|
Post by Noelfitz on Jul 31, 2008 2:16:18 GMT
I have noted: The Holy See is following with "serious attention" the request from the Traditional Anglican Communion for "full, corporate, sacramental union" with Rome. What do you think of this? What will be the outcome?
|
|
|
Post by royalosiodhachain on Jul 31, 2008 10:55:58 GMT
I have noted: The Holy See is following with "serious attention" the request from the Traditional Anglican Communion for "full, corporate, sacramental union" with Rome. What do you think of this? What will be the outcome? Noel, When you say full communion that implies that the Traditional Anglican Communion will be changed to conform with Catholic Doctrine and Liturgical Norms. It does not mean in any case that a form of religion can join with the Catholic Church and remain in error as it is. So as long as the Anglicans are fully prepared and intend to become fully Catholic, there should be no resultant difficulty. According to your text from another thread on this forum, you explained to me that the Traditional Anglican community separated from the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago. During that time, they retained much teaching from Catholic Doctrine. Now that King Henry the eighth is dead and buried, I think it is safe for the Anglicans to assume their previously held Catholic tradition without fear from the British Queen Elizabeth. I went to the Vatican during the Jubilee Year 2000 to visit the Vatican Library and they still have the original letter to the Pope from King Henry VIII begging for annulment from his wife in the Sacramental Marriage of the Catholic Church. The Pope of course declined the request for annulment which caused Henry VIII much anger and desire for revenge against the Catholic Pope, hence creating his own "church" which became the Anglican if my memory of high school British history is correct. There are many other letters at the Vatican Library from Henry VIII to the Pope as well. I was fascinated with how well the Library has preserved history in it's doumentation of correspondence. It is sad when any form of religion feels so afraid of governmental leaders that they lose sight of the very purpose of their formation. Many religions over the years have fallen from grace due to governmental force and mutilation. The Catholic Church however will never be swayed by mere governmental force of will although this particular branch of Catholic Diocese in England was threatened and forced to separate from the Catholic Church and so overpowered by Henry VIII's impetuous will, when he wasn't even worthy of admiration or obedience to. No man is worthy of obedience to whom is out of compliance with the will of God, although many ignorant people blindly follow the leader without question. That is what happens when anyone faithful departs from the Holy Spirit. Perhaps the reunification of the Anglican with the Catholic Church will cause a complete reconsideration of the validity of Monarchy in Britain. I do believe a great number of British are disgusted with the wasted expense of supporting Royalty as figureheads of government and may in the future depose their rule. Of course many British also worship the Queen of England and her Prince Phillip so this will be a source for newspaper stories I am sure for years to come. In America we read the headlines in newspapers all the time, "The Queen went riding on a pony today and stopped to pick some flowers" as though we are suppose to stand in awe of Elizabeth. Even in America there is some sort of fascination with Royalty which I think is good, however the only Royalty worthy of admiration is the King and Queen of Heaven and Earth. Elizabeth and Phillip simply do not have the time to inspire us when they are overcome with the incessant urge to play polo and sponsor dinner parties. On another note, Noel, I want to tell you that you have struck a note of brilliance in starting a new thread in the atheist section promoting Catholic religious topics. Payback for the atheists I am certain is going to be painful for them, you see, they have no problem smearing their atheistic excrement specimens all over Catholic threads without remorse, but I am ready to bet that they will cry like babies in the crib without a bottle when you start Catholic threads on their atheist section of the forum. Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant, Noel! Keep up the good work of faith. I will wager you one free copy of Magnificat that the first sniffle will come from Falconer. Will you take my offer? Of course we also need to credit our fearless leader, Michael G. who is the mastermind of the Irish Catholic Forum for his creative enhancement of posting abilities. Thank you also Michael G. and Noel, fine Catholics, both of you.
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Jul 31, 2008 17:30:35 GMT
Royal,
Once again thank you for your kind words.
|
|
|
Post by blasphemer on Jul 31, 2008 20:37:31 GMT
Not to be an ass or anything, but this is completely irrelevant to atheism and is clearly in the wrong category. Making a catholic thread in the atheism category is probably a mistake and I'm sure Michael G can move it to the appropriate category. As for you Royal, that third last paragraph is inflammatory and I hope Michael shows a sense of justice and admonishes you as he already has admonished me. The only purpose of that paragraph is a completely uncalled for attack on all atheist members of this board. How holy and saintly you are in your actions. You really are a model catholic. Its no wonder there are so many people turning their back on the catholic church when there is hypocrisy like that.
