Religion Anglicans Given New Easy Ride To Become Catholic

[AndSmithMustScore]

The Robe and Chesabule are reserved for priests

The guys expression in the background of the mosaic says alot about the situation at hand.

It's the look of "ooooooooooo what the **** are they doing wearing those clothes? St Peter is gonna be so pissed off when he finds them wearing his best garb".

 

[linga_is_no1]

Contra Mary physically could not be able to be a priest because she did not undergo an ontological change. She brought Christ into the world, but not the risen Christ. She is not a priest- and you are ignoring the facts.

 

[MushroomRocket]

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus when he instructed Peter to build his Church, Peter (the first pope) and the Apostles (the first bishops) went all around the world converting people. Peter went to Rome where after sometime he was crucified by the Romans, before Peter died he appointed a successor called Linus who became the second Pope and so on till this day. All the Apostles in their communities appointed successors who became the second load of Bishops, and so on till this day. In the 11th century there were numerous theological disagreements between the East headed by the Patriarch of Constantine, and the West headed by the Pope. In 1054 they split, with the West remaining with the Pope (the successor of Peter) and the East going its separate ways. Although the two churches are remarkably similar, only one, the Catholic Church can claim to be truly apostolic as it maintains the link to the head of the Apostles, the Pope, as instructed by Jesus. The Eastern Church still maintains valid orders and sacraments, but is not in full communion with Rome and Peter.



I find it amazing, that an atheist, agnostic or whatever you describe yourself has an opinion on what is the 'true' kind of Christian. Stick to things you know.




This is like having an argument with a three year old who just cannot get there.

So Jesus said 'I will give you the keys of the kingdom of the heaven.' you have interpreted this to being relating to Peter's personal salvation. But you have forgotten (for convenience sake) the text immediately prior which is '"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." When you look at your excerpt in isolation it could mean anything, but with the text I have highlighted before, and within the whole chapter, we can pick up a clear instruction of Jesus to Peter to begin his Church. It is Matthew 16, that Jesus set's up the Church, it is here that Jesus make's Peter the first Pope.

To your second point, the word 'congregation' does not even exist in Aramaic which is the language Matthew was written in, Matthew was later translated to Greek with the original being lost- every Bible scholar will tell you this. It would seem rather bizarre that Jesus would invent a word in 'congregation' that did not even exist. Jesus did mean to set up a Church, and he did, Matthew 16, is clear proof of this, the actions of Peter and the Apostles are also proof of this. These 12 Catholics went throughout the world converting people to the faith, they unlike you, actually knew Christ, they received there instructions from him. It is unlikely that they would have gone deliberately against his orders to set up as you alluded to earlier 'The Whore Of Babylon'. These 12 also appointed successors as demonstrated by the laying of the hands which is described all through out the later book in the NT, this is Apostles and Peter establishing Apostolic succession. Every single priest, bishop, deacon, cardinal and Pope in the Catholic Church can trace who ordained them all the way back to one of the original 12.

And to your final point, and I trust you have never heard this one before, because if you had this basic theological understanding this discussion would not be taking place. The Church was NOT created from the Bible, the Bible WAS created from the Church. This is a fact, the Bible as most scholars will testify to was written around 100-300 A.D, by this stage the Church was at least 100 to 300 years old. Catholics wrote the Bible, the writers of the Bible almost certainly professed the Apostles Creed (you might want to read what is says) which came into existence in 180 A.D. Now obviously the fact that the Church wrote the Bible and chose the canon (which you and I use today) clearly effects any notion of separate Christianity that can be drawn from the document. To put this simply, the Church as the creator of the Bible has supreme authoritative power in its interpretation.





You obviously ignore the Matthew 16 on the creation of the Papacy.




This is ridiculous, whether you like it or not, homosexuals and bisexuals exist. It is proven scientifically, almost every species of animal in the world has demonstrated homosexual behaviour. The jury is not out on whether homosexuality is caused by nurture of nature, but the debate on whether it exists it or not ended when God created the universe. You have to make a distinction here between the inclination (being homosexual) and the sin (acting on the inclination). In the words of St.Augustine 'hate the sin, love the sinner'.

Jesus did not turn a blind eye, but as long as these people are not acting on the inclination then they are doing nothing wrong. Jesus was a man who accepted people regardless of who they were, and Jesus would not punish someone for simply being who they are. You don't need to support someone's lifestyle choice, you just need to tolerate it.

You are obviously a Protestant, someone who believes that the Gospel is the supreme governor of Christianity, someone who believes the Church is corrupt and full of sinners and someone who hates homosexuals. In this post we have learnt:

1) The Church wrote the Gospel, the Gospel comes from the Church not the other way round.

2) Jesus established Peter and the Apostles as the first Pope and Bishops, who formed the Catholic Church, its members still maintain an apostolic identity.

