Posted on 09/13/2019 4:26:51 AM PDT by Elsie
In a recent letter to The New York Times, Marquette theologian Daniel Maguire suggested that the Catholic Church was headed toward a three-way schism.
Writing about Pope Francis’ reforms to the annulment process, Maguire predicted:
Catholicism is going the way of its parent, Judaism. In Judaism there are Reform as well as Conservative and Orthodox communities. This arrangement is not yet formalized in Catholicism, but the outlines of a similar broadening are in place …. While conservative and orthodox Catholics welcome this annulment concession by the Vatican, reform Catholics don’t need it. Their consciences are their Vatican. Reform Catholics, whose numbers are swelling, are still bonded to the church but not to the Roman curia.
It is certainly possible to discern three tribes within American Catholicism. However, using the Jewish terminology is confusing. “Orthodox,” “Conservative,” and “Reform” do not translate well into American Catholicism. Clearer titles for the three tribes might be “Traditionalist” which correlates with the Jewish “Orthodox.” “Magisterial” because “conservative” Catholics adhere to papal teachings and the magisterium, while “Progressive” reflects the “Reformed” group in Judaism.
(Excerpt) Read more at cruxnow.com ...
I look straight ahead hands folded in prayer
I spent 10 years in Catholic parochial school. Many times a week we went to mass. It was a beautiful spiritual experience. As i did spend many years I knew what the words meant. The selection from the gospel and homily is in English.
I took two years of Latin in HS. But that was a near failure for me. Let’s just say I passed.
You mentioned you refuse to do it for sanitary reasons. Do you refuse to shake hands with others outside of church as well?
As a Trinitarian Pentecostal, I agree with you about the Oneness sect, but believing and standing on the Word alone, will NEVER seem wrong to me. In another state, I was a member of the Evangelical Covenant Church, whose creed is, “What does the Bible say?”. Personally, I can worship in any church which preaches Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I don’t have to agree with all other points, though I have strong beliefs on those other points. If I don’t agree with every single one of the teachings, big deal. I go to worship and pray. As long as the church believes in the Deity of Christ, his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, the infallibility of the Word as originally written, and His coming return, I’m good. I could easily worship in a Catholic church, though I would not participate in their communion. Firstly because I know it would be against their rules, but also because I do not agree with their doctrine of transubstantiation, NOT because I would think I was sinning by partaking. I could NOT, however, worship in a Mormon or Jehovah Witness gathering, because they don’t believe in the Deity of Christ or the atonement.
“He, too, shall pass....hopefully soon”
Shoot me a ping when the next pope is selected. ... There won’t be.
I really enjoyed F. Longenecker’s article. Although I think fractionalization and multi-way schism are inevitable — and desirable as the rogue elements are either converted or forced out — if Jesus doesn’t return first.
I need an introduction. Just to shake hands with 3,4,5 6 strangers without someone saying ‘Hey there Vaquero, this is so and so’ is more than uncomfortable. No I’m not a social butterfly. Nor do I care to be one. Don’t force it on me in this manner. There are social norms. Go through these norms before foisting someone on me.
Two men considering a religious vocation were having a conversation. "What is similar about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders? " the one asked.
The second replied, "Well, they were both founded by Spaniards -- St. Dominic for the Dominicans, and St. Ignatius of Loyola for the Jesuits. They were also both founded to combat heresy -- the Dominicans to fight the Albigensians, and the Jesuits to fight the Protestants."
"What is different about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?"
"Met any Albigensians lately?"
Then you have those of us who consider ourselves of the Bereans persuasion.
No; it isn't. It's the One Holy catholic and Apostolic church.
I can agree with you in about everything you state here.
But I do have a problem with that word; since we've NO idea what the 'original' stuff said.
All we have is very old copies that hopefully have carried the important stuff to us.
True, but if we do a little investigating, and compare different versions, and use a good interlinear Bible and concordance, it helps. There are people in my church, who believe if it isn’t the KJV, it’s unacceptable. I don’t argue with them. But I know, just from the little study I do, that there are many poorly translated words in the King James. I use many versions.
The second half of your sentence is false. (See, for example, the response of the Holy Office in the Father Feeney case in 1948.) I have no idea what that does to the first half of your sentence.
I do know that when some Protestants say:
Only Christians can go to heaven
Catholics aren't Christians
... they are most certainly condemning me to hell, just as you falsely assert that I condemn you to hell.
Yet, that is exactly what Roman Catholicism has said about non-Roman Catholics. That is at least before Vatican II.
To be sure I understand your position...Luircin and I are Heaven bound even though we are not Roman Catholic.
Meaning repeating a mantra will not make it true.
Meaning repeating a mantra once again will not make it true, nor refute the Truth that reproves it.
I don’t even need to reply; it’s already been stated.
Simply put, if you follow what the apostles did and what is recorded in scripture then you could say I am catholic. However if you go by what happened after around 300 AD and has slowly evolved into what we have today, then no, I am not Catholic.
I merely ask them how Germans, Spanish, Japanese, etal are going to learn about the Lord and His gift of salvation if they cannot read English that dates form the 1600's?
The second half of your sentence is false. (See, for example, the response of the Holy Office in the Father Feeney case in 1948.)
I think that he is referring to such plain statements which certain RadTradCaths (like https://catholicism.org/eens-fathers.html) understandably contend as meaning that "if a man does not accept the faith of Christ and enter into His Church and subject himself to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, he cannot be saved."
I do know that when some Protestants say: Only Christians can go to heaven Catholics aren't Christians ... they are most certainly condemning me to hell, just as you falsely assert that I condemn you to hell.
The difference is the word that is missing, which is "all." Sadly, since Romanism fosters faith in the power of the church and one's own merits then, like myself who was raised devout RC, then relative few Catholics (likewise mainline Prots) have had their "day of salvation" of Scriptural regeneration with it's profound basic effects thru personal repentant effectual faith to save them as lost sinners, on Christ's account. Which I realized while being a weekly Mass-going Catholics, but to continue in obedience to Scripture means seeing critical differences btwn what the NT church believed and that of Catholic distinctives, and the spirit of the NT church versus institutionalized religion, and therefore seeking to worship and fellowship with those of like faith and spirit. Thanks be to God.
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.