorphosis, since both the substance and the accidents changed. The reason why I disagree with the Thomistic doctrine is that logically, it would exclude the Eucharistic miracles that have happened in your church and the Eastern Orthodox church, and probably other apostolic churches, wherein the perceptual attributes of bread and wine were lifted as if a curtain, and people saw the actual body and blood of our Lord. One Muslim converted to the Eastern Orthodox church after seeing such a miracle, and then received a crown of martyrdom owing to the cruelty of his former coreligionists, who treat apostates worse than Scientology.*

Now, this takes us to this thread. Christians who move between communions, denominations and individual churches are not apostates nor are engaging in apostasy. The treatment of cancer-stricken Hank Haanegraaf by John Macarthur by mostly non-denominational evangelical and reformed commentators, when the former member and his family converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, was shameful. I myself have closely studied the Orthodox and Assyrian church and have not ruled out someday joining. Certainly I agree with their sacramental theology, but interestingly, so did the pastors at the King’s Weigh House in London, which along with Park Street Church in Boston, is one of two Congregational churches I have the highest respect for. One pastor at the King’s Weigh House retired and joined the Roman Catholic Church. That church was extremely high church, in the late 19th century probably more high church than many Anglican churches, due to the abuse of certain laws to persecute Anglo Catholics for using incense or wearing a chasuble. Unfortunately, the decline in the residential population of the “square mile” of the City of London, which became predominantly a business district, forced that church to merge with another Comgregational parish located in a residential district in, I believe, the City of Westminster (one of the two buroughs in Greater London to have the honor of city status), but that church failed, and the Congregational church in England merged with the Presbyterians to form the United Reformed Church, which is a bit sad in my opinion.

Being that Congregationalism is a reformed doctrine, many, perhaps most, members of my congregation believe in the spiritual presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, according to the doctrine of John Calvin. This does not bother me, as it is a traditional aspect of the Congregationalist tradition’s Calvinist roots; what I don’t want is people adhering to Zwinglian or Memorialist interpretations, for reasons Martin Luther made clear when he carved “Hoc est corpus meum” into a table while meeting with Zwingli, among others, in an attempt at unity.

But I think if a Protestant on studying church history decides to join the Church of the East, or the Coptic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, or Ethiopian Orthodox, or other Oriental Orthodox churches, or the Greek, Russian, Serbian, Romanian, Antiochian and other Eastern Orthodox churches, or the Roman Catholic church, or one of its sui juris Eastern Catholic churcjes, like the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Italo-Albanian Greek Catholic Church, the Maronite Catholic Church, or the Syro-Malabar Catholic church, or one of several others, or the Anglican Ordinariate, this is completely fine. Tje reverse is also true. If I were Orthodox and moved to a town with really bad, pop music type liturgical abuse at the local Catholic church, but a high church liturgy at a Continuing Anglican or LCMS/LCC parish, I would go there, despite the Catholic church offering Eucharistic hospitality. And if I were a traditional Catholic used to attending the Tridentine Mass, and was unable to find a local Tridentine mass or a dignfied Novus Ordo, I would join a high church LCMS or continuing Anglican church, or an Orthodox or Assyrian church if one was available. And if I were a member of a Continuing Anglican church and moved to a town with only an Episcopalian church as far as Anglicanism is concerned, and that church was particularly liberal, I would join a Catholic, Orthodox or Assyrian church if one was available.

Fun fact, by the way, probably unknown to many participants in this thread: most converts to the Eastern Orthodox church historically came from the Episcopal Church and other churches in the Anglican communion. Now they seem to be coming from the non-denominational evangelical or reformed megachurches, which is good, as I have serious theological and liturgical issues with megachurches in particular, and most churches which identify as non-denominational (with some exceptions).

*As bad as Scientology and other cults are, particularly the psychological abuse they inflict on people who leave, and cruel, family-dividing practices like disconnection, they are not known for killing people who leave, except for the mass murder-suicide of over 900 people, prompted by Jim Jones drug-intoxicated, insane reaction to several residents of Jonestown seeking assistance in leaving the Jim Jones cult from a member of the House of Representatives who had travelled there to gain info on the camp for worried relatives. I do think other cults would kill apostates if they had the legal and judicial power of Islam, and thus the ability to murder apostates with impunity. There is also some evidence that in the early 18th century, some Freemasons may have literally implemented one of the blood-oaths of Masonic initiation on a member who disclosed Masonic secrets; he was found in a river with his throat cut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mountainmike
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Than
Just so you know, to paraphrase the Coptic Confiteor Ante Communion said by the priest before communicating himself and then the laity, I believe and confess until the last breath that the Eucharist is truly the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, with his flesh and blood being actually and physically present. I also disagree with the Lutherans that it is “in, with and under the species of bread and wine” because I do not believe we can properly say that the body and blood of our Lord, the sacred medicine of immortality, is ever “under” anything else.

