 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nominal Methodist / evangelical non-denom / "Bapticostal" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 05:26 pm |
|
I was answering a question from an evangelical Protestant. I'll paraphrase or re-state his questions (in blue) and give my answers as in my return letter to him:
* * * * *
It was objected that Catholics make it "very difficult" because we so often become dogmatic and take a position of "absolute correctness" on the issues on which we differ with our non-Catholic Christian brethren.
This is the nature of Catholic theology and ecclesiology: we believe it is infallible and therefore non-negotiable. The Protestant must understand this. We can't somehow cease to be what we are just because we are talking to a Protestant. You have to accept us as we are, and we believe in the infallibility of the Church. We must, in turn, understand that you deny that. But we shouldn't stop talking just because we have honest differences. There is always more room for better understanding.
We have to stop doing this, lest any bridge-building between us be wrecked from the outset.
But this is unreasonable, because you are, in effect, saying: x) Unless a Catholic ceases to be a Catholic (in matters of infallibility and ecclesiology), Protestants can't talk with them and no bridges can be built. But (please follow me a bit on this) granting x, real, authentic Catholic-Protestant discussion is impossible to undertake, because Catholic y is no longer Catholic, having been forced to adopt Protestant distinctive z (no infallibility other than the Bible) in order to talk to the Protestant (therefore, in that act, he has ceased to be a consistent, orthodox Catholic).
The Catholic is forced to compromise his or her beliefs to even be allowed at the table. And this is, of course, most unfair and unjust, which in turn, defeats the good will and good faith efforts of constructive ecumenical discussion. Unless each side can accept the other as they are, why even bother? You may not like some things we believe, and vice versa, but that is a given. If we can't get over these differences on a personal level, as if those who hold them are somehow fundamentally deficient, then we cannot talk and learn from each other at all.
It's like C.S. Lewis's notion of "mere Christianity" (and I love Lewis, too: he is my favorite writer, and I have on my site perhaps the largest collection of Lewis links on the Internet). He requires both Catholics and Orthodox, in order to participate in "mere Christianity", to forsake a doctrine fundamental to both of them: their ecclesiology and belief in an infallible Church. In other words, in the very effort to unite all Christians, if two out of the three major "branches" are forced to abandon something central to their belief-system, how "ecumenical" or fair is that?
My friend Al Kresta, in a talk he gave in my own house (that I subsequently transcribed), made this point very eloquently:Mere Christianity also undermines confidence in the local church, or (if you believe in them) the denomination, which is secondary to one's primary commitment to Christ. But this is schizophrenic. It pits the head against the body, and ultimately it betrays Jesus Who says the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, the body. These things are connected. The head doesn't regard the body as a "necessary evil" like many evangelicals do. They think that you gotta go somewhere to get Bible teaching, so you go to church. [The Church] is secondary only in the sense that it flows from my commitment to God, and is entailed in that commitment. How ecumenical is mere Christianity, if it removes the doctrine of the Church, which is central to two of the three Christian traditions? So it really isn't very fair to Orthodoxy and Catholicism. [It amounts to saying that] God is not able to adequately reveal Himself through the things that he has made, or the people that He has called. It's a slap in the face of God.
Mere Christianity is dishonest in that it requires a soft-peddling of differences between Christians. And it belittles our brothers and sisters in the past. When we say "let's transcend and rise above all these denominational distinctives," we are actually emasculating the various Christian traditions. The very things that Wesley and Luther and Calvin found as solutions to the problems of their day, we're saying, "it's not important. Let's just get above 'em. It doesn't matter that these brothers regarded these things as central and essential to the Christian life. We're so superior to them that we can just rise above it." And I find that that's a very belittling approach to these men and women.
Accept them on their own terms. Disagree with them if you have to. But don't say they're irrelevant. Within their systems, these denominational distinctives are meant to be solutions to serious problems in the Christian life, and when we don't take them on their own terms, then we're regarding these men and their traditions as pathological, petty, or unwise. I think Luther was wrong [about justification], but I can't say he's unimportant, you see. And that's what I don't like about "mere Christianity." A truly ecumenical effort would require only aspects that all three have in common: not favoring one and being most unfair to the other two. On the other hand, note that Lewis (in fairness to his position), in the book of the same name, regards mere Christianity as the great common hall of a mansion, but he also says that each Christian can and should have their own "room" (their distinctive Christian tradition or belief-system) that they return to at night.