(and just to test my theory) Go crawl back into the hole you came from and stop posting crap. Argue if you wish, but I didn't come here to be insulted by a close minded fool like you.
To add to the thread, the Anglican church was initially a vacuum in terms of values, but attached protestant beliefs onto the vacuum of belief. I don't see why the Anglican Church would or could work this merger. There are fundamental differences in belief. Consubstantiation versus Transubstantiation being a major stumbling block in my mind. The belief that you eat the actual flesh is so far removed from the belief that the communion is a reenactment, that I can't see them coming to a meeting of the minds on that one point alone. The differing ideals on saints, icons etc also add to my disbelief that such a merger is not possible, yet alone probable.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jul 31, 2008 21:27:07 GMT
I agree with Colin that this topic does not belong in the Atheist thread and I have moved it. I have also deleted the most recent post which included an unacceptable personal comment about another member.
Although it is certainly truculent, I'm not sure that Royal's third-last paragraph over-steps the boundaries so I'm leaving it there, but I am open to other points of view.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jul 31, 2008 21:45:11 GMT
There are fundamental differences in belief. Consubstantiation versus Transubstantiation being a major stumbling block in my mind. The belief that you eat the actual flesh is so far removed from the belief that the communion is a reenactment, that I can't see them coming to a meeting of the minds on that one point alone. The differing ideals on saints, icons etc also add to my disbelief that such a merger is not possible, yet alone probable. Even though I know well that you and I in complete disagreement about some basic things, I think you are entirely right in what you say here. There is no possibility of agreement on things about which Catholics and Anglicans hold fundamentally irreconcilable beliefs. There is a faction in the Catholic Church (the "spirit of Vatican II" element whom I disparage at every opportunity) who put unity with Protestants above all other goals and try to advance it by abandoning or watering down Catholic beliefs. But in a way that is almost comical, the Protestants keep moving the goalposts — the latest example being the attempted liberal coup d'etat at the Anglican Lambeth conference. Our poor old liberals (and most of them are now quite old) have to run hard to keep up.
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Jul 31, 2008 21:47:08 GMT
Colin
I am surprised by your reply to Royal. I had thought that your contributions were knowledgable, respectful and showed an interest in debate.
I admit that the thread is possibly more suited to this Main Board. However it could be argued that discussions about atheism are in the wrong forum in Irish Catholics.
You are also rather harsh on Anglicans. I am reminded of the words of Jim Hacker in Yes Prime-Minister that C of E conservative bishops are those that believe in God.
I was at a conference some time ago where a number of Anglicans expressed their belief in transubstantiation. The Anglican Church is a a broad Church.
My problem with Richard Dawkins, the Professor of the Public Understanding of Science in Oxford, is that he does not give people an understanding of science. At present science has few friends and supporters. Dawkins in his arrogant attacks on religion does not advance sympathy and understanding of science.
|
|
|
Post by royalosiodhachain on Aug 1, 2008 0:35:27 GMT
Royal, Once again thank you for your kind words. Noel, You are most welcome also kind sir! If I know Pope Benedict XVI for the staunch, courageous, forthright Bavarian Pope he is, the Anglicans will not be able to move one muscle in the Catholic direction unless he approves of each and every step they take, and if they make one false move, he will back them up to square one until they rethink what they are about to do. This is precisely what Pope Benedict XVI did with the Pope Pius X group who approached him for full communion. I believe it took that group about 10 or 15 years of pleading for full communion before they even got an audience and then the Pope drew up a contract so binding that , then he made them sign a complete apology stipulating that in the event of any signs of lack of remorse and reversion to past practices that the deal was off (de facto and impromptu), according to what I read in the Vatican newspaper.
So I do not believe any of us will have one aught to fear in the transitional portion of the Anglican return to Catholic Doctrine and Liturgy although the Pope may have to play stern with them should they try any "sneaky pete" alterations once in place. The tremendous scrutiny that will take place during the entire event will make the investigation of Princess Diana's crash in Parish seem like a papperazzi photo coverage of the Queen riding on her pony.
