What do Baptists and Catholics have in common?

[DHK]

You also are cluless, DHK. Ecumenism is not about compromise, although compromise is sometimes what is needed to settle conflicts in the church. See Acts 15:19-20. You seem to have some kind of puritanical view that if people don't believe as you do, worship as you do and teach as you do they are dirty. You probably even have closed communion, don't you?

Ecumenical is not in the Bible. I don't believe you know what ecumenical is. There is nothing ecumenical in Acts 15. Nothing, whatsoever. There was a point of doctrine that needed to be re-affirmed so that false teachers could be silenced and believers could be comforted. There was no new decision made there. Paul had been preaching the truth on his missionary journeys for a long time before this council ever came together. It wasn't for their benefit (the apostles). It was for the benefit of others.

 

[BobRyan]

I have never tried to justify atrocities that have been committed in the name of Christ. There is no doubt they occurred. Both by protestants and Catholics.

Here is the question which every Catholic has to answer for themselves in that regard - were those tortures, those murders carried on under the claim of infallability? IS there some damage done to the RCC claim to infallability if those actions were indeed wrong.

On EWTN there is a history section for the Question and answers area - where you can ask Catholic historians specific questions.

Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 05-23-2002: In a recent post I tried to clarify my position on this issue. I certainly do not advocate the restoration of the burning of heretics, because in the present climate of opinion it would hurt the Church, and I do not think it should have been done in the past, because we should not deliberately inflict such great pain, nor deprive the heretic of the oppotunity to repent. But I do understand why it was done in the past, for the reasons that several posters have stated. Billy Graham would have been seen as a heretic in the past, and he is in fact a heretic now, though he does love Christ and has done much good. - Dr. Carroll

As for his understanding of the reasons why heretics were burned in the past.

Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 05-20-2002: Heretics are revolutionaries against the Church, and if they are given a free hand can and will imperil the salvation of millions and begin the upheaval of society. Ask anyone who knew the Communist revolution in Russia or Cuba what horrors revolution brings. - Dr. Carroll

As for why Dr Caroll considered Graham to be a heretic.

Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 05-25-2002: But he still does reject the Catholic Church which Christ Himself founded. His breadth of knowledge is such that I find it hard to think of him as in "invincible ignorance" of this fact, though this is possible. I believe him to be a sincere Christian, but he still rejects Christ's own Church. - Dr. Carroll

Dr Carroll makes some good points there - Billy Graham could not be considered to be 'ignorant' of the depth and foundation of Catholic Claims or ignorant of the statements of the ECFs.

What "more" information would Dr Graham need to see the full extent of the claims made by the Catholic church?

In the Year 2000 - the Vatican makes a very public "apology"
Vatican Apology Main
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/jubilevents/events_day_pardon_en.htm


However Dr Carroll is very explicit in pointing out that the RCC does not actually apologize for any act of torture under the inquisition or for any Papal sanctioned actions against Heretics -- thus preserving the claim to infallability.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Trotter]

In the community where I live they work together extensively on various pro life causes

Same here. that is one area that we do hold a common interest. Life is sacred, and it begins at conception.

You obviously should have spent more time reading the thread. I was quoting the Catholic source not to prove they are right but to prove to DHK that Catholics regard Protestant baptism as valid.

Yes, I should have. Instead I jumped to the current point of the discussion and went from there. Laziness on my part, and I do offer my apology for it.

Improbable? Yes but not out of the question. Oh, I forgot, you're a fundamentalist so it is out of the question.

You know me. Actually, da Vinci was a product of the Church and its society. His paintings of religious topics reflected what was taught at the time. The Last Supper depicts Jesus and the disciples seated in chairs around a long table but the people of Jesus' day ate reclining on pillows or their elbows on the floor with their feet pointing away from the low table that held the food. It's sort of like Michaelangelo's Jesus being lilly skinned with red hair.

So why don't you insist on using wine in the Lord's Supper?

We are tee-totalers. Not only our shurch, but my wife and I. My wife and I do not go the restaurants that serve alcohol, and we would not attend a church that used wine in the Lord's Supper. It's a personal conviction for us, but I don't know of any Baptist church that uses wine in the Lord's Supper.

The essence of the ecumenical movement is compromise; compromise for the sake of unity. I for one will not compromise any doctrine for the unity of all.

