Posted on 10/10/2011 12:03:16 PM PDT by NYer
... the guidelines established for the Anglican ordinariate by Pope Benedict XVI's in his 2009 apostolic constitution, Anglicanorum coetibus his 2007 Apostolic Letter "Summorum Pontificum" is St. Luke’s, in Maryland:
“This truly is a historic moment,” said Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl, the archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, who led Sunday’s conversion Mass, which he called “a joyful moment of completion.”
Fifty-eight of St. Luke’s roughly 100 parishioners were confirmed at the applause-filled Mass, during which they were anointed by Wuerl — one by one, old and young, white and black.
Osita Okafor, a 56-year-old Nigerian immigrant, found himself first in line before Wuerl for the rite of reception. His reaction? “Oh, my God, I must be blessed.” ...
The parish’s conversion made international headlines when it was announced in June. After all, St. Luke’s had been an Episcopal church for more than a century. But it wasn’t too much of a leap for the parish, which for years had been part of Anglo-Catholicism, a movement that embraces various Catholic practices and theology but still treasures aspects of Anglican ritual, such as kneeling to receive Communion.
At the basilica, before the archbishop, parishioners stood for Communion. But at St. Luke’s, they’ll be allowed to kneel under the guidelines laid out by the Vatican in 2009 when it announced plans to create a special body that would let American Anglicans keep some of their traditions, including their married priests.
Read the entire Washington Post article, "Episcopal parish in Bladensburg converts to Roman Catholic Church" (Oct. 9, 2011). for more about the ordinariate, see the book, Anglicans and the Roman Catholic Church: Reflections on Recent Developments (Ignatius Press, 2011), edited by Stephen Cavanaugh. Here is the Introduction:
I met Protestant believers. My wife was one. I went to Bible studies with Protestant believers. I saw a Calvinist pastor break down and cry at his pulpit in loving awe at the sound of the Gospel. I am a better Catholic thanks to them.
The professional anti-Catholics who don’t know their own faith, let alone the True Faith of the Catholic Church are a disgrace to their own confession. Let us grow in charity.
I haven't followed this conversation but this statement was rather curious and in need of correction:
1) Our Lord Jesus founded the church-not Catholic Church. I am sure that you would agree that He would not wish to be associated with those who hoard vast amount of wealth in vaults or see his ministers of the gospel living in palaces while preaching the need to erase poverty to the masses. This, my friend, sounds like the Democrats.
2) I'm a bit surprise to see a Catholic admit that our Lord Jesus founded the church and not Peter. Perhaps this was a clerical error or oversight.
3) As far as Dutchboy's salvation is concerned, rarely can we tell if others are saved or not. We can, according to the gospel, look after our own salvation but have no idea of the status of others. Catholics tend to have this exactly backwards (or perhaps sideways). They will tell you that they don't know who is saved except in rare exceptions of those saints they're sure popped up on a Post Toasty or made Aunt Myrtle's warts go away. Catholics will also tell you that if you follow all the various "steps" such as confession, baptism, receiving grace through communion, etc, then you are guarantee (well-maybe) a seat in the kingdom. But, as a footnote, I noted that rarely can you tell if another is saved. I'm sure that you will take great comfort in noting that our friend Dutchboy exhibits all the characteristics of salvation; which is to believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord, and confess with your lips that God raised Him from the dead. If the angels of heaven have rejoiced can we do no less?
4) In regards to Jesus starting a Roman cult, the truth of the matter is that God is in complete and utter control of all things. We are a stubborn people who fail God constantly. Cults are raised up by God to help show us the follies of our ways and the error of our doctrine. I would refer you to Leviticus 18-20 where God specifically warns the people of Israel not to sacrifice their children to Molech. Yet by the time they got to Solomon, Solomon built a splendid temple to Molech for that very purpose (1 King 11:7). Solomon couldn't see the errors or simply wished to ignore them even though God had warned him through His scriptures; much to his detriment. We are warned to measure everything against scripture. There is not much difference from the Roman Catholic Church introduction of extra supporting writings then the Book of Mormonism or the Jehovah Witnesses' books. One only hopes that they learn the lesson that Solomon failed to grasp.