This Pope Benedict XVI, if successful has contemplated reuniting with three major dissidents of Catholicism than any in history, The Anglicans, The Orthodox and the Pope Pius X group if my reading is correct from Vatican news source. The resultant success will most definitely immediately proclaim him, "The Pope of Ecumenism".
And you and I do not even know what other deals he is making behind closed doors, although I am certain the papperazzi as well as the Vatican News Service will both give us all the breaking news as it occurs.
|
|
|
Post by royalosiodhachain on Aug 1, 2008 0:43:11 GMT
How holy and saintly you are in your actions. You really are a model catholic.
To Colin (where-ever you may be),
Thank you for your very kind words to speak to me although they make me blush with anticipation for any other compliments you may want to send my way. The words reach way into my heart and give it a big hug and a kiss on the right cheek. (Remind you of any one of the Apostles embracing Christ in the Garden of Olives on a certain cold, wet night in history?)
|
|
|
Post by blasphemer on Aug 1, 2008 1:00:28 GMT
Colin I am surprised by your reply to Royal. I had thought that your contributions were knowledgable, respectful and showed an interest in debate. I think a line had to be drawn. This was a thread about possible union of differing Christian beliefs and it was used as a vehicle to attack atheists and thier 'excrement'. There was no need to say what he said - it certainly didn't contribute to the thread - and I felt he had simply attacked atheists on a personal level, rather than question thier beliefs. I admit that the thread is possibly more suited to this Main Board. However it could be argued that discussions about atheism are in the wrong forum in Irish Catholics. You are also rather harsh on Anglicans. I am reminded of the words of Jim Hacker in Yes Prime-Minister that C of E conservative bishops are those that believe in God. I was at a conference some time ago where a number of Anglicans expressed their belief in transubstantiation. The Anglican Church is a a broad Church. My problem with Richard Dawkins, the Professor of the Public Understanding of Science in Oxford, is that he does not give people an understanding of science. At present science has few friends and supporters. Dawkins in his arrogant attacks on religion does not advance sympathy and understanding of science. This actually goes to the route of one of the problems with religious belief. If people labled 'Anglicans' believe in transubstantiation, then they do not believe everything necessary to be anglican in belief. Similar to the person who gave a lecture in TCD that Royal was talking about whom Michael described as being neither honest with himself or others, people calling themselves Anglican who believe in Transubstantiation are not being honest with themselves. The were probably born Anglican and do not change thier religious affiliation with thier changing religious beliefs. While people on this board are probably the exception (as most non committed catholics are unlikely to join a forum on catholicism), I would assume most non practicing catholics and indeed many practicing catholics do not believe that the communion bread literally changes into the flesh of the risen jesus... but that is an essential part of catholic belief. In fact I'd go so far as to say it is the core of catholic belief. How can you honestly call yourself a catholic if you do not believe the wafer becomes flesh? Only if you are a catholic that is not being honest is my answer!
|
|
|
Post by royalosiodhachain on Aug 1, 2008 5:06:47 GMT
I think a line had to be drawn. This was a thread about possible union of differing Christian beliefs and it was used as a vehicle to attack atheists and thier 'excrement'.
Colin, You attached the description of excrement as fices or crap, the dictionary describes excrement also as sweat.excrement
noun waste matter (as urine or sweat but especially feces) discharged from the body [syn: body waste] I was referring to the sweat of our conversations which go nowhere through laborious lifting of heavy topics which will never be resolved due to obstinate resolution to argumentation. There was nothing in my observation that was offensive through my intentions. It was through your own misinterpretations of my use of language that you attached the definition to excrement as crap. It was Saint Paul the Apostle that referred to it as "dung" and Christ Himself referred to it as "what goes down the latrine".
Furthermore, my observation is also accurate that you and other atheists do not play fairly, posting atheist convictions to Catholic topics and pretending to know what you are talking about. If you care to review my numerous refutes of false information presented by atheists including yourself, you would find that I sweated profusely in my work to make known true statements as opposed to falsely held atheist convictions as they are applied to Catholic faith.
