A Catholic monarch for England?
The incoming primate of the Church of Ireland, Bishop Alan Harper, had delivered some very controversial comments. Unlike his fellow Anglicans in America, though, he is not suggesting that Jesus is an optional concept or agitating for openly homosexual clergy.
Instead, he said it is well past time for England to move past the ban on Catholics ascending to the British throne. Note that the law, the Act of Settlement from 1701, bans Catholics specifically. It does not require that the monarch be Anglican. He or she could be a Buddhist, a Muslim, an agnostic, or a Scientologist -- just not Catholic. Bishop Harper correctly suggests that the circumstances that gave birth to this law have long since faded into history. The implications of such a change are quite interesting, and I think Bishop Harper knew exactly what those implications were before he made his statements.
The former Bishop of Connor, the Right Reverend Alan Harper, is about to take on his new job as head of the Church of Ireland, the Anglican Church on the Emerald Isle. In an interview with the Irish Times, he has some remarkable things to say about the United Kingdom and the monarchy:
The ban on Catholics becoming the British monarch should be abolished, according to the incoming Church of Ireland primate.
In an interview with the Irish Times newspaper, Bishop Alan Harper said it was now time to "move on".
The Act of Settlement bans Catholics, or those married to Catholics, from ascending the British throne.
The new primate-elect said the Act of Settlement of 1701 "belongs to its time and we should move on", but that its repeal could have implications for the Church of England.
The implications are far reaching. Remember that the sitting monarch is the governor of the Church of England. He or she appoints bishops. But that it also complicated by the fact that, like in many things, the prime minister makes the actual decision, passes it on to the king or queen, who then proclaims it.
The situation means that the Church of England is intimately tied to the symbol of power, the king or queen, and to the actual seat of power, the elected prime minister.
In order to allow a Catholic to ascend to the throne, the Church of England would have to be disestablished, that is, it would no longer have that tie to the monarch and to the government. In that way the Church of England would handle its own affairs and the Catholic monarch would not be required to manage, even in name, the affairs of a non-Catholic church.
That would be a good thing according to Bishop Harper:
Bishop Harper told the Irish Times that the disestablishment of the Church of England - separating church and state - was something it would "not only get over, but would be the better for it".
I would agree. I think a root reason for a lot of the shift of Anglicanism off of the roots of Christianity could be traced to how bishops, appointed by politicians, are obviously going to think like politicians. That means being as acceptable to as many people as possible, and that means avoiding divisive positions and beliefs. Well, the fundamental function of religion is to be divisive ("this is what is true, and this is what is not"), so you can imagine what would happen to a religion under those circumstances.
OK, you don't have to imagine. This is the way the Anglican Church has been going for quite some time. Politically correct and all that.
It should be noted that this relationship between Church and State applies only to the Church of England. Other churches in the Anglican communion, including the Church of Ireland, are not accorded any special status in their homelands. Nevertheless, the Communion takes much of its lead from the Church of England, so the impact goes far beyond the shores of England. If nothing else, what the Church of England does and says is often, if unfairly, assumed to be the word of the entire Anglican Communion. So Bishop Harper's suggestion that the Church of England would benefit by becoming completely separated from the government could be seen as a suggestion that the Communion as a whole would benefit.
Did Bishop Harper consider the implications of his comments? I can't be sure, of course, but I'm willing to bet he knew exactly what those implications were.
I doubt very much that a cleric of the Church of Ireland, even the most senior cleric, is going to have much affect on the way England sees fit to constrain the religious affiliaton of her monarch. Still, it is an interesting discussion to initiate. The change Bishop Harper is calling for is not hard to defend. Here's hoping that Bishop Harper continues to initiate interesting discussions. Sometimes, once in while, a comment is made at the right time in front of the right people, and everything changes.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Alan Harper Church of Ireland Anglican Anglicanism Church of England Act of Settlement Catholicism
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
No. The British want an Islamic Monarch in order to prove their multiculti credentials. The sun is setting.