Actually, I hope they continue to act just like they do.
Actually, I hope they continue to act just like they do.
Actually, I hope they continue to act just like they do.
How sad that they would have to worry about losing this. Sigh.
To your list add simple me. God Bless you.
You wrote:
“1) Our Lord Jesus founded the church-not Catholic Church.”
No. The Church Christ founded is the Catholic Church.
“2) I’m a bit surprise to see a Catholic admit that our Lord Jesus founded the church and not Peter. Perhaps this was a clerical error or oversight.”
Nope. And I have never seen otherwise. I have never seen a Catholic say or write that Peter FOUNDED the Church. Catholics often say - correctly - that it was founded on Peter or handed to him so to speak. But I have never seen a Catholic say Peter founded the Church. I have seen Catholics say - correctlt - that Peter founded the Church IN Rome along with Paul.
“3) As far as Dutchboy’s salvation is concerned, rarely can we tell if others are saved or not.”
I said nothing about salvation. You are conflating two entirely different issues - which Protestants are wont to do with those issues.
“There is not much difference from the Roman Catholic Church introduction of extra supporting writings then the Book of Mormonism or the Jehovah Witnesses’ books.”
That’s an incredibly ignorant statement. Joseph Smith invented new books and declared them scriptures. All the Catholic Church did was take scriptures from the Jews and keep them. The Deuterocanonicals were used by Jews. Protestants now often admit this.
From your post 156 to Dutchboy:
It does not surprise me that a non-believer like you...He can rescue even the most entrapped individuals. I hope He rescues you. Clearly that has not happened yet.
It makes all the rest of your statements suspect.
You wrote:
“From your post 156 to Dutchboy:”
Which shows I said nothing about salvation. Your heresy is making you see things that are not there.
“It makes all the rest of your statements suspect.”
Nope. It just means your heresy is making you see things that are not even there.
You are conflating two entirely different issues - which Protestants are wont to do with those issues.Of course they do. Often they hold to the heretical belief "Once Saved, Always Saved" and sometimes the predestination theory of the "elect" and in those odd heresies the "actual" Church is simply those who are saved. That is why some of them grudgingly "admit" some Catholics may be "saved".
They also misunderstand the hierarchy of worship, having rejected the highest form of Worship, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, they conflate intercessory prayers TO the Saints and Mary as if we were praying to them as Gods. Since, in their heretical world, worship and prayer are the same, they cannot imagine why we hold to the ancient and Traditional beliefs given to us by Our Lord and His Apostles and the Apostolic Succession.
You can disagree with and dislike all kinds of things in this life. Here are a few: The Incarnation Happened. Then, He, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, formed a church, the Catholic Church, to save souls. That doesn’t mean you have to like it. Even so, I sincerely hope and pray that someday, you do, and that you join. It’s obvious that care about the Lord. I’d like it that you should be saved. I do not say this to make you think that I judge you. I do not.
I appreciate that, and I certainly take it that you are not judging (condemning) me. The sincerity in your post is evident.
The part that I would point out is that discussion is not about "disliking" anything. Perhaps my ill-chosen words sounded as though my concern is about liking or disliking something. But, that is not the case. This is about whether something is true or false.
Although there are many things I dislike about the Roman church, if it appeared as though their doctrines aligned with Scripture, I would bend the knee and acknowledge that. Unfortunately, the organization, like many (or perhaps most) organizations, just does not comport with Scripture.
For example, the Jews were cajoled, ordered, offered, threatened by God to exercise their wills to follow Him in obedience and integrity. God made the demands perfectly clear and told them to choose Him over their rebellion. Some from your organization have carefully pointed this out. These FReepers have heard, ostensibly from the authorities of Rome, that the demand to choose implies the ability to choose.
What is missed by this claim is that as one continues to read the story in the OT, it becomes patently clear that the Jews did not do this and could not have because they lacked the equipment on board sufficient to comply. And, the prophets note that this dilemma is due to God's operation.
Notice, Is. 63:17
Why, O Lord, dost Thou cause us to stray from Thy ways, and harden our hearts from fearing Thee?