I wholeheartedly agree. To have unity between various religions there must be compromises made. How can Christianity and Islam have unity without ignoring the gospel? Or Christianity and Hinduism?

The same can be said about many denominations. How can the Church of Christ have unity with anyone when they say everyone else is going to hell? Or Baptists with Church of God pentecostals who say that unless you must speak in tongues you are not saved?

The very differences between Baptists and Catholics are the very things that require compromise. While we have some things in common, many other things are radically different. I am sure the RCC will not give ground completely to have unity in this case, and if it did it would seriously undermine its authority. I, for one, will give no ground or compromise when it comes to doctrine. Ecumenism is all about compromise.

 

[BobRyan]

More on why Baptists cannot be saved under the New Covenant - but must find some non-Bible way into salvation.

RCC history on New Covenant and Protestant salvation
Question from Bob on 08-30-2001:
Dr. Caroll,
Thanks for the chance to clarify my question on New Covenant salvation for Protestants. As you know, all Protestants consider the New Covenant to Be the plan of salvation under which they are saved.

The Catholic church historically seems to have applied the words of Christ "this is the cup of the new covenant in My blood" to refer exclusively to the Roman Catholic mass and excludes all Protestants by definition. According to Fr. Ken Ryan of Catholic Digest this was ammended somewhat at Vatican II to suppose that some extraordinary means was to be found for Protestant salvation - since the New Covenant clearly could not apply to Protestants. Therefore - while affirming protestant salvation - the Catholic church has had to deal with it's teachings on the New Covenant and the fact that it can only refer to the Roman Catholic Mass (I think it may be the view of both Catholics and Protestant view that the New Covenant is the only means of salvation identified in scripture).

My question is whether there are any EX CATHEDRA statements on the New Covenant and the fact that it can only apply to Catholics. (And as I say, Protestants view that as the same as salvation today).

Dr Carroll replies-
It seems like an insurmountable problem. If addressed in the interfaith dialogs of recent years, I have not heard of it's resolution.

Historically the position seems to have been even stronger - as it came from Popes and councils on the subject of salvation outside the Catholic church.
According to the Cahtolic teaching on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ("outside the church there is no salvation") "heretics" (including Protestants and Eastern Orthodoxy as the term was applied historically by the Catholic church) cannot be saved (as the original papal decrees imply)

Pope Boniface VIII taught in his Unam Sanctam decree
>>>>> Therefore, this one and single Church has one head and not two heads,- for had she two heads, she would be a monster,- that is, Christ and Christ's vicar, Peter and Peter's successor. For the Lord said unto Peter, "Feed my sheep." "My," he said, speaking generally and not particularly, "these and those," by which it is to be understood that all the sheep are committed unto him. So, when the Greeks [Eastern Orthodox] and others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they must confess that they are not of Christ's sheep, even as the Lord says in John, "There is one fold and one shepherd."...

Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff [the Pope],- this we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation. >>>>>

The Council of Florence taught: > [The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matthew 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the Sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. >

The First Vatican Council taught:
> Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever right and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchial subordination and true obedience, to submit not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world, so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor through the preservation of unity both of communion and of profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation.

Answer by Warren H. Carroll, Ph.D on 08-30-2001:
The reference to the New Covenant does certainly refer to the Mass. Please read John 6, which Protestants seem to avoid "like the plague." When "Unam Sanctam" was issued, there were no Protestants, because the Protestant revolt had not yet happened. For salvation of Protestants, see the recent very important Church statement "Dominus Jesus," which makes it clear that Protestants can be saved if they are in "invincible ignorance" that the Catholic Church is the true Church. Though many Catholics seem unaware of it, this doctrine was taught as long ago as the 19th century. - Dr. Carroll

As we note above - BobRyan "has been a pain in someone's side for a very long time"

And most of the "heretics not saved" infallable statements above are BEFORE the 19th century.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

You also are cluless, DHK. Ecumenism is not about compromise, although compromise is sometimes what is needed to settle conflicts in the church. See Acts 15:19-20. You seem to have some kind of puritanical view that if people don't believe as you do, worship as you do and teach as you do they are dirty. You probably even have closed communion, don't you?

Here is a very current example of what is happening today:

http://www.worthynews.com/top/teleg...nglicans-vote-to-convert-to-Catholicism-html/

Traditionalist Anglicans in Australia have become the first to vote in favour of leaving their national church and converting to Roman Catholicism.