Posted by: Philanthropist at January 22, 2007 02:07 AM
I think he is correct that it is probably time for the Church of England to be disestablished and the ban on Catholic Monarchs to be repealed.
But, I find the rest of your post to contain some pretty big leaps.
First, I'm not sure how many religious leaders would agree that "the fundamental function of religion is to be divisive." The message of most religions tends towards the opposite: to unite.
Second, your claim that the Anglican Church avoids "divisive" beliefs and practices runs directly counter to the current trends towards an impending schism within the Anglican community Indeed, the discussions over ordination of women, acceptance of homosexuality, etc. are the very definition of "divisive" practices, given that they are, in fact, dividing the church. It seems that you are really just using the term "divisive" here as a code word for "conservative" beliefs and practices.
Third, I think that attributing the diversity in Worldwide Anglican beliefs to the fact that some of the leaders of the Church Of England are nominally appointed by the Queen/Prime Minister to be somewhat of a reach.
The fact is, the Anglican Community has, from its very beginning, adopted a far less centralized governance than, say, the Catholic Church. There is no single juridical authority in the Anglican Community, and all 39 provinces are free to govern themselves through their own Primate.
This, of course, has lead to considerable diversity in belief and practice within the Anglican Community: some consider themselves to be non-papal catholics, others draw on Luther, Wesley, Calvinism, etc. It seems to me that this is of far greater importance than the claim that Church of England leaders are appointed by politicians and so must be politicians themselves.
It is, afterall, not the Church of England that has primarily pushed the gay-rights agenda into the worldwide Anglican community. It was largely factions within the US Episcopal Church, which has been separate from the Church of England since the US war of Independence.
Posted by: bob at January 22, 2007 06:06 AM
Jesus' exact words about your comment, Steve, "Well, the fundamental function of religion is to be divisive" are:
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace,
but a sword.
For I have come to set a man against his father,
and a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's foes will be members of one's own household.
Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.
Matthew 10: 34-39
Substitute ambition or worldly power for father or mother as in "whoever loves ambition or worldy power more than me is not worthy of me."
This substitution in the Anglican Church of ties to the Monarchy and the governing establishment of the realm in place of ties to, and trust alone in, Jesus Christ, is the crux of the problem in the Anglican Church. I actually had a retired Anglican clergyman, very high up in the hierarchy after rectorships in some very "plummy" establishment churches, say to me, in great humility and some sorrow, "I wish I had served my Lord as well as I have served my church." I was surprised and felt an admiration for him for his candid, yet sad, admission.
I have very close ties with the Anglican Church of Canada, and am not speaking as an outsider. I welcome Bishop Harper's suggestion that it's time to scupper the prohibition of Catholics from the British Monarchy. The "establishment" nature of the Anglican Church in England, Canada, and the U.S. has put a noose around the neck of "true religion," a concept, in fact, that is somewhat ridiculed by the vestment- and mitre-clad crowd in the Anglican Church.
Political correctness and the "progressive" and "evolving" ideas of what the Bible calls "the world" have been seeping into the Anglican Church very rapidly in the past 50 years--not that they were ever absent or don't present themselves in other churches. The thing about the Roman Catholic Church is, it holds to its Magisterium and its core beliefs, which are difficult for individual priests, Bishops, and congregations to trifle with. Local Anglican Bishops, congregations, and Synods, on the other hand, have been toying with the Anglican Church's core beliefs for a very long time--e.g., Bishop Michael Ingham and the New Westminster Diocese--and chaos has ensued, not to mention bitterness and schism--not the kind of divisions Jesus was talking about.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 22, 2007 10:42 AM
Got to agree with Bob that the assertion that the links between the Church of E and the monarchy have led to the current positions. They dont explain the United Church's move in a similar if not more radical direction.
That being said the monarch should be head of state and cut from being head of the church of e....and this last point is a a question, Isnt the ban on Roman Catholics....I believe Anglican is still Catholic just not Roman Catholic...but I could be wrong...and the ban shouldnt be there anymore.
Yes wouldnt that be odd if a Muslim King or Queen became the head of the Anglican church.