Is 64:7
And there is no one who calls on Thy name, who arouses himself to take hold of Thee; for Thou has hidden Thy face from us, and has delivered us into the power of our iniquities.
Prov. 16:9
The mind of man plans his ways, but the Lord directs his steps.
You see, if one understands "free will" to be the operation of man's choices unaided, unguided, unmangaged by God, then one collides with Scriptural descriptions of something slightly different going on. Evidently, God, being God, is managing all aspects of His universe...including us.
But, this idea is usually not welcome because it is argued that it makes us puppets, or God guilty of our sin, or both. However, the genius of God is that He can do this as the transcendent Holy One of Israel and we cannot "feel" it. And, according to Paul, this still makes us guilty, God innocent, and us stuck in the hands of the potter. Rom. 9:16ff "So then it does not depend on the man who runs (acts) or the man who wills (chooses), but upon God who has mercy. And He will have mercy on some and harden some. You will ask me, 'How then can He still find fault, for who resists His will?'"
Paul's answer? Too bad for us. That is the way things are. Like you said, I may disagree with or dislike this principle...but that does not change it from being true. The same thing applies to the Roman church. Since it will not acknowledge that God, not man, is controlling all wills in the universe, the organization stands outside of the biblically revealed truth of the Gospel.
Instead, Rome wants to claim the "keys" to the kingdom, an idea it has promoted in itself. No one else believes that Rome was the object of this statement...only Rome. Read the passage for yourself (Matt. 16) and ask, honestly, where is the Roman group? It is not even contemplated. And did not seize power for at least 200 years.
So, if the Scriptures tell us that, yes, God is demanding that you change, but then tell us that we may not change unless He allows, we are left to harmonize these two statements. If the second subsumes the first, then the demand to change is simply conditioned by whether He allows you. But, Rome is unwilling acknowledge that "free will" is a manufactured idea. Even this unwillingness, however, is because God is not giving them eyes to see. And, that is why we believers in Christ, alone, reject Rome. Not because we do not like her, but because she embraces error.
Very, very good words, Harley.
That is an excellent point. OSAS is a flawed Protestant doctrine built upon the errors of Rome's Palegius heresy. Unfortunately, as you rightfully point out, many Protestants have fallen for this grievous error. I would point our Protestant brethren to the following confession:
Of the Perseverance of the Saints
I. They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.[1]
II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father;[2] upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ,[3] the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them,[4] and the nature of the covenant of grace:[5] from all which arises also the certainty and infallibility thereof.[6]
III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;[7] and, for a time, continue therein:[8] whereby they incur God's displeasure,[9] and grieve His Holy Spirit,[10] come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts,[11] have their hearts hardened,[12] and their consciences wounded;[13] hurt and scandalize others,[14] and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.[15]
*Scripture footnotes at reference
Westminster Confession of Faith-Preseverance of the Saints
Most Protestants understand these principles although they have their doctrine skewed by years of listening to Rome's work based errors. Feeling people need to go to confession, take grace, do penitence, pray the Rosary, etc., is nothing more than reducing Christianity down to religion with ceremonial steps to achieve the goal of salvation.
This was certainly not the view given to us by Our Lord.
1) Catholics (and some Protestants) believe that once a person is saved they must maintain that gift given to them. There is a possibility that you could lose your salvation.
2) The "Once Saved Always Saved" Protestants look at salvation as a fix point of salvation. After that people are "free to choice" which way they want to go.
3) The "Perseverance of the Saints" Protestants believe that God saved you and God will keep you. And when you go off the beaten path, God will chasten and hasten you to either help you find your way or will call you home. But you will never be lost from the love of God who saved you in your most vilest state.
The first two views are based upon the egregious heresy of "free will"; one is capable of making correct and good choices. The last view is based upon an understanding that man with his sinful nature is wholly reliant upon the grace and mercy of God to guide us through this life.
It is an error and sin to think that man is ever capable of willfully choosing anything pleasing of God.
It is an error and sin to think that man is ever capable of willfully choosing anything pleasing of God.
Just terrific stuff here, Harley. Thanks.
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.