It is believed to be the first group within the Anglican church to accept Pope Benedict XVI’s unprecedented offer for disaffected members of the Communion to convert en masse while retaining parts of their spiritual heritage.

Bishop Robarts, 77, said it had become clear that Anglicans who did not believe in same-sex partnerships or allowing women to be ordained as bishops had no place in the "broader Anglican spectrum".

"We're not shifting the furniture, we're simply saying that we have been faithful Anglicans upholding what Anglicans have always believed and we're not wanting to change anything, but we have been marginalised by people who want to introduce innovations.

Crossing over to Rome under the new scheme would give the group the chance to retain their Anglican culture without sacrificing their beliefs, he said.

NOW HERE IS THE CATCH

Bishop Robarts said his group was the first FiF branch to "embrace" the Pope's offer so strongly. Anglo-Catholics in the Church of England have welcomed the opportunity but are waiting to see whether they will be given significant concessions on the introduction of women bishops – such as a “men-only” diocese – before deciding whether to cross the Tiber.

Someone has to sacrifice. Someone has to give up something. And there will be other road blocks as well. Just the fact that they have embraced the pope that they once rejected is a significant change in the Anglican's doctrine. This is compromise. It is a change in one religion's position or doctrine for the sake of unity.
Ultimately Rome wins. Rome gets what she wants. She is seeking for world domination. True believers know the end from the beginning. It is already written in the Bible. It will happen one way or another.

 

[lori4dogs]

DHK, if you knew anything about this group of Anglicans, you would know they are not compromising anything. These people made a decision to come back to the Catholic Church where their hearts have been for a long time. The fact is that they are refusing to compromise on what the Bible clearly teaches is sin. The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles just elected a 'partnered' lesbian Bishop. I guess you would prefer Anglicans to stay put? Anything but go to Rome, right?

 

[DHK]

DHK, if you knew anything about this group of Anglicans, you would know they are not compromising anything. These people made a decision to come back to the Catholic Church where their hearts have been for a long time. The fact is that they are refusing to compromise on what the Bible clearly teaches is sin. The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles just elected a 'partnered' lesbian Bishop. I guess you would prefer Anglicans to stay put? Anything but go to Rome, right?

Hypocrisy.
If you knew anything about Anglicism you would know that they left the Catholic Church in the first place because they disagreed with them, and with the Pope in particular. The differences caused them to part ways and form the Anglican Church. Only in your naive eyes would you say they believe the same thing and are not compromising anything. If that were true, they never would have left in the first place.

 

[lori4dogs]

Hypocrisy.
If you knew anything about Anglicism you would know that they left the Catholic Church in the first place because they disagreed with them, and with the Pope in particular. The differences caused them to part ways and form the Anglican Church. Only in your naive eyes would you say they believe the same thing and are not compromising anything. If that were true, they never would have left in the first place.

You might be surprised what I know about Anglicanism. What do you know about the Oxford Movement in the Anglican Church? What do you know about the Tractarians John Henry Newman and Edward Bouverie Pusey. How about Charles Marriott, John Keble, Isaac Williams, Robert Wilberforce, and William Palmer? Anything?

What do you know about Forward in Faith in the Anglican Church? They exist because they are aware of the unity our Lord prayed for on the night before He died. They have worked for reconciliation and full visible unity between Anglicans and the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches for a long time. The traditionalist Anglicans approached Rome, not visa versa, so your world domination fantasy doesn't wash here.

The Church of St. Mary of the Angels (Anglican) in Los Angeles has a sign over the door of their fellowship hall that reads "This is not a protestant church! We protest nothing!"

Anyway, here is an article about a former Episcopal Bishop who became a Catholic priest. His father was a Baptist pastor and mother a cradle Episcopalian. He decided to retire as a bishop of a diocese to become a Catholic. He says he didn't do it because he wanted to be a Catholic priest but because he wanted to go where God was leading him.

http://www.speroforum.com/a/23736/Former-Episcopalian-bishop-becomes-Catholic-priest

BTW, DHK, what was the reason Henry VIII wanted the Church of England to break with Rome in the first place?

 

[DHK]

You might be surprised what I know about Anglicanism. What do you know about the Oxford Movement in the Anglican Church? What do you know about the Tractarians John Henry Newman and Edward Bouverie Pusey. How about Charles Marriott, John Keble, Isaac Williams, Robert Wilberforce, and William Palmer? Anything?