Unfortuantley I think there will be lots of teeth gnashing and hair pulling long before that is even a possibility. Clearly there is a backlash brewing. In Europe, in Canada etc. Less tolerance for imposed or "demanded" tolerance, if you know what I mean.
Bit of a segue but I found the story in the Globe on the weekend interesting. The father of one of the older suspects in the Toronto Bomb Plot. The fathers justification for why his son was innocent was that he had a new BMW....now there are two explanations.
1) He was "making it" therefore no reason for him to get in trouble.
2) There is a twisted view of western society is, so pointing to his material accumulation is a way of saying he was just like you therefore he was inncoent...
the trial will be interesting to say the least.
Posted by: Stephen at January 22, 2007 10:45 AM
Stephen, you say, "I believe Anglican is still Catholic just not Roman Catholic..."
You're right. But many Anglicans don't seem to know this, despite the fact that every week they say the Nicene Creed in which they proclaim,
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the forgiveness of sins... etc."
Anglicans rather like to skip over credal statements they either don't understand or like.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 22, 2007 11:21 AM
batb
It's not just the Anglican Church that says the Nicene Creed in the form you outline. So does (or at least did) the Lutheran Church I attended as a boy. Didn't have a problem with it then, though my sister did until I pointed out that the word "catholic" means universal.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 22, 2007 12:31 PM
"Anglicans rather like to skip over credal statements they either don't understand or like".
Wow. Such ignorance, arrogance, and contempt for your fellow Christians. But this is nothing new. Many Catholics still consider Protestants to be heretics. That's fine. Catholics never cease to amaze me. At a time when Christians are being persecuted through-out the world you still delight in attacking your fellow Christians. As predictable as it is sad and pathetic. Could someone please tell me why we English people are constantly being expected to give up our culture and traditions? Bilingualism in Canada, pro-activism in the States, multiculturalism in Britain, immigration in Australia, every day it's something new.
The Nicene Creed is a cornerstone of the Christian faith. The word Catholic itself is Greek for 'universal'. Anglicans believe in a universal Christian church and we still believe in tradition, therefore we celebrate our faith by reciting the Nicene Creed. Would it surprise you to know that we also celebrate Christ's sacrifice each week during communion? And no, we are not alone in our practices. You like to give the impression that we Anglicans are Catholics, we just don't know it yet. Gee, who does that sound like? Muslim fanatics love to talk about how the entire world is Muslim (they just don't know it yet). At least Muslims haven't been speaking such nonsense for the past 500 years.
You betray yourselves with your naked Catholic arrogance. Those of us who are fortunately not Catholic are not surprised by this. Your Church has for centuries institutionalized its own contempt for any group of Christians who have refused to follow your self-serving and at times deeply disturbing twist on the Christian faith (praying to the Virgin Mary for the forgiveness of sins for instance is contrary to the very words of Christ not to mention the will of God).
The ban on Catholics was well earned I'm afraid. Let us not forget for a moment that the Catholic Church itself sanctioned the assassination of the English sovereign and called for holy war against the English nation (not because they were concerned for the well-being of their fellow Christians mind you, but because they were more concerned about a loss of money and power naturally). For years the Catholic church worked against the emerging democratic will of the English nation. No, I'm quite afraid that the ban is well earned. At a time when our own faith and culture is under attack it would be foolish to give into the demands of any group that seeks to weaken our cultural resolve. And yes, let's face it, our cultural resolve isn't what it used to be. The ban stays, if only for the fact that the English sovereign is the defender of the national church. I would not expect (let alone trust) a Catholic to restore our faith.
But we have been in this situation before. Our history with the Catholic Church is not at all that dissimilar from what is going on right now in England with radical Muslims. Again, here we have foreigners attempting to subvert our culture and annihilate our faith. Clerics in Saudi Arabia sanction holy war against the English state and radical Islamic groups, like the Spanish armada before them, attempt to carry out the wishes of their masters. So don't worry, the Catholic Church in this instance is in good company.
Posted by: TheDiggler at January 22, 2007 01:57 PM
TheDiggler: I said, "Anglicans rather like to skip over credal statements they either don't understand or like."
