Posted on 06/21/2014 5:38:39 AM PDT by piusv
It is not remotely surprising that the Archbishop of Canterbury should desire to bless the Pope of Rome, but the humble attitude of His Holiness in accepting it has caused something of a stir among Roman Catholic traditionalists:
(Excerpt) Read more at archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com ...
So you agree with your so-called “catholic theologian” that non-catholics can and do hold valid clerical positions within the Catholic Church?
By the way, the book you quoted has a forward written by Cardinal Kasper, another catholic theologian who happens to question the historicity of Christ’s Resurrection and who is now pushing for Holy Communion for adulterers.
You reject my sources such as canon law and the Catholic Encyclopedia yet you google up books written by heretics.
“So you agree with your so-called “catholic theologian” that non-catholics can and do hold valid clerical positions within the Catholic Church?”
No. Did I say I agreed with him? No, I did not. Once again we see that you are simply wrong consistently.
“By the way, the book you quoted has a forward written by Cardinal Kasper, another catholic theologian who happens to question the historicity of Christ’s Resurrection and who is now pushing for Holy Communion for adulterers.”
And again, that has absolutely no bearing on that matter at hand.
“You reject my sources such as canon law and the Catholic Encyclopedia yet you google up books written by heretics.”
Nope. I rejected neither of those sources. I just pointed out that those sources had no actual bearing on the point you were making. Citing what the Catholic Encyclopedia (which does not have the status of being a current or authoritative source in the Church) says about pectoral crosses tells us exactly nothing about what Pope Francis thinks of the orders question regarding an Anglican archbishop of Canterbury. You consistently misuse sources in that way.
If you don't agree with him, why did you post his work as a source in your defense? You have yet found any source that backs up your preposterous claim that pectoral crosses can be passed out to lay people as mere "gifts", like rosaries. Your source disapproved your entire argument. Do you not realize that?
Or do you, like your so-called "catholic theologian" source, really believe that Anglican clergymen hold valid orders? You have yet answered that question.
“If you don’t agree with him, why did you post his work as a source in your defense?”
1) I needed no defense.
2) My comment proceeding the link explains the reason for the link.
“You have yet found any source that backs up your preposterous claim that pectoral crosses can be passed out to lay people as mere “gifts”, like rosaries.”
My “claim” is not preposterous - as IT (the giving of pectoral crosses to non-bishops) actually has happened on multiple occasions.
“Your source disapproved your entire argument.”
Actually, no, not at all. It showed that pectoral crosses have been given as gifts for some time - and yet those who they were given two (and their ecclesial communions) were never recognized as having valid orders. Thus, it actually proves what I stated in the beginning.
“Do you not realize that?”
Show me the declaration from the Vatican that says any of those Lutherans or Anglicans who received pectoral crosses have valid orders. Oh, wait. You can’t. There is no such declaration. Do you not realize that?
“Or do you, like your so-called “catholic theologian” source, really believe that Anglican clergymen hold valid orders? You have yet answered that question.”
I don’t think you ever asked me that question. I think you asked this:
“So you agree with your so-called “catholic theologian” that non-catholics can and do hold valid clerical positions within the Catholic Church?”
Thus, you didn’t ask me about Anglicans having valid orders. You instead asked about “non-catholics” who might “hold valid clerical positions within the Catholic Church.” Thus, once again we see that you make things up. You claimed I never answered a question about Anglicans having valid orders. You never asked that question. You consistently make claims that are untrue. Why do you do that? When you answer that question I’ll answer your question about Anglican orders which I believe you only now just asked.
Another preposterous claim! Murder and adultery have happened on multiple occasions. Does that make those acts morally right and lawful?
You're hole is getting deeper.
Why do you refuse to state your opinion on the validity of Anglican orders? Haven't made up your mind yet?
Check Post 138. I did ask you earlier. So far: nothing but crickets.
The above is not true, but I'm not surprised, from your past posts.
Again, another statement that is not true.
Your source said:
Would the Pope offer such gifts to a 'simple layperson'? Obviously not!
“Another preposterous claim! Murder and adultery have happened on multiple occasions. Does that make those acts morally right and lawful?”
The correct question would have been: Murder and adultery have been documented as having happened on multiple occasions. Does that not show that these acts do in fact happen?
After all I posted this: “It is not uncommon.” You conveniently skip over that fact. Of course.
“You’re hole is getting deeper.”
No, actually you’re still the one in the hole and I think you know it too. That’s probably why you keep making up new false arguments. There’s certainly more than a hint of desperation in your posting while I have stayed on subject throughout.
“Why do you refuse to state your opinion on the validity of Anglican orders? Haven’t made up your mind yet?”
No, I have made up my mind. I told you that I would answer the question as soon as you answered this one: “You consistently make claims that are untrue. Why do you do that?”