Yes, I am familiar with many of those names.

What do you know about Forward in Faith in the Anglican Church?

Did they go forward or backward? That's a debatable question. :laugh:

They exist because they are aware of the unity our Lord prayed for on the night before He died. They have worked for reconciliation and full visible unity between Anglicans and the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches for a long time.

No, those born again Christians that trusted Jesus Christ as their Savior, and are following Christ as His disciples, exist because they are aware of the unity our Lord prayed for on the night before He dead.
Dead Catholicism and Dead Anglicism have nothing to do with it.

The traditionalist Anglicans approached Rome, not visa versa, so your world domination fantasy doesn't wash here.

And Rome doesn't accept anyone without her conditions.

The Church of St. Mary of the Angels (Anglican) in Los Angeles has a sign over the door of their fellowship hall that reads "This is not a protestant church! We protest nothing!"

They don't protest against any sin either. Are they one of the ones that accept homosexuals into the clergy, and also never "protest" against abortions. Typical Anglicans, eh?

Anyway, here is an article about a former Episcopal Bishop who became a Catholic priest. His father was a Baptist pastor and mother a cradle Episcopalian. He decided to retire as a bishop of a diocese to become a Catholic. He says he didn't do it because he wanted to be a Catholic priest but because he wanted to go where God was leading him.

http://www.speroforum.com/a/23736/Former-Episcopalian-bishop-becomes-Catholic-priest

Poor misguided person. He needs to get saved.
From your site:

Said Father Lipscomb, "I'm at a point in my life where I want to do the things God called me to do, and not have to make the kinds of decisions that are impossible to make anyway."

Lipscomb becomes a Catholic priest just as Pope Benedict XVI has invited hundreds of thousands of Anglicans to convert, following the publication of the "Anglicanorum coetibus" decree in October 2009. The offer from the Vatican was made also to married Anglican clergy. A number of individual Anglicans in the US, Great Britain and elsewhere in the worldwide Anglican Communion have opposed moves by the church's hierarchy to ordain women as priests and consecrate admitted homosexuals as bishops.

Obviously if the man wanted that kind of drastic change it really didn't matter.

Hell + Hell = Hell. What's the difference?

Look what happened:
1. The Pope invited hundreds of thousands of Anglicans to convert. That is the opposite of what you said.

2. The offer was made to Anglican clergy. This is contrary to RCC doctrine of celibacy. Ecumenism = a change in doctrine, a sacrifice in doctrine and so there was.

3. The move came because of the dissatisfaction in the Anglican Church's own rank and file. Typical human behavior--if I can't have my own way, I'll take what things are mine and leave. Big cry babies! They can't stand up to the liberal sinful element in their own denomination and fight the wrong. So they let the sin reign and have its way, while they put their tails between their legs and run off to another church where they don't have to fight the fight of faith.

BTW, DHK, what was the reason Henry VIII wanted the Church of England to break with Rome in the first place?

1. He wanted a divorce.
2. He wanted to get out from under the authority of a very ungodly pope, as every pope is. I certainly wouldn't vouch for the king. But the pope is no saint either.

 

[lori4dogs]

"They don't protest against any sin either. Are they one of the ones that accept homosexuals into the clergy, and also never "protest" against abortions. Typical Anglicans, eh?"

Your confusing them with the Episcopal Church. This church left the Episcopal Church back when they began to ordain women to the priesthood. They are also very pro-life.

" The Pope invited hundreds of thousands of Anglicans to convert. That is the opposite of what you said."

The invitation went out but AFTER the traditionalist Anglicans requested the Catholic Church receive them into the communion.

"The offer was made to Anglican clergy. This is contrary to RCC doctrine of celibacy. Ecumenism = a change in doctrine, a sacrifice in doctrine and so there was."

You don't know that much about Catholicism. Their is no 'doctrine' of celibacy. Celibacy is a discipline only in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. All the Eastern Rite Churches of the Catholic Church allow their priest's to marry. BTW, do you know the difference between an Eastern Orthodox Church and a Eastern Rite Catholic Church? The Eastern Catholic Churches are autonomous (in Latin, sui iuris) particular Churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome—the pope. There is only one Latin (Western) Rite of the Catholic Church all the others are Eastern Rite and allowed to marry.

"They can't stand up to the liberal sinful element in their own denomination and fight the wrong. So they let the sin reign and have its way, while they put their tails between their legs and run off to another church where they don't have to fight the fight of faith."

