Posted on 04/19/2005 10:39:05 AM PDT by churchillbuff
In 2003, after Episocpalian gay bishop Robinson was elected, a group of concerned Episcopalians and Anglicans met in emergency session, in Texas, to strategize how to respond -- through formally breaking away or other strategies.
They received this letter from Rome:
October 9, 2003
From Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
The Vatican, on behalf of Pope John Paul II
I hasten to assure you of my heartfelt prayers for all those taking part in this convocation. The significance of your meeting is sensed far beyond Plano, and even in this City from which Saint Augustine of Canterbury was sent to confirm and strengthen the preaching of Christ’s Gospel in England. Nor can I fail to recall that barely 120 years later, Saint Boniface brought that same Christian faith from England to my own forebears in Germany.
The lives of these saints show us how in the Church of Christ there is a unity in truth and a communion of grace which transcend the borders of any nation. With this in mind, I pray in particular that God’s will may be done by all those who seek that unity in the truth, the gift of Christ himself.
With fraternal regards, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
+Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Welcome home! We're honored to have you!
Converted en masse? How awesome!
We would love to have you!
I bet your Bible is missing a certain seven books too. Might wanna try a complete Bible.
In a nutshell, he is reaching out and offering his moral support to those who stood firm to oppose the Anglican Gay Bishop and reminding them that we are brothers in Christianity.
What makes it beautiful is how little it says and how it can be interpretted.
It is also a gentle reminder that the roots of their own denomination in fact lie within the Catholic faith.
To use a metaphor, he is reaching out to a boatload of drowning men and offering them a hand.
If you have a different opinion such as she should be allowed to abort within 6 weeks of the rape, you will be a heretic and shouldn't bother making the conversion. - Tom
And if you believe that taking an innocent life would somehow help a rape victim, you'd be a pagan.
Actually, Captain Tom, I do believe that I would carry a baby to term if I were gang-raped.
My husband and I have discussed this. We would love and raise the child as a gift from God, one precious bright blessing given to us to remind us of how God can create beauty in the midst of human horror.
I do wish people would stop and think.
Actually, Captain Tom, I do believe that I would carry a baby to term if I were gang-raped.
My husband and I have discussed this. We would love and raise the child as a gift from God, one precious bright blessing given to us to remind us of how God can create beauty in the midst of human horror.
I do wish people would stop and think.
I'm sorry that you're in a liberal denomination that has over the years paved the way for a practicing homosexual to be a bishop.
So, you have a problem with your current church not being true to its teachings, and you now want to change to another church that seems to suit you better, however I point out one of the main differences between the two (well documented by each) and you tell me it's a matter of opinion.
Your "scuffed buckle" minimizes an important teaching of RC orthodoxy. I suggest you have a discussion with a priest about this to get his take on it.
A woman, after a gang rape may not be the same mentally or physically. I would give them the choice early on, but not partial birth abortion as the solution.
I hope you are a Catholic, because the Church needs people who can support their views. -Tom
I am an Anglican, actually, but am beginning the process of converting to the Roman Catholic faith.
The reason being that the Episcopal church has deserted the faith. I bear them no ill-will, and hope they come back into the faith. But, am not going to risk my soul by supporting that which is heresy.
*Throws pnuts to troll*
Indeed. I found an article from Christianity Today about Roman Catholics receiving the Eucharist in Anglican services. Not a trivial matter. Take a look.
As has been said before - "Words mean things."
Sir:
I am neither a Catholic nor an Episopagan, er, Episcopalian.
All I was getting at is that while trans/con may be important it kinda pales as a difference compared to the differences between believing Christians and those would see lesbian Marxists as 'ministers' in any denomination they can manage it in or between Christians and the libertine mass media who would gladly see us feeding the lions.
I wish you well and think you will be happy there, especially now with Ratzinger as Pope. - Tom
A big distinction between what you and I believe is that I think that the Bible is the final dispensation of the Truth given by God. You also believe that with a few caveats. You believe that there is a temporal authority that can issue edicts at different times to "update" your faith. I dont. It has no Biblical basis. You believe in demigods that have a short-cut to God, which again have no Biblical basis. Why put such emphasis on the Bible? Because in my faith that is the final dispensation of Truth from God. Until someone truly starts to perform miracles and updates my version of the Bible I will continue to believe so. You obviously believe that the guy in Rome has a direct line to God and He updates him from time to time on who to beatify and canonize to be his deputy. You may find that reasonable, I don't.
There are real problems in assigning mortals to be in direct touch with God. In a 100 years chances are we will have a liberal pope and a liberal college of Cardinals. What happens then? Would traditional Catholics start believing pro-abortion priests to be saints if they are so canonized. Imagine the case if one of these child rapist bishops ever get to become a saint. If you pray to him, you will be praying to someone in hell and the only person answering your prayers will be the Satan himself. It takes faith to believe in the Bible, but it takes a giant leap of faith to accept Catholic doctrine.
"I have heard that argument and it is pretty lame."
Interesting, if you heard it before, that you still have not formulated a response to it other than to cite your litany of problems with the Catholic Church, including imagined ones like the worship of demigods.
So let's cut to the chase, again. You wrote:
"I think that the Bible is the final dispensation of the Truth given by God."
I am asking you why you believe that.
The Bible does not say that.
If you think it does, I would like you to cite to the Biblical text in which the Bible, particularly the New Testament (your emphasis) is described, and then is described as the final authority.
You have placed final authority on the Bible.
That's fine, but you do not do so based on the Bible.
The New Testament does not say to do that.
It doesn't even come close.
To say that "all Scripture is God breathed", which is about the closest you will get to a text that supports your assertion of New Testament authority, is to beg the question: what is Scripture, and who defines what Scripture is?
You keep wanting to return to your attacks on the Catholic Church.
I note that I am not, in turn, attacking you.
I am demanding that you explain yourself.
You have placed your entire faith in the Bible.
Since the Bible does not say to do that, you got the notion to do that from somewhere non-Biblical. You got it from another man, and you are following that tradition of his quite uncritically, as regards yourself and your own faith, and rather viciously attacked the faith of others (and in many cases ignorantly -the demigods business is simply ridiculous, and it is not ignorant anymore either, because you have been informed by many here of the actual Catholic belief on saints, so now it is just stubborn error on your part).
It's fine that you follow the traditions of the men who taught you to view the Bible that way. There is a great tradition of that, spanning the centuries.
But it remains that: a tradition.
It's just silly to castigate one folks for HAVING a tradition when you so blatantly and uncritically reference your own.
Here is a question for you: if the New Testament is so utterly central, why do you suppose Jesus didn't write anything? Why do you suppose he left a Church, and not a bible dispensary?
I think he's delusional. He appears to have learnt the unholy gospel according to jack chick.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.