Protestants have their own set of dogmas, that are non-negotiable, including sola Scriptura and a certain common rigid interpretation of sola fide (the two "pillars" of the so-called "Reformation"). Calvinists are quite non-negotiable on TULIP, aren't they? Baptists won't budge on the question of adult, believer's baptism or on their insistence that there are no sacraments at all, only "ordinances", or on the fact that their baptism is symbolic only (whereas Augustine and Luther and Wesley believed it regenerates). Quakers and Mennonites won't forsake pacifism. Etc., etc., etc.
So you guys (as a generality) are not completely different from us. We simply have more non-negotiable dogmas than you do, and so you view us as "inflexible." We can't help that. It is inevitable that you will view us that way. Atheists look at all Christians as "inflexible" and prone to believing unreasonable, silly things. It's only a matter of degree.
Catholics need to move more "toward the center" so that progress can be made in important areas of disagreement (strongly implied: we hinder any "negotiations" from succeeding because we are so blasted "inflexible").
We can work together in those many areas where we agree, if only we understood each other better. Besides, who defines the "center"? And by what authority? I think we'll find that, upon examination, this "center" as you define it, will likely again presuppose Protestant distinctives and be hostile to Catholic distinctives. That's a stacked deck, and thus sabotages authentic ecumenical efforts from the outset, due to its inherent unfairness.
Catholics have to show some real "movement"; Christians have so much in common. So much more could be done by bridge-building [i.e., if Catholics weren't so stubborn, thinking they have everything right; so frustratingly "certain"!!!!] .
We can do plenty of that without being forced to compromise our Catholic beliefs, so that we are sufficiently "Protestant" to be able to talk to you at all. That is an insult to us because it doesn't accept us as we are: a legitimate brand of Christianity as we are, not as the Protestant hopes and wishes we would be, so that we could be more like them. Think about it. I've heard this many times. It's like saying to a black person: "you know, if you would just act more like a white person, then we could get along, and we wouldn't have this racial conflict." That is not the way to achieve harmonious race relations. Each side must accept the other as they are and seek to understand them on that plane, not force them to be what they are not, right out of the starting-gate of some conciliatory or bridge-building effort.Last edited on Fri Nov 30th, 2007 04:56 pm by Dave Armstrong
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
kimdyuma
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 710 |
| First Name: | Kim | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle Anglican, Episcopal /Catholic-04/07/07 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 10:44 am |
|
| This was an interesting post. It made me think about one of the criticisms thrown at me by many protestants both in my family and others. They say that the liturgical services are boring and stuffy compared to theirs and I heard those comments just as often when referring to my former Episcopal services. Since I hear those complaints about as often as I hear the doctrinal ones it has made me wonder - was that a perception that converts from non liturgical backgrounds had to overcome?
____________________
Adopt from your local Humane Society- Please spay or neuter your pets
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nominal Methodist / evangelical non-denom / "Bapticostal" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 05:07 pm |
|
Hi Kim,
It was for me initially (I can only speak for myself here) because I was extremely non-liturgical. On the other hand, I had a great respect for Church history and was never anti-Catholic. Furthermore, I recognized that more formal worship was characteristic of most Christians all throughout history and that my preference was a sort of anomaly. I looked at it as a matter of taste and preference, and so didn't despise formal liturgy.
Consequently, when I was convinced of the truth of Catholicism, I could easily accept that its liturgy was "the way it should be." To me the whole thing was fascinating when I first came into it. I didn't find it "boring" at all. In fact, I have been far more able to worship God in spirit and in truth and with much less distraction in the Catholic Church than I ever did as a Protestant. To me every Mass is an awesome occurrence because we receive Jesus Himself: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.
[See Thomas Howard's book Evangelical is Not Enough for great commentary on what is happening at Mass.]
The irony is that I went from being a non-sacramental, non-liturgical, "Christian rock in church" Jesus Freak type to a lover of the formal worship of the Mass and even the Latin Mass (Novus Ordo at our church until recently, when we started offering both forms). But again, I am a longtime classical music buff, so the older liturgial music was, in my opinion, far superior aesthetically and spiritually to most modern contemporary church music.