I'll give you a reason why they might not want to remain. Take the Episcopal Church as an example. In 1976, the Episcopal Church voted to begin ordaining women priests. First any bishop who could not in good consience ordain women was allowed not to do so. Then in subsequent convention they voted that the ordination of women would no longer be optional. They have now decided it is ok to ordain gay priests and consecrate gay bishops. They claim the Holy Spirit is doing 'a new thing!" I'm betting you coming soon it will no longer be 'optional' for a bishop to refuse to ordain practicing homosexuals to the ministry. How long would stay and 'fight the fight of faith"? At what point does an Episcopal Church (or entire diocese) pull out? How long do you remain in an apostate denomination?? And, by the way, contrary to your saying so, they usually don't 'take what is theirs' and run off. The courts usually hand over their properties to the apostate denomination they left. The clergy are deposed. The state of Virginia and the Epicopal Churches that left is an exception but that only happened because of a decision made back in the 1700's.

Also, your comment about Fr. Lipscomb needing 'to get saved' is inappropriate. You really think you can make a statement about his salvation? I think you should leave that to God.

 

[lori4dogs]

You also might want to listen to the audio (down the page a ways of the following link) and listen to Bishop Shelby Spong and his views on life after death. Would you want to be aligned with this?:

http://apprising.org/2010/02/12/doug-pagitt-and-john-shelby-spong/

 

[lori4dogs]

DHK, in reference to what a 'typical Anglican' believes. A 'typical Anglican' would be bible-believing and living in Africa. The Church of Nigeria has become the largest province in the Anglican Communion with over 25 million members, is very conservative theologically and growing fast. Compare that to the 2.2, padding their roles, 'shrinking fast' Episcopal Church or the 600,000 dwindling Anglican Church of Canada.

As far as what a 'typical Anglican' believes I really doubt if you have a clue.

 

[DHK]

DHK, in reference to what a 'typical Anglican' believes. A 'typical Anglican' would be bible-believing and living in Africa. The Church of Nigeria has become the largest province in the Anglican Communion with over 25 million members, is very conservative theologically and growing fast. Compare that to the 2.2, padding their roles, 'shrinking fast' Episcopal Church or the 600,000 dwindling Anglican Church of Canada.

As far as what a 'typical Anglican' believes I really doubt if you have a clue.

Are you a revisionist of church history as well, just as most RCC's are?
You know full well that Anglicism is primarily "the Church of England".
Check your history.
As soon as the Anglican rule of reign was over Bloody Mary Tudor ascended the throne and tried to wipe out the Anglicans, as well as the Baptists, and all other Protestants.
Then when the Church of England came to power (that is the Anglicans) they showed the same tolerance to the Catholics (and the Baptists)--kill, kill, kill--the watchword of the day.
England has had a bloody history made up mostly of Catholics vs. Anglicans. It is not a noble religion by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[DHK]

Your confusing them with the Episcopal Church. This church left the Episcopal Church back when they began to ordain women to the priesthood. They are also very pro-life.

You have liberal elements in the RCC, Orthodox, Episcopalians, and Anglicans, and don't say there aren't. There are more liberals in the Episcopalians perhaps than in some of the others. But there are plenty of liberals in both the RCC and in the Orthodox as well. The RCC is wrought with different factions pushing for change, even for female priests. And to the RCC that is liberalism.

The Episcopal Diocese of Mississsippi states: "There is no difference between an Episcopalian and an Anglican. Episcopalians are Anglicans, just as Anglicans are Episcopalians. The word Anglican refers to the faith of the church; while the word Episcopal refers to the form of government of the church."

You all come from one tree. There is no basic difference. And you all have liberal elements from within.

You don't know that much about Catholicism.

Neither do you, methinks.

Their is no 'doctrine' of celibacy. Celibacy is a discipline only in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. All the Eastern Rite Churches of the Catholic Church allow their priest's to marry. BTW, do you know the difference between an Eastern Orthodox Church and a Eastern Rite Catholic Church? The Eastern Catholic Churches are autonomous (in Latin, sui iuris) particular Churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome—the pope. There is only one Latin (Western) Rite of the Catholic Church all the others are Eastern Rite and allowed to marry.

