Posted on 03/03/2010 10:14:34 AM PST by NYer
Deo gratias!
His lost Sheep are Coming Home!
Anglican Church in America Asks Entry Into Catholic Church Breaking news as the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America has formally requested to enter the Catholic Church. All 99 parishes and cathedrals!
American Anglican Church Orlando, FL – 1 pm EST – Bp. George Langberg
Released by the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America, Traditional Anglican Communion
"We, the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America of the Traditional Anglican Communion have met in Orlando, Florida, together with our Primate and the Reverend Christopher Phillips of the “Anglican Use” Parish of Our Lady of the Atonement (San Antonio, Texas) and others."
At this meeting, the decision was made formally to request the implementation of the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus in the United States of America by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Reverend Mark Siegel, the Dean of the Cathedral of the Incarnation in Orlando, Florida, expressed his desire and excitement in this historic move by a large Anglican body in more or less the following words.
‘I can’t say anything more than what the ACA announcement says, but we are all excited with this first step.’
Deo gratias!
Steve Ray joined the Church from the Baptists — and he came back to The Church after reading the Bible and finding that the bible points to the Church
“The problem with the general Protestant view is that they posit that the Apostles had everything right, then at some point (usually having to do with the Emperor Constantine) everything changed and became wrong, then over a thousand years later a group of Europeans suddenly realized that it was all wrong and fixed it.
Aside from the fact that history doesn’t work like that, the written record contradicts that view.
“ —> well put
You read St Augustine — what of Origen or Tertullian or Ignatius of Antioch or Clement?
Christ established the Apostolic Church — that is the Orthodox, Orientals, Catholics and Assyrian Churches. We are 4 part of the ONE Catholic and Apostolic Church
What an odd thing to state, particularly you cite the scripture from which the teaching is drawn.
Do we need to eat Jesus’ flesh AND blood,M
Christ is fully present in both. Not to be indelicate but have you ever had a piece of fleshmeat with no and I mean NO blood still present in it?
Where does the Bible teach 1) corporeality, and 2) eating either the flesh or blood is the same as eating the flesh and the blood.
1) John 6 for starters. 2) Inseparable by nature.
But I must insist that you acknowledge the Biblical truth that the Church and not scripture is the pillar and ground of truth and as such has the authority to help us refine our understanding of scripture. Your interpretation does not form reality.
Amen. Well stated post.
For your perusal:
Did Jesus say eat my flesh and EAT my blood?
The Catholic Church has changed its view of the Lord’s Supper so many times it is ridiculous — perhaps they ought to simply return to Scripture.
You might want to look at church history to see how Catholic traditions have changed regarding how they handle the Lord’s Supper, or what they call “mass.”
As far as Scripture, YOU might need the pope and/or the Roman Catholic Church to tell you what it means, but I encourage you to read it for yourself and ask the Holy Spirit to teach you God’s revelation.
1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.
By the way, Jesus defined his life by the Scriptures and rebuked Peter for suggesting He not follow what was written.
Hmmm, I am intrigued. I have never heard of those guys!
Can you verify this via actual Church documents? Let's remember your opinion and the opinions of other non-catholics hold little sway when compared to the Church.
By the way, Jesus defined his life by the Scriptures and rebuked Peter for suggesting He not follow what was written.
No, the scripture is defined by Christ: He is the ultimate author and authority not the other way around. Peter was not rebuked for not being a good "bible" Christian but for wanting to impede Christs journey to the cross of salvation.
I urge you to read scripture the way it was meant to be read, through the eyes of the Church from which it was produced through the benevolence of God.
