Posted on 10/14/2004 5:55:33 PM PDT by xzins
Those who deny the incarnation are of the spirit of antichrist, so you are exactly correct: Satan would be welcome in antichrist's midst.
Patrick, Columba, and Aiden would have done something Henry didn't, which is put himself under his patriarch, which in this case is the Pope.
Also, the power of God is not dependent on any king; it is first dependent upon the Holy Spirit who does work through any of his faithful ministers....of which there were many in Henry VIII's day.
The only bishop who was truly faithful to God, and not to man was one named John Fisher.
=== The Eucharist consists of fully believing that our Lord was telling us the plain truth that day in the temple (John 6) when He lost much of His following and scandalized the Pharisees. He reemphasized how important this was to Him at the very first mass on His very last night alive as a man on this earth.
I'm quitting the choir. News at 11.
Why? Women don't go through puberty when it comes to the voice </frog>
And didn't Christ die for ALL sinners?
There is nothing "orthodox" about a murderous heretic who chops off the heads of his wives and founds a church because he couldn't get around the fact that Christ wouldn't allow him a divorce. The third person of the HolyTrinity doesn't work through such evil.
Sorry, you're wrong.
Columba intentionally chose NOT to put himself under the Pope. It's a fact. That's why Augustine came to visit. Columba refused the request. Aiden & Patrick were also out of the Celtic Church.
Just to put a finer point on what xzins said, you should also be educated to the fact that the Church of England was RETURNED to Roman Catholicism under Queen Mary and did not separate again until Elizabeth I (and not because she wanted a divorce). It is simplistic to say that the Church of England came to be because Henry VIII wanted a divorce. At issue was the "divine right of kings" and Henry's assertion that his kingship was divinely given and, therefore, he answered directly to God - not to a Pope. We'll save THAT theological debate for another time.
Now - to your denigration of every other Christian's practice of the Eucharistic Feast as somehow sacreligious, I must tell you that you are not only uncharitable in saying so, you are also offensive and ignorant. I reprint Articles XXVII and XXX from the Protestant Episcopal Church in the US Articles of Religion written in 1801 (which is a statement of what most Anglicans [worldwide] believe and why).
Article XXVII Of the Lord's Supper:
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death; insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and have given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordination reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
Article XXX Of Both Kinds:
The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people; for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike. (As you know, Roman Catholic laypeople do not partake of the Lord's Cup)
When I partake of the Eucharist, I BELIEVE that I am doing all that Jesus commanded that I do. It's called Faith. You may think it's "unholy," but it doesn't matter what YOU think. The only thing that matters is what Jesus thinks. Scripture tells us that Jesus holds FAITH in high regard...to the womon who reached out to touch the hem of his robes he said, "your FAITH has healed you..." and to the leper he said, "your FAITH has made you whole." My justification is my FAITH in Jesus - not my church affiliation and the distinct practices therein.
No. He had the same authority that William the Conqueror had in 1066 in chopping off heads and imposing a church.
It wasn't chosen willingly in England in the first place.
Excellent.
The sad thing is that this is a reasonable discussion but it has nothing to do with the thread. It's an educational article worthy of discussion.
Please refer to post 29 in response to your statement to me under another thread which read:
"Of course, for a Roman Catholic, there's one very big difference between the Catholic Mass and the 1979 BCP Rite II: the round white thing on the altar in the Episcopalian church is a piece of bread; the round white thing on the altar in the Catholic church is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ."
I do owe you an apology for not sticking to the topic of your thread. Forgive me.
The subject of the Eucharist is a sore spot, because so few take part in it in actuality. What really hurts is that the reason why they don't is because they've been led astray by certain historic figures who've turned their personal philosophy into their follower's liability.
Thanks for the ping. Funny, I had no trouble understanding the point of this article. BTW ecstaticism (?) is not unique to mainline Protestant churches. It's just another form of fuzzy, man-made truth that helps people feel better about their sinfulness.
Thanks, Opus. I thought maybe it was me. Then I just realized that some of the posters simply weren't reading the article.
Too bad the thread got off-topic, but it was a great article on what not to look for in a church. The touchy-feely movement in relation to orthodoxy was clearly articulated.
Do you think it sounds like what "New Ager Christianity" would look like if there were such a thing?
I think there is a definite link between the Ecstatic-ism and feminism.
Good thoughts....heavily feminist & gay friendly seminaries are peddling this trash.
"The culture changes" whenever "ecstatics" get in the saddle. For it seems to me that, at bottom, ecstatics are really saying that (1), the reality of God is contingent on human experience; and (2) thus the foundation of ethics or morality similarly devolves to human experience, to the view that "man is the measure," not God.
But it seems when man fails to recognize the sovereign, absolute authority of God, when he no longer recognizes that God's Word is the ultimate, eternal foundation of reality of which mortal man is contingent part and participant, then man can say he becomes his own authority by virtue of his imaginative experiences. And this, not because God is speaking His Word to him directly, but because he "feels God."
Which seems to be already a falsification of the divine-human relationship. For it denigrates God, and puts Him in second place to the authority of one's own direct perceptions and unaided sense of what is "right." Unhitched from the Word of God, man is less man, and human cultures increasingly become less humane.
In short, man is "under God"; it doesn't work, the other way around, without distorting life and natural reality -- which is God-given, after all, according to the Word of God, the Son, the Alpha and Omega.
RE: the statement "ethics changes as culture changes": I would say the reverse is more likely true. When ethics come off their mooring in God's Logos, then culture changes, and usually in ways that are not conducive to genuine human well-being.
FWIW
Very interesting post, xzins. Thanks so much!
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.