I think a lot of the antipathy stems from (as almost always in these matters) disinformation and not comprehending the basic premises involved. I tried to explain how our formal worship is not "vain repetition" and so forth, in these papers:
A Fictional Dialogue on "Vain Repetition," the Mass, and the Liturgy
Biblical Evidence for Wholehearted Worship, Even in a "Ritualistic" or Formal Setting
Last edited on Fri Nov 30th, 2007 05:08 pm by Dave Armstrong
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
kimdyuma
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 710 |
| First Name: | Kim | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle Anglican, Episcopal /Catholic-04/07/07 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 07:48 pm |
|
| I have read that book actually. It helped me understand what went on in my in=laws minds some.
____________________
Adopt from your local Humane Society- Please spay or neuter your pets
|
|
|
wisdomseeker
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 31 |
| First Name: | janete | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | always catholics, although have participate in other churches |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 12th, 2008 12:32 am |
|
what really hurts me the most is to see that protestants are so desrespectfull of the ancient church. total disregard for the church that Christ himself built. i say this very humbly, how can any one even think about having any kind of union with such an institution that does not even makes any attempt to look at this church with some kind of reverence at all. not because it is catholic but because it is the very church which Jesus said he would guard against hell. in my opinion we should just love them as they are and not try to convince them of our believes. it is too late for that. they will not forsake what they believe that Bible tells them. the CC shall never forsake what they been teaching for 2000 years. this would be a dangers move and would contradict the Bible, the apostles and the fathers teachings. and mostly likely the CC would loose all the respect that the whole world has for the CC. i dont believe this would be a Godly call.
Lord strengh your Church in wisdom and truth. keep the holy father Benedict XVI under your protection always. be with him and give him courage to make decisions according to thy will. Amen
Last edited on Sat Jan 12th, 2008 12:58 am by wisdomseeker
|
|
|
3John4
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 76 |
| First Name: | Dede | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic, Protestant, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27th, 2008 01:44 pm |
|
I totally missed this thread when it first appeared, but I just finished reading a piece at Dave's website on the debate over the Catholic Church as "The One True Church". and came over here looking for any pertinant discussion. This belief is one of my protestant husband's biggest obstacles to any open-minded examination of Catholicism. Like many protestants he finds it to be arrogant, and without real basis in history or scripture. (Similar to what the debater in Dave's article contended.)
I wholeheartedly believe in the Catholic Church as The One True Church and don't advocate "softening" any statement of this belief. Therefore, every time Catholic/Protestant discussions touch upon this subject, I really wonder how much progress can possibly be made toward ecumenism. Is it really possible for Protestantism and Catholicism to peaceably co-exist? Unfortunately, on a personal level, it seems the only way to make it work is to not talk about it in any depth.
|
|
|
BeProf
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| First Name: | Ed | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Independent Fundamental Baptist - Atheism - Christian & Missionary Alliance |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27th, 2008 02:21 pm |
|
Speaking as a Protestant, I don't expect you'ns to be anything other than Catholic.
I remember when the last firestorm popped up about the clarifications on Vatican II regarding ecumenism. There was a lot of hand wringing from the usual suspects (the press... theological liberals...) that the Pope was being "divisive." I said (to myself at least), "Well I'll be... the Pope's still Catholic."
Sure we need to treat each other with charity and respect, but real christian unity cannot be built on anything other than the Truth because, as the old hymn says, the Church's one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord. A very wise person that I respect greatly once said that, "Truth is not a something. It is a somebody and His name is Jesus." The closer we get to Him, the closer we'll get to each other.
We *all* need to pray, for ourselves and for each other, that God will lead us, individually and collectively, to a greater understanding of the truth.
|
|
|
rbo4u2
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 16th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sunnyvale, California USA |
| Posts: | 324 |
| First Name: | Rich | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Formerly Christian & Missionary Alliance then became Presbyterian |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27th, 2008 03:41 pm |
|
I just downloaded, thanks to Dave's website, the study guide to a dialogue between Rev. Steve Andrews, pastor of the Kensington Community Church in Troy Michigan, (a mega church) and Fr. John Riccardo of the nearby St. Anastasia Catholic Church. Both churches came together to find common ground and erase the rift often found between the Catholic and Protestant community. Apparently it has been rather successful. I got the material from Nineveh's Crossing which is linked on Dave's site. I hope to get the CD sometime in the near future. Apparently it is acceptable to the magiterium and has been helpful for a lot of people.
I've only briefly scanned through the study guide, but it looks excellent. You can find it at http://www.ninevehsCrossing.org.
Dave probably has a book size review on it somewhere. 
