The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

Associated Press ^ | 3/24/01

[trad_anglican]

Hey, I've got a whole new can of worms to open up!

Why do you think that one has to be ordained in the line of apostolic succession for the consecration of the bread and wine to "take"?

Here's what angelo posted. I apologize if this was in the context of some earlier post that I didnt' see mentioning something specifically in scripture.

[SoothingDave]

Re 7398

"And" must fall under "miscellaneous". I wonder why someone would translate "or" as "and"? It couldn't have been just for this issue (could it?). What reason would there be to presume that it should be rendered that way.

I think that it's probably a case of a faulty manuscript (Greek) being used and the error then propagating. Every modern translation uses "or," and they are produced using the best available manuscripts.

SD

[al_c]

Hail the Co-mediatrix.

I assume you're referring to this woman ... ?

Really, wonk ... is it necessary to follow all my readings posts with this ... even when they don't even mention Mary? What's your point?

[biblewonk]

You wouldn't be offended if you weren't reading between the lines.

[SoothingDave]

Here's what angelo posted. I apologize if this was in the context of some earlier post that I didnt' see mentioning something specifically in scripture.

Maybe my memory is faulty. I could have sworn he said "Biblicaly." Perhaps in an earlier question, and I carried it on.

SD

[al_c]

You wouldn't be offended if you weren't reading between the lines.

Offended? Not really ... just curious why you've been doing this lately, that's all.

[malakhi]

Honestly, angelo, I would have expected something more substantial from you. When you asked the question, you asked "why do you think." My response is what I think but I believe it is consistent with what the Church has always believed and taught. Would you like me to cite a source? If so, are there particular sources that you would prefer or that you would not accept?

Really? I would have expected you to understand my point, considering that the Catholic church does not consider Anglican orders to be valid.

[biblewonk]

Considering the thousands of topics that have been seen on this thread, I find this one to be the key. We could discuss predestination or the priesthood or salvation by grace through faith, but that would seem pointless. This one topic has taught me the most about Catholicism and how to approach Catholics in doctrinal discussion. Well not how to approach them but what to expect from them.

[RobbyS]

Re: #7408. And you are simply showing how attached you are to the unscriptural Protestant principle.

[al_c]

Well not how to approach them but what to expect from them.

And what might that be?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

You have a low threshold for "blasphemy." Recognizing that different people come to different conclusions upon reading the text is called "having your eyes open." It isn't disrespecting the text.

Be honest. You really don't give a crap about any text other than John 6 as long as you can make it jive with Big C catholecism.

For example, the last few days the NC's here assured me that "the flesh profits nothing" doesn't refer to Jesus' flesh. Now Havoc is here saying that it does. Which of you is right? Why do two "spirit filled" Christians being "led to all truth" come up within different answers?

Again dishonesty. A couple of days ago I explained to you that when Jesus compared spirit and flesh he said that the flesh "profiteth nothing". You keep wanting to change it to "His" flesh. Again if you can't handle the Word of God with respect I'd rather not be bothered with your foolishness.

[trad_anglican]

Really? I would have expected you to understand my point, considering that the Catholic church does not consider Anglican orders to be valid.

I expect they will see the light on that issue. It's quite an interesting story. I've been reading a book by an Anglican-turned-Roman priest about the behind the scenes events on this issue.

I'm sorry to be so dense, I guess I'm not seeing your point. You usually state your case in an upfront manner and I was taken aback by your response to my post.

[Wordsmith]

Hi Dave - On a totally different topic, this bit from Andrew Sullivan jumped out at me:

WHAT AMERICAN CATHOLICS THINK: We've long known that American Catholics were more liberal than most other Americans, but the discrepancy is really quite striking. Newsweek's poll this week finds the following: 59 percent think screening out gays from the priesthood would not make much difference in curtailing abuse; 44 percent back legal same-sex marriage, compared to only about a third of the general population; 51 percent would have no problem with an openly gay priest; 73 percent favor married clergy; 65 percent favor women priests. Many more Catholics would be happy with a gay priest in a committed relationship than non-Catholics. This is the gulf the current hierarchy is struggling to bridge. No, the church is not a democracy, and shouldn't be. But when it reaches this level of cognitive dissonance between official doctrine and actual belief, you've got a real problem.

Of course, the "real problem" is that a majority of American Catholics are willingly apostitizing from the Roman Catholic Church. And numbers don't mean they're right, obviously. At one point the majority of Christians would have "polled" in favor of Arianism. But it's certainly disturbing nonetheless. I'll continue to pray for your fellow churchmembers.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

We just had 39 degrees, wind and rain all weekend. An hour north of here, they had 20 inches of snow!

I am so sorry. You should move:)

I was on the horse yesterday 5 hours. I am a bit tired today, it's hell getting old:). The humidity was high yesterday, but it stayed in the 70's around here. I love this time of year. Hope it gets there soon.

Becky

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

#7394

I don't know how/if Mack aswered this, but personally, I will worry less about you now:) I think you got it. JMO FWIW.

Becky

[malakhi]

Maybe my memory is faulty. I could have sworn he said "Biblicaly." Perhaps in an earlier question, and I carried it on.

I did not explicitly say that, but that was what I was asking.

[Wordsmith]

angelo - Invincibly said "crap"... :-)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Re: #7408. And you are simply showing how attached you are to the unscriptural Protestant principle.

I'll take that as a compliment from someone who doesn't really give a twitt about scripture. Thank you so much.

[SoothingDave]

Be honest. You really don't give a crap about any text other than John 6 as long as you can make it jive with Big C catholecism.

Not at all. We are all searching for meaning. Pointing out the obvious, that the Bible leads different people to different interpretations, causes you consternation, apparently.

For example, the last few days the NC's here assured me that "the flesh profits nothing" doesn't refer to Jesus' flesh. Now Havoc is here saying that it does. Which of you is right? Why do two "spirit filled" Christians being "led to all truth" come up within different answers?

Again dishonesty. A couple of days ago I explained to you that when Jesus compared spirit and flesh he said that the flesh "profiteth nothing". You keep wanting to change it to "His" flesh. Again if you can't handle the Word of God with respect I'd rather not be bothered with your foolishness.

Hello? What did I just say? I listened to you and others here. Now Havoc is saying something different. Tell him to handle the Word of God with respect, eh?

Now is it you or Havoc that is truly spirit filled and led to all truth?

SD

[SoothingDave]

Sorry, Havoc, see 7439. Forgot to bump you.

SD