| 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: |
| When Is A Protestant Not A Protestant? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Friday, 7. September 2007, 16:44 (764 Views) | |
| Gerard | Wednesday, 12. September 2007, 10:55 Post #61 |
|
Clare, The number 277 was mentioned.
I am with Pole and the friar - there are always those who refuse to join the tribe :D Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Colin2000 | Wednesday, 12. September 2007, 11:10 Post #62 |
|
Hi All, I am not sure whether Bloody Mary was any worse than the English Authorities of the time. Probably the score was a draw? They were as bad as each other! But are we still rehearsing this piece of regrettable history here. A potted version as a thumb nail was England needed to occupy Scotland and Ireland to make sure the French didn't. Beside who could we practice on if it wasn't for the Scott's and the Irish??? ... Spain stood no chance, besides how could we play pirates and sink their ships if we were friendly with them. England was always out in the world to trade. The Empire was not controlled by big armies we did it the Roman way. Conquer and put the old rulers back. Use the Bank not the gun. Well nearly always! Look at India. As Long as the Maharajah was allowed to rule all we had to do was trade. I am not sure the East India Company had a bigger army than the Empire at one time? The point being that Catholic Families suffered badly here because of the fear real or otherwise that they could or would be agents of foreign powers, (The Old Enemy in fact). Then France was in the ascendancy. Napoleon had a dreadful record of winning battles and the audacity of the man he stopped us trading in the Continental Ports! Now that really did mean war. Never mind the high order of freedom and right cause, he was stopping us selling our chickens! It does make you smile, (I hope!)! But through it all people started reading the Bible, sticking to fingers up at the local Squire and his Priest and even in the North of England set their own Church up. John Wesley and Charles must be still turning over in his grave for they were both High Anglicans you know before John Henry found out what they really were! Christians perhaps? Yours in His wonderful Name, Colin. |
|
JESUS IS LORD | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Wednesday, 12. September 2007, 11:16 Post #63 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Interesting. I make no comment!
|
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Wednesday, 12. September 2007, 11:40 Post #64 |
|
Clare, OK what am I missing? Whatever these men were are became I stand with their condemnation of the killings. But I thought both were catholics: one a priest and one the Pope's legate. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Wednesday, 12. September 2007, 11:52 Post #65 |
|
Deleted User
|
I think Clare has a point all the same in the sense that over the piece in Britain Catholics suffered immeasurably more from persecution and murder than did Protestants. If Ireland is added in then that becomes overwhelming. I've just returned from a holiday in Yorkshire and on a visit to York went to see the house where Margaret Clitherow was born. The story of her death is a reminder of the brutality of the English regime against Catholics. As Colin says, that should all be left in the past. I suggest that Catholics have been much better at doing so than Protestants. Liverpool and Portsmouth still have Orange anti-Catholic marches, Lewes still burns the Pope in effigy every year, the Act of Settlement still applies ( I don't give a toss about that, incidentally). Scotland's ingrained anti-Catholicism we've debated many times and the North of Ireland likewise. There are no specifically anti-Protestant organisations left in the UK because Catholics have grown up in this regard. Regards john |
|
|
| Clare | Wednesday, 12. September 2007, 15:43 Post #66 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Fair enough, condemn the killings. It's a legitimate point of view. I also think Queen Mary's view was legitimate too. I don't think Catholics should call her "Bloody Mary". What about St Thomas More? Clare. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Wednesday, 12. September 2007, 15:44 Post #67 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
:o B) |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Wednesday, 12. September 2007, 15:59 Post #68 |
|
Clare
The number mentioned was six. Not in the same league but I begin to see your point. Mr More did have the good manners to die himself for his faith - thats the right way round. The heinous thing is forcing other men to die four your faith. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Wednesday, 12. September 2007, 16:12 Post #69 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
No, they didn't die for our faith. They died resisting the true faith. They died for their errors, not for our faith. Heresy is a poison. It poisons souls and minds. Our Lord said not to fear what could destroy the body, but what could destroy the soul. To spread heresy is to spread poison. The guilt rests with the heresiarchs in the first place, mind, not the punters who were poisoned by them. Clare. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| James | Wednesday, 12. September 2007, 17:17 Post #70 |
|
James
|
Original question. "When is a protestant not a protestant" ? Answer "A protestant is not a protestant when he/she becomes catholic." That is what the protesting was all about = surely. |
![]() |
|
| saundthorp | Wednesday, 12. September 2007, 17:18 Post #71 |
|
Rose, I think Colin would make a smashing Catholic :P (Roman variety of course) |
|
Truth is still the truth even if no one believes it. Error is still error even if everyone believes it. (Archbishop Fulton Sheen) | |
![]() |
|
| James | Wednesday, 12. September 2007, 17:31 Post #72 |
|
James
|
Oh no !! Surely we are not back to the half thimbles on another thread. Colin knows what I mean.
