08 Jul 08
Originally posted by Conrau Kso i suppose americans are still english.
[b]yes, the catholicism that "matters". are the anglicans catholic?
There are millions of Eastern Catholics. I suppose they do matter.
Anglicans are not Catholic.
sects are sects. if they don't adhere to the vatican, they are not catholic
The Eastern rites do adhere to the Vatican.[/b]
and mormons are still catholic.
sarcasm aside, don't go into a semantic debate. if the head of the catholic church is the pope and the head of the "latin rite" is the pope then real catholicism is the latin one. the catholics made many compromises so that they can extend their influence eastwards while allowing the easterners to maintain some or most of their traditions. but that doesn't make the easterners catholic just as the brazilians are not portuguese. a saint-bernard is a saint-bernard if he only has saintbernards ancestors. if his great-great granma was a poodle he is no longer a saint-bernard
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThat was an argument that you offered, not I. Do you deny its soundness?
And that's the essence of the Simon Says philosophy that you regularly invoke.
I actually have not sought to justify the Church in this matter. I am just curious as to whether the Catholic Church explicitly condemned Bruno to death, or whether his execution was decided by secular authorities after the determination that he was a heretic.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by Zahlanziif the head of the catholic church is the pope and the head of the "latin rite" is the pope then real catholicism is the latin one.
so i suppose americans are still english.
and mormons are still catholic.
sarcasm aside, don't go into a semantic debate. if the head of the catholic church is the pope and the head of the "latin rite" is the pope then real catholicism is the latin one. the catholics made many compromises so that they can extend their influence eastwards while allowi ...[text shortened]... ntbernards ancestors. if his great-great granma was a poodle he is no longer a saint-bernard
He is head in two different senses. He is head of the Catholic Church, as the definitive doctrinal teacher in matters of faith and morals; he is head of the Latin church in matters of governance and discipline. To be Catholic requires only acceptance of the former, not the latter.
Furthermore, the pope is head of Italy as the primate - would you say that real Catholicism is the Italian one? He is also the bishop of Rome - would you say that real Catholicism is the Roman one?
the catholics made many compromises so that they can extend their influence eastwards while allowing the easterners to maintain some or most of their traditions. but that doesn't make the easterners catholic just as the brazilians are not portuguese.
The Maronites claim to have always been in union with Rome, and they are Eastern. The other Eastern churches are Catholic because they accept all of the defined dogmas, including the filioque clause which had divided Orthodox and Catholics.
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by Conrau Kif the church pronounces him heretic why would other institutions burn him? he was branded a heretic by the church and was burnt alive as a result. that makes the church responsible.
That was an argument that you offered, not I. Do you deny its soundness?
I actually have not sought to justify the Church in this matter. I am just curious as to whether the Catholic Church explicitly condemned Bruno to death, or whether his execution was decided by secular authorities after the determination that he was a heretic.
if you simply wish to ask questions, state your reason clearly so we answer the question and not explain again that the church is guilty
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by Conrau Khow many "latin rite rules" can you ignore and still be called a catholic?
[b]if the head of the catholic church is the pope and the head of the "latin rite" is the pope then real catholicism is the latin one.
He is head in two different senses. He is head of the Catholic Church, as the definitive doctrinal teacher in matters of faith and morals; he is head of the Latin church in matters of governance and discipline. To be ...[text shortened]... f the defined dogmas, including the filioque clause which had divided Orthodox and Catholics.[/b]
if i adhere to the catholic church in every way and then say "god wants me to eat cake on thursday" and call myself a zahlanzist, am i still a catholic?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziI was interested by the wikipedia artcle on him, particularly the information on his execution:
if the church pronounces him heretic why would other institutions burn him? he was branded a heretic by the church and was burnt alive as a result. that makes the church responsible.
if you simply wish to ask questions, state your reason clearly so we answer the question and not explain again that the church is guilty
The Pope expressed himself in favor of a guilty verdict. Consequently, Bruno was declared a heretic, handed over to secular authorities on February 8 1600. At his trial he listened to the verdict on his knees, then stood up and said: "Perhaps you, my judges, pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it." A month or so later he was brought to the Campo de' Fiori, a central Roman market square, his jaw clamped in an iron gag and an iron spike driven through his tongue. He was tied to a pole naked and burned at the stake, on February 17, 1600..
The article does not explain who ordered the execution.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by Zahlanzihow many "latin rite rules" can you ignore and still be called a catholic?
how many "latin rite rules" can you ignore and still be called a catholic?
if i adhere to the catholic church in every way and then say "god wants me to eat cake on thursday" and call myself a zahlanzist, am i still a catholic?
No number can do that so long as the person has not apostasised or been declared a heretic.
if i adhere to the catholic church in every way and then say "god wants me to eat cake on thursday" and call myself a zahlanzist, am i still a catholic?