To which you respond, "Wow. Such ignorance, arrogance, and contempt for your fellow Christians."
I've been a cradle Anglican for well over 50 years, so who's being ignorant and/or arrogant?
You further comment "Could someone please tell me why we English people are constantly being expected to give up our culture and traditions?" Are you not aware, TheDiggler, that there are millions of English Catholics? In fact, there are more English Catholics filling churches in England than there are Anglicans? These English Catholics share many traditions and one British culture with Anglican Christians; they are not that different from one another.
When you say "praying to the Virgin Mary for the forgiveness of sins...is contrary to the very words of Christ not to mention the will of God" I have to agree with you. Roman Catholics don't, contrary to your assertion, "pray to" the Virgin Mary.
From "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" on "Devotion to the Blessed Virgin" (#971):
[begin quote]
"All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship." The Church rightly honours "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honoured with the title of 'Mother of God', to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs [recall Christ's words about Mary at the Cross, "Behold, thy mother."]...This very special devotion...differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration." The liturgical feasts decicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, and "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.
[end quote]
The first part of the rosary prayer is a direct quote from Scripture, "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus" and the second part says, "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death."
You'll notice that the faithful have ASKED for Mary's prayers; they are not praying TO her. They are talking to her, their "mother," as Jesus proclaimed her before He died.
BTW, TheDiggler, there are many thousands of Anglicans and Lutherans who also pray the rosary. It is not just a Roman Catholic practice, though it clearly is widespread in the RC Church.
With this comment, "But we have been in this situation before. Our history with the Catholic Church is not at all that dissimilar from what is going on right now in England with radical Muslims. Again, here we have foreigners attempting to subvert our culture and annihilate our faith."
EXCUSE ME??????
British Roman Catholics are "not that dissimilar from...radical Muslims"? You're way off base here. There are British Roman Catholic families that go back as far as or much further than Anglican families, so they can hardly be called "foreigners." Both Anglicans and Roman Catholics share a common Christian faith and often work together, ecumenically, on any number of social justice and peace projects and issues.
To equate British Roman Catholics with radical Muslims is to step way over the line of reasonable debate. It is an outrageous allegation in which you are, quite simply, wrong.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 22, 2007 06:12 PM
Brian in Calgary: Yes, I do know that "Catholic" means "universal," which is why I never quite know why Anglicans and other Protestants get their knickers in a knot when it is clear that the Anglican Church, for instance, pledges its belief in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Thanks for pointing that out.
All Christians believe what is proclaimed in the Nicene Creed: Anglican, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, Protestant, etc. And there is really nothing controversial here.
What of course separates this proclamation of "Catholic" from the so-called "Catholic Church," is that the "Catholic Church" is the "Roman Catholic Church," which is under the earthly authority, bequeathed by God to Peter, of the Bishop of Rome. The other Christian deonominations are not under the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
And, therein, of course lies many misunderstandings, misapprehensions, stereotypes, superstitions, and sometimes downright bigotry, which go all different ways.
No wonder the Lord Jesus hates schism and keeps proclaiming "that they may all be one, like my Father and I are one."
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 22, 2007 06:26 PM
Let's set some things straight:
Anglicans are only Roman Catholics who can divorce and, BTW, Roman Catholics ARE NOT Christians!
(I used to be an Anglican, until I was saved by trusting in Christ's sacrifice in payment for my sins ALONE -- not Mary's, or some so-called "saint" -- almost 8 years ago. Praise God!)
The Nicene Creed was written in the 4th century when the then emperor Constantine (who killed Bible-believing Christians, BTW) who conveniently "converted" to Christ because he was losing the war against them (research it for yourself). Ever heard of the phrase "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em"? Constantine took the then Roman Empire and all their Caesars and turned them into "priests".
Since then, the RCC killed REAL Christians for as little as re-baptizing people once they got saved (Anabaptists).
If you REALLY want a good read, try Revelation 17. Notice the appearance of the woman mentioned as well as where she sits (v9 "seven mountains" aka "the city of seven hills" or ROME).