|
![]() |
|
| Colin2000 | Wednesday, 12. September 2007, 17:50 Post #73 |
|
Thank you Brian, I am moved by your lovingtenderkindness but it will not happen tomorrow I haven't insulted the Arch. Bishop of Canterbury yet this year! But I am thinking about it! What verse of Scripture will get me out of this one. Hang on while I do a St. Francis on you! "But as for you, teach what is consistent with sound doctrine. 2. Tell the older men to be temperate, serious, prudent, and sound in faith, in love, and in endurance." [Paul to Titus, Titus.2:1&2. NRSV. ]. I wont tell you what he thinks of the older women, could be dangerous! So the LORD reminds me to pay attention and look at my sound doctrine yet again! I think I will do Titus in Greek this time. Christmas is a coming early this year LORD! Yours in His Everlovingtenderkindness, Colin. PS. Brian are you really wanting to wish me on these lovely people? Well I suppose it might give some of my lot time to get off the tablets!!! .... |
|
JESUS IS LORD | |
![]() |
|
| Colin2000 | Wednesday, 12. September 2007, 17:57 Post #74 |
|
Hi James, Now if I can reason the oceans of the World into The LORD'S Thimble you stand no chance! Then again the LORD loves a trier but Paul wants a winner! Colin. PS. My excuse is I am sicky! What's yours James. |
|
JESUS IS LORD | |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Friday, 14. September 2007, 19:11 Post #75 |
|
“Question to exercise the mind, "How can Jesus be in the Bread and the Wine if He is already in the Temple, me and you?” “ I don’t know why you asked this Colin. He is in the Eucharist sacramentally, elsewhere supernaturally. Thought we had passed that phase of the topic. To proceed somewhat further…….. Regarding the validity of Holy Orders as touched upon by Patrick – here is a précis (bullet points) I made some time ago…… On the Nullity of Anglican Orders - Apostolicae Curae Promulgated September 18, 1896 by Pope Leo XIII A new rite for conferring Holy Orders was publicly introduced under Edward VI, the true Sacrament of Order as instituted by Christ lapsed, and with it the hierarchical succession. A controversy has sprung up as to whether the Sacred Orders conferred according to the Edwardine Ordinal possessed the nature and effect of a Sacrament Paul IV issued his Bull Praeclara Charissimi……… it is ordered in the matter of the Ordinations as follows: Those who have been promoted to ecclesiastical Orders . . . by any one but a Bishop validly and lawfully ordained are bound to receive those Orders again. Those, namely, who have been promoted to the Episcopate, as others to other Orders, "not according to the accustomed form of the Church," or…….. "the form and intention of the Church," not having been observed………….. together with others needing dispensation are enumerated those "who had obtained both Orders as well as benefices nulliter et de facto." For to obtain orders nulliter means the same as by act null and void, that is invalid, as the very meaning of the word and as common parlance require. When some doubted as to who…..could be called and considered bishops "validly and lawfully ordained," the said Pope declared that it is only those bishops and archbishops who were not ordained and consecrated in the form of the Church that can not be said to be duly and rightly ordained..." Ordinations conferred according to the Edwardine rite should be considered null and void. The principle holds good that "Custom is the best interpreter of law." Since in the Church it has ever been a constant and established rule that it is sacrilegious to repeat the Sacrament of Order, it never could have come to pass that the Apostolic See should have silently acquiesced in and tolerated such a custom "defect of form and intention"; Wherefore, we ordered that the Anglican Ordinal, which is the essential point of the whole matter, should be once more most carefully examined. and that which is essential, the latter being usually called the "matter and form". the "matter" is the part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the "form"……which is the imposition of hands But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, "Receive the Holy Ghost," certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Ordel of Priesthood This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words "for the office and work of a priest," etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate……. it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining. That "form" consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify. The same holds good of episcopal consecration. It is not relevant to examine here whether the episcopate be a completion of the priesthood For the full and accurate understanding of the Anglican …..the history of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church As we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out. In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. With this inherent defect of "form" is joined the defect of "intention" which is equally essential to the Sacrament. Then, considering…… this matter…….. it seemed good to Us in the Lord to pronounce our judgment. Wherefore…….we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void. We decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and preeminence, declaring null and void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise attempted, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by whatsoever authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding. Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, in the year of the Incarnation of Our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, on the Ides of September, in the nineteenth year of our pontificate. [PJD] |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |




9:20 AM Jul 11