I do not know what it means to "adhere to the catholic church in every way." Are we still talking about Eastern versus Western rites?
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
08 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by stokerWomen have every right to be ordained and I would not associate with a Christian church that did not allow them to be ordained.
priests / bishops [taking the anti christians out] my thoughts are against due mainly to pauls teachings in timothy. any christians out here with views.
Let's not forget (or let us learn) that Jesus was radical - quite radical. There's a reason that John the Baptizer was as wildly popular as he was, and especially with women; he offered covenant with God that wasn't predicated on whether you had a penis or not. That's essentially what is going on with Abrahm's covenant with God - it's a boy's club, women need not worry about covenant with God.
Jesus endorsed baptism as covenant with God and did not exclude women. Moreover, there are a good many passages in the NT with Jesus discussing spiritual issues with women and the intent should be clear: Women are entitled to covenant with God.
It's not a stretch for me to say that Jesus would have no problem with women being ordained. I would think that those opposed would have more than a few problems with Jesus were he actually to return. In fact, I'll bet that if Jesus returned he'd piss off a great many Christianists, given his very radical teachings.
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou have a point, but I don't care much for labels. I for example, am a Lutheran (now). But some of their basic tenets I do not hold. I DO believe the communion wine and wafer are symbols of Christ's blood and body--this I'm told is NOT what they believe. I also don't believe one MUST be baptised in order to be saved. And then there's something about the office of the keys, but that's more of my ignorance than my disagreement with the canon.
how many "latin rite rules" can you ignore and still be called a catholic?
if i adhere to the catholic church in every way and then say "god wants me to eat cake on thursday" and call myself a zahlanzist, am i still a catholic?
My point is, plenty of Catholics don't believe the Pope is the mouthpiece of God. Others don't follow some command not to use birth control. There are many Baptists around here who teach that the wine Jesus drank had no alcohol in it--it was grape juice, because it's sinful to drink alcohol. Now, I know many Baptists who don't believe that, despite any "official church position" on the subject.
And this is why I don't use labels/denominations when discussing faiths. I find most people are like me--we pick the parts we believe--you know, like a Chinese all-you-can-eat buffet? Last time I tried to pick a denom that fit me, I was a Methutherabyterian, with strong Calvino-Quaker tendencies.🙂
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by stokerWomen were to keep quiet in the churches not because Paul said so but because they were to be under obedience for that is what the law says. It is not because women are any less than men, it is only the order the Lord set.
priests / bishops [taking the anti christians out] my thoughts are against due mainly to pauls teachings in timothy. any christians out here with views.
1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
Women are also not to teach the man(husband) and if they are teaching a congregation then they are teaching their husband also.
1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
If a woman is leading a congregation then she is usurping authority over the man and that is not Biblical. The woman is submit herself unto her husband.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Can a woman be the husband of one wife? Is it the wife that is supposted to rule over the house?
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
Tit 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Tit 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
Tit 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
Tit 1:8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
I am sure there are women out there that are capable of leading a congregation, though if they were truly women of God then they would never try and lead one, nor will they try and rule over the house. Many say that these verses were only from Paul or that it was only for that time. If that were so then they would not be in the Bible nor would the Lord have chosen Paul to be one of his apostls. The Lord had set order and the women, and men, that do not want to fallow that order are only wanting to go by what they want and dissregarding what the Lord has set forth.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
08 Jul 08
Opinion noted. Ironically, why you would be spouting off scripture to a man like me seems to not follow your creed. I suspect the reality is that you will continue to pick and choose what of the "Word of God" applies to you and what doesn't.
Nevertheless, I think you're misguided and what you're using for scriptural sourcing is (again) being completely taken out of context.
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by stokerHere's the thing:
priests / bishops [taking the anti christians out] my thoughts are against due mainly to pauls teachings in timothy. any christians out here with views.
I don't believe Jesus drew a hierarchical map or organizational chart. I do not believe he sat down and declared that some would be called priests and have these jobs and these requirements, and if they were good boys they could become bishops, and if they were rich and obedient and politically astute they could become cardinals, and maybe one day win the liturgical lottery and become pope. This whole set-up was created by humans after his death. So why would he care what gender those humans are? I don't believe he does.
09 Jul 08
Originally posted by BadwaterFirst off, I was not posting to you I was posting to stoker.
Opinion noted. Ironically, why you would be spouting off scripture to a man like me seems to not follow your creed. I suspect the reality is that you will continue to pick and choose what of the "Word of God" applies to you and what doesn't.
Nevertheless, I think you're misguided and what you're using for scriptural sourcing is (again) being completely taken out of context.
Seconly, I use scripture so that no one can say it is not there. I do not make a claim about the Bible if I do not find it in the Bible.
Thirdly, what have I taken out of contexed? If I have I would like to know what it is so I can see for myself.