Rome has not changed. They still hate the Bible, they still hate the Lord's church and they still want to control the world. Remember, Satan is a DECEIVER and comes as an "angel of light". Satan deceived Eve in the Garden of Eden and he is out to deceive you today. Satan wants you to THINK you have the real thing and takes you just close enough to miss it -- with "religion" and not true Christianity. No wonder the Apostle Paul tells us in Galations 1:6-9 not to receive any other Gospel even if an angel came down from Heaven and brought it to us himself.
(Now quit fighting and go read your Bible! You could also take a look at Foxe's Book of Martyrs or Caroll's Trail of Blood, if you still need more evidence.)
PS -- Diggler: isn't the BIBLE supposed to be "the cornerstone of the Christian faith"?!?
Posted by: What saith the Scriptures? at January 24, 2007 02:38 AM
WSTS: Statements like your "Roman Catholics ARE NOT Christians!" show how little you know about Roman Catholics.
You don't say what denomination you are, but whatever it is, the kind of heightened rhetoric you're using, against brothers and sisters in the faith--you should do your homework, rather than rely on anti-Catholic screeds to prop up your anti-RC bigotry--is hardly "Christian."
You sound like a marauding bully to me.
BTW, I know my Bible, and your arguments are not convincing. Get on your knees, WSTB, pray for some humility and compassion, and then perhaps someone would be happy to converse with you.
Right now, your lofty position, which is so obviously superior to, and contemptuous of, Roman Catholics (after you saw the light 8 years ago, you say?) you're in a place that most of us cannot hear you from.
What did you say, again...?
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 24, 2007 07:37 AM
Nowhere in Bible does it say that the Bible is supposed to be the sole source of Christian faith.
If you believe in Jesus' teaching, then the teachings are the source. The teachings include living a right life of faith and works and obedience to God, Jesus, and the Apostles. Either you believe Jesus' teachings or you don't. Included in the teachings is the establishment of the Church, the vesting of authority in the Apostles, and the promise to safeguard the Church for all time. So, either you believe Jesus, or you believe Jesus failed (to safeguard the Church). If you believe Jesus failed, then why be Christian at all?
Jesus founded the Church between 50 and 200 years before the Bible was even written and compiled. Jesus didn't teach from the Bible. He taught from the Old Testament and added the New. How someone can see the Bible as something independent and superior to the Church is beyond me. Well, I know how: Ignorance of history.
Neither is Vatican Hill one of the seven hills of Rome. The Holy See is on a hill across the Tiber from the seven hills of Rome. So, there's either eight hills, or the seven hills are picked arbitrarily to make attacks on the True Church for whatever reason. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Posted by: Patrick at January 25, 2007 04:31 PM
Also missing from the Bible: a verse or verses listing which books should be in the Bible. Though the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit, the table of contents was written by the Catholic Church. AFTER Constantine.
Any belief in the correctness of that table of contents bodes faith in said institution. So much for that conspiracy theory.
Speaking of institution, I love how non-Catholics can have faith in the existence of God but be agnostic about the existence of His Church on Earth.
Let us get this straight. You claim to be part of this "universal" church. There are several points to make:
1) "church" is singular. This presumes not only universality but also oneness.
2) "church" also implies "not-church" just as the concept of "apple" implies objects which are "not-apple."
Follow these logical extensions to their unavoidable conclusions. If you have just one church, then you must also decide what is "not-church". But who decides and how? Some would exclude Catholics from that definition, some would exclude non-Catholics. Others still would INclude Scientologists or Buddhists.
So who is right here? Clearly, you cannot rely on consensus among Christians because in order to find that consensus you would need yet another consensus on what a Christian is (and, if you include Catholics in that census, Catholicism would end up with the definitive definitions on both counts anyway).
You have only two choices:
1) YOU are right (whatever that means, oh mighty prophet)
2) The Catholic Church is right
One is absolutely relativistic -- which denies the unitive nature of truth. Not to mention the fact you will go to the grave with your mighty secret and at most only a handful of temporarily deluded followers to show for it.