“Check Post 138. I did ask you earlier. So far: nothing but crickets.”
You’re right - you did ask. I didn’t see that post. I will not answer your question, however, until you answer mine: “You consistently make claims that are untrue. Why do you do that?” Even if you did ask specifically about Anglican orders - and you only did so in 138 - you have repeatedly made things up. Why do you do that?
“The above is not true, but I’m not surprised, from your past posts.”
As you can see I never responded to 138 - which means I didn’t see it. You have - just as you did now - repeatedly posted multiple posts rather than one. It’s easier for things to get overlooked when you post in such a way.
“Your source said:”
It doesn’t matter what the source said if it wasn’t the pope saying it since I noted “and yet those who they were given two (and their ecclesial communions) were never recognized as having valid orders.”
Once again we see that you confuse one thing with another. The pope or the Church officially or even unofficially recognizing valid orders among non-Catholics is vastly different than a theologian’s opinion about the same.
If nothing matters unless a pope is saying it, stop quoting other sources, especially those with whom you disagree.
Put up or shut-up, quote me a Pope who says pectoral crosses can be passed out like gifts to laypeople.
Show me a pope who has countermanded the canons of the Council of Lacodicea.
Don't try quoting anybody else, because you've said, "nothing matters unless a pope is saying it."
Another falsehood. Your source "asked" in a positive way if these heretical laymen are, "effective ministers of the Holy Ghost and to be recognized as being in communion with the corpus of ministers who have the duty to build up the body of Christ.
Nowhere did he mention, "not having valid orders" as you have stated.
Good point. Now think about this: it was I who posted a photo of Pope Benedict presenting a pectoral cross to a laymen. You said it was not a sign of recognizing Anglican orders. You then brought in your nutty theologian who agrees with me, not you, on the significance of giving a pectoral cross to someone. Finally, I claim Anglicans don't have valid orders, your source implies they do have valid orders, and you refuse to state your position on the matter.
You wrote: “If nothing matters unless a pope is saying it, stop quoting other sources, especially those with whom you disagree.”
Your reasoning is completely false – as almost always. It is amazing how you continuously shift the argument to false grounds out of what seems like desperation.
“Put up or shut-up, quote me a Pope who says pectoral crosses can be passed out like gifts to laypeople.”
All I had to do is show you that they had given them as gifts to non-Catholics. If it had been done by them – and it has - then that means they don’t view it as a problem nor are they de facto saying “You have valid orders”.
“Show me a pope who has countermanded the canons of the Council of Lacodicea.”
The canon has nothing to do with this therefore I don’t have to show you anything about it. It was more than enough that I showed you the canon – from the current Code of Canon Law which shows the pope is sovereign.
“Don’t try quoting anybody else, because you’ve said, “nothing matters unless a pope is saying it.””
Taking my quote out of context does nothing but embarrass you. Making yourself look less than able to actually make or handle an argument is not helping your cause here.
“Another falsehood. Your source “asked” in a positive way if these heretical laymen are, “effective ministers of the Holy Ghost and to be recognized as being in communion with the corpus of ministers who have the duty to build up the body of Christ.”
Doesn’t matter. I wasn’t citing the author for his personal view – which is completely irrelevant since we’re discussing the Church. I cited him because he acknowledged what was already known – recent popes have given pectoral crosses as gifts without any formal statement from the Church that the receivers held valid orders.
“Nowhere did he mention, “not having valid orders” as you have stated.”
He didn’t have to. Everyone here knows that no statement has come from the Church saying, “Yeah, you guys all have valid orders after all.” The very fact that no statement like that has come but the gifts have been given shows there is no thought “valid orders” recognition for these folks in the Church. This was reinforced when Anglicans were accepted into the Church and their ministers were ordained. It will be again if LCMS members come into the Church through an ordinariate as well.
“Good point. Now think about this: it was I who posted a photo of Pope Benedict presenting a pectoral cross to a laymen. You said it was not a sign of recognizing Anglican orders. You then brought in your nutty theologian who agrees with me, not you, on the significance of giving a pectoral cross to someone. Finally, I claim Anglicans don’t have valid orders, your source implies they do have valid orders, and you refuse to state your position on the matter.”
Answer my question and I’ll answer yours. Why do you consistently make things up?
Attending non-Catholic religious services, promoting interfaith prayer, kissing Korans, asking Catholic saints to protect false religions, giving communion to non-Catholics, getting "blessed" by non-Catholics, calling non-Catholic clergy "Brother Bishop", encouraging false ecumenism, supporting false religious unity, etc. etc.
It just goes on and on and on.
You will never find any pope prior to the 1960's do any of these things. That's because they actually acted as Catholic popes.
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.