Rich
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nominal Methodist / evangelical non-denom / "Bapticostal" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 27th, 2008 07:56 pm |
|
Dave probably has a book size review on it somewhere.
I don't have to review it; I wrote it!  Here is a link right to the Common Ground DVD. I am on the staff of Nineveh's Crossing as apologetics advisor. Stan Williams is a fellow Michigander who is doing all he can to spread and defend the Catholic faith.
That is one excellent avenue of ecumenism. I thought that exchange was almost inspired (informal sense of that word!). There are many exciting ecumenical ventures taking place: with the Orthodox; the ECT agreement with evangelicals, the Lutheran-Catholic talks. We need not throw in the towel as to good relations with Protestants and rejoicing in what we have in common.
I have lots of stuff along these lines on my Ecumenism and Christian Unity page.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
abbycat
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 86 |
| First Name: | Abby | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | non-specified |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 7th, 2008 10:58 pm |
|
For wisdomseeker .... I understand totally what you are saying, but just speaking for one Protestant .... we honestly were never taught any of that. I know that sounds ridiculous, but we weren't. I can't say I was disrespectfrul when I honestly never knew. Looking back on it now, I don't know just how or where I thought all these Protestant denominations "popped up" but the thought of the Ancient church, or Early Church Fathers .... well those words were never uttered. That, to me, is very sad indeed, and one of the true lacks in the Protestant world. My question to me, and to other Protestants, is ..... "why weren't we ever introduced to these things?' I don't have the answer to that, but I'm glad now that I finally have been.
abby
____________________
<*)))><
|
|
|
abbycat
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 86 |
| First Name: | Abby | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | non-specified |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 7th, 2008 11:09 pm |
|
I honestly do not think the RC church should "soften" any of its beliefs, no matter how dogmatic some of us may believe them to be. For, aren't we Evangelical/Charismatics just as dogmatic about some of our beliefs? I really think the key, at least for me, is how we discuss these things with one another. Are they shared with a truly humble heart, with the true love of Jesus, listening to His Spirit as we walk these sometimes thorny paths? or are we beating each other over the head with "this is how it is?!" all the while making the other individual feel like a "lost soul" if they don't see it our way. I know for me, one of the persons who has had the most profound effect on me in even triggering an interest in Early Church Fathers, the Ancient Church, and Catholicism, is a person who does not pound, does not speak harshly, does not judge my heart .... but one who, all the while saying the same things .... says such with the true Love and Spirit of Christ being fully manifest.
abby
____________________
<*)))><
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nominal Methodist / evangelical non-denom / "Bapticostal" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 8th, 2008 06:13 pm |
|
Hi Abby,
I honestly do not think the RC church should "soften" any of its beliefs, no matter how dogmatic some of us may believe them to be. For, aren't we Evangelical/Charismatics just as dogmatic about some of our beliefs?
Absolutely. Especially (I must say), is this the case with Calvinists and their "TULIP." They are as dogmatic as any Catholic ever was about our "de fide" or "ex cathedra" doctrines. On one Calvinist forum, I was practically immediately consigned to hell for not being a Calvinist. I had never been so rudely treated in my life. You woulda thought I was an ax murderer, with the contempt that was shown. Yet Calvin himself wrote that no one could know who was in the elect. These people didn't even consistently follow their own alleged theological "master."
I really think the key, at least for me, is how we discuss these things with one another. Are they shared with a truly humble heart, with the true love of Jesus, listening to His Spirit as we walk these sometimes thorny paths? or are we beating each other over the head with "this is how it is?!" all the while making the other individual feel like a "lost soul" if they don't see it our way.
Amen! I couldn't agree more . . . Unfortunately our culture equates the certainty of faith with intolerance or lack of charity, so we all have to fight against that. Many are reluctant to state religious truths for fear of being rejected as holier-than-thou or spiritually prideful. We mustn't fall into that. We can believe truth in spiritual matters and be loving at the same time.
We can't accept the falsehood of relativism and religion as a purely subjective thing, with no objective criteria for verifying truth claims. That has been one of the devil's greatest victories, so that folks won't even listen to Christians. Anti-Catholicism works largely the same way. The Catholic message is scorned and despised and therefore not even truly listened to.
I know for me, one of the persons who has had the most profound effect on me in even triggering an interest in Early Church Fathers, the Ancient Church, and Catholicism, is a person who does not pound, does not speak harshly, does not judge my heart .... but one who, all the while saying the same things .... says such with the true Love and Spirit of Christ being fully manifest.