First I wasn't referring to the Eastern rite or the Orthodox; I was referring to the Roman Catholic. You can quit with the semantics.
The RCC does not allow for married priests. In order to become a Roman Catholic priest one must be celibacy. Are your eyes blind. Do you not know of the problems of pedophilia hitting the news almost daily--the direct result of celibacy of priests. They can't control themselves. In the past, do you know how many abortions, how many homeless, how many orphans, how much adultery, has happened because of the RCC restrictions on celibacy? Yes, they try to cover it up. But not all of it has been covered up. If you dig hard enough you can find the dirt. In the Bible, Church-sponsored celibacy is called "a doctrine of demons."

"They can't stand up to the liberal sinful element in their own denomination and fight the wrong. So they let the sin reign and have its way, while they put their tails between their legs and run off to another church where they don't have to fight the fight of faith."

I'll give you a reason why they might not want to remain. Take the Episcopal Church as an example. In 1976, the Episcopal Church voted to begin ordaining women priests. First any bishop who could not in good consience ordain women was allowed not to do so. Then in subsequent convention they voted that the ordination of women would no longer be optional. They have now decided it is ok to ordain gay priests and consecrate gay bishops. They claim the Holy Spirit is doing 'a new thing!" I'm betting you coming soon it will no longer be 'optional' for a bishop to refuse to ordain practicing homosexuals to the ministry. How long would stay and 'fight the fight of faith"? At what point does an Episcopal Church (or entire diocese) pull out? How long do you remain in an apostate denomination?? And, by the way, contrary to your saying so, they usually don't 'take what is theirs' and run off. The courts usually hand over their properties to the apostate denomination they left. The clergy are deposed. The state of Virginia and the Epicopal Churches that left is an exception but that only happened because of a decision made back in the 1700's.

I am fully aware of all of that history. So the point is: Why did all the wimpy conservative Episcopalians put their tail between their legs and run from the liberals, allowing them to pass such legislation, instead of fight the liberal legislation so that they would not pass it? It is liberal for a reason isn't it? We fight for what we believe in. The Bible says: "Contend for the faith." Instead of contending many ran like cowards.

Also, your comment about Fr. Lipscomb needing 'to get saved' is inappropriate. You really think you can make a statement about his salvation? I think you should leave that to God.

Jesus said "You shall know them by their fruit."

 

[lori4dogs]

I don't think what has gone on England is that much worse than what has been going on in Ireland during our life time. I'm not sure I wouldn't rather be beheaded than blown up by a bomb. Being 'drawn and quartered' sounds pretty bad though.

How about the 'advocate of hate', Ian Paisley? What a good fundamentalist example he is! Preaching the love of Christ from his Free Presbyterian Church pulpit on Sundays and preaching his anti-Catholic bigotry on the other six days. His father was an Independent Baptist minister. His website also praises Slobodan Milošević, whom it claims was fighting a Vatican plot (sound familiar?) to destroy the Serbian Orthodox Church, and that "all Milosevic did was to lead the Serbs in their attempt to safeguard 1500 years of their heritage with the horrors and injustices of their World War II genocide ever before them." I think we all know the truth about Milosevic.

 

[DHK]

I don't think what has gone on England is that much worse than what has been going on in Ireland during our life time. I'm not sure I wouldn't rather be beheaded than blown up by a bomb. Being 'drawn and quartered' sounds pretty bad though.

Nothing in Ireland compares with atrocities of the IRA. I wouldn't go there is I were you. Perhaps you should save that for another thread; start it in the politics forum.

 

[lori4dogs]

DHK, so much to comment on I don't know where to start.

First, the status of The Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion may change if they consecrate yet another actively homosexual bishop. We will have to wait and see. The Episcopal Church is no longer 'in communion' with the majority of Anglicans in the world. Regardless of what the 'Diocese of Mississippi' says, the majority of Anglicans believe The Episcopal Church has become apostate.

Secondly, you are absolutely wrong about the Catholic Church and celibacy. Only the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church requires celebate priests. I do want to clarify that they must be married before they are ordained in the Eastern Rites and they may not be conserated a bishop unless they are celibate.

From wikipedia: "In general, the Eastern Catholic Churches allow ordination of married men as priests. Within the lands of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the largest Eastern Rite Catholic Church, priests' children often became priests and married within their social group, establishing a tightly-knit hereditary caste. In North America, for fear that married priests would create scandal among Latin Rite Catholics, Eastern Catholic bishops usually ordained only unmarried men; but since the Second Vatican Council called for restoration of Eastern Catholic traditions, some of them have returned to the elsewhere traditional Eastern practice of ordaining married men to the presbyterate. A condition for becoming an Eastern Catholic bishop is to be unmarried or a widower."

