Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
When Is A Protestant Not A Protestant?
Topic Started: Friday, 7. September 2007, 16:44 (767 Views)
Gerard

All,

It is important to know our history and even more important not to repeat it. I suggest no emboldening or capitalisation in this thread.

Pete,

Today we catholics benefit greatly from having been separated from worldly power. Political power is always disasterous to the spiritual health of Christianity.

Colin,

I intend remaining aloof from discussions of historical persecution but if time permits might bring a discussion of the history of the book of common prayer to this thread.

Gerry

"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Gerard
Sep 8 2007, 11:04 AM
All,

It is important to know our history and even more important not to repeat it. I suggest no emboldening or capitalisation in this thread.

Gerry

I second that! Let's keep it friendly
KatyA

PS I'm off to Mass and will pray for all
Goto Top
 
Colin2000

pete
Sep 8 2007, 09:58 AM
My word Colin, you are quick on the mark!!
I do wish that I had more time to discuss this matter, unfortunately I have a sick wife to take care of, together with the shopping, cleaning, cooking, you name it. I came to my computer to look up an appetizing meal before I proceed to the shops. I just love to have a quick glance at this site and see what’s going on (nosey parker as I am).
You will have observed that my postings have slackened off, that is because of my more pressing commitments. I’m sure some of my fellow members will step in and take over where I have become more inactive.
In the meantime Colin, thank you for your full commitment, sadly we could really do with you on our side, I’ll be praying for that.
God bless
Pete
_________________________________________

Hi Pete,

I am so sorry to hear about your wife.  As a stranger here I have still got patchy knowledge.  A sick wife is much more important than a spiritually demanding Colin!

I will prayer for her in fact,

LORD I bring before you Pete's wife. 

Cover her with your Everlovinghealingkindness.

Put your wings around her LORD and take this sickness away!

For thy will be done,

LORD I ask this not knowing what her sickness is but you know!

Send your peace like a river and cover her in your Power and Healing Grace!

Yours LORD in His Name,

The Name of your Son my Saviour,

Amen, Truly,  Amen.

Loverly LORD, 

The Anointing says,  "Pete He LOVES HER," 

"Halleluyah!  LORD"

Had difficulty typing this Pete.  Even the Spell Check was blessed.  How is it at your end?

I must enter a message.

"Swing wide the gates,
let the King come in.

Swing wide the gates,
make a way for Him.

Swing wide the gates,
let the King come in.

Swing wide the gates,
make a way for Him."

[I don't know this one? But Chris Bowater does. first verse and Spirit led for her Pete. 1986, Sovereign Lifestyle Music, Complete Mission Praise 621].
JESUS IS LORD


Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
I suspect the bold type was used to separate Pete's words and Colin's.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Colin2000

Rose of York
Sep 8 2007, 11:01 AM
I suspect the bold type was used to separate Pete's words and Colin's.

Hi All,

Yes bold type for contrast. The result not quites like other forum.

Colin.
JESUS IS LORD


Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
The bold type has gone.

Colin did not have a full grasp of our quote facility, it differs from the one he uses on Anglican Mainstream. The bold was used to differentiate between Pete's and Colin's words. I sent Colin a suggested amendment, and he happily agreed to it. The words are unchanged.



Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
JARay

I was in the middle of a reply but clicked the wrong button so what I posted has just gone into cyberspace.
I referred to:-
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/index.php
The quote was:-
Quote:
 

In less than a month, with the clock running out, the Episcopal Church faces its denouement with history.

The Episcopal Church must state clearly and unequivocally that it will no longer bless same-sex unions nor will it ordain openly homoerotic priests to the episcopacy thus easing the nearly broken strain on the bonds of affection.

The Episcopal Church House of Bishops has already made it clear that it will give no such reassurance to Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, when he comes to New Orleans later this month. Also off the table, is any talk of pastoral care for orthodox parishes and dioceses who are under seige from revisionist bishops and who believe that the Episcopal Church's innovations are a bridge too far that they cannot traverse.