YES! Bravo to this person! That's the key to everything:
1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (RSV) If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 8th, 2008 08:25 pm |
|
Dave Armstrong wrote: I honestly do not think the RC church should "soften" any of its beliefs, no matter how dogmatic some of us may believe them to be. For, aren't we Evangelical/Charismatics just as dogmatic about some of our beliefs?
Absolutely. Especially (I must say), is this the case with Calvinists and their "TULIP." They are as dogmatic as any Catholic ever was about our "de fide" or "ex cathedra" doctrines.
We should certainly not change our doctrine at all, but we can and have softened the language we use to describe and discuss it. "Perfidious Jews" comes immediately to mind.
We have changed our focus from exclusivity to ecumenism, and sometimes from something close to hate to a more loving focus. Instead of slamming doors, we are now opening them and reaching out. It started in 1965 with the lifting of the excommunications by Catholic and Orthodox leaders and has progressed considerably. Who would have ever thought we would reach a Joint Agreement with the Lutherans and Methodists on Justification? That would have been unthinkable just a few decades ago. And we did it without changing or modifying a single doctrine.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 8th, 2008 10:48 pm |
|
"Perfidious"................
Now there is a word one does not see in the newspaper everyday!!! 
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
abbycat
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 86 |
| First Name: | Abby | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | non-specified |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 8th, 2008 11:25 pm |
|
Hi Dave .... bless you for sharing this ... I appreciate the fact that you adhere to your beliefs while stating them in a genuinely caring way. I can fully understand what you mean about Calvinists. My husband and I became Christians way back in 1968 and spent the first 6 years of our "new life" in a Reformed Presbyterian Church. It gave us a very solid foundation of the "why's" of our faith, but once the Pastor had a 7 part series on Calvinism ... well, just the way he put it drove many folks away. Being relatively new in our faith, we listened, and felt uncomfortable with the "presentation" but didn't know enough Scripture to question or agree. Fortunately for us, within 2 months of that time, we moved to another state. But, it really does sting when things like that happen. But, later on down the road, when we were more thoroughly versed in Scripture, it did send us on a mission to find these things for ourselves. I know this will probably sound really simple (and probably simplistic), but the way I look at it .... doctrine of the elect or free will, I don't plan to turn my back and walk away from God, so I'm not going to worry about it. There are enough things in God's Word I need to "get a grip" on without worrying about something I can't understand. I figure greater minds than mine can deal with those things.
And ... the person who opened the door to me about Spiritual Formation, Ancient Fathers, and Catholicism is my Christian Psychologist! He and his wife have been on this journey for several years, and I'm sure sensing God's leading, he has shared some books, and things they've learned with me, until they ultimately joined the Catholic Church last Easter. In the heart, mind, and hands of a Godly individual, who is also equipped with solid doctoral-level Psychology training ... well, there definitely is the power of the Holy Spirit. I am grateful to know this couple, for many reasons.
abby
____________________
<*)))><
|
|
|
shawnbm
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Fort Lauderdale, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 21 |
| First Name: | Shawn | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Episcopalian (Anglo-Catholic) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 9th, 2008 02:47 pm |
|
shawnbm wrote: Dave Armstrong wrote: Below is a post I posted last night, that I don't understand how to post correctly. I like Dave's reply above about how we communicate with one another, and that is what I was trying to say in the post below which, I hope, I have set forth properly here. (I hit the "quote" button and started typing. Should I have hit "reply"?) Shalom.
I very much appreciate the tone and delicacy in the above posts in dealing with what, for many, is a difficult topic. The need to exhibit patience and love in addressing such issues is crucial--and Dave and Abby exhibit this very well. I have not posted here in many months, but those that may remember me will recall that I am a cradle Episcopalian who is strongly Anglo-Catholic and has viewed my church as being one of the catholic churches of Christendom even though we have, admittedly, been heterodox on issues of morals and even catholicity at times! People like me have adhered to cociliarism and "branch theology" in conversing with our "fellow Catholics"--THAT WOULD BE Y'ALL--in the befief (very heartfelt) that we are NOT PROTESTANTS.