I am not sure about the Thomistic theory of transubstantiation, unless the word is simply used, like how you used it, to refer to the water our Lord transformed into wine at the wedding feast in Cana. If we applied Thomistic, Scholastic theology, as found in the Summa and based on the ideas of the Philosopher (Aristotle) and the Commentator (Averroes), what occurred at Cana would be a metamorphosis, since both the substance and the accidents changed. The reason why I disagree with the Thomistic doctrine is that logically, it would exclude the Eucharistic miracles that have happened in your church and the Eastern Orthodox church, and probably other apostolic churches, wherein the perceptual attributes of bread and wine were lifted as if a curtain, and people saw the actual body and blood of our Lord. One Muslim converted to the Eastern Orthodox church after seeing such a miracle, and then received a crown of martyrdom owing to the cruelty of his former coreligionists, who treat apostates worse than Scientology.*

Now, this takes us to this thread. Christians who move between communions, denominations and individual churches are not apostates nor are engaging in apostasy. The treatment of cancer-stricken Hank Haanegraaf by John Macarthur by mostly non-denominational evangelical and reformed commentators, when the former member and his family converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, was shameful. I myself have closely studied the Orthodox and Assyrian church and have not ruled out someday joining. Certainly I agree with their sacramental theology, but interestingly, so did the pastors at the King’s Weigh House in London, which along with Park Street Church in Boston, is one of two Congregational churches I have the highest respect for. One pastor at the King’s Weigh House retired and joined the Roman Catholic Church. That church was extremely high church, in the late 19th century probably more high church than many Anglican churches, due to the abuse of certain laws to persecute Anglo Catholics for using incense or wearing a chasuble. Unfortunately, the decline in the residential population of the “square mile” of the City of London, which became predominantly a business district, forced that church to merge with another Comgregational parish located in a residential district in, I believe, the City of Westminster (one of the two buroughs in Greater London to have the honor of city status), but that church failed, and the Congregational church in England merged with the Presbyterians to form the United Reformed Church, which is a bit sad in my opinion.

Being that Congregationalism is a reformed doctrine, many, perhaps most, members of my congregation believe in the spiritual presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, according to the doctrine of John Calvin. This does not bother me, as it is a traditional aspect of the Congregationalist tradition’s Calvinist roots; what I don’t want is people adhering to Zwinglian or Memorialist interpretations, for reasons Martin Luther made clear when he carved “Hoc est corpus meum” into a table while meeting with Zwingli, among others, in an attempt at unity.

But I think if a Protestant on studying church history decides to join the Church of the East, or the Coptic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, or Ethiopian Orthodox, or other Oriental Orthodox churches, or the Greek, Russian, Serbian, Romanian, Antiochian and other Eastern Orthodox churches, or the Roman Catholic church, or one of its sui juris Eastern Catholic churcjes, like the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Italo-Albanian Greek Catholic Church, the Maronite Catholic Church, or the Syro-Malabar Catholic church, or one of several others, or the Anglican Ordinariate, this is completely fine. Tje reverse is also true. If I were Orthodox and moved to a town with really bad, pop music type liturgical abuse at the local Catholic church, but a high church liturgy at a Continuing Anglican or LCMS/LCC parish, I would go there, despite the Catholic church offering Eucharistic hospitality. And if I were a traditional Catholic used to attending the Tridentine Mass, and was unable to find a local Tridentine mass or a dignfied Novus Ordo, I would join a high church LCMS or continuing Anglican church, or an Orthodox or Assyrian church if one was available. And if I were a member of a Continuing Anglican church and moved to a town with only an Episcopalian church as far as Anglicanism is concerned, and that church was particularly liberal, I would join a Catholic, Orthodox or Assyrian church if one was available.

Fun fact, by the way, probably unknown to many participants in this thread: most converts to the Eastern Orthodox church historically came from the Episcopal Church and other churches in the Anglican communion. Now they seem to be coming from the non-denominational evangelical or reformed megachurches, which is good, as I have serious theological and liturgical issues with megachurches in particular, and most churches which identify as non-denominational (with some exceptions).