These are not Eastern Orthodox Churches, they are under the authority of the pope. Maybe Agnus Dei or someone else can vouch for this.

As far as the 'wimpy' conservatives not fighting the legislation at convention. I don't know what more they could have done than what they did. They were simply not in the majority and they lost the vote.

Also, when a diocese in The Episcopal Church elects a bishop, that bishop must receive consents from a majority of the bishops and their dioceses 'Standing Committee's' to be able to proceed with the consecration. Conservative dioceses (like South Caralina) have elected conservative bishops (like Mark Lawrence) onlly to have them denied consent. The liberal majority can suppress the conservative minority and force them to eventually elect a more liberal canidate. In the case of The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, realizing that after Bishop John-David Schofield retires (which is in one year) they will not be able to be led by another bible-believing bishop, the majority of churches withdrew from the Episcopal Church. The remaining churches, mostly liberal, were quick to ask the Presiding Bishop to 'appoint a new bishop'. She did. Guess what?
The new bishop is 'gay friendly'. He has already given his consent for the new lesbian bishop to be consecrated. No doubt, she will receive the necessary consents to go ahead. Conservatives have been fighting this for years. They fight until they are forced out.

With the majority of seminaries cranking out liberal clergy the church will continue to become more and more apostate. As I asked you before, at what point would you step away from apostasy?

There are those in Episcopal Church who agree with you, DHK, they have an inside strategy. As you say, as more and more conservatives leave, the margin of victory for the liberals just increases. IMHO, it was time to leave.

 

[lori4dogs]

BTW, most people, including Roman Catholics here in the West do not understand the difference between The Eastern Orthodox Church and The Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. A church named Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church sounds
Eastern Orthodox doesn't it? It's not.

I lived in New York where there was a Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church and an Eastern Rite Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church across the street from each other. Both had almost identical liturgies. The difference was on the sign outside the door.

 

[lori4dogs]

"You know full well that Anglicism is primarily "the Church of England".

Anglicanism originated in the Church of England but it is NOT primarily 'The Church of England'. 1.7 million attend Anglican services in a month. 1.9 percent of the population attend Anglican services in England. That's it! In Nigeria you have 25 million active Anglicans. Would you really say that Anglicanism is "primarily the Church of England"?

 

[DHK]

"You know full well that Anglicism is primarily "the Church of England".

Anglicanism originated in the Church of England but it is NOT primarily 'The Church of England'. 1.7 million attend Anglican services in a month. 1.9 percent of the population attend Anglican services in England. That's it! In Nigeria you have 25 million active Anglicans. Would you really say that Anglicanism is "primarily the Church of England"?

Yes, it is the Church of England. It originated there. It was the state church there for centuries. John Bunyan was jailed for over 12 years by the Anglican Church because he wouldn't receive a license to preach from this brutal state church. His position: God gave him license to preach, not man. It was in jail that he wrote his famous "Pilgrim's Progress." The Church of England, the Anglican Church, has one of the most cruel histories of all time.

Now what about your facts about Nigeria.
Nigeria has a population of 155 million (2009 est.)

78 million Muslim
75 Million “Christian”
2 million indigenous

37.5 million Catholics
37.5 million Protestant
25 million Anglicans
12.5 million Baptists and some Methodists.



Its primary religion is Muslim, and in the light of these numbers it is not doing very well, is it? 25 million pales in the sight of 78 million Muslims.

One can do a lot with statistics.



Let me give you an example.
Pakistan's population is now about 165 million, and 97% Muslim. That is a lot of Muslim people, agreed?
India is primarily a Hindu nation. The nation of India is now about one billion people, and yet within that nation there are more Muslims than in the nation of Pakistan.



If you add the entire Anglican population to the entire RCC population it would not equal the Muslim population in the world. It is the fastest growing religion in America, and in the world.



Thus if Muslim is the fastest growing nation in America, now numbering more than 5 million, perhaps we should say that America is a Muslim nation. Is that the way that you look at statistics??


So what if Nigeria has 25 million Anglicans. That only means that Anglicism is becoming dead in its home country. Pity isn't it? Which religion is taking its place? Islam of course!