I think we can label ourselves Pharisees based on a specific definition...
#21
Quote:i can no longer believe in papal infallibility,

Hi Guacamole, where I come from we call that formal heresy  :coffee: :donut:
Reply
#22
(09-06-2013, 05:13 PM)LiberaNosIesu Wrote:
Quote:i can no longer believe in papal infallibility,

Hi Guacamole, where I come from we call that formal heresy  :coffee: :donut:

that's a coinkidink!  we think papal infallibility is a formal heresy!

again, i don't want to violate forum rules* by explaining why i must reject papal infallibility.  i'm always glad to receive pm's, though!  (and thanks for the coffee and donuts!)

Quote:*Neither interreligious debating nor attempts to "convert" us are allowed.
Reply
#23
(09-06-2013, 05:09 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 04:44 PM)Miriam_M Wrote: One of the problems with your argument, Tim, is that it sets up a conflict that neither Jewish Law nor the Commandments, which Jesus reinforced, assumed.  Law, and Commandments, were supplied to free man from his slavery to his base inclinations which separate him from God.  They "bound" the believer to God rather than to mammon.  And God is ultimate freedom.

Also, one of the reasons for the Benedictine, etc. Rule is precisely that.  Religious life has a similar character & purpose to it as what was quoted above:

"On the contrary, when properly observed, halakhah increases the spirituality in a person's life, because it turns the most trivial, mundane acts, such as eating and getting dressed, into acts of religious significance."

Galatians 3: "Why then was the law? It was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come, to whom he made the promise, being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Was the law then against the promises of God? God forbid. For if there had been a law given which could give life, verily justice should have been by the law.  But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe.  But before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut up, unto that faith which was to be revealed.  Wherefore the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith.  But after the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue."

Aside from the purpose of the Old Law, there was a problem in the 1st c. with Pharisees being, well, Pharisaical. Legalistic. And some people still have that sort of attitude with regard to the New Covenant and Canon law. I think that's the problem the OP was talking about.

Vox, I'm quite schooled in Pauline theology, and the frequent misinterpretation of that as well.  :)  

Jesus did not "do away with" Law.  He transformed it and assimilated it.  Big difference.

Tim, I never said that the Law "saves."  You've said that twice now.   Straw man.  Law doesn't "save,"  but Law, understood and integrated properly, is one of many necessary tributaries toward salvation.  We are not OSAS Protestants.  Redemption (Jesus) is not the same thing as the individual's completion of the salvation journey, so to speak.  Every Christian needs Jesus' deep understanding and application of Law to achieve that freedom.
Reply
#24
Guacamole, why even bother posting on here? I don't even read CAF anymore because most people there don't accept simple Catholic doctrines and are against Traditionalists. Here you are grasping for straws trying to make certain you can make a legitimate claim of remaining a Catholic. There are no such things as denominations in our church. You belong to a protestant denomination. Anglo-catholics that are Catholic are called members of the Ordinariate. I'm pretty positive your views different from Henry's brand of Anglo-catholicism. Also, there is absolutely no way to prove the validity of Episcopal/CoE ordinations, which is why they are reordained...rcia for priests.
Reply
#25
(09-06-2013, 05:32 PM)MorganHiver Wrote: Guacamole, why even bother posting on here?

answered by pm.

and as Basilios would say . . .

god bless you + 
Reply
#26
I'm curious how one can deny papal infallibility and maintain they are an orthodox, practicing Catholic.  I mean, the basis of infallibility rests not just on Matthew 16, but also the writings of several Church Fathers .  Like Jerome:

"Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. sequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist.

Do old catholics even have valid orders? 
Reply
#27
(09-06-2013, 06:26 PM)Melchior Wrote: Do old catholics even have valid orders? 

the roman catholic church's position is that the old catholic churches of the union of the utrecht and the polish national catholic church (which broke from the union in 2003) have valid sacraments, including a valid priesthood (excluding women ordained by the churches of the union of utrecht).
Reply
#28
(09-06-2013, 06:53 PM)guacamole Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 06:26 PM)Melchior Wrote: Do old catholics even have valid orders? 

the roman catholic church's position is that the old catholic churches of the union of the utrecht and the polish national catholic church (which broke from the union in 2003) have valid sacraments, including a valid priesthood (excluding women ordained by the churches of the union of utrecht).

Um, "The Union of Utrecht is a federation of Old Catholic churches, not in communion with Rome".

The female "ordinations", were they officially sanctioned by the "governing" body of the union of utrecht?
Reply
#29
(09-06-2013, 07:23 PM)Melchior Wrote: Um, "The Union of Utrecht is a federation of Old Catholic churches, not in communion with Rome".

correct, but you asked about the validity of their orders, didn't you?  the same wikipedia article you quote says in the next sentence:
Quote:Nevertheless, according to Roman Catholic teaching, the Old Catholic churches of the Utrecht Union have maintained apostolic succession and valid sacraments.

like the orthodox, their orders are valid, but they are not in communion with rome.
Reply
#30
(09-06-2013, 06:53 PM)guacamole Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 06:26 PM)Melchior Wrote: Do old catholics even have valid orders? 

the roman catholic church's position is that the old catholic churches of the union of the utrecht and the polish national catholic church (which broke from the union in 2003) have valid sacraments, including a valid priesthood (excluding women ordained by the churches of the union of utrecht).

Validity is not enough; Catholics are also required to be in communion with the Church, which has Christ as its head (and the Pope as His vicar on earth).

Here is what St. Thomas says:
"St. Thomas Aquinas S.T. III Q82 A9" Wrote:Article 9. Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them?
...
I answer that, As was said above (5,7), heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass.

Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."

Since you aren't truly Catholic you can just disagree with the Church and its Saints.  You are on your own.  I don't envy you.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)