The other is the Scriptural solution that preserves both the unity as well as the cathlocity of the True Church.
People like to go around saying "We're catholic too" because its warm and fuzzy connotations of togetherness. But like most heresies, the Church not only agrees with you, she makes sure to protect out the other dimension as well.
Funny how you do not hear too many people saying "we're the one church too". Yet "one" is the first of the four marks of the True Church in the very creed being referenced here (it even precedes "holy"). Not only is it the first, but, as stated earlier, it is the only element echoed in the singular form of the noun "church."
Anything else is sentiment as smokescreen. No accounting of a single church can be made and non-Christians see it for what it is: unworkable hogwash. But I am willing to entertain how you define this church you mention. It has been over 500 years after all and this matter is important enough to be settled.
Posted by: StubbleSpark at January 26, 2007 01:58 AM
Please allow me to share some of “what sayeth the scriptures” in response to your arguments:
On extra-Biblical writings – “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18-19)
On Roman Catholic traditions – “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)
On Roman Catholic doctrine and ordinances – “ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:1-3)
On “Mary” the Roman Catholic “Queen of Heaven” – “The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.” (Jeremiah 4:17, see also Jeremiah 44)
On the Rosary– “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” (Matthew 6:7)
On the Pope – “But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.” (Mark 1:30) Peter was married.
On the Roman Catholic “church” – “And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. [...] And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.” (Revelations 17:4-6, 9)
To TRUE believers – “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:17)
Posted by: What saith the Scriptures? at January 26, 2007 12:06 PM
It's The Book of Revelation, WSTS, not Revelations. That mistake, alone, says something about your authenticity.
Your quotes, from both the Old Testament and New Testament, lack all credibility. What book are you quoting from?
Not the Bible.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 26, 2007 08:30 PM
Because the more internationally recognized title of the book is the Book of the Apocalypse, I think the misquote "Book of Revelations" is understandable. In fact, I am starting to think it is not a misquote at all. Having grown up Baptist, I have a vague memory of it just being called "Revelations". Mind you, this is minus "The Book of" but that might come from another Christian tradition.
But really, WST, do you truly want to play scripture shuriken instead of answering the question I proposed? You realize, I hope, that by pretending to ignore the question (how is "the church" both one and universal without an established governing body) you are openly proclaiming that you have no suitable answer.
Okay, by your rules then:
On extra-Biblical writings and sacred tradition -- "The Scriptures are our sole source of wisdom and understanding of Christ and His gospel." (aka Sola Scriptura) or other words to that effect are not found in the Bible. Sola Scriptura is unscriptural. See: I Tim 3:15, Luke 10:16, I Corinthians 11:2, II Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6
It is clear from these verses and the passages which provide them context that the Church authoritatively maintained unity through Christ's mandate to teach ONE gospel through the centuries "Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me." (Luke 10:16). Because what Christ wanted, more than a gaggle of "free-thinkers" was a unified church: "I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, SO THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they may also be in us, that the WORLD MAY BELIEVE YOU SENT ME." (John 17:20-21).
The traditions of man being condemned in the scriptures in your above message (Colossians 2:8 and 1 Timothy 4:1-3) are the traditions that divide the mystical body of Christ. The teachings of Luther, Calvin and countless other heresiarchs whose words were like the lash upon our Lord's back -- each blow cutting deeper, separating more flesh from divine flesh, and adding to His suffering.
The division between Christians now is a tragedy of cosmic proportions and with every new "non-denominational" church that crops up, the divisions grow MORE numerous and the confusion more prevalent.
In light of the verses quoted above, you now have three choices:
1) Deny Christ meant for His Church to be unified.
2) Admit Christ meant for His Church to be one and that He gave it the authority to maintain that unity.
3) Try not to think about the fact that the Catholic understanding can incorporate a full understanding of BOTH the pro-tradition verses I quoted as well as the anti-tradition verses you quoted and change the topic.