Personally, I am astounded that anyone can still maintain allegiance to such an organisation.
I previosly posted, in the same vein. that I found it very amusing that anyone could deny the seven Sacraments and still act as if this denial counted for nothing. I still maintain that incredulity.

JARay

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
PJD


The very very very sad thing about all this is that Protestants of all colours, apart it seems from Baptism, deny themselves the benefit of Sacramental Graces.

Tragic!

But on with the discussion; we have something substantial here at last.

PJD
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Colin2000
Sep 8 2007, 01:17 AM
So we have two sacraments. Baptism, Communion, Five other ceremonies of various status. Marriage, Confession, confirmation, (Hang about I have Lost two?). Penance, not fashionable, Holy Orders.

Penance is Confession. So you're still missing one!

Extreme Unction/Last Rites/Sacrament of the Sick, I reckon.

Clare.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Colin2000

Clare
Sep 8 2007, 03:56 PM
Colin2000
Sep 8 2007, 01:17 AM
So we have two sacraments. Baptism, Communion,  Five other ceremonies of various status.  Marriage, Confession, confirmation, (Hang about I have Lost two?).  Penance, not fashionable,  Holy Orders.

Penance is Confession. So you're still missing one!

Extreme Unction/Last Rites/Sacrament of the Sick, I reckon.

Clare.

Thank you Clare,

That sounds like it Oil from the Bishop for emergencies.

Not in my book's list. Unless Grace is it?

Colin.
JESUS IS LORD


Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Gerard

Colin,

I bring a discussion about history into this thread to avoid spoiling a good thread on prayer.

Before I say more let me say that something I enjoy doing is visiting canterbury and attending Vespers in the Cathedral - wonderful.

(Sorry Clare)

However, any twinges of unease about attending an anglican service can be rapidly countered by reminding myself that the Cathedral is ours (well built by catholics and worshiped in by catholics for a thousand years before anglicans) and the service is ours.

(there - upset all and sundry now)

So I was somewhat disconcerted by the things you were saying in the other thread about the formal prayer of the anglican church. I didnt know which one to quote but this will do:

Quote:
 
I don't know about yours? Of course other than here I don't really know what is yours but I am sure we will find out.


"I dont know about yours?" Well I think you really should know that yours are ours. There seems a degree of culpable ignorance here. Perhaps cultivated ignorance. I think you may have edited your links to the book of common worship because the first time I clicked it it went to the book shop where i found a three sentence history of the book of common prayer that gave the definite impression that it was the work of Cranmer around 1550. [But we know that it was little more than a translation and stiching together of the existing catholic liturgical books]

A google brought me to wikipedia (not the best of resources but seemed to be a collaborative effort from anglicans) which again gave an impression of a starting date in the 1500's

Quote:
 
The Book of Common Prayer is the common title of a number of prayer books used in the Anglican Communion. The first book, published in 1549, in the reign of Edward VI, was a product of the English Reformation following the breach with Rome. Prayer books, unlike books of prayers, contain the words of structured (or liturgical) services of worship. The work of 1549 was the first prayer book to contain the forms of service for daily and Sunday worship in English


Next time I hit the link you provided I did indeed get through to the book of common prayer 1660 and the revised one 2000. Close inspection showed that the 1660 was unrecognisable to me but the 2000 version was more or less identical to the one we use. Now I am guessing but I suspect the 1660 version would be a translation of the catholic latin version of the period and the 2000 version tied into our revision after Vatican two.

I am not unhappy that we are using the same books (actually I rejoice in it) but I am not pleased at the ignorance and what feels like a lack of honesty - a reluctance to acknowledge your own history (which is us).

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
PJD

Colin:

"Not in my book's list. Unless Grace is it?"

I'm certainly glad to hear that - grace that is.

Your appreciation of what Catholics mean by the sacraments [whatever the number we are arguing about] will be better understood if you grasp the fact that the sacraments represent so to speak an intermediate world which lies between creation and the uncreated God. This sacramental reality, which is neither nature nor divinity, partakes of both - or put another way - the sacramental world is a mystical world in the sense that it is a reality without fixity of being.