3) Homosexuality in the form of inclination is not wrong at all, 'love the sinner, hate the sin'.

There was a syriac bible written by christians in south india who went there in the first century ad. apparently it was radically different from the catholic version, so the portuguese burnt all of them in the 15th century when they set up their colonies.

there are some fragments of the text that survive in their monastaries.
their traditions were also mixed with more jewish traditions (they observed the sabbath), which gave the portuguese their excuse.

so yes, the bible (except the ethiopian orthodox, strangely they are also similar to jewish traditions) we see today is mainly a text about how ROMANS viewed christianity, no one else (the greeks are also called "rumi" or romans by the arabs too).

 

[Richo83]

Contra Mary physically could not be able to be a priest because she did not undergo an ontological change. She brought Christ into the world, but not the risen Christ. She is not a priest- and you are ignoring the facts.

Do you even know what ontology means? Do priests stop being beings? Considering Mary birthed god I think she's ontologically closer to priesthood than any god-fearing man would be.

 

[evo]

Hehe, yeah I had a laugh about that too.

 

[linga_is_no1]

Do you even know what ontology means? Do priests stop being beings? Considering Mary birthed god I think she's ontologically closer to priesthood than any god-fearing man would be.

You know Richo there is an old proverb that says 'When you are not asked, do not speak', maybe you should take note of that.

Ontology at least in the context that I am referring to, is about the nature of a being. In Catholic doctrine when a priest is ordained they receive an ontological change, they become different then what there were prior to ordination, this also happens to a deacon, a bishop, a cardinal and the Pope. In order to be a Priest an ontological change has to occur- seeming Mary was not ordained like the Apostles were, she did not receive an ontological change, meaning she could not have been a priest.

So saying Mary is closer to the priesthood than any man, is really demonstrating your lack of knowledge in this area. You clearly don't know what the priesthood actually is, the doctrine behind it and what it actually represents. You also have no idea about the doctrine on Mary which explains your incorrect claims about her. Through out this thread you've chirped in with these little ignorant comments which I'm sure you believe to be powerful witticisms, but you are merely proving that you don't know what you're talking about. Please do some research before you reply.

 

[freo heave ho]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church sets it out clearly, quoting the decree Inter insigniores:

"Only a baptized man (vir) receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord Himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible."

As Jesus said himself he came to fulfill the law not change it, so if Jesus did not change the law we assume it remains the same as Jewish law. Jesus by not breaking the social convention of making women disciples clearly means the priesthood is intended for men. Jesus broke every other social convention but he did not break this one. Jesus appointed 12 Apostles but not one was a woman.

The twelve disciples were also Jewish - as was Jesus - yet that does not prevent churches from ordaining Gentiles.
It has been suggested that in the early church, women were leaders of some communities - the reference in the Bible to churches meeting in their house may refer to this.

 

[linga_is_no1]

This is the article i wrote for The Independent Australian about this issue

=========================================================
In 2009 we have a Black president, a Female deputy prime minister, laws that prevent discrimination and racism, but it appears something didn’t quite go right, because we still have bigoted prejudice, as depicted by the lefty Age and it’s author Dick Gross, who this week wrote this article ‘Sleazy papal opportunism’. In the article he attacks the Catholic Church, and what he see’s as the Pope’s personal mission to convert all Christians to Catholicism, he also tries to whip a storm of mass circle jerking about how “conservative” and how “un-modern” the Church is. He portrays the Anglican and Uniting Church’s as the only Christians worth dealing with- but all that emerges from this juvenile smear campaign against the Church, is just how prevalent bigotry and prejudice really is in our society, as it still appears to be acceptable to totally deride someone for their beliefs without the slightest hint of objectivity.

Unfortunately Dick Gross isn’t the only one out there with an anti-Catholic chip on their shoulder; the recent mass Anglican conversion to Catholicism is proof of this. For those who have not been following the issue, recently Pope Benedict XVI decided that the Church would now allow for mass conversion from Anglicanism, for those who are disenfranchised with the Anglican Church’s current ‘liberal’ policy towards homosexuality and women priests. Some members of the media like Gross and others in the left have portrayed Benedict’s decision as nothing more than an attempt of papal opportunism. But as always we here at ‘The Independent Australian’ will deliver a slice of objective reality to those who can’t quite see it. The Pope didn’t poach or attempt to convert anyone, the Anglicans who decided to come over to the Church have been trying for decades. They are sick of the Anglican Church’s attitudes towards orthodoxy and the lack of consultation it has had with ordinary members. Now we may not agree with orthodoxy and conservatism but if these Anglicans are of that persuasion, then obviously they should be allowed to join any organisation with people who think alike. Who are the bigoted left, like Gross to say that’s it’s not ok, that he knows better- this is the decision of those Anglicans involved and it only concerns them. Benedict is not trying to poach people- rather objectively, his welcoming those who are already Catholic, but just not in name.