Immediately I am directly observant of your pretended knowledge of the reality of Christ's body and blood present in the Catholic Eucharist, yet as an atheist you also purport the conviction that you do not believe in Christ's body and blood which is the same body and blood as His Father whom is God that you have already made statement many times that you do not believe, therefore you do not believe in Christ either, so your knowledge of Him is false. You do not know Him nor do you know His body and blood therefore you have no basis for making statement that Catholics that do not believe in Him are dishonest because in making that statement you also make yourself dishonest by your own witness and your own observation of anyone who does not believe in the Body and Blood of Christ is dishonest.
Also, you have made yourself quite clear that you have no intention to debate honestly, incessantly you have obviously proven your intent to refute anything Catholic and you are not in any way open to learning Catholic Doctrine. When Catholic Doctrine is presented to you, your canned response is "I don't believe that". In the rules of fair play, anyone Catholic may also say of atheism, "I don't believe that". Incessantly you require Catholics to prove their Doctrine, yet when asked to prove yours, you incessantly deny any responsibility on your part to prove the Doctrine of your atheism, which again proves obstinacy and attempt to fraud by malintent. The malintent is your statement that you came here to debate honestly yet your proven intent is to refute anything Catholic infinitely.
To prove your honesty, you need to prove your intent for being here in the first place and as I already explained to you, if you really did not believe in God, you would simply go on your merry way happy in your atheism although that is not the case as you have proven that you are most definitely allured to the topic of Catholic faith and have made repeated attempts to learn more about God, the very God you claim that you do not believe in although your repeated attempts to know Him through the Catholic faith prove the falseness of your claim that you do not believe in Him.
So, to summarize, you called yourself a liar in your post to Noel and many other posts. I will agree with that statement as correct observation based on your own statements made against yourself and by yourself.
Wheras I for my part, in full view of all that is created believe in God and that He created you and that somewhere in your development came to deny Him as God and your Creator has written, "Anyone who is not for me is against me" [The term anyone meaning anyone] and that you hold in your mind an invalidly held conviction for this very reason that God Himself is preventing you from knowing Him as He knows the recesses of your heart and your destiny, as is written by God Himself, "No one comes to the Father except through the Son, and no one comes to the Son unless the Father wills it" [No one meaning no one] While I, and any other faithful Catholic know God intimately in the breaking of the bread which is the Body and Blood of Christ, His only begotten Son, whom you claim to deny and that you do not believe in Him.
If you do not want to respond to me honestly, that's O.K by me, don't sweat it and I won't sweat it either. I have lots of Catholic friends who give me lot's to talk about, Noel, Willy and Michael G. to name a few I consider to be my Catholic friends. I am always willing to make new friends although Noel is better at making friends than I am in my opinion. I will suggest you continue to correspond with him, you won't be disappointed. Michael G. will not disappoint you either and neither will Willy.
Insofar as the Anglicans are concerned, my statement is, that [ if ] they can truly make full communion with the Catholic church a reality, then I will say, "Hip, Hip, Hooray"! for them.
|
|
|
Post by blasphemer on Aug 1, 2008 8:56:55 GMT
Insofar as the Anglicans are concerned, my statement is, that [ if ] they can truly make full communion with the Catholic church a reality, then I will say, "Hip, Hip, Hooray"! for them. How can someone who doesn't believe in fundamental tenements of catholicism make full communion with the Catholic church? I can't see the outcome being positive unless the "Traditional Anglican Communion" have different views from the Anclican Communion. To be honest I never even heard of the TAC beofre this thread, but they seem to share Anglican beliefs. As for the rest of that post, I don't feel it even deserves a response. Such ad hominem attacks are well out of order.
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Aug 1, 2008 9:42:00 GMT
Colin,
You wrote:
I think a line had to be drawn. This was a thread about possible union of differing Christian beliefs and it was used as a vehicle to attack atheists and thier 'excrement'. There was no need to say what he said - it certainly didn't contribute to the thread - and I felt he had simply attacked atheists on a personal level, rather than question thier beliefs.
I fully and unequivically agree with you.
Again you wrote: This actually goes to the route of one of the problems with religious belief.