Sadly Protestantism is blind to this sacramental efficacy and therefore the graces that are acquired - quite gratuitously - from the sacramental effect.

For Protestants to understand this, seems to me to be quite simple, but to accept it and therefore turn back to Catholicism sadly is necessarily a gift.

PJD
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Colin2000

JARay
Sep 8 2007, 01:45 PM
I was in the middle of a reply but clicked the wrong button so what I posted has just gone into cyberspace.
I referred to:-
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/index.php
The quote was:-
Quote:
 

In less than a month, with the clock running out, the Episcopal Church faces its denouement with history.

The Episcopal Church must state clearly and unequivocally that it will no longer bless same-sex unions nor will it ordain openly homoerotic priests to the episcopacy thus easing the nearly broken strain on the bonds of affection.

The Episcopal Church House of Bishops has already made it clear that it will give no such reassurance to Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, when he comes to New Orleans later this month. Also off the table, is any talk of pastoral care for orthodox parishes and dioceses who are under seige from revisionist bishops and who believe that the Episcopal Church's innovations are a bridge too far that they cannot traverse.


Personally, I am astounded that anyone can still maintain allegiance to such an organisation.
I previosly posted, in the same vein. that I found it very amusing that anyone could deny the seven Sacraments and still act as if this denial counted for nothing. I still maintain that incredulity.

JARay

Hi JARay,

A lot depends on what organisation you are referring to?

If you are referring to the Church of England, (In England!), we are fighting this battle through prayer. On the one hand we have the Christian Believer. On the other hand we have the Religious Liberal and an inclusivity of Priests signing their Churches up to an inclusiveness which could not be more exclusive if it tried.

Some of them do not believe in the Virgin Birth, the Divinity of Jesus Christ or the Resurrection if you listen to certain reports. They say the Nicene Creed with lip service only and love each other provided they are both male! I would hasten to add that in my opinion these individuals are still a small minority group in the Priesthood. But a noisy one!

But apart from that isn't the LORD wonderful for the Remnant will eventually be the only one's left because the unbelievers have nothing to say since they don't believe a word of the Word so they can not witness it can they.

Then there is The Episcopal Church of America. Lost in this world and lost in the world to come! But there is also another side to the coin!

An organisation called CANA now exists and as the Church of England proved itself with Bishops of the Roman Tradition consecrated more of their own kind at Reformation so their are lots of Bishops of The South from Nigeria who are also consecrating Bishops in America.

Now CANA has got something to say in the American Province. They are Believers of the Faith and will witness that Jesus Christ is LORD.

But this is an internal Cancer which needs to be cut out of the main Anglican Body of Christ!

Hope that sheds some light on that little problem set for the LORD to sort out!

Yours in His Everlovingtenderkindness,

Colin.

PS. Sacraments? Jesus gave us two. The Church gave us another five. I like the other five but still recognise only two as Sacramental. The other five are useful in Christian Society! Example Marriage, I love my wife and occasional she loves me. But we are together through Christ and were joined together in Church through Christ.

Confirmation: Well how else are we in a Catholic Tradition going to witness that we love Jesus if we were there only in name alone at our Baptism! I could continue but the Instruments of my faith and Church practice are not named by my Church as Sacraments. Besides The Archbishop of York might take the pet if I don't obey his advice when he gives it!
JESUS IS LORD


Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Gerard
Sep 8 2007, 09:00 PM


I am not unhappy that we are using the same books (actually I rejoice in it) but I am not pleased at the ignorance and what feels like a lack of honesty - a reluctance to acknowledge your own history (which is us).

Gerry


Gerry I am not sure what you mean.
Whose ignorance and lack of honesty? The Church of England's?

I am sure it is common knowledge that the Daily Office in the Book of Common Prayer was originally translated from our Latin liturgical prayers.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Gerard

Rose,

Seemed to be collective among anglicans since it spanned so many references to do with the book of common prayer.

Colin,

Its not meant to be personal.

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Locked Topic