The other issue that the article as well as others in the bigoted left, is just un-loving and just how far behind the Church really is. We here have something to say about that too- the liberal Church’s like the Anglicans, like the Uniting Church and like the Congregationalist Church are losing members, one of the few Church’s that is actually retaining members is the Catholic Church. People have been saying for decades that in order to modernise and retain members Churches need to ‘liberalise’- they need to allow for women priests, gay priests, women bishops, married priests and liberal abortion policy. But this liberalisation has done nothing for the Churches that have subscribed to it. The Anglicans barely have a youth organisation and although the Catholic’s don’t have as many young members as it used to, the retention rate is certainly a lot higher then other Churches, just look at World Youth Day in Sydney. The scarier and much more revealing thing is that young Catholic’s and Christians are generally conservative and orthodox- they are not liberal. It appears that Christians don’t want liberalism, they are no doubt sick of people like Gross who are from outside the Church (Gross is actually an atheist) telling them what to do, these people from the outside often have little understanding of doctrine and moral theology. The only thing these people know for sure is what they want, and more often then not it’s for the benefit of the Churches, but rather their own politically motivated agenda.

All that Gross’s article and other similar opinions prove is just how intolerant these people really are. They are annoyed that in the ‘modern’ Western world of mateiralism, atheism and subjevticism that people might still want to hold on to faith. They are very overt about their efforts to destroy conservative and orthodox instutions like the Church, they don’t like that the Church has been around for 2000 years and has as much power as it does. Their response is to attempt to take it down a peg, by creating a vicious diatribe of bigoted opinions, the only thing these people prove in these frequent attacks is not how bad the Church and traditional institutions are, but just how intolerant and ignorant these people really are of opposing opinions.

 

[Richo83]

In order to be a Priest an ontological change has to occur- seeming Mary was not ordained like the Apostles were, she did not receive an ontological change, meaning she could not have been a priest.

Mary went from a woman to the mother of god, how that isn't a change of being (the nature of identity, surely that changed) I'll never know. Sure, she wasn't officially ordained as a priest (partly because the church hadn't really been formed during Mary's time), but just because the church didn't exist to ordain Mary doesn't mean a) she wasn't the mother of god and b) that women can't become priests. Jesus was never ordained by the Catholic church, means diddly squat though. I'd rather ask Mary about the nature of god (apparently her son, that's right, the thing which popped out of her xxx) than Pell. Your faux arguments and indignation are amusing and appealing though, you get so irritated that people don't agree with you, it's quite fun really, like poking a bear in a cage.

Christians don’t want liberalism

At least you get one thing right, liberalism, the ideal the west in it's freedom, democracy, liberty, equality, capitalism (or mateiralism as you call it, whatever that is) atheism and subjevticism has embraced isn't wanted by Christians. Pity, this country is too good for you.

 

[TheBloods]

Linga's strident defence of the Catholic faith is hysterical.

Thinks the Nicene Creed was anything but a political agreement.

Probably still believes that the priests really do produce Jesus' body and blood in the Eucharist.

Thinks Christianity follows Mosaic laws, even though much of it is based on Paul's interpretations, especially dumping circumcision and dietary requirements.

Talks of continuity of Mosaic law, but only parts you choose - e.g. homosexuality - but not stonings for blasphemy or adultery.

Thinks Mary was a virgin even though Jesus had siblings.

Interesting that Peter "the rock" is mentioned only by Matthew. Just one of many inconsistencies in the Synoptic Gospels.

 

[Richo83]

Heck, Mary is so close to god it aint funny, she didn't "feel the spirit" she actually lived and experienced the guy first hand, as a son no less. The fact that the church doesn't allow women priests is due to power and tradition. Jesus didn't pick women because he knew they wouldn't be listened to. Surely since a woman experienced god in such a way surpassing possibly most Catholics, it seems that women are fitting and capable enough to receive the Word (and therefore be a priest). This "Mary just opened her legs and was really a bit player who didn't know much" is a Protestant idea.

 

[Richo83]

Linga's strident defence of the Catholic faith is hysterical.

Thinks the Nicene Creed was anything but a political agreement.

Probably still believes that the priests really do produce Jesus' body and blood in the Eucharist.

Thinks Christianity follows Mosaic laws, even though much of it is based on Paul's interpretations, especially dumping circumcision and dietary requirements.

Talks of continuity of Mosaic law, but only parts you choose - e.g. homosexuality - but not stonings for blasphemy or adultery.

Thinks Mary was a virgin even though Jesus had siblings.

Interesting that Peter "the rock" is mentioned only by Matthew. Just one of many inconsistencies in the Synoptic Gospels.

Pretty much. The nicene creed was mainly designed to slay the gnostics (poor folk) yet it says nothing about contraception and women priests.