Posted by: at January 27, 2007 12:40 AM
Because the more internationally recognized title of the book is the Book of the Apocalypse, I think the misquote "Book of Revelations" is understandable. In fact, I am starting to think it is not a misquote at all. Having grown up Baptist, I have a vague memory of it just being called "Revelations". Mind you, this is minus "The Book of" but that might come from another Christian tradition.
But really, WST, do you truly want to play scripture shuriken instead of answering the question I proposed? You realize, I hope, that by pretending to ignore the question (how is "the church" both one and universal without an established governing body) you are openly proclaiming that you have no suitable answer.
Okay, by your rules then:
On extra-Biblical writings and sacred tradition -- "The Scriptures are our sole source of wisdom and understanding of Christ and His gospel." (aka Sola Scriptura) or other words to that effect are not found in the Bible. Sola Scriptura is unscriptural. See: I Tim 3:15, Luke 10:16, I Corinthians 11:2, II Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6
It is clear from these verses and the passages which provide them context that the Church authoritatively maintained unity through Christ's mandate to teach ONE gospel through the centuries "Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me." (Luke 10:16). Because what Christ wanted, more than a gaggle of "free-thinkers" was a unified church: "I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, SO THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they may also be in us, that the WORLD MAY BELIEVE YOU SENT ME." (John 17:20-21).
The traditions of man being condemned in the scriptures in your above message (Colossians 2:8 and 1 Timothy 4:1-3) are the traditions that divide the mystical body of Christ. The teachings of Luther, Calvin and countless other heresiarchs whose words were like the lash upon our Lord's back -- each blow cutting deeper, separating more flesh from divine flesh, and adding to His suffering.
The division between Christians now is a tragedy of cosmic proportions and with every new "non-denominational" church that crops up, the divisions grow MORE numerous and the confusion more prevalent.
In light of the verses quoted above, you now have three choices:
1) Deny Christ meant for His Church to be unified.
2) Admit Christ meant for His Church to be one and that He gave it the authority to maintain that unity.
3) Try not to think about the fact that the Catholic understanding can incorporate a full understanding of BOTH the pro-tradition verses I quoted as well as the anti-tradition verses you quoted and change the topic.
Posted by: StubbleSpark at January 27, 2007 12:41 AM
Sorry about the above double post.
WST, I had to also point out that petitioning Mary via the rosary, while repetitive, is not vain. As our Lord Himself has prayed in repetitions "He left them and withdrew again and prayed a third, time saying the same thing again" (Matt 26:44) I think it would be wise to distinguish between vain repetition and efficacious repetition.
Also, in Revelation 4:8, the angels in Heaven repeat day and night "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord."
Not to mention the passage in Daniel where the phrase "bless the Lord" is repeated countless times "Bless the Lord, all you works of the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. Angels of the Lord, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. You heavens, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. All you waters above the heavens, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. All you hosts of the Lord, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. Sun and moon, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. Stars of heaven, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all forever. Every shower and dew ..." it goes on like that (Daniel 3:57 and on and on).
A couple more things:
We know Peter was married.
Priests are not forbidden to marry. There are married priests. Although Christ Himself exhorted those among His followers who had the gift to not marry in Matthew 19:12. Not to mention the fact that Christ was an unmarried celibate.
You are using Scriptures to obfuscate the teachings of Christ, which is what the Bible predicts the false prophets would do. You either:
A) Think it is wrong to imitate Christ by by choosing to live a chaste, unmarried life.
or
B) Are more interested in twisting Scripture to fit your personal, narrow understanding of universal Christianity. "Know this first of all, that there is not prophecy of Scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation" (II Peter 1:20).
Posted by: StubbleSpark at January 27, 2007 01:08 AM
Thanks, Stubble Spark, for your illumination on some serious problems with what WSTS has to say about Christ, the Bible, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and Roman Catholics.
I appreciate your contribution to this thread.
So, WSTS, come back! You have some 'splaining to do! No one's going to bite your head off, but you do need to justify some pretty heavy stuff you've alleged about fellow-Christians...
Love your neighbour as yourself, WSTS.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 27, 2007 11:12 AM
 
|
|