If people labled 'Anglicans' believe in transubstantiation, then they do not believe everything necessary to be anglican in belief. Similar to the person who gave a lecture in TCD that Royal was talking about whom Michael described as being neither honest with himself or others, people calling themselves Anglican who believe in Transubstantiation are not being honest with themselves. The were probably born Anglican and do not change thier religious affiliation with thier changing religious beliefs.
While people on this board are probably the exception (as most non committed catholics are unlikely to join a forum on catholicism), I would assume most non practicing catholics and indeed many practicing catholics do not believe that the communion bread literally changes into the flesh of the risen jesus... but that is an essential part of catholic belief. In fact I'd go so far as to say it is the core of catholic belief. How can you honestly call yourself a catholic if you do not believe the wafer becomes flesh?
Only if you are a catholic that is not being honest is my answer!
Again these are very sound and astute comments. Views like these add to our discussions, even when there may be disagreements.
Anglican/Protestants believe in individual interpretation of the Bible. Thus they have many different views. Some Anglicans believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ, others that he is the leader of all Christians.
However for Catholics things were different. Catholics believed firmly in doctrines held semper, ubique et ab omnibus (always, everywhere and by all). Nowadays this may not be so. Can one be a Catholic and disagree with the Church's teaching on contraception?
Can one reject the hylomorphic theory of change and have a nuanced view of the Eucharist and remain a Catholic?
These are important topics and discussing them from different views can only help clarify what it means to be Catholic at the present time.
Finally may I say that offensive remarks made to you, even thought hurtful, should not provoke you to corresponding replies.
We will all benefut from honest, sincere and respectful discussionjs.
|
|
|
Post by royalosiodhachain on Aug 1, 2008 11:32:06 GMT
Insofar as the Anglicans are concerned, my statement is, that [ if ] they can truly make full communion with the Catholic church a reality, then I will say, "Hip, Hip, Hooray"! for them.[/quote]How can someone who doesn't believe in fundamental tenements of catholicism make full communion with the Catholic church? I can't see the outcome being positive unless the "Traditional Anglican Communion" have different views from the Anclican Communion. To be honest I never even heard of the TAC beofre this thread, but they seem to share Anglican beliefs.[/i]
Colin, The answer is utterly simple, obviously they desire to change their Doctrine to conform with Catholic Doctrine. If that were not true, they would not be approaching the Catholic Church for acceptance into full communion. "How" is simply a matter of applying that desire within themselves to the Catholic Doctrine which they already fully believe in. Your observation as I quote, "who doesn't believe in fundamental tenements of catholicism" is incorrect as it implies that the Traditional Anglicans are approaching the Catholic Church with the intent to remain Traditional Anglican. The meaning of full communion evades you. Full communion means that the Doctrine of the Catholic Church is entirely accepted as the complete and only Doctrine of what was previously titled "The Traditional Anglican" and what will be changed in title to "Catholic". In simpler terms Traditional Anglicans will cease to exist.
As for the rest of that post, I don't feel it even deserves a response. Such ad hominem attacks are well out of order.[/quote][/i]
Colin, There was not one ad hominem remark in my entire post, no where did I appeal to personal consideration. The thrust of my post was entirely created through logic and even quoted the source of my logic as Holy Scripture. In fact, I do not even know you personally in order to have a fund of personal information to draw from to make a personal appeal, other than that your first name is Colin. From the Dictionary:YLLABICATION: ad hom·i·nem PRONUNCIATION: hm-nm, -nm ADJECTIVE: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:
Secondly what I posted was not an attack, I am stating my beliefs concerning your development into denial of God while I know that you did believe in Him when you were born. All newborn babies have intrinsic knowledge of their Creators, God, the Mother of birth and the Father of birth.
|
|
|
Post by falconer on Aug 1, 2008 19:30:50 GMT
I agree with Colin that this topic does not belong in the Atheist thread and I have moved it. I have also deleted the most recent post which included an unacceptable personal comment about another member. Although it is certainly truculent, I'm not sure that Royal's third-last paragraph over-steps the boundaries so I'm leaving it there, but I am open to other points of view. I think you should leave it: it's a good example of infantile ranting and raving (not that we're short from that source). And if that's not acceptable then neither is the third paragraph. ;D
|
|