*As bad as Scientology and other cults are, particularly the psychological abuse they inflict on people who leave, and cruel, family-dividing practices like disconnection, they are not known for killing people who leave, except for the mass murder-suicide of over 900 people, prompted by Jim Jones drug-intoxicated, insane reaction to several residents of Jonestown seeking assistance in leaving the Jim Jones cult from a member of the House of Representatives who had travelled there to gain info on the camp for worried relatives. I do think other cults would kill apostates if they had the legal and judicial power of Islam, and thus the ability to murder apostates with impunity. There is also some evidence that in the early 18th century, some Freemasons may have literally implemented one of the blood-oaths of Masonic initiation on a member who disclosed Masonic secrets; he was found in a river with his throat cut.

Thanks. Interesting reply.
As you saw my answer to this is to reduce to simple faith.

If we are told it “is” his flesh , but it still looks like bread then what is, and what is observed are not necessarily the same.

Big words like, substance, accident serve to complicate a simple idea based in faith.

The alleged contradiction in a Eucharistic miracle , that is perceived to breach the trabsubstantion principle is only true if the look is assumed permanent.

Science believes this too. A simple mind game.
We live in a universe of many dimensions, we cannot constrain it to what we percieve. Imagine then a cylinder , blue at one end , red sides. In a lower two dimensional world we my see a blue circle or red oblong just by turning it. So the shape and colour are accidents. The cylinder is the substance.

We only see a 3d projection of a much more complex world, so a suitable 4d cylinder accidents can be any colour or shape. Apart from which modern physics tell us what we perceive is only defined when we observe. Light can be bent by force so even those shapes can change.

bottom line? God can make it look as HE wishes. Accident. He can change it whenever He likes.
It IS what ever he wills. Substance.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You are probably referring to the Middle Ages and not to the first 1,000 years. I have studied this issue for decades and still find no conclusive answer. Quite frankly, it is a mess. All four branches of Christianity have their pluses and minuses. I sometimes actually wonder if perhaps the Oriental Orthodox have the least baggage of the four?
The problem is, what are you following? Christ? or the politics of the Church? What some Catholics did by not living their Catholic faith can be seen as deplorable, but that changes nothing about why I joined the Catholic Church. I've studied the history, and will go to my death studying it more, and I joined because I see the Catholic Church as the historical Church Christ founded, but from the day he gathered his first apostle, Jesus knew that those men were imperfect, and that those who came after them would also be imperfect, sometimes even wicked and corrupt. That's why He sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in all truth. The faith has not been corrupted. People are corrupt.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Studying Church history has not caused me to want to become Roman Catholic. It's not just a matter of what happened then, it's also a matter of what's happened since and what's happening now.
So...people not living their Catholic faith has caused you to not desire to be Catholic? I just look to Jesus. The faith remains the same.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I seriously doubt this. Why would someone who knows what salvation by grace means go back to religious rituals where one can give money and get relatives out of purgatory thinking?
Um, well, you can't. And never could.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I've met many Christians whose story is exactly the opposite of what you've described. They discover the history of Roman Catholicism and want nothing to do with the R.C. church.
Yeah, a lot of people are like that. I was, at one time. I attended a Catholic high school, and was harrassed so much by some of the students, I wondered at them even being Christian. I came to realize that you don't join a club, or a Church, because of the bad ones.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
No doubt. In law, the Church of England IS the Catholic Church in England.
In English law. But the Catholic Church isn't subject to English law.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The RCC is full of revisionist history - for example, Peter was never pope in Rome.
There is positive evidence of Peter's crucifixion in Rome. Many historians maintain that he died there.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Those institutions with the oldest traditions are neither here nor there. They are not necessarily good or bad. They are merely old.
If you found a treasure map in the sand, wet, old, tattered, torn, would you just throw it away? Just because they're old? The pyramids are old, too. Finally, some people collect old things, called antiques.
I hope you're not saying that it's old, therefore not worthwhile...
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The only problem I have with the Roman Catholic Church is that their Popes have added tradition like the extra ideas about Mary and purgatory that aren't in the Bible. Adding an authoritative tradition alongside of the Bible is unacceptable to me.
They are in the Bible, just not your Bible...
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,169
US
✟1,440,830.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So...people not living their Catholic faith has caused you to not desire to be Catholic? I just look to Jesus. The faith remains the same.

It hasn't created a desire to become Catholic. I don't think I've missed anything salvational.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Paidiske
Upvote 0