From the Council of constance:
SESSION 13 - 15 June 1415
[Condemnation of communion under both kinds, recently revived among the Bohemians by Jakoubek of Stribro]
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit, Amen. Certain people, in some parts of the world, have rashly dared to assert that the christian people ought to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist under the forms of both bread and wine. They communicate the laity everywhere not only under the form of bread but also under that of wine, and they stubbornly assert that they should communicate even after a meal, or else without the need of a fast, contrary to the church’s custom which has been laudably and sensibly approved, from the church’s head downwards, but which they damnably try to repudiate as sacrilegious. Therefore this present general council of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, wishing to provide for the safety of the faithful against this error, after long deliberation by many persons learned in divine and human law, declares, decrees and defines that, although Christ instituted this venerable sacrament after a meal and ministered it to his apostles under the forms of both bread and wine, nevertheless and notwithstanding this, the praiseworthy authority of the sacred canons and the approved custom of the church have and do retain that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated after a meal nor received by the faithful without fasting, except in cases of sickness or some other necessity as permitted by law or by the church. Moreover, just as this custom was sensibly introduced in order to avoid various dangers and scandals, so with similar or even greater reason was it possible to introduce and sensibly observe the custom that, although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the early church, nevertheless later it was received under both kinds only by those confecting it, and by the laity only under the form of bread. For it should be very firmly believed, and in no way doubted, that the whole body and blood of Christ are truly contained under both the form of bread and the form of wine. Therefore, since this custom was introduced for good reasons by the church and holy fathers, and has been observed for a very long time, it should be held as a law which nobody may repudiate or alter at will without the church’s permission. To say that the observance of this custom or law is sacrilegious or illicit must be regarded as erroneous. Those who stubbornly assert the opposite of the aforesaid are to be confined as heretics and severely punished by the local bishops or their officials or the inquisitors of heresy in the kingdoms or provinces in which anything is attempted or presumed against this decree, according to the canonical and legitimate sanctions that have been wisely established in favour of the catholic faith against heretics and their supporters.
[That no priest, under pain of excommunication, may communicate the people under the forms of both bread and wine]
This holy synod also decrees and declares, regarding this matter, that instructions are to be sent to the most reverend fathers and lords in Christ, patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, and their vicars in spirituals, wherever they may be, in which they are to be commissioned and ordered on the authority of this sacred council and under pain of excommunication, to punish effectively those who err against this decree. They may receive back into the church’s fold those who have gone astray by communicating the people under the forms of both bread and wine, and have taught this, provided they repent and after a salutary penance, in accordance with the measure of their fault, has been enjoined upon them. They are to repress as heretics, however, by means of the church’s censures and even if necessary by calling in the help of the secular arm, those of them whose hearts have become hardened and who are unwilling to return to penance.
You wrote: “I urge you to read scripture the way it was meant to be read, through the eyes of the Church from which it was produced through the benevolence of God.”
The scriptures state:
Paslm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
Matthew 5:18, 19 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Matthew 26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
Jesus was able to define His life by the Scriptures, because it is the Word of God, as He is the Living Word of God. He had no desire to defy His own revelation, but came to fulfill it and reconcile humanity to Himself and the Father.
He had pretty harsh words for those who void the commands of God through their traditions, as the Roman Catholic Church has often done.
He doesn’t need the “church” to tell Him, or his followers what the word of God means, though we can all learn and be encouraged through fellowship/teaching.
Your premise that the Roman Catholic Church produced the word of God is baloney, though I am grateful for any role Catholics have had in protecting/preserving the Word (even though usually keeping it from the people). I am especially grateful for those, like Wycliffe, whom the Catholics branded a heretic, for making the Word of God available, as it was OBVIOUSLY meant to be, to the common man.
In fact, Steve Ray mentored Alex Jones and introduced him on the video. Were you able to watch it?
Traditions, small "t" traditions are associated with disciplines and can change, like priestly celibacy. Traditions with a "T" like sacred scripture and dogma, like a belief in the Real Presence can not.
BTW do you know what "vulgate" means?
Perhaps you can brand me a heretic, along with Wycliffe, who is probably the reason you have access to the Bible today.
Let’s cut to the chase. All the Roman Catholic rules and requirements for salvation that involve the church, its traditions and/or rituals are not necessary for salvation.
Baptism is not necessary for salvation.
Mass, or the Lord’s Supper is not necessary for salvation.
Any other teachings of modern day Judaizers are not necessary for salvation, as Titus was not required to be circumcised to be saved.
Read Galatians chapter 1. Some excerpts:
v 1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
v 12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
v 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
If you want to entangle yourself with the yoke of bondage that is “Rome,” feel free. If you want to circumcise yourself (for salvation) feel free. If you want to emasculate yourself, feel free.
I think I’ll “stand fast.”
BTW do you know what “vulgate” means?
I don’t know what you mean, so why don’t you state your point?
Like this? "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (it's even in the KJV translation!)
Never the less, you and all my dear separated brethren will be in my prayers.
OK. Thanks. And I will hold to the traditions I have been taught through God’s word, and Paul’s letters.
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
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.