Even so, I have been moving ever so closer over the last two years towards our Mother Church (we were under the Patriach of the West for centuries after all) and I am happy, yet anxious, to report that I have started attending Mass at a local Roman Catholic Church in Fort Lauderdale (note how I call it "Roman"--I am an Anglican, after all) and I am feeling ... well, uncertain and ... I don't know... somehow a bit like a Benedict Arnold. I guess I can address that later as I have to go, but I feel this rapport in these posts is the way it should be and I hope this kind of dialogue would continue in the future. Shalom, my friends.
|
|
|
abbycat
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 86 |
| First Name: | Abby | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | non-specified |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 9th, 2008 03:06 pm |
|
Thank you shawn for your reply ... yes, instead of pushing "quote" you should have hit "reply." You're right about that.
I am totally with you on your post, and Dave's also. Strong beliefs coupled with humble and spirit-guided words can do much to bring even the most "anti-Catholic" person into the Home Church. My therapist has absolutely been used, and continues to be, used by God in this regard. He and his wife are beautiful examples of a total turnaround in their denominational affiliation, but again the entire attitude of Christ has been so beautifully displayed that it is hard not to listen, think, pray, read and research, and take heed.
God bless you my friend ...
abby
____________________
<*)))><
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nominal Methodist / evangelical non-denom / "Bapticostal" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 9th, 2008 06:42 pm |
|
Hi Shawn,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I hope to hear more from you in the future.
Should you decide to join the ("Roman") Catholic Church, we'd be absolutely delighted to have you. In the meantime, let us rejoice in the many things we share in common and enjoy Christian fellowship in the Holy Spirit.
I've always had a soft spot for Anglicans, since so many of my favorite writers are from that milieu: Lewis, Newman, Chesterton, Muggeridge, Thomas Howard, etc. John Wesley is one of my favorite Christians of all time, too.
[as a note of trivia: Wesley never left Anglicanism, though he is considered the founder of Methodism]
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
BeProf
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| First Name: | Ed | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Independent Fundamental Baptist - Atheism - Christian & Missionary Alliance |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 10th, 2008 03:11 pm |
|
Dave Armstrong wrote:
[as a note of trivia: Wesley never left Anglicanism, though he is considered the founder of Methodism]
"We dare not administer baptism or the Lord's Supper without a commission from a bishop in the apostolic succession." - Fr. John Wesley.
Where the original Methodist Church (as separate from the Church of England) came from was from a crisis in the American Church where the the Bishop of London refused to ordain a Priest to celebrate the Sacraments for the American Methodists (or, for that matter, to ordain an Anglican Bishop for America, but that's another story). John, who after agonizing about the problem for years came to abandon Apostolic Succession, "consecrated" Fr. Thomas Coke to go to America and resolve the crisis by ordaining others. Fr. Coke's first order of business was ordaining Thomas Asbury and the rest, as they say, is history.
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nominal Methodist / evangelical non-denom / "Bapticostal" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 10th, 2008 06:40 pm |
|
I knew it had something to do with America. I wasn't aware that it involved forsaking apostolic succession. That was definitely a move towards "evangelicalism" proper and away from Anglo-Catholicism.
How fitting that it happened here: the great Land of Rugged Individualism. We Americans tend to not like apostolic succession, either, because that is associated with royal lineages, etc., and we have never had kings here in the US of A (well, not since 1776 anyway).
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 10th, 2008 10:06 pm |
|
Sometimes I can help wondering if some of the more hard-core pro protestant Americans aren't more interested in playing a game of social posturing than solving any serious questions regarding matters of faith.
It's their way of reminding us Catholics of how "different" and apparently also, uncompromisingly un-American we still are in our apparent lack of willingness to "go with the American-style of Christian flow," so to speak.
On the other hand, without having to become smug, we can take comfort in knowing that no matter how many of our fellow Catholics fall away, commit horrible sins (such as the pedophile scandals and coverups) or engage in other harmful activities, the essentials of our Faith, our Truths, which aren't "mere," remain as intact now as they were when Jesus tapped Peter to head the Church. And they'll remain intact until the end of time.
Let's give our critics a good-faith and interesting challenge. Ask them to name one, just one, Protestant denomination which can say the same for itself since the Reformation.
Last edited on Thu Apr 10th, 2008 10:09 pm by Steven Barrett
____________________
For anyone suffering from a mental illness or has a loved one with a mental illness, my book "Lead kindly Light: A Devotional For The Mentally Ill" might be of some help: http://www.lulu.com/ (Use search box at the top of page.)
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nominal Methodist / evangelical non-denom / "Bapticostal" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 11th, 2008 